The Three Problems with Writing Prequels l Crimes of Grindelwald and Star Wars

[Music] so then we went into aggressive negotiations aggressive negotiations what's that negotiations with a lightsaber [Laughter] if master obi-wan caught me doing this he'd be very grumpy a young and poor creator with a vision works away for years at their personal passion project this vision isn't particularly groundbreaking in terms of new storytelling techniques in fact it draws on incredibly popular tropes and old story archetypes in the framing of its narrative that have been used plenty of times before they just happen to do it in a slightly new context this context that turns out is a massive hit an directs them in billions of dollars leading to a film series books and toy lines this young and poor creator is now older and richer years later the studio realizes that they're not quite done with that intellectual property and they want the Creator to make more stuff in this awesome universe they want them to make a prequel this is the story of both JK Rowling author of the 500 million copies sold Harry Potter series and author of the new Fantastic beasts crimes of Grindelwald prequel film and of George Lucas creator of the original Star Wars trilogy and overlord of the prequel series which is widely penned by every some people the thing is that prequels have a frequent problem of being bad but why now this doesn't mean that all prequels are bad for example for me theose it was good I think it has a 73% rating on Rotten Tomatoes but alien covenant has 66 percent so it also doesn't mean that any prequel that you could write will be bad by nature of it being a prequel but there is something about prequels that makes them hard to do well they know magic that the what did he just say they know magic in our investigation we'll be using the Star Wars prequels and the crimes of Grindelwald as case studies now let's talk 1940s post-structuralist literary theory and other stuff for people who don't like that chapter 1 the authors did and we [Music] it's over non-magic I have the high ground Walt you underestimate my power don't try it [Music] stories can be badly written bear the cars barely answered Bailey directed barely edit about it can post barely animated but these are all problems that any type of story can face not specifically prequels prequels need to have a relationship with the original work to be prequels but they often have a particular type of relationship that causes problems thus being that they take an event that is referenced in the original work that the audience is given very few facts about and they extrapolate a story out of it turning a mysterious event into a non mysterious one in Star Wars we know that the Jude I fell but we don't know how in Harry Potter we hear about Dumbledore Angwin der Waals relationship but we don't know what happened or power Grindelwald rose to power but why does this relationship with the original work cause problems well I think I'll let my English friend Casper buck Worthington tell you a little bit more about that [Music] Oh Oh there my name is Casper but you can call me anything you want I see my friend sent you my way for some literary wisdom care to join me by the fire it's lovely and warm beautiful I do love it in 1946 wk Wimsatt and MC Beardsley published their essay the intentional fallacy writing a poem can only be through its meaning since its medium is words yet it is simply is in the sense that we have no excuse for inquiring as to what part is intended or meant critical inquiries are not settled by consulting the article this essay is an early writing and what would become known as death of the author a literary theory brought together by roland Bart in the 1960s what this means as an erudite English philosopher such as myself would know is not that we literally kill the author such barbarism no but that what matters is the text itself the experience of it and what the reader gets out of it not what the author intended in writing it in this theory whether or not you subscribe to it or authorial intent takes a backseat to the text itself you have to savor the taste that the merits of the text are to be found in the experience of the reader rather than in the intention of the author consulting the Oracle as they so whimsical II put it if the author did not put it in the text then it is not part of the text or it was not effectively communicated your so here you're wondering how this connects to prequels do I have to spell it out you big there is one particular scene in the original 1973 Star Wars film that has created one of the series longest standing controversies Gough Han Solo is sitting in the cantina with the bounty hunter Greedo when things get tense between them though it could be cr2 they're both characters shoot at one another at the same time because of the composition of the scene a mix of camera angles editing and timing and lighting it's ambiguous as to who shot first you could legitimately think that Greedo shot first and that Han Solo shot back and self-defense but a majority or least a large part of these Star Wars following interpreted the scene as Han shooting first this interpretation became quite important to them they felt that this made him a more morally grey character making his eventual change into a hero throughout the series even more meaningful this was their interpretation of the film and it helped them connect with the story that was until I'm not dead you can't kill me I'm George Lucas in 1997 George Lucas came out with a revised version of a new hope that clearly shows Greedo shooting Han first in 2004 Lucas stated that the controversy over who shot first Greedo or Han Solo in Episode four what I did was try to clean up the confusion but obviously it upset