Hey all!! little intro since this is my first post!
Love the escapist, especially yahtzee's punctuations and extra credits, it feels much more real, honest and ultimately fascinating compared to your bog standard game-review site.
Anyhow, I wanted to talk about something that came to mind while I was watching the upcoming Tomb Raider trailer. I'm sure many of you will have noticed this as well, however I find very little published about it on the web.
While watching the trailer for the upcoming Tomb Raider game, I noticed a younger Lara than I had initially anticipated. I have to say, I never got into the TR games much. So when I saw the cover of this game magazine the other day, with Croft on the cover, I did not get terribly exited until a bit later, the picture stuck with me for some reason. The presentation of her crouching down, wearing a make-shift bow, while bandaging herself backdropped by a scorched earth, made me wonder what the next installment was all about. Now that I have seen the trailer, it makes perfect sense: It is yet another a-hero-is-born-through-this-set-of-specific-events prequel. This is interesting to me, because I have been noticing, and I'm sure many of you will have too, the vast amount of prequel movies and games released in the last decade.
So why is this? why is it that studios fork out money for a story based on how an already known hero became a hero?
I first big prequel that comes to mind is Batman Begins, an obvious re-animated version of dead IP, aiming to draw in the fans of the graphic novel back in (by taking their icon more seriously) and to establish a time-line, consistent within the film versions of the IP; a clever way of wiping the slate clean. However, after that many games and movies seemed to work towards "prequelizing" their protagonists' story-lines, and not always with great (financial) success.
I understand the appeal of re-starting "game Lara's" story-line, for she lacked a great deal of character-depth and personality, thus by starting a-new, from what seems the beginning of her adventuring career, this can all be added in "hindsight" without upsetting what little continuity the series had.
Though these formulas can benefit a series, I find it rather annoying to be taken, even further, away from a story's conclusion, in the interest of fleshing out a character.
I watched "the mentalist" every week, I quite liked it to (mainly the first season because of his resemblance to Darren Brown, a British Mentalist who tours and performs such tricks while lecturing about the dangers of supperstition. If you don't know him, youtube it). A few weeks ago, I watched, what seemed to me to be, the final episode of the series. This made me think: when was the last time I saw the conclusion (not cancellation) of a series that I liked? The Wire... Wow, that was ages ago!
I felt relieved; one less episode I "have to" watch every week! A speculative void was filled at the final credits, and I hope they will never bring the series back.
The point of this little diversion is that a story is only fulfilling if it is presented in its full sequence. I often feel robbed of this satisfaction by the producers of films and games, because they obviously benefit from stretching the story dry, so that the fans pay their money and/or time for as long as possible. Take the office UK for example! Loved it, great show: 14 episodes!!! Nothing right? but conclusive! I watched it, loved it, missed it, and moved on to the next thing, as did Gervais, who is now a successful (though not less annoying, but it works for him), stand-up and film maker. And that is how it should be! We must let our minds be taken out of our comfort zone so that we may develop our minds! And who said that missing something is a bad thing? Though nostalgia may hurt, over all it is a great feeling to think about "the old days".
Anyway... rant rant rant, mustn't rant... Sorry about that. Games, Prequels, yes...
So why do you suppose prequels work? Do you like them?
I personally feel less fulfilled after a prequel, rarely does one bring something to my attention that is close to revelatory about the character. And even if that happens, say in the late SW trilogy, the presentation is flimsy for the story is confined to the parameters it has previously set for itself... Why does the 'audience an mass' want to see this so badly? Seriously? And yes that is a valid way of looking at the frequent appearance of such titles, for a product is not released if there are no numbers that project that people will go and buy it (especially in this financial climate). So why does it work? Is it the culmination of all the real life political "heroes", turning out to be disappointing? Is it the realization that very few stories have deviated from the Homeric blue-print? Is it the result of the "privatized" creative sector?
Obviously, none of is aimed at the indie guys... sorry for mentioning that so late.
