 Let's talk about prequels. I've been planning to do this video for quite some time. I haven't because life got in the way, I didn't have time, I didn't finish scripting it. And then also the whole time, cause like I'm talking literally like months and months I'm planning to do this video. And then I kept thinking well someone else is gonna do this video. Someone else will think of doing this exact video and I don't need to do it. I'll just be like oh they did it so I guess I'm not doing it. And maybe someone has done this video already but I haven't seen it. It doesn't come across my feed. So as far as I can tell the people I follow, the people I subscribe to have not done this exact video. So I guess I'm doing it. So prequels, the especially last year we had this like onslaught of prequels right? And I'm not the first person to point that out. That has been pointed out that we just had like so many in a row kind of all going on at the same time semi-simultaneously or at least pretty close to each other. So I kind of wanted to talk about prequels as a phenomenon, prequels as a concept and why we get so many and why most of the time they're not very good. So why do we get so many when they always suck? But also why do they suck? Why is it so hard to get it right? So this is gonna be a little bit of just like an overview analysis anatomy of a prequel and also four case studies to kind of look at two prequels that I don't think worked and two prequels that I do think worked and kind of unpack, apply my sort of rubric for how you do a prequel or what you should be looking at or assessing or trying to do with a prequel and then applying that metric to these four case studies and saying, well, this did it do this, did it do this, et cetera. So that's kind of what we're doing today. Obviously I am biased so I'm gonna, the two prequels that I think worked I think worked and the two that I don't think worked I don't think worked. However, I'm going to try to make a case for them semi objectively working better regardless of your personal taste. So what is a prequel? A prequel is literally just something that takes place before chronologically before an existing story, be it a book, a film, a TV show whatever it might be. That's the only requirement for it to be a prequel. So that means that it does not have to have the same characters. It does not have to take place in the same world. It does not have to be connected in any way like directly to the events of the story that you're familiar with. The sky's the limit. It could be a story about what happened literally the day before the existing story or it could be something that happened a thousand years ago in a different, on a different planet to what the story is that you're familiar with. Like it's very, very broad. It literally just has to happen chronologically before. So a lot of prequels suck. And I think people in general like when you bring up prequels it'll be like, oh, prequels are like, oh, not another prequel or like, oh, prequels that's not a good idea. In fact, when I've asked others if they would ever write a prequel to their existing book they're like, why? Why would you ever do that? That never goes well. So why do we get so many prequels if we kind of have this consensus view that they tend not to go well? Well, first off, name recognition and IP recognition. Studio executives are gonna want to go with a safe bet with a safe investment. And if there is an existing story and existing IP that has proven it's like market success it's proven to be profitable and successful and to get the numbers. And it seems like a good investment to green light something that is going to like use that as a jumping off point. This is the same reason sequels are done so often. That's not just for prequels but the fact that a prequel is connected to a popular IP makes it more bankable. You also don't have to do as much to sell it or to explain it in your marketing. A marketing campaign for something brand new has to introduce its audience to this thing that it's going to be and also entice you. All that's required is to say, hey, you know that thing you like? Well, this is connected to that and get hype. It's also less work for the creatives involved because again, particularly with something speculative if something, if an existing film or TV series already did the work of kind of figuring out how this world would look, how the characters would look how the costumes would look if they've kind of like built out to this visually speaking this world and even a lot of the music and things like that if a lot of that groundwork has already been done it's like, well, why waste that? So we already like designed what this would look like we already designed what this would sound like why not kind of just like do more of that like take that existing work and just add on to it instead of starting from scratch with something. It also, this is more true of prequels than sequels so what it does have over sequels is that there's a natural hook. So within an existing story an existing story will often end pretty conclusively. The bad guy was defeated, the lovers got together the world was saved. So it's like, well, what comes after that? Nothing, like everything that had to happen happened. It's done now. So like sometimes you can be like, well, what are the kids gonna be up to? But there's not an actual hook. These are new characters that we're not necessarily interested in. A prequel can hook you with, you know this character that you saw in this existing story that you like, well, we know how their story ended, right? We know, but who were they before? This villain that you saw in the existing story that did get defeated. But this horrifying villain how did they become the villain? This crew that was the crew that you followed in this story, well, how did they all meet? Remember that time that character said that they did that one thing or experienced that one thing just