people because they wanted solo to be a cold-blooded killer but he actually isn't like a zombie breaking the earth and awaking from its grave the author is not dead and the question became which of these two interpretations is true death of the author theory suggests that actually I will let Casper buck Worthington take the side of things again oh I didn't see there you came back I can understand why you might tonight you wanted some more literary theory well those who subscribe to whim sets and Beardsley's death of the author theory would say that both the interpretation of harm as a morally gray hero shooting first and Lucas's interpretation of him as a good man acting and self-defense are equally legitimate the fact that Lucas is the author does not make his interpretation any more in fact some would argue that George Lucas dictating to the audience which interpretation they should have of not seen is an act of literary and directorial despotism grounded only in a vigilance of selfishness that all Minds should be his own about his work if you don't mind I have some business all right then dr. Casper here we have a creator taking an ambiguous moment from the original work and specifying exactly what happened as pertains to their interpretation of the story but that's kind of the problem it's in these moments of ambiguity and interpretation that the reader truly engages with the work on a personal level death of the author Theory highlights two problems here firstly taking the dictation z' of the author as the real interpretation of the text means that readers aren't really engaging with the text so much as they are engaging with the author themselves secondly this approach attempts to invalidate interpretations of the text that help people connect with the story on a deeper level and as the experience of a reader then matters in a work focusing too much on authorial intent means that the text itself doesn't stand on its own and a few heaven guests are already prequels have a tendency to do this exact same thing in particular it's what crimes of Grindelwald and the Star Wars prequels did they took an ambiguous element of the original work and they used a prequel to dictate the true interpretation of it and of course I can tell you because my interpretation is just as valid that this scene is a masterful work of art and it can taking the pier from Padme is a metaphor for him taking Padme herself in the fact that she consumes part of a pier is a metaphor for their eventual inevitable oncoming doom that they would be consumed by their love metaphorically and physically chapter 2 expectation is the root of all heartache while fantastic beasts might center around Newt Scamander JK Rowling is still taking an ambiguous story element from the original work and telling us the real story the story of Grindelwald and Dumbledore which we only get referenced a few times in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows the boys took to each other at once I'd sometimes hear an owl tapping at Gillard's bedroom window delivering a letter from Albus an idea would have struck him and he had to let gallant know immediately however there can be no doubt that Dumbledore delayed for some five years of turmoil fatalities and disappearances his attack upon Gellert Grindelwald was at lingering a fiction for the man it turned out in 2007 that readers really engaged with this particular part of the text with their own interpretations many interpreted the story as Dumbledore being gay and his romantic attachment to Grindelwald blinding him to the truth for years with window walled using his affection against him for his own means while others read it as a strong genuine close but platonic relationship between two boys that ended in tragedy readers really engaged with the ambiguity of the text with these personal and communal interpretations developing in the community everyone has different expectations not just about how the story might be told like with a sequel but how the story should be told because this is the tick's to them it's seeing what has already been laid down on the page I don't think their death of the author theory can give us precise answers by itself but I do think it's a useful lens through which we can examine the problems that arise for prequels the first one being this no prequel story written by the author will ever measure up to all of these different subjective interpretations of the text and if the story does relate to audience expectations then it's often seen as fanservice crimes of Quinto walls did touch on Dumbledore story but it didn't approach his sexuality explicitly much to the disappointment of many fans some even feeling that this was the wrong way to tell the story and even worse the reveal at the end that Dumbledore and Grindelwald have a Blood Pact that magically prevents them from fighting means that the reason they're Dumbledore doesn't face down against Grindelwald isn't because of deep-seated emotional turmoil heartbreak and attachment but because of a magical gimmick that narrative Lee speaking is the biggest obstacle like with Han shot first telling the story invalidates interpretations of the original text that means that people connected with it more personally death of the author theory would say that this actually undermines the original text and that in effect we aren't engaging with the text but with the author herself JK Rowling effectively crimes of Grindelwald is just her stating her into tation of the story in a more complex medium a prequel in the case of Star Wars George Lucas took the fall of the Jedi and the rise of Vader as that ambiguous have been referenced only a few times in the original work you fought in the Clone Wars yes I was once a Jedi Knight the same as your father when I