Love the escapist, especially yahtzee's punctuations and extra credits, it feels much more real, honest and ultimately fascinating compared to your bog standard game-review site.
Anyhow, I wanted to talk about something that came to mind while I was watching the upcoming Tomb Raider trailer. I'm sure many of you will have noticed this as well, however I find very little published about it on the web.
While watching the trailer for the upcoming Tomb Raider game, I noticed a younger Lara than I had initially anticipated. I have to say, I never got into the TR games much. So when I saw the cover of this game magazine the other day, with Croft on the cover, I did not get terribly exited until a bit later, the picture stuck with me for some reason. The presentation of her crouching down, wearing a make-shift bow, while bandaging herself backdropped by a scorched earth, made me wonder what the next installment was all about. Now that I have seen the trailer, it makes perfect sense: It is yet another a-hero-is-born-through-this-set-of-specific-events prequel. This is interesting to me, because I have been noticing, and I'm sure many of you will have too, the vast amount of prequel movies and games released in the last decade.
So why is this? why is it that studios fork out money for a story based on how an already known hero became a hero?
I first big prequel that comes to mind is Batman Begins, an obvious re-animated version of dead IP, aiming to draw in the fans of the graphic novel back in (by taking their icon more seriously) and to establish a time-line, consistent within the film versions of the IP; a clever way of wiping the slate clean. However, after that many games and movies seemed to work towards "prequelizing" their protagonists' story-lines, and not always with great (financial) success.
I understand the appeal of re-starting "game Lara's" story-line, for she lacked a great deal of character-depth and personality, thus by starting a-new, from what seems the beginning of her adventuring career, this can all be added in "hindsight" without upsetting what little continuity the series had.
Though these formulas can benefit a series, I find it rather annoying to be taken, even further, away from a story's conclusion, in the interest of fleshing out a character.
I watched "the mentalist" every week, I quite liked it to (mainly the first season because of his resemblance to Darren Brown, a British Mentalist who tours and performs such tricks while lecturing about the dangers of supperstition. If you don't know him, youtube it). A few weeks ago, I watched, what seemed to me to be, the final episode of the series. This made me think: when was the last time I saw the conclusion (not cancellation) of a series that I liked? The Wire... Wow, that was ages ago!
I felt relieved; one less episode I "have to" watch every week! A speculative void was filled at the final credits, and I hope they will never bring the series back.
The point of this little diversion is that a story is only fulfilling if it is presented in its full sequence. I often feel robbed of this satisfaction by the producers of films and games, because they obviously benefit from stretching the story dry, so that the fans pay their money and/or time for as long as possible. Take the office UK for example! Loved it, great show: 14 episodes!!! Nothing right? but conclusive! I watched it, loved it, missed it, and moved on to the next thing, as did Gervais, who is now a successful (though not less annoying, but it works for him), stand-up and film maker. And that is how it should be! We must let our minds be taken out of our comfort zone so that we may develop our minds! And who said that missing something is a bad thing? Though nostalgia may hurt, over all it is a great feeling to think about "the old days".
Anyway... rant rant rant, mustn't rant... Sorry about that. Games, Prequels, yes...
So why do you suppose prequels work? Do you like them?
I personally feel less fulfilled after a prequel, rarely does one bring something to my attention that is close to revelatory about the character. And even if that happens, say in the late SW trilogy, the presentation is flimsy for the story is confined to the parameters it has previously set for itself... Why does the 'audience an mass' want to see this so badly? Seriously? And yes that is a valid way of looking at the frequent appearance of such titles, for a product is not released if there are no numbers that project that people will go and buy it (especially in this financial climate). So why does it work? Is it the culmination of all the real life political "heroes", turning out to be disappointing? Is it the realization that very few stories have deviated from the Homeric blue-print? Is it the result of the "privatized" creative sector?
Obviously, none of is aimed at the indie guys... sorry for mentioning that so late.