kind of in passing? Well, don't you actually wanna see that? Don't you actually wanna see what happened, what they did? It also enables you to utilize popular characters that might again already have died or already kind of like their story's over. So again, a love story ends pretty conclusively that's it, a villain gets defeated, that's it. A hero accomplishes his task and maybe even dies tragically, that's it. Place perhaps that you really enjoyed being, maybe it got just blown up in the great war in whatever is the existing story or they had to leave it forever or whatever the thing is. So the characters and places that may be kind of like off the table, off limits now in a sequel because that's done with, they're dead, it's over. So unless you come up with like some kind of an awful resurrection or like rebuild it, like we destroyed the Death Star, so yeah, the new Star Wars, we had to have Starkiller base because it's back against. With a prequel, you can say, well, it's not been destroyed yet. They're not dead yet. So we can do a prequel story and these existing characters, these existing places, this existing story that you are already interested in because the numbers show you were interested in it. We can do a story that shows you those things again. Don't you want to see them again? Maybe when they were a little younger, a little before? Hey, hey, hey. So you can see why prequels would seem like a really, really good idea from the perspective of the producers and the studio executives and even booksellers. So why do they always suck? I think there are basically, there's sort of like three categories that I've come up with, three aspects or areas to look at. These are the three that I'm going to apply to all the case studies. These are the things that, if you get it right, your prequel won't suck and if you get it wrong, your prequel will suck. Those three things are understanding or misunderstanding the original, the story structure and something we're going to call member varies. I did not coin that. So in understanding or misunderstanding the original, basically just that creatives involved have to have a good understanding of what made the original so successful. With story structure, creatives have to understand how to write a story that does not rely on a traditional storytelling approach where you keep an audience hooked with, oh, I wonder what's going to happen, will they make it? Because with a prequel, depending, a prequel if it takes place thousands and thousands of years before the events of the story you're telling won't necessarily have this problem. But in most prequels that are banking on your familiarity with these characters in this world, do have this problem. You have to be able to tell a story that doesn't rely on the audience wondering what's going to happen, how this is going to end as being the hook, as being the point of interest. Because by necessity, by definition, with a prequel, we do know how it's going to end. We do know who lives and who dies. So that cannot be the thing that is keeping us interested. If you're relying on that being the thing that's keeping us interested in, then it's probably not going to go well. And member varies, which again, I did not coin, is just relying on references to nods over inclusion of material from the original. So putting in characters from the original that don't necessarily need to be there, just so you'll go, oh, I know that guy, or music or places or MacGuffins or whatever it is that doesn't really have any bearing on the story. It's literally just there for you to go, oh, I know that thing. As I said, I have four case studies. I'm going to start with the two that I think failed at being prequels and then move to the two that I think succeeded at being prequels. And we'll go over obviously these three categories with each of them. The two failures I have are rings of power and fantastic beasts. I'm trying to assess whether or not they were successful as prequels. I'm not here to talk about whether they, I liked them as shows or movies, whether they were to my taste, whether broadly speaking, they did things right or wrong in my opinion. That's not what I'm trying to talk about. I'm only trying to talk about where and when it failed specifically as a prequel. So rings of power. Again, we all know that I didn't like that show, but irrespective of that, just on whether or not it succeeds as a prequel, that's what I want to talk about. So category one, understanding or misunderstanding the original. In the Lord of the Rings, we have a defined protagonist, Frodo Baggins. We also have a defined goal, destroying the ring and thereby defeating Sauron. And then anything that tendentially helps with that is also part of the story. So the main goal is to destroy the ring and for Frodo to do that. And then everything else that happens is somehow helping achieve that goal. In rings of power, we do not have a defined protagonist. Is it Eladriel? Is it Nori? Is it Elarond? We also don't have a defined goal. Is it to find Sauron? Because despite appearances, he is possibly still a threat right now. Is it to figure out why there's suddenly a homeless man among these not hobbits? Is it to urgently cure this plague that's also happening but that also no one seems to be noticing is happening or being affected by it because it might kill all the elves? Maybe? What is the driving thrust of this narrative? What is the overarching goal? What is the overarching theme? What are we trying to achieve? What is anyone trying to achieve? Who's the main character? Who knows? And more broadly, the world and theme of the original, the world of Lord of the Rings is fairly defined and grounded. When things are far apart, it takes a long time to get there. The magic that we get is quite mysterious and quite rare. So there is magic, but it's not heavily relied upon in the narrative. We really just see the rings corrupting influence on people and that ties into