left you I was but alike with Dumbledore Grindelwald viewers really engaged with the backstory of this villain with everyone developing their own subjective sense of the story that preceded a new hope the result was that it isn't purely George Lucas's work that makes Vader one of the most memorable villains of all time but the mythos that the community built around him Fenn saw the rivalry between obi-wan and Darth Vader as one arising out of deep-seated and personal betrayal that Vader would turn to the dark side with a complex and believable fall of emotional turmoil only to find out and the prequels that it was because he was gullible and horny the thought of not being with you I can't breathe you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plagueis the wise how does this guy know so much about the Sith now it's nothing to me pet depending people's often suffer because they're written so that people view them through the lens of their experience of the original work prequels are often as in the case of Star Wars and the crimes of Grindelwald and exercise in authorial intent clarifying an ambiguity in the original story and casting aside subjective interpretation and experience of the original work death of the author theory recognizes that those experiences matter and it is because they matter that people don't enjoy prequels as much the stories don't necessarily stand on their own but simply dictate how you should be experiencing the original story how you should read Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows or how you should watch a new hope whereas a sequel usually builds on your experience and cannot easily affect you see the characters or story in the original work prequels have a tendency to retroactively Lee alter your personal experience and this leads us on to the second problem that prequels face dependency on the original work chapter three such a dependency of thing on thing what does it mean for a story to be too dependent prequels need to have some kind of relationship with their original work but unlike with sequels where an author can add anything they wish to to the story a prequel demands that they work within the already established original story to a degree we've already discussed others risks altering and invalidating the experience of the original work but this setup also leaves the author with the challenge of simultaneously writing a story that complements the original work and writing a story that stands on its own this is a difficult challenge and it is not one that many prequels have succeeded in and of course it's understandable why executive produces and our glorious corporate overlords would want to draw on connections to the original work because gotta get that money and if readers and audiences see that connection then they're more likely to pay to read the book or see the film this is why Star Wars Episode one The Phantom Menace was advertised not so much as its own story but as the beginning of the original story that this is where Darth Vader you know that villain that you loved so much this is where his story begins it's also why half of the crimes of Grindelwald trailer is dedicated to showing us Dumbledore and Hogwarts places and people that we love and are attached to even though they feature very little in the film overall now while a writer does need to make clear how these two stories are connected it can be tempting to rely on this too much and you end up making stilted and awkward references to the original work so you enjoying it yeah yes remember how obi-wan wore those robes in a new hope yeah yeah now did the Jedi uniform oh oh and you know you love the Death Star well right now you can see that I had the plans for the disks are back in the tack of the clones oh and you know bubble feet now he's got a tragic backstory oh and you know how much you love the force while I'm gonna give you so much force with all these midi-chlorians you're gonna love that oh and c-3po I'm gonna give you a whole backstory for him as well and - gonna love that mmm sure it's a good story a good story don't you love the story it has all the things that you're loved but more and bigger and better why don't you love it why don't you love me Mom I mean why don't you love this prequel I mean but these references don't necessarily complement the original work and they certainly don't help the prequel stand on its own as a story instead the prequel ends up compromising its storytelling a narrative to make references to the original work to draw people in because it's easier and you end up answering questions that people didn't really even want to know the answers to and this might work as a marketing strategy but it doesn't make for a satisfying prequel experience most of the big dramatic scenes and the Star Wars prequels and crimes of Grindelwald will resonate with you if you're familiar with the original story rather than these scenes standing out on their own they become dependent on the original work and this also means that people will more naturally compare the prequel in the original story and prequels and sequels very rarely surpassed the original all of this is why the fantastic B series is at its strongest when is telling the story of Newt Scamander saving magical creatures this story and it's characters are its own and they aren't dependent on the drawer of the original Harry Potter series and they simultaneously complement the original work by expanding the world through a lens that we really didn't get that much of in either the films or the books and we know how these two stories are connected Newt ends up writing a textbook that Harry would read someday but this story about Newt in the first film isn't compromised in order to make cheap references to the original work