Reopen for Business

Why are TV networks now ordering prequels?

It's bad enough that the movie studios often fall back on a prequel to wring those precious dollars out of a film series. Out of ideas for a new story? Go back and tell us how Person X got his start as a superhero/killer/monster. Star getting too expensive? Recast the part with a younger, cheaper actor and set the story back in the old days! A prequel is usually a bad idea because if the original story needed to start any earlier than it did, it would have.

More from Across the Universe:
Favorite Female Vampires
King of the Monsters
Midnight Sun
Reopen for Business
Big Finish

Sometimes too much background information -- as in the case of the Hannibal Lecter movies -- can be a bad thing too. The more we learn about the doctor in a movie like "Hannibal Rising" (which, yes, featured a younger, cheaper actor in the role), the less menacing he becomes. Explaining something takes away its power.

But the TV networks, following the lead of their brothers and sisters at the film studios, are apparently ready to latch onto the prequel concept. This is doubly disappointing because TV -- and more specifically, the cable networks -- in recent years has been the site of so much original, quality, innovative programming (not to mention shining adaptations like "Game of Thrones") that this new mini-trend seems like a huge step backward.

We're talking first and foremost about "Bates Motel," which is reportedly in development at A&E. The proposed show, set in the years before the classic Alfred Hitchcock movie "Psycho," would follow a young Norman Bates and show how his mother and her lover warped him into a split-personality killer.

It's been suggested that the closing scene of "Psycho," in which a psychiatrist (Simon Oakland) explains how Norman (Anthony Perkins) came to be a killer, already provides too much exposition and explanation about the workings of Norman's mind. Would the movie -- and Norman -- be even more effective than they are without that scene? Whether they would be or not, do we really need an entire series based around that concept? Exactly how long could such a show really last? (A rather bad movie called "Psycho IV: The Beginning" also scoured this same subject matter.)

Which brings us to "Hannibal," a show based on the early exploits of, you guessed it, Dr. Hannibal Lecter. NBC picked up the series, which will follow Lecter as he goes "head to head" with FBI agent Will Graham, previously played by William Petersen in the movie "Manhunter" and Ed Norton in its remake "Red Dragon." Apparently NBC wants some of that "Dexter" serial killer audience so badly that, if network brass like the script, it's willing to bypass having a pilot filmed and go straight into production.

They never learn, do they? "The Silence of the Lambs" and the 2001 movie "Hannibal"-- and to a lesser extent, "Red Dragon" -- were hits thanks in large part to Anthony Hopkins' iconic performance as the cannibalistic doctor. Take Hopkins out of the equation -- as done in "Hannibal Rising" -- and audiences are not interested. The latter film (and book) also did so much to explain Lecter's background that it truly robbed the character of much of his mystery and almost supernatural aura.

Will Lecter play cat-and-mouse games with Graham? Or perhaps help him solve other cases? Either way, this and "Bates Motel" sound like wholly unnecessary ideas, while more original series, like Joe Hill's "Locke & Key," are rejected or the adaptation of Brian Michael Bendis' innovative superhero detective comic, "Powers," languishes in development. Come on television networks -- you're starting to behave just like the movie studios.

Want more MSN TV? Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter!

Send us your thoughts on all things sci-fi, horror, etc. Write us at heymsn@microsoft.com

Don Kaye covers film, TV and entertainment for MSN.com

Photo feature: Back and Forth in Time!

View more photos »

Write a comment...

0Comments