the theme as well as Gandalf here and they're doing something kind of convenient. There are some things that don't exist in our world, some magical creatures. There isn't a lot of magic though. So things are pretty grounded, pretty based in our own real world rules for like mechanics and physics and things like that. So you have a sense of the stakes, you have a sense of the power levels. You know what is and is not possible. There's also pretty defined values and themes throughout the story, which is a very traditional good versus evil story where we have a cast of characters who are trying to overcome adversity through friendship, through cooperation and alliance, through selflessness and triumph over evil, evil manifesting itself in rivalry and greed and violence and lust for power. And these are all, this is evil, goodness is friendship and kindness and we're watching good triumph over evil. We watch characters struggle against steep odds, again, those odds feel steep because we have a sense, a grounded sense of the power levels and of what is possible. So what they are facing does seem almost impossible to overcome. And everything from the overall arc of the story and the individual side arcs that support the main arc all consistently support these themes, these values and this overarching message of the story. Now rings of power. Well, the world is pretty ill-defined. Distance is pretty meaningless. Characters seem to sort of teleport over vast distances as and if the plot needs them to. Magic is used fairly frequently, is not explained and it's arbitrary in ways that create contrivance and convenience. So in short, there is no sense of what is possible in this world. There is no sense of the geography of power levels scene to scene. You don't have an idea of what is possible in this world. As far as themes and values go, I literally could not tell you. This cast of characters is extremely overpowered so watching them overcome things, it's not clear if that's meant to be impressive because we don't actually know if that was difficult or how difficult that would be because it seems that it's not that difficult depending on the scene or depending on the character and we're not really even sure if we should be rooting for them when their goals are again not defined or in the case of Galangereal, they are almost sinister. Now, I do want to be clear. You can have a story where it is not clear that you should be rooting for your main characters but it is not clear that there even is a heroic character to root for at all. Game of Thrones being the obvious example. But those kinds of stories don't tend to rely on hero moments. They don't tend to have this sweeping heroic score to support the triumphant main character moment of I just did a badass thing, let me pose for the camera. This is what you find typically in stories that are signaling to the audience that this is your hero, you should root for this, you should find this triumphant, you should be cheering when this happens. We get a lot of that in Rings of Power. I have heard it argued that, oh, Galangereal, of course, things she says might be sinister because you're meant to question if she's right about these things. She's not necessarily a perfect character to root for, which you could write a story like that, but then you need to do a better job of signaling to the audience that this is a complicated situation where you're not sure who to root for rather than casting this character in all of this triumphant glory all the time that signals to the audience, this is the main character, this is the good guy, this is who we're rooting for. Moving on to number two, story structure. As I said before, with a prequel, you don't have to be wary of your story not relying on your audience not knowing what's going to happen. So obviously in the original, this is not really going to ever be a problem because in the original story, you don't know what's going to happen, even though with something like Lord of the Rings, you can reasonably guess that the good guys will win, it's that type of story. So we need to destroy the ring to save the world. Will our protagonist succeed? Stay tuned to find out. It's a grand story about good versus evil. It relies on the audience wanting to see good triumph over evil and wanting to see beloved characters attain their goals along the way. Rings of Power. We need to find Sauron and defeat Sauron. Will our protagonists succeed? I mean, no, they will not succeed. They might find him, but they definitely won't defeat him because he's still around and kicking in Lord of the Rings. Okay, so we need to save the elves from the elf plague. Will the elves survive? Yes, they will because the elves are still around and kicking in Lord of the Rings. So is there an overall like grand, you know, we wanna see the good guys triumph, though that's what we're here for. We love these characters, we wanna see them triumph. Well, there is no grand store, there is no grand purpose here, even if it's, like if the, this grand overarching purpose was the exact same as Lord of the Rings, there is some artifact that if found and destroyed will destroy Sauron and our protagonists are gonna try to do that. It could be quite tragic to watch them fail at it because you know they're going to fail because you know Sauron's still around in Lord of the Rings. But there isn't really anything like that going on. People are just kind of like chasing their tails in different parts of the world with no like overarching goal or threat or anything really. So the way the story is written, it kind of relies on assuming that people watching this are really gonna care about the main characters and really gonna care from scene to scene about the being in danger and worrying about them being able to survive that danger. Which presupposes one that we care about these characters, which the, I would argue the story does not do a very good job of giving us a reason to care