this is also why the Star Wars prequels suffered for their determination to make reference to and explain things that we saw in the original trilogy in crimes of Grindelwald has these straighting in strange moments like the scene where they return to Hogwarts in it kind of feels forced and I should discuss here one of the most common criticisms that you will hear of prequels when it comes to dependency on the original work narrative tension a prequel crushes tension right from the get-go and Star Wars this complaint is understandable prequels often drawn characters and narrative threads from the original work meaning that anyone who is remotely familiar with it will never believe that the heroes can be in danger if they appear later on or that the events of that main story will not come to pass go there is no narrative tension because there is no ambiguity about how it will turn out and though this is a legitimate criticism one that we should consider when writing prequels I personally feel that it is often overstated let me show you why this is a game of chess which like any good story has twists and turns and heroes and villains and plans and betrayals as the kings fight it out against one another but let's say that you know how this story will end you know that the king will be pinned against this wall by this dark rook with the help of these two dark bishops and that he will look down at the king the enemy and he says you killed my father and now this is time for my revenge and the rook takes his sword and he kills the enemy King and the Empire of Ken Duran is wiped out defeated but here's the thing you don't know how this story started I could tell a story about a a lone pawn and his rivalry with an enemy Knight or I could tell her a story about star-crossed battle-worn love is on the opposite sides a white pawn in a dark pawn well maybe I could tell a story about one of the bishops and their personal crisis of faith that they had beforehand something we didn't hear about in the original what I am trying to get at is that prequel stories don't need to draw on the narrative tension of the original story they don't need to draw on the tension of where the King dies with the rook and the bishops narrative tension usually only becomes a problem in prequel stories when they derive the attention from a plot point that we already know the outcome of but admittedly this is quite often the relationship between the prequel and the original work in the Star Wars prequels almost all of the narrative tension is derived from whether or not Anakin will turn to the dark side which we already know he does and because we know where the story was going some people felt that there weren't believable stakes in the narrative the audience already that this white rook will become a dark rook by the end of the story but this problem is avoidable the only question is how you can derive tension from unseen story arcs personal struggles heartbreak building and losing relationships all of which if written well enough can be compelling by themselves you can derive tension from new characters this is partly why rogue 1 succeeded where the prequel series didn't we had a host of new characters to care about so there were stakes we could lose them even though we knew that the rebels would end up getting the death star plans this is also partly why the first fantastic based film succeeds as a prequel where the crime surrender world doesn't so much in the first one the narrative tension is almost entirely derived from whether or not Newt can save these magical beasts there are stakes with ambiguity that we can believe in in the second one where was her narrative tension I had to go back in the middle of writing the script to go reader plot synopsis because it was so calm that I couldn't remember where most of the narrative tension came from even though I saw it relatively recently the first film really doesn't have there much to do with Grindelwald you can always take him out and it wouldn't change that much the crimes have Grindelwald on the other hand it largely derives as tension from three main questions number one who is Chris's family number two why can't Dumbledore fight Grindelwald and number three can they stop Grindelwald the first question is actually fine it was badly executed in the film but in theory it works for the story but like how we how Anakin will turn to the dark side we we already generally know why Dumbledore won't fight Grindelwald and we know that he defeats him in 1945 and another reason that I don't particularly like this criticism of narrative tension in prequels is that it assumes that the reader or viewer only cares about the end of the journey rather than the journey itself which is what a prequel is usually about this criticism presupposes that knowing that the villain will survive or that the hero will die is all that matters rather than how we get to that point I'm really not sure that this is true book readers often go and enjoy stories that they've already read and they know how it turns out on a meta literary analysis level in a lot of stories we know that the hero will survive and eventually the villain will be defeated we can't just pretend to not know that for a lot of stories and if something is popular enough to get a prequel then it is drawing on an already established audience who know about the story this isn't in illegitimate criticism but I think it's a reductionist answer to why prequels suffer and it certainly doesn't fully encompass the problems with the Star Wars prequels all with crimes of grandeur world chapter four of fantasy of Dreams and ceremonies really good writers know that there is power in mythology in imagination in mystery in the unknown Rowling uses it in her description of Dumbledore and