The Most Pointless Questions Answered By Prequels
Tomorrow we’re going to see Joker, very possibly a story that does not need to be told. In fact, there’s an argument that explaining the history and motivations for The Joker may lessen his impact as a character. Even if his V For Vendetta-esque solo debut does nothing but improve the mythology of the clown prince of crime there’s a weird fascination among prequels that they must find some obscure detail or facet of the character they must provide an ‘explanation’ for. And if they can’t think of one, they’ll just make something up.
“How did Jack Sparrow get the name ‘Sparrow’?”
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales
Finally, the truth has been revealed! Over the course of four movies we have heard the name ‘Jack Sparrow’ and thought…that’s his name. There has never been any suggestion that ‘Sparrow’ is a nickname and why they felt the need to explain how he got the previously unmentioned nickname is deeply confusing.
You see, young Jack was standing in a crows nest on top of a mast and some guys saw him and thought he looked like a little bird, like a ‘sparrow’. Sure can’t think of any over bird you’d find in a crows nest. This is a retcon so stupid no-one would dare do it again.
“How did Han Solo get the name ‘Solo’?”
So Han Solo isn’t really named Han Solo either. In an equally perplexing move the spin-off prequel and all around train-wreck Solo features a scene where a young Han tries to sign up for the army. Not having a surname causes an issue and since he’s by himself, the recruiting officer calls him ‘Solo’. How this made it from concept to script to shooting to final edit is amazing.
Then they also added a bunch of empty significance to a pair of golden dice Han has, but only to try and add some retroactive emotional attachment to The Last Jedi.
“Who built C3-P0?”
Star Wars: The Phantom Menace
We could fill a series of lists using nonsense from the Stars Wars prequels. They absolutely are the worst movies to achieve blockbuster status, a handbook as to how not to cinema. We’re just going to pick the most ridiculous explanation given in these films – the origin of C3-P0. Everyone’s favourite prissy droid isn’t the only one of this model robot in Star Wars so one would rightfully assume he’d come off a production line. Instead they decided to tie this character into Darth Vader’s childhood for…reasons.
Baby Anakin building C3-P0 could be brushed off as goofy fun, but it’s so countless is created a massive plot hole in the original films. A New Hope starts with C3-P0 meeting Luke Skywalker, the son of his creator, and Obi-Wan Kenobi, who he’s met several times and it seems he has no idea who they are. They had to drop in a last minute line of dialogue about the droids having their memories erased, otherwise C3-P0 would’ve dropped some major spoilers if he happened to see Vader around the place.
“Who made the aliens?”
The concept of a wider look into the events that led up the discovery of the aliens in Alien is interesting. Learning more about the crashed ship the eggs were discovered on, even keeping all the Engineers stuff would be fine. But why do we need the xenomorphs to be something that was created? Absolutely nobody was asking for them to be ‘explained’ beyond ‘they exist’. I don’t know what people were expecting to get with these films, but I doubt it would have been this.
“What exactly happened at the first base?”
What makes this an entirely pointless entry is that we already had all the answer we needed. They dug up the alien creature in an ice block, it defrosted and assimilated or killed everyone. Trying to fill in the blanks around the bodies and wreckage found by Kurt and Co. adds literally nothing to the story. Considering it’s a cheap imitation of the original product it’s doubly pointless.
“Who was Wolverine’s real father?”
X-Men Origins: Wolverine
Given that Wolverine is partly defined by his lost memories, any prequel of his story is going to a reveal. Telling and retelling the origin of Wolverine is a popular hobby among Marvel writers, so a movie isn’t a bad idea (unless it sucks, which is does). The weirdest decision is a ‘plot twist’ at the beginning of the film concerning Wolverine’s parentage.
You see, Wolverine’s father (who we have literally never seen or heard of before now) isn’t his real father! This character who we have no knowledge of or connection to is not who we thought he…could possibly have been? We learn that the groundskeeper is really his father, but he’s killed and none of it has any bearing on the plot. As pointless as the crappy CGI claws Wolvie sports in this movie.
“How did Mike and Sully meet?”
Monsters, Inc is certainly a fun adventure for the whole family, and many people might have pondered how these two best friends and colleagues first met. Except we had been told that they new each other as children after Mike tells Sully that he’s “been jealous of his good looks since the fourth grade”.
Then comes the prequel movie, Monsters University, which details how Mike and Sully met at college. You answered the same question twice in two different ways! To be fair, Pete Doctor reported that they did talk about this during production and decided to focus on telling their new story.
“Why does Hannibal eat people?”
This is a pointless question to answer in the canon of the Hannibal Lector stories because he’s scarier if we don’t know. If he’s an unfathomable, incomprehensible monster that is devoid of morality and yet can outwit all he meets the movie is much more terrifying. Not only do they explain why Hannibal indulges in cannibalism, but they give him a sympathetic reason. Real dumb. I really hope Joker isn’t about him being molested by a clown or something.
“Who is Dumbledore’s previously unmentioned and ridiculous second brother?”
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelward
Thanks, I hate it.
YES, to all that you mentioned! Either not needed, contradictory or just stupid.