about them. And two, it presupposes that we don't know the fates of these characters. And in a lot of cases, we do know the fates, especially for the ones that are immortal and are still around in Lord of the Rings, namely Galadriel. Galadriel is still around in Lord of the Rings, so if she's ever in danger in a scene, I mean, okay, it might be a bit scary for her, but you know she's gonna make it. Alaron, similarly, if he's in danger, okay, but we know he's around in Lord of the Rings, so we know he's gonna make it. Other characters that, even if they're not around in Lord of the Rings, you're aware in Lord of the Rings of something that they have done already and achieved. So if they have not achieved that thing yet in the timeline of Rings of Power and if they seem to be in danger, well, again, you know they're gonna be fine because they haven't yet done the thing that they're famous for later in Lord of the Rings. So the story, it's written in a way that a traditional story that is not a prequel would be written where it's like, oh, it's this fresh new situation and here's this fresh cast of characters. Who will live and who will die? Oh my gosh, they're in danger. What are we gonna do? But we already know. And you haven't given us a reason to care about their fates in the meantime. And lastly, member berries. Which of course, in the original of something, this is really not going to come up very much except insofar as this is an adaptation of a book. So in that sense, you might have some member berries that are just nods to the book that aren't necessarily important to include in the film but are there just so that book readers can go, oh, there's that thing from the book. I know what that is. But everything in the Lord of the Rings films is given a purpose, given a reason, explained and made significant in the narrative as it's being told so that anyone encountering it for the first time can understand what this thing is why it's important and understand what's happening. Most things in Rings of Power are reliant on your awareness of what they are and how they work and what they're called from Lord of the Rings. So this is a problem for several reasons. First, nothing seems important for its own sake. So it hasn't justified its place in the narrative because you happen to tell us why it's important here and now, irrespective of us knowing beforehand that this thing is generally important. This means that characters don't have to give reasons for why they are doing the things they're doing or interested in the things they're interested in. So for example, Galadriel wanting to pursue Sauron and make sure that that threat is sought out and vanquished. She doesn't really have to explain that or the story, the show doesn't really have to show the audience why this is important or necessary or make us believe that this is a valid concern because, well, we already know. Like he's around in Lord of the Rings so he's definitely a threat. Like she's definitely right about this. The story doesn't actually bother to convince you of that as if you don't know Lord of the Rings already. Similarly with Meathrill, like when this is brought up and mentioned, it seems kind of arbitrary and it seems kind of sudden and random. And it doesn't seem really clear why we care about its discovery at all and why the name itself seems like super important. So if you'd never seen our Lord of the Rings and suddenly we drop everything because Meathrill has been found and has been given the name Meathrill, if you have never seen Lord of the Rings, never read Lord of the Rings, you're gonna be like, okay, like why is this important? I'm not getting it. Whereas if you have seen Lord of the Rings, you're like, oh, well, I mean, Frodo had a nifty magic shirt made out of that so that's important, I know what that is. Ultimately what this does when you have too much of this going on, this makes the thing you're watching feel like a property rather than a story. So for example, in Lord of the Rings, when we discover the ring in the Shire, we don't just discover the ring and then zoom in on it and go dun, dun, dun, cause obviously the audience who's read Lord of the Rings is gonna go, oh, I know that's the one ring, that's bad news, I know what's up, no. Gandalf explains to Frodo what the ring is, where it came from, and why it's so, so important to get it out of the Shire. It feels weighty because of how it's handled in the story, not because of some prior knowledge you have about it. Again, the Meathrill in Rings of Power, when Elrond is given a piece of it to hold and he looks at it really intently and is like, what's it called? And Duran gives his dwarfish word for it and Elrond corrects him with the Elvish word for it and says, no, it should be called Meathrill and we really zoom in on it and take a moment for that. Why? Nothing about this situation necessitates or even makes seem natural, this kind of a reaction. Why would Elrond or indeed the audience care about what it's called? The only reason we would care about what it's called is if the word is familiar to us and it's familiar to us because of Lord of the Rings. Not because somewhere else in the story previously we heard some myth about Meathrill. That, you know, if previously in the story, for example, Elrond had heard some story about this mythic thing that no one thinks really exists that's called Meathrill, but that's just a legend. And if later then we had this moment where Duran is like, look, we found this stuff. It's called Meathrill. Within the story would feel natural and logical for us and for Elrond to go, Meathrill, that thing that I thought was mythical and legendary and didn't really exist. Oh, oh my gosh. So contrast that with Frodo's reaction to the Ring. He's not going, oh, it's the one ring, guys. You know, the one ring. No, he's just been told what a dangerous thing this is. And he clearly doesn't fully get grasp it, but he understands that it's