Grindelwald 'he's duel in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows they say still that no Wizarding duel ever matched that between Dumbledore and Grindelwald and 19:45 those who witnessed it have written of the terror and the or they felt as they watched these two extraordinary Wizards do battle Dumbledore's triumph and its consequences for the Wizarding World are considered a turning point in medical history this duel was so spectacular that it cannot be put into words George Lucas mythologized the past in a new hope when describing the time before the Empire over a thousand generations the Jedi Knights for the guardians of peace of Justice in the old for the dark times before the Empire these lines naturally invite the imagination of the reader or viewer to enrich the text with their own thoughts they don't know how the duel will wind down but they know it was spectacular they don't know how the Jedi fell but they know it was a dark tragedy why does this power of Mythology metaphor prequels though elite Casper take us away with some more literary theory oh I didn't see you there I was just reading cloud levi-strauss is methanol Zeke's in the original French just some like easy enough I'm sure you've read it may offer you a brandy no Chardonnay get right down to it that's kind of you to join demons in the 1967 essay by a roland Bart death of the author he writes about the value of mythology there is one place where this multiplicity is collected not the author but the reader the reader is the very space in which are inscribed without any being lost all the citations that our text consists the unity of a text is not in its origin but in its destination clear now who knows I'm sorry oh you didn't understand it to put it into simpler words simple English it is the imagination of the reader that not just interprets the text but enriches the text a death of the author Theory recognizes that the reader engaging with these mythological moments is important in the experience of the text itself I'm afraid I have duties to attend to and it's these mythologized moments that are precisely the type of story that prequels are made out of evidently given Star Wars and the crimes of Grindelwald and this is the third problem that prequels face prequels necessarily demystify these moments that made the original story more involving and this is hard to do well because as Lucas and Rowling both clearly understood sometimes wonder or and imagination enrich the text better than detailing exactly what happened ever might instead of strengthening both stories it weakens both of them epilogue it's not the endings that will haunt you but the space where they should lie the things that simply faded without one final wave goodbye there are some good prequels I think bumblebee is perhaps the best example but interestingly enough it is being written specifically to distance itself from the original work the transformer series by Michael Bay the orgy of metal and explosions in fact it's so different and disconnected to it that it could be more arguably called a reboot in a prequel but for all these reasons prequels are hard to do well when writers sit down to piece together a prequel to their story they usually imagine its relationship to be mutualistic that the prequel will make the original story richer by detailing things that we never knew much about and also that by knowing the original story the prequel will be a more involving experience but for the reasons we have discussed this relationship often ends up being not mutualistic but parasitic instead they can undermine one's experience of the original work by dictating how you should read it and throwing away interpretations that help people connect with the text they candy mythologize parts of the story when imagination often enriches the text better than detailing what exactly happened ever might instead of complimenting the original story prequels can become dependent on references to it instead of crafting moments that have their own innate power they are just nodding to existing fans and relying on their attachment to it sort of hiding behind it this difficult relationship between prequels and their original work means that if done badly they can suck life from things that we love and become monstrous chimeras so shackled to the original work that its ankles are still bleeding and if you didn't understand this video then maybe you need a prequel to see how we got to this point or maybe that'll just make this video worse hard to say you

Channel: Hello Future Me

Views: 358,955

Rating: 4.7365012 out of 5

Keywords: writing, prequels, crimes of grindelwald, star wars, episode, phantom menace, attack of the clones, revenge of the sith, a new hope, empire strikes back, return of the jedi, harry potter, deathly hallows, wand, grindelwald, gay, dumbledore, death of the author, lindsey ellis, fantastic beasts, newt scamander, book, on writing, on worldbuilding, analysis, contrapoints, philosophy tube, roland barthes, philosophy, literature, explained, how to, theory, rogue one, scene

Id: GMaZcCEm2Gs

Length: 34min 18sec (2058 seconds)

Published: Sat Jan 19 2019

Reddit Comments

[u/TheOneThatCameEasy]

I didn't watch the whole thing. I pretty much skipped until I saw a Star Wars scene, the clip of Anakin with Padme and then Anakin with Palpatine. He characterizes Anakin as going to the darkside because he was "horny and gullible" which is a simplification and misrepresentation of the story. A common claim made by people who want to dismiss the PT.

Then talks about how fans create stories in their minds and prequels ruin that for them. Which is his opinion and that's fine. But, it's completely subjective. The prequels made me look at the OT differently and have a new appreciation for them