"Despite their recent rise in prevalence, prequels are often a bad fit for television. Serialized TV is built for lengthy, evolving stories; stories that can grow from season to season; that can begin as one thing and end as something else entirely. Even episodic programs (your sitcoms, your procedurals) are bewitching for their innate boundlessness. They can go on forever, and knowing as much is comforting, intimate, and fun."
"Prequels, on the other hand, have a definitive endpoint by definition and don't allow much by way of transformation. Everyone knows where the story is going, and whatever growth takes place along the way needs to reach the predetermined maturity of what's already known. Sterling exceptions certainly exist, but our ongoing age of I.P. has produced more misguided prequels than groundbreaking ones."
"Still, for modern viewers lured to the latest series-long prologue to what they really want to watch, there is one modern benefit: You don't have to stick around, waiting for it to get better. If a prequel's first episode doesn't live up to expectations, there's no reason to believe later episodes, let alone seasons, will improve enough to win you back. After all, improvements require changes, and changes aren't a luxury these pricey precursors can afford."
Serialized television favors lengthy, evolving narratives that can grow across seasons or sustain boundless episodic formats. Prequels have inherent definitive endpoints and restrict narrative transformation because outcomes are already known. The current era of intellectual property has yielded more misguided prequels than innovative ones, with exceptions. Viewers can judge prequels quickly because early episodes rarely recover if they disappoint, since improvements demand changes precursors cannot risk. The example of Welcome to Derry shows early episodes relying on cartoonish CGI and diluted menace, replacing the franchise's iconic clown with less effective iterations.
Read at IndieWire
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]