dangerous for him and dangerous for the Shire. And he needs to get it out of here. His reaction and the audience's reaction in that moment has everything to do with what is currently happening in the story. So Frodo feels like a character. Elrond feels like an IP delivery mechanism. Moving on then to Fantastic Beasts. Number one, understanding the original. In the original Harry Potter, we have a defined protagonist. Harry Potter and company. We have defined goals and stakes. Defeat Lord Voldemort, which is a fight that Harry has a personal stake in because Voldemort killed his parents. In Fantastic Beasts, we do have a defined protagonist, at least at first, Newt's commander. Why? I don't really know. The goal is not defined. What is the series about? Why is Newt the protagonist? What makes him uniquely tied to the goal or conflict that is at the heart of this story? Number two, story structure. In the original, we are going to school. Most years, Lord Voldemort shows up and we have a very natural reason for the characters to be together and for them to be encountering this threat and exploring and discovering new things. Every year, they defeat Voldemort, but every year that gets harder and so the stakes get raised and we up the ante and we have this natural escalation of the situation year after year after year. In Fantastic Beasts, Newt is traveling around, collecting animals. So, okay, it's gonna be like an adventure of the week-time story or a new animal has to be found and rescued each time. Well, no. It's gonna be about defeating the proto-Voldemort, Grindelwald. Will our protagonists succeed? I mean, Grindelwald is known to have been defeated by the time we get to Harry Potter. So, presumably, yes, but Newt has a very personal connection with this villain and it'll be really satisfying to see Newt defeat him even if we know the outcome. Hang on, no, he doesn't. In fact, Newt has no connection whatsoever to Grindelwald and in fact, he outright says that he'd really rather not be involved in this conflict. So, not only do we already know the outcome, which is where the tension is supposed to come from. I mean, we know who's gonna win. We know how this all shakes out because it's already known in Harry Potter, so there goes that. And then the main character has no connection to what's going on. In Harry Potter, we can presume it's a kid's story, a kid's fantasy story. Harry is the clear protagonist, the hero of the story. So, good will probably triumph over evil and in each book, we're gonna assume Harry probably survives. But Harry has a very personal reason to want to see Lord Voldemort defeated. The escalation of tensions is rising with each year and you want to see that shake out and who's gonna win and who's gonna fall, et cetera, et cetera. In Fantastic Beasts, Newt is established as a zookeeper and we also establish that Grindelwald also exists and he's bad because he's the bad wizard Grindelwald. Why is he so bad? I mean, he's the bad wizard Grindelwald. What is he trying to do? Stop the Holocaust? Unclear. Why Newt's involved or why we should care about this? Again, in Harry Potter, Harry's like, what's a wizard? What's going on? And they're like, so you know how you're an orphan and that's been kind of the worst? Well, this terrible wizard that killed a bunch of good wizards killed your parents. So you're like, dang, I know exactly why Voldemort's the villain. I have no questions. I understand why he needs to be defeated and I'm on board for this. And well, not so. Newt, why is he the protagonist? Where is this going? What's happening? Why do we care? And third, member berries. In the original, this is gonna be less of a problem just by default, but again, everything is new in Harry Potter. Everything is a new thing to be experienced and explained and explored and introduced into the story and go, wow, what's this? How does it work? What does it have to do with our story? We're transported to this world through all of these new things. In Fantastic Beasts, almost nothing is new. Mostly it's, remember that book called Fantastic Beasts and where to find them that they were reading in Harry Potter? Well, here's the guy that wrote it. Remember the Ministry of Magic in Harry Potter? Well, America has one too. Isn't that pretty cool? And remember Hogwarts? Yeah, I miss it too. Here's an entire flashback that takes place at Hogwarts for no other reason than we just wanna see Hogwarts again because we miss it. Oh, remember Dumbledore? He probably shouldn't be the main character of this, but he is not. So here's just like a bit of Dumbledore being young and hot, played by Jude Law. You're welcome. Oh, remember that time they mentioned Grindelwald in Harry Potter? Well, he's around in Real Trixie. Remember Bellatrix Lestrange? Yeah, she was pretty bad news. Well, here's somebody with the last name Lestrange, presumably an ancestor of hers. Are you automatically interested in that? I bet you are. Oh, remember that snake that Voldemort had? She used to be a Korean lady. What's this series about? So yeah, that's why I don't think those prequels work very well from just a structural standpoint. There's a lot of things that I don't personally like about them, just as a matter of taste, but that is not why they don't work as prequels. Moving on then to two prequels that in my opinion, do succeed. First up, House of the Dragon. Category one, understanding the original. In the original Game of Thrones, we had a highly political and character-driven story and it was known for its complexity, its violence, and its extensive world-building. House of the Dragon is a highly political and character-driven fantasy story that is known for its complexity, its violence, and its extensive world-building. Category two, story structure. In Game of Thrones, we saw an intricate interweaving of multiple political plot lines spanning the entirety of the world as various factions make their place for power and for the