Sequels, Prequels or Midquels: which is better?

Like the title says, which do you think is better?

The Sequel: The story that takes place after the original story

The Prequel: The story that takes place before the original story

or

The Midquel: The unseen events that took place during the original story

Personally, i prefer the sequel. Don't get me wrong, i've some pretty good midquels and i do really enjoy certain prequels. But i think i like it more when the story progresses and moves forward, instead of backtracking.

Sequels.

None of these are particularly good (especially if the first story can stand on its own without help from these!!!) - the sequel is the only Necessary Evil that should be tolerated in media - but that's it. Usually, when a prequel (or worse, midquel) happens, it usually tends to bring up things we don't care about at all, nor need to know, because they usually don't improve upon the original story.

edited 24th May '14 3:02:58 AM by TheShopSoldier

Just because an original story can stand on it's own doesn't mean any advancement is terrible.

anyway..

I find Prequels to be the most interesting, a "how we got here" story if you will.

Prequels tend to be awful, because it turns out that the world is a very tiny place and everyone knew each other when they were twelve. I'm sure there are examples of good prequels, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

I like sequels better because I like it when the story progresses rather than go back and add more things to the story that might end up not adding anything to the actual story.

Sequels actually continue the story, so sequels.

I honestly hate em all if all they're made for is to get money.

Generally I prefer sequels, but it's not universal. If a story ends really well and I care enough about the protagonists that I don't want to bring them more trouble, then I won't want a sequel. (Cave Story is a prime example of this.) In that case, a prequel or side story would be great, assuming there's still interesting stuff in the setting to explore. (Again, Cave Story.)

But if it's just a cash grab, then no thanks.

If I'm interested in the characters I like them all equally, provided they don't ruin them.

Isn't stuff in general made to get money?

True - that doesn't mean that stuff has to suck. Otherwise, it ain't worth our money, now is it?!

The only prequel I remember liking is Fate/Zero, and that's not even Western Animation. Rarely do I see either any that aren't just the same story but with more. Well, Kung Fu Panda 2 was good, but besides that? Meh.

That goes for anything. Not just Sequels, Prequels or Midquels.

Exactly - THAT is what I was trying to say all along!

That's great, what gets me though is when people accuse it as it's only "quels" of any type are in it for money.

I mean, I understand if they say at least more effort was put into the original or something. But that statement always bugs me for some reason. Like it's to say they made the original out of purity or whim.

Eh...

edited 28th May '14 6:07:50 PM by AfroWarrior27

I like sequels (if done right) because they have the chance to further the plot and develop the characters.

Prequels can be good, but if they come several years after the first one, then they likely won't be very good.

I can't speak for midquels, because I haven't seen very many.

edited 28th May '14 10:33:44 PM by BaconManiac5000

Prequels never really work...and not just because apparently movie makers are unable to do their freaking research and make sure that what they already told us about the characters is not contradicted...as example two recent "prequels":

1. Starwars: It was established that Princess Lea was raised by her mother. There is even a long scene in which she describes her, and how sad she always was. But in the Prequel she dies beforehand (never mind that apparently Leia's "Princess" title comes from her mother, so the only way Darth Vader not knowing about her is him not knowing that he sired her in the first place).

2. Monsters University: The whole movie is one big error because the original movie established that Mike and Sully had a sand-box friendship.

But the real problem with prequels is that they have a set ending. They can't really capture my interest because I already know where the characters will end up, have to end up. It's like reading the last pages of a book first and then starting at the beginning...there are few books which are THAT interesting. The only way a Priquel may work is if it centres around totally different characters whose fate we don't know (which is why the planed Harry Potter Prequel movies might work).

Midquels...have basically the same problems as Prequels. The only way they can work is if they fill a gab which really had to be filled...which, to be honest, rarely happens. We are primed to fill gabs for ourselves, so we most likely have an idea what happened in our mind, which will resist to a new version. Thus said...I liked the concept for the Bambi Cheapquel. The execution was lacking, but the father/son relationship would have been an interesting angle which could have added to the original story...if the execution had been better.

Sequels are the only ones which can work. They rarely do, because most movie maker go "rinse and repeat the same plot over and over", but if there is true development in a story, they can be good.

Do you never rewatch/reread things you've seen/read before?

I agree that prequels are mostly bad, but I don't think that's the reason why. Hell, Pans Labyrinth and Grave Of The Fireflies both give away their endings in the first five minutes, but that doesn't take away from the drama of the stories — you get to see how things get from A to B, with the constant knowledge of tragedy looming over the story.

Now, most prequels don't realise this because they're terrible cash-ins made with very little artistry. The Star Wars prequels could have been some really moving tragedy, of the great Jedi Knight Anakin Skywalker slowly falling to evil because of his own flaws (it did try to do this in the third film (which is why it's the least-bad of the Star Wars prequels), but it should have been throughout the whole trilogy and not botched). Instead they were a bunch of meaningless horseshit — though to be fair, they were immensely successful amongst their target audience (children), who were largely approaching them as their own thing, without much knowledge of or attachment to the original Star Wars films.

One successful example that I can think of is The Second Renaissance, a part of the Animatrix that served as a prequel to the Matrix. It avoids the standard prequel problem of everyone knowing each other in school, because it's set far in the past: it's showing how the machines came into existence and power. If not for the knowledge of how things turn out from the original film, the thing would just be another machine rebellion with a twist ending and an odd framing device. With that knowledge, it is actually quite powerful.

This is, of course, a very limited defence of prequels, being focused entirely on tragic elements. That's not the only way to do it, though! I remember reading The Edge Chronicles, about half of which are prequels to the other half, focusing on the backstories of established secondary characters. It's compelling to see the more naive/inexperienced characters develop into the mentors and older allies that they are in the other books in the series — something that you can only get in a prequel, or by using a sort of story structure that you don't really see in genre fiction.

With all that said: yes, most prequels are awful and utterly artless. Sequels are easier to write, I think: you only have to keep things consistent with what has come before, but the ending is up to you, so it's much closer to writing a 'standard' story than a prequel is.

What's a sand-box friendship?

I believe it's a friendship from a very young age.

Like when kids still play in the sandbox.

I do....but that doesn't mean that I never long to be able to experience the first watch again. Plus, there are a lot of movie one can watch and enjoy once...some one can watch and enjoy a couple of times and only very, very few which hold up multiple watches. So a Prequel has to capture the audience from the get go, without the magic of the "first watch" one might remember later on. With a movie like "The Sting" or "The Sixth Sense" for example I can enjoy it a second time with the memory how it fooled me the first time around (and believe me, I am difficult to fool)...but if I had already knew the ending then, it wouldn't have fooled me, so I wouldn't have the memory and therefore wouldn't be able to appreciate it from the get go.

I strongly believe in doing a story because it stands on its on, regardless of its relation to another one. So, as long as it's good, I don't care if it goes before, after or in the middle.

I do have to say, there is one prequel that is one of my favorite movies.

I like Midquels that tell the same story from a different view,they tend to be best at filling in some holes here and there.

Whereas sequels usually tend to be let-downs or if the story had a big end,retcon things.

Prequels can be good,but sometimes they retroactively nullify big plot points or cool scenes (like The Temple Of Doom pretty much ruined that Combat Pragmatist moment of Indy by exaggerating it).

Midquels tend to be less vulnerable,but also a bit harder to pull off.