Prequels are bad. Stop making them. (article)

[The Great Owl]

Prequels are bad. Stop making them.

This is a fun read for discussion.

The whole prequel craze started back in 1997, with the widespread success of James Cameron's prequel to the 1980 film, Raise the Titanic. Most subsequent prequel movies have been underwhelming, though.

[Roonan]

That title invites anything but a discussion.

[WestMan]

Revenge of the Sith is a prequel... And the best movie in the history of cinema.

[The Great Owl]

I love Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, but I'm not sure that a Wonka prequel will be even remotely palatable.

Solo: A Star Wars Story is fun, but it is also non-essential.

[jacobsever]

I dig prequels enough. Usually more than reboots.

[kylor]

Prometheus and Alien Covenant are great prequels.

By the looks of that blog, the blogger is on a Willy Wonka rage.

[drush9999]

The only decent prequel I can think of is Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
Definitely a truism in general though.

[Cremildo]

Not all prequels are bad. I can't even say most are. Prometheus and Alien: Covenant are two of my favorite movies.

There's no need to stop making them. Those who don't like them shouldn't watch them. Pretty simple.

[DanTheMan]

X-Men: First Class is an example of a mainstream prequel that worked IMO

[kylor]

Technically, the Fast & Furious movies were all prequels to Tokyo Drift, up until Jason Statham entered in on the action.

[dgoswald]

Originally Posted by drush9999

The only decent prequel I can think of is Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
Definitely a truism in general though.

It's strange how ToD doesn't immediately spring to mind as being a prequel when having these discussions. But it definitely ticks the box for being a prequel.

[The Great Owl]

I really enjoy Prometheus and Alien Covenant, but I'll be the first to say that they're rather non-essential.

What I love about Ridley Scott's Alien is that, in the vein of the old H.P. Lovecraft horror stories, it showed us a horrifying entity that was just a small glimpse of the unknown terrors out there in the universe. Any expansion on that concept is non-essential in my eyes. Fun, yes, but non-essential.


I think that Casino Royale (2006) really steals the show as far as "prequel" films go, although I would not necessarily consider it a prequel in the strictest sense.

The Rise of the Planet of the Apes/Dawn of the Planet of the Apes/War of the Planet of the Apes movies are awesome, but even those movies come across to me almost as "fan fiction" tied to the original movies.
(Of course, along those lines, I suppose that we could call Escape from the Planet of the Apes and Conquest of the Planet of the Apes "prequel films", although they follow a time travel chronology that happened after the events of the original film, so to speak.)


Of course, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is a classic, although I've never particularly thought of it as prequel to the first film.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by DanTheMan

X-Men: First Class is an example of a mainstream prequel that worked IMO

Good call!

[imsounoriginal]

My favorite movie is a prequel. Some dude gets to drive fast cars, go to exotic locations, and fall in love with a beautiful woman -- all on Her Majesty's dime. Good stuff.

[kylor]

I'll have you know that Monsters University is a fantastic prequel. Sure, maybe it wasn't necessary, but it was still awesome.

[Bugg]

Originally Posted by drush9999

The only decent prequel I can think of is Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
Definitely a truism in general though.

I don't even count that as a prequel. It wasn't made to explain any backstory. It just seemed like a random choice to have it take place a year earlier. Most people didn't and probably still don't realize it actually takes place before Raiders. Have Lucas or Spielberg ever given a reason for it?

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Bugg

I don't even count that as a prequel. It wasn't made to explain any backstory. It just seemed like a random choice to have it take place a year earlier. Most people didn't and probably still don't realize it actually takes place before Raiders. Have Lucas or Spielberg ever given a reason for it?

I think it was because it didn't involve Nazis, they wanted to give the franchise a little more elbow room for any future entries that would take place after Raiders.

Even though it's a prequel, it also plays like a sequel for example the famous scene in Raiders where he just shoots the guy is almost played out again in ToD with two guys, except he doesn't have his gun.

[The Great Owl]

It's worth noting that The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, which happens during the Civil War, takes place before the events in A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More.

I've never really considered those films to be linked, though, aside from the "Man with No Name" marketing designation, so I don't consider that third film to be a prequel, so to speak.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

It's worth noting that The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, which happens during the Civil War, takes place before the events in A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More.

I've never really considered those films to be linked, though, aside from the "Man with No Name" marketing designation, so I don't consider that third film to be a prequel, so to speak.

That's right. At the end he gets his famous poncho after giving his duster to the dying soldier.

As to the original article you posted, I've never really seen prequels as being any better or worse, or any more "unnecessary" than regular run of the mill sequels. I mean, a Willy Wonka origin story probably is a bad idea, but I think the idea of the Solo film had merit as do many other prequels that have been released.

[CyberpunkCentral]

Originally Posted by DanTheMan

X-Men: First Class is an example of a mainstream prequel that worked IMO

Yeah, but at a cost of continuity.