throne. Meanwhile, a natural threat looms in the distance who will win the Game of Thrones. In House of the Dragon, we have an intricate interweaving of many plot lines spanning a large portion of the world as various factions make their place for power and for the throne. The central conflict in House of the Dragon is about a civil war within the Targaryen family. It is Targaryen versus Targaryen. So in the original Game of Thrones story, The Future, we know the Targaryens were on the throne up until very recently. So just before the events of Game of Thrones, we know that the Targaryens were overthrown. So we know that the Targaryens were in power. House of the Dragon is about a civil war among Targaryens. So yeah, at the end of the day, you know that Targaryens, a Targaryen, is going to be on the throne by the end of this, but that in no way tells you what's going to happen in this story because it's Targaryen against Targaryen. Which Targaryen is going to end up on the throne? That remains very unknown and unclear unless you've read the book. And category three, member barriers. So obviously the original, again, this is not going to be as big of a problem. The original, the show explains what it needs to, as it needs to, where it's necessary so that you can recognize and understand what you need to, when you need to, how you need to. There are some Easter eggs again for book fans to go, I know what that is because I read the book, ha ha. I know and you don't, but it's not important to the story and it's only there here and there is a nod and as like a little to the readers of books. In House of the Dragon, similarly, there are some nods to things that only a book reader would probably catch. So it's just like a little, here you go. For the most part, everything is just explained if and when it needs to. You don't have to have seen Game of Thrones to understand House of the Dragon. You literally don't ever have to have read or seen Game of Thrones or Song of Icing Fire to watch House of the Dragon. The beginning tells you when this is taking place in relation to Game of Thrones. So if you have watched Game of Thrones and you're like, well, I know this is the past, but like give me context, like how far back are we talking? It tells you like, okay, so Game of Thrones, this is this many years before that. So you're like, okay, I know where we're at. And if you've never seen Game of Thrones you're like, okay, it doesn't really matter. So now is now. There was an element that they put in the very beginning of House of the Dragon that I was very worried would be member berries only, which is the dagger and the prophecy. And it justified its place in the narrative, which was a delightful relief. So if you had never seen Game of Thrones again, and if at the beginning of the show you were like, what's the deal with this prophecy and this dagger? You wouldn't necessarily go, oh, this must be a nod to Game of Thrones if you've never seen it because you wouldn't know that it is. And by the end of the story, you're like, I see why these were both really important to this story. No, I have no questions. And as somebody who has read and seen The Song of Ways to Fire and Game of Thrones, I was again delighted to see that this wasn't just thrown in here to be like, I see this is connected to Game of Thrones. It had a reason to be in this narrative for itself that was important to the story that being told in House of the Dragon and had wait for that story, not because I recognize the thing. And again, there's a lot of things that I love about House of the Dragon. I think in general, the writing is better. I think the characterization is better. And I think the costumes are better and all this kind of thing. But that's not what makes it a good prequel. And my last case study is Andor, which I lovingly referred to as the Game of Thrones of Star Wars. So the original, this is a little trickier to define what we're talking about as being the original because Andor is a prequel for a prequel. Really, Andor is the one that you'd be the most worried about, right? You're like, if prequels in general tend to suck and now we're doing a prequel of a prequel, you're like, this has got to be bad news. So the fact that Andor, in my personal opinion, is the best Star Wars show that has been produced by Disney at all, period, full stop. It's impressive. That's impressive for any show, but to be a prequel of a prequel and be that good, you know, well done. When we're talking about understanding the original, there is the Star Wars trilogy, the original Star Wars trilogy, which it's a prequel to. So a new hope and my strikes back and return to the Jedi. But Rogue One was a prequel film to the original Star Wars trilogy and Andor is a prequel following one of the main characters of Rogue One. So the original Star Wars trilogy was expansive, intergalactic, far reaching fascist government. It's like very like Nazi coded. We've got freedom fighters that are trying to resist this fascist government. And we have an underdog heroes quest story as we follow Luke and company as they find themselves involved in this rebellion and Luke's own personal reasons for wanting to overthrow the leader of the empire. And Rogue One is the same in that regard. It's the same hugely expansive empire that is like Nazi coded rebellion fighting for freedom from this empire. So in Andor, we have an expansive intergalactic world again with this far reaching fascist government. Freedom fighters are resisting and trying to overthrow it. Here you could say, well, hey, hey, hey, you said in previous criticisms that if the ending is already known, then who cares? We know they won't overthrow the empire in this story. So who cares? Well, we also have an underdog story that is similar to Luke's where, I mean, it's different from, but it's similar to where we zero in on this one character in his personal journey, how he's personally affected by the empire and his personal