Movie Prequels? Worthy or Useless?

[Tetsuwan Convoy]

While they can be entertaining, I think they are kinda pointless, if that story really needed to be told it would be the first movie made.

But a good prequel could work off the popularity of the other. For example, people would be more interested to see a Transformers movie on Cybertron afte the 2007 movie than they would be had we just started with the premise.

However it all comes down to the writing of the individual piece itself in the end. A good prequel needs good writing.

[Demonac]

Can anyone think of a cinematic prequel that is any good?
Temple of Doom seems to be as good as I can recall.

[Paulbot]

There will be a lot of people expecting The Hobbit to be pretty good. (I'm expecting to like it for eye candy myself).

As an X-Fan, the X-Men First Class trailers look really good, bringing in elements and characters from the comics missing from the other films. The X-Men movies were different compared to the other recent comic movies because it didn't do "origins". The team was well established by the time they came to rescue Rogue and Logan. Other new students (like Colossus, Siryn) were just there in school as the movies continued. It was kind of appropriate since the Mutant X-gene was Stan Lee's way of getting out of coming up with origins for new characters. So I think there's room to tell a story of the X-Men origin in the movie continuity.

As for good prequels: Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were pretty good.

[Demonac]

There will be a lot of people expecting The Hobbit to be pretty good. (I'm expecting to like it for eye candy myself).

The Hobbit isn't a prequel. That novel came out before the more famous book. They were just filmed out of sequence.

[Paulbot]

The Hobbit isn't a prequel. That novel came out before the more famous book. They were just filmed out of sequence.

From a movie goers perspective though the Hobbit is the new film(s?) set before the LOTR films and features younger versions of the same characters so it sure looks like a prequel.

I suppose those Bond movies are the same, the source material was written first but adapted to movies last.

Given these, the Red Dragon example, and even the X-Men ones (kinda), maybe prequels based on earlier books are better than stories made up later about the "early" days.

[GoktimusPrime]

From what I've heard, Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are based on the original Bond books and are closer to Ian Fleming's original Bond. I haven't seen either of those movies, but I really should. I liked X-Men Origins.

The Hobbit isn't a prequel. That novel came out before the more famous book. They were just filmed out of sequence.

One could say the same about Star Wars... we saw Episodes IV, V and VI long before Eps I, II and III ever existed!

I do quite like Revenge of the Sith. I like The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones too, despite some of their flaws. But they also had some cool parts too. Phantom Menace would've been a lot better if there was less Jar Jar and more Darth Maul!!

I also liked Terminator Salvation. Batman Begins was pretty good too. Quite a few people cite The Godfather Part II as a good prequel, though I haven't personally seen that myself (yeah, I have an extensive list of Movies I Need To Watch )

[Demonac]

The Star Wars prequels are special in that they weaken the experience of Episodes 4-6 considerably. Especially if you watch them in order.
Jar Jar is the least of the prequels problems. :P

[Hursticon]

Can anyone think of a cinematic prequel that is any good?
Temple of Doom seems to be as good as I can recall.

Exorcist: The Beginning, I felt was a great prequel but in a way it also sort of undermined the original Exorcist in that the original in comparison seems so confined compared to the Prequel - But anyway, I found that to be a great Prequel.

I think if one is to do a Prequel successfully, it should be restrained to answering questions as opposed to opening new ones. They should really be used to set up for the next chronological movie and not try to out do it.
This is what I thought about Red Dragon when compared to Silence of The Lambs as I feel that it did this rather successfully and lead immediately into the Original film of which we are then treated to indulge in Hannibal's sequel.

What should never be used as a Child Friendly crux for a Prequel. is a CG idiot - I'm looking at you, you Gungan Swine!

[LordCyrusOmega]

Exorcist: The Beginning, I felt was a great prequel but in a way it also sort of undermined the original Exorcist in that the original in comparison seems so confined compared to the Prequel - But anyway, I found that to be a great Prequel.

I think if one is to do a Prequel successfully, it should be restrained to answering questions as opposed to opening new ones. They should really be used to set up for the next chronological movie and not try to out do it.
This is what I thought about Red Dragon when compared to Silence of The Lambs as I feel that it did this rather successfully and lead immediately into the Original film of which we are then treated to indulge in Hannibal's sequel.

What should never be used as a Child Friendly crux for a Prequel. is a CG idiot - I'm looking at you, you Gungan Swine!

As far as this prequel goes it goes against what what established in the film and in the book. I was let down by it, mostly because the preview was nothing like the final movie. It was like they were caught up in the 'twist' version of films that were also out at the time.

I thought X-Men: Origins was preety good though seeing as how the 3 preceding films were all focused on Wolverine that they should have just been Wolverine & Co movies.

A good prequel film was Terminator Salvation. A prequel that's set after the events of the last 3 movies. Gotta love time travel

[tron07]

I dont think I like Xavier with lot of hair...