While I know I am grossly oversimplifying matters, I get the impression our culture has been stung by the prequel bug and doesn’t seem to be able to get rid of it anymore. While a few prequels do add something valuable to their original IP, a great many of them quite often merely seem to be quite blatant attempts merely to keep cashing in on their IP. I will refrain from naming good examples for both, as I would really like to know your views on this.
In your opinion, are there too many prequels being made and do they actually “work”?


As far as the latest Spiderman, it doesn’t. At least for me. The reason for that is nothing new. But was that a reboot or a prequel? But either way, enough with origin story already.

Well, The Dark Knight was a prequel (and also a reboot of earlier batman) but hey, it works. (Haven’t watch the third yet, sorry. ha ha)

Superman wasn’t out yet, no complain.
Haven’t go to OZ yet, can’t say much either.

I don’t like Bond as much as I “don’t like” Ultima 8. It have become too Bourne. And Bourne was great. But I want to see ‘Bond’. It’s like going to see Rambo just to watch him picketing, putting flower on soliders gun, doing anti-war talks.

We know for now that happened to the production of Robocop. But that not prequel, just reboot.

I don’t know what else to talk about, maybe if someone chime in some movie titles, I can give my opinion.

On the other hand, Smallville was a prequel to Superman. And it was awesome, winning awards in screenwriting and all, specially early season. People does complain about monster of the week but they fix that fast.

Cashing on IP is a good thing, a great thing. Lord British/Garriot is now doing a kickstarter, at the moment is around 750K of 1 million target.

For me to see my favourite IP is like knowing my favourite band coming out with a new song/album. But the end result might not be what you wanted. I myself doesn’t listen to a song just because it’s by XYZ, but because I want to listen to that song. The ability to purchase one song off an album is a godsend for me. (But then again, compilation CDs is quite popular here in my country).

To end things up, prequel is not bad just because its prequel, its (some of it) is bad just because bad screenwriting. But if done right, that can be a great thing because you already have a lot of basic material and also a lot of things covered.


I like the idea of prequels, it makes a change from endless sequels. I don’t know what film started the prequel thing, but the ones I’ve seen I did like. The Thing was well done and seamlessly blended with the original. The new Oz movie was another I like. Prequels are probably harder to do as they are obviously easier to nitpick at.


Ah yeah, The Thing. I don’t like it, and basically agree with Roger Ebert. Except maybe I’ll just give it 2/4 stars.


Just to add my point: while the end is well connected to the original The Thing, it wasn’t much of a prequel than a transpose: a shape shiftier alien among them in a trapped setting. Scientifically it was weak: a Ebert mentioned about the logical nature of the thing, and the rest was more of shot by the number.


Well, to add two examples of the “bad” prequel category IMHO, both from the Star Trek IP: the movie “Star Trek” and (just to add a TV-show as well), the TV-Series “Enterprise”. Just two simple examples, where prequels might just as well not have been made, IMHO again, obviously…


Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was a prequel to Raiders.

SO they are nothing new.


Oh, I didn’t want to claim that they’re something new. What I do think, however, is that they have become a veritable epidemic in recent history…


I like prequels far more than I like reboots. I am getting sick of them rebooting things that are barely a few years old. I don’t even know if I will bother watching Man of Steel.


I agree many reboots suffer from similar problems as prequels. The one thing that often helps reboots is that their makers can shamelessly redesign the whole look & feel of the IP, while prequels should adhere more to the originals (while they often don’t, which I find annoying).


The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly was a prequel but it didnt really matter since nothing in it affected what happened in the other films.

Godfather Part 2 was a prequel and a sequel.

Temple of Doom could have been set after Raiders–there was nothing in it that required it be set before the other.

If you know where the story is going, I dont find it usually very suspenseful.

In the case of Star Wars I would have been better off not knowing what came before.
Sometimes it better to leave things to the imagination.


I’ve gone off on many rants about this, but I still think prequels are 99% unnecessary if the original movie did its job. It told you everything you need to know about the characters, filled in their back story with some loose details, and left the rest to your imagination.

How much cooler were the Clone Wars in your head, or absolutely anything that took place before Star Wars?

How unnecessary is it to see what happened to Mike and Sully in college?

The Thing prequel was a remake covered in prequel dressing, and again, the original told you the entire story…the whole fact you didn’t know what happened at the Norwegian camp was part of the awesome mystery of the whole movie.

If a movie has completely unanswered questions, a prequel can work, but usually the first movie brings you into the story at the interesting part.


As said in this video dealing also with the idea of prequels ( ), if you haven’t seen the ‘original’, don’t go and see ‘Oz the Great Powerful’ prequel first because it will spoil the end of ‘Wizard of Oz’. I guess they figured everyone had seen it by now or doesn’t care.

The video includes spoilers for the original Wizard of Oz just in case anyone hasn’t seen it.


I am much less fond of prequels than reboots.
The main problem is that they’re used as a shortcut for storytelling that can actually diminish the thing they are a prequel to (I’m looking at you Star Wars and Prometheus).

It seems to take a lot of the creativity away since you know the outcome for many of the characters, making it more like watching an episode from their life rather than a story that has more of a complete character arc.

My biggest problem with Hobbit is they took what was an introduction to LOTR and made it a prequel, forcing in things that didn’t belong and pushing connections as insistently as the Cloud Atlas movie.


I don’t know how to say about that, since in a lot of cases, story is NOT about ‘hero/heroin win at the end’, but the journey they take.

When I watched Smallville, I KNEW Clark will always survive, that Lex will end up being his enemy. But how the dynamic was that allow it to captivate viewers, and win screenwriting awards.

To say that knowing the outcome will make you just watch an episode of their life, while correct, does not make a bad movie. Just because we knew batman always win, and the film was just a simple arc of ‘baddies of the week’, The Dark Knight and Batman Begin was awesome.

So the same thing can be said about prequel. We knew the hero survive (if not, then there is no film where there can be a prequel to). And we know what the hero can do. In a matter of fact, by having good back story, a prequel can go straight to the story instead of introduction into the world the story was based in.


If a movie is good, then I don’t care- that’s all that mnatters.

But the only problem I have with prequels is if they use a same actor- like Harison Ford in ToD or Anthony Hopkins doing Hannibal Lecter: the actor is older playing the younger version of the role.

That’s what bugs me the most.


I don’t know if I could take Star Wars as an example, especially if you’re talking about the CONCEPT of prequels and not necessarily the prequel films. The Clone Wars series would have to be included as prequel stories also, and seeing things like how Anakin meets Tarkin and seeing their relationship develop does not at all diminish the thing it is prequel to, but enhances it. Watching the scenes of Vader and Tarkin seems that much cooler. The same for a lot of scenes of Ben Kenobi and Like Skywalker, in light of the Clone Wars series.

Even the Revenge of the Sith prequel movie greatly enhances viewing Return of the Jedi, rather than diminish it.

As for the Hobbit, the way they strongly connect it to LOTR is exactly what they should have done, in my opinion. It makes both more enjoyable. I can’t wait for a day to come when I watch them all, in extended versions, back to back.


Just wanna throw in something thats always annoyed me. They RUINED John Rambo in the sequels to First Blood. First Blood is an Anti-War, Picketing, ‘flower in a soldiers gun’ film.

The sequels should not have been the massive action movies they were. Dammit.


This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.