reasons for now wanting to become involved in this fight within the broader context of this larger political struggle. So in terms of the story structure, which is here more where I typically talk about not relying on people not knowing the ending. So in the original, obviously we don't know the ending. The original Star Wars films are more family friendly than Andor is. We've got a scrappy young hero that trains and learns and grows and eventually defeats the big bad. Rogue One on the other hand, it showed us the flip side of that triumphant story. Rogue One was a successful prequel because it shows us martyrdom in the context of war. It shows us sacrifice and it does another thing that prequels can and should do. So either a prequel shouldn't rely on the original at all as like a source of tension and stakes or what it should do is somehow subvert your understanding, expand your understanding or color your understanding of what happens in the original somehow. So by watching it now, your experience of the original is altered by this new knowledge. So Rogue One did that a little bit where it's not that we knew something new per se because we always knew that the rebels acquired these plans that enabled the rebels then to destroy the Death Star. But seeing Rogue One allows you to see how much was sacrificed, how many lives were given, how much went into getting those plans basically that are taken for granted. They're just this kind of thing in Star Wars that like they've got them, they've got them, they've got them, let's follow, let's get it, let's acquire it, let's use it, let's blow up the Death Star. But it's very impersonal. It's just this thing that we need. So seeing Rogue One makes suddenly this thing that was just more felt more like a plot device, the thing that we need to need to find, to need to chase after, need to use. It adds weight and stakes and gravity to this thing because it's not just a thing anymore, it's a thing people died for and you saw them die for it. And then again, in Star Wars, the story structure, it's there's this broad political conflict, but at the core of it is Luke and his personal journey and his personal reasons for again wanting to defeat Vader himself. Well, he's succeed. So Andor, as I say, it's a prequel of a prequel. Not only do we know that he won't die in the course of this show, because he dies in Rogue One, we know that he's going to join the rebellion because he's in the rebellion in Rogue One. So Andor does not in any way even try to emulate the heroic good versus evil vibes of the original Star Wars films. But the original Star Wars films did hint at how expansive and complex the greater rebellion is. Luke and Co really just see a small sliver of that. Andor gives us a glimpse of other sides of that other pieces of that, how expansive and how far reaching the rebellion actually is, how much goes into a rebellion like this. And very wisely, the tension of Andor does not come from will we defeat the Empire? Will we defeat Lord Vader? Because you know the answers to those questions already. We know that they'll be defeated in Star Wars and that Cassian Andor won't be there to see it. It also does not rely on you wondering if Cassian Andor will survive because you know he will, at least up until Rogue One. So throughout the course of Andor, you know he at least will survive. So instead, the way Andor keeps your interest, how did the Empire get more and more power? How did the Empire maintain that power? What tactics and strategies were employed by them? Why would people go along with the Empire? And what might make them turn against the Empire and join the rebellion? Who all would need to be part of the rebellion to make it successful? So what are the different areas of the rebellion, the different pieces that have to be in place, the different facets of the Empire that would need to be infiltrated to successfully pull off any attack on the Empire? And then the individual missions that are part of the Andor show, the individual pieces of the puzzle, of the things they want to acquire, information they want to gather, strikes they want to make against the Empire, all these individual missions, they each have the possibility of success or failure that is not known to the audience. And the people involved in them are pretty much for the most part, except for Cassian himself, these are characters that we do not know from Star Wars. So it's completely possible that they'll all die or that none of them will die. That is not known to us. They're just people in the rebellion that we've never heard of before. So the individual missions and their individual outcomes and the fates of these individuals involved in them are all unknown. And if we care about those things, there's stakes in tension. And then lastly, we know from Rogue One that Cassian Andor joins the rebellion because he's part of the rebellion and Rogue One. But he's not interested in being a part of the rebellion when we start Andor. So the question it asks is not, will he commit to the rebellion? Stay tuned to find out, you know he will. The question the show asks is what makes him commit to the rebellion? What is it that's going to change his mind? Something will, and you know that it will. What is it going to be? And category three, member barriers. Again, the original won't really have that, it's all new. Rogue One has some, particularly the ending of Rogue One, which directly ties it into the beginning of A New Hope. And that is the part that I like least in Rogue One, the like, we go full member barrier, where we have, is it? I mean, I don't really think you can spoil Rogue One because it's a prequel that the ending is known for. Vader and his like, lightsaber fight, where it's like, directly like seconds before the beginning of A New Hope. I think that part is kind of silly. But aside from that part, it's pretty much all new characters, new faces, people that we don't know from any of the