Can a Prequel EVER be a Good Film?

The basic premise of the argument is how can a Prequel ever be a good film when the result or ending of the film is known, for example "Revenge of the Sith", you know who will survive, who will die, where they will go etc. No matter what happens in the movie you are thinking, "that character is obviously in no danger because they made it to the next movie".

Basically all we are experiencing in a Prequel is a journey with a known result. Other recent films that I've seen like "Prometheus" or "The Thing (2011)" have felt so pointless.

So is it poor execution of these movies that makes them bad, or are they just bad because they are a Prequel?

I am looking down the list of Prequels from Wikipedia and not one single movie jumps out as being anything better than a 6 or 7/10 at best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prequel

Discuss.

The two you mentioned:
The Thing... awful.
Prometheus, not as good as the original but it's more of a side story set before the original and I reckon it works quite well.
Is Prometheus a Prequel? Kind of.

---

Looking at the films in Wiki's list... Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes isn't a Prequel.

Nor is Temple Of Doom, because the story is a seperate thing to the original kinda like Prometheus, it's just another film that's part of a bunch of films that are related.

Red Dragon is good but not as good as Silence Of The Lambs.
X-Men Origins Wolverine and X-Men First Class are good too but neither are as good as the original trilogy.
The Hobbit is good too, but again, not as good as the original trilogy.


So for me, the prequels that are actually watchable and are good films, work well as prequels but don't beat the original film/s.

Other than that, the rest on that list are just not worth the plastic the DVD is made from.

I've yet to see a prequel that is better than the original/s...

__________________

Red Dragon is a strange one, it's both a remake of "Manhunter" but also a Prequel to SOTL because Hannibal Lector gets more screentime due to Anthony Hopkins being so great as Lector. Also I think a major flaw of the movie is that Hopking is supposed to be playing a slightly younger Lector yet he has aged 10 years, and it just doesn't work imo. A poor, poor imitation of the outstanding "Manhunter".

I wouldn't call The Hobbit a Prequel because the Story was written first, it's just that they made LOTR first then later told the other part.

I think a true Prequel is when you have a successful movie or Franchise and someone says, "hey lets go and make a Prequel" to make more $$$.

The best ever prequels are For a Few Dollars More and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly In fact it can be argued each prequel in the series gets stronger than it's previous film...

__________________

Didn't realise that they were Prequels, if that is the case then they prove to be the exception.

In that case, looking at Wiki's list and what you said about making proper prequels to a genuine original film... the only ones worth a look are:

Prometheus (which again, is a side story about The Company more than a true Prequel really)...

X-Men Wolverine and First Class (but they do have masses of continuity errors)...

Red Dragon.

That's about it for me really. They're still not as good as the originals though.

Yea the X-Men films are slight exceptions to the rule aswell. Of course not as good as X-Men 1 and 2, I really like Wolverine and First Class. The Wolverine movie seems to be poorly rated but I like it.

Actually I didn't realise Dollars and Ugly were Prequels either. So there's a couple more to add to the list of decent prequels.

I rated the X-Men trilogy as getting better as they went on.

Wolverine is def the weakest with First Class just ahead of it.

They're all watchable films though.

1 - X3
2 - X2
3 - X1
4 - First Class
5 - Wolverine

Yeh that is pushing the boundaries there, but I posted it to offer something different. The thing that makes them unique is you can watch them in any order at all and the only character who remains throughout is Clint Eastwood's so you can watch them all without being spoiled or anything, although they are in fact in reverse chronological order.

The only real example that I can think of right now other than that is Rise of the Planet of the Apes, a very good modern effort as a prequel to a film I love, I know a few people around here like X-Men: First Class too, I'd class them both as prequels, does Star Trek count