Star Wars films. These are all people that these unsung heroes, they got us Death Star plans. So let's make them not unsung heroes. Let's sing these heroes. I don't think you can say let's sing these heroes. So I mean, in Rogue One, the tension comes not from will they succeed in getting the Death Star plans? We know they will because they have them in Star Wars. It makes you wonder if any of them will survive. So Andor has far fewer member varies than most Star Wars shows. We have some familiar places. We have some familiar characters and words. That's partly just because again, this is taking place in the same world. This is what makes making a prequel appealing. So we know what these things are, what these gadgets are, what this world is. So some of that is taken for granted, doesn't need to be explained. So they are not there for the sake of, oh, I know what that is. They're there because like this is the world we're in. So they kind of need to be there. Cassie and Andor is interacting with the same forces that Luke and Co are interacting with in Star Wars. The same empire, the same rebellion. So it's appropriate that there would be some overlap. But we don't get like meaningless cameos for their own sake. And again, cameos are bad because we already know the fates of those characters. So any episode that involves a cameo from a legacy character or from a very familiar character, again, we already know their fate. So there's no tension there. Most of the tension in Andor comes from everyone around Cassie and who might not survive because we know Cassie and Will. So if we add in another character that we already know will survive that already then lowers the stakes even more. And it's very rare that you can do something interesting with that character. Cause if the character really did something interesting then we would have heard about it later on when that character is the main character of the later story. So you're very limited in what you can do with them without completely altering the sort of like story DNA of that character. So in conclusion, prequels can be good. Prequels just have to be approached differently from new stories or from sequels. And if they're gonna keep making them, which it seems pretty clear they are cause they, even if they're not good, they do make money. Hopefully studio execs, film makers, creatives, writers, et cetera will learn to approach them as a distinct and different project from other types of storytelling. There's no one right way to make a prequel. For example, Andor and House of the Dragon are extremely different in what makes them successful as prequels. House of the Dragon follows the Game of Thrones formula almost to a T, and the audience of the one should be extremely pleased with the other. Andor takes a facet of the original Star Wars story, which is what Row One did, and fleshes it out and gives you a very different kind of story. It gives you a very different eye into the same world and it makes it feel completely original while taking place in the same world and it feels fresh and new because even if it does take place in the same world this is not the type of story we saw before. This is not the right same echelon of society we saw that we were interacting with before. This is not the same type of narrative. It's just saying this is a big, big, big, big world in Star Wars. The forces that we were involved with, that we were dealing with in Star Wars would have a lot more to them than we got to see. There are some other stories to be told that are hardly, only tangentially connected to the story we are familiar with. And the story therefore is more political, has more grit because unlike Luke Skywalker, Luke Skywalker is not a politician. Luke Skywalker is not a grunt member of the rebellion. Luke Skywalker wouldn't have seen these things going on. So it's a different kind of story because of the eyes on what's going on that it's being told through and because it's just a very different part of the world that we are seeing. So House of the Dragon succeeds by being not a carbon copy of Game of Thrones but by following that formula successfully and or succeeds by doing the exact opposite. And both are successful because neither so overly relies on the original that it hurts it and also doesn't rely on pretending like the original doesn't exist and to make you go, oh, I wonder what's gonna happen. Both understand and acknowledge the original but make themselves distinct and different from the original. So do you agree with me? That these prequels were good, that the two prequels I cited as good were good and the two prequels I cited as bad were bad. If you love the ones I criticized and you hated the ones that I praised, you feel free to let me know why if you think I got it totally backwards that the good prequels were fantastic beasts and rings of power and the bad prequels are House of the Dragon and Andor. I'd love to hear your case for why it's the opposite. But again, I would just like to stress that personal taste is not really what I'm talking about here. I mean, I personally like grim dark stories. I like highly political stories. So obviously I lean towards House of the Dragon and Andor but again, that's not, I don't think what makes them good prequels. So if you happen to not like those types of stories that's totally valid. You don't have to like those kinds of stories. But that's a different question did it successfully tell a story that's distinct from and different from the original or that could entice somebody independently of the original? So if you do think they are successful prequels, that is rings of power and fantastic beasts, irrespective of taste, again, I would love to know why. But whatever your thoughts, let me know in the comments down below. I post videos on Saturdays, other random topics as well, but definitely Saturdays. I'll like and subscribe, join my Patreon if you feel so inclined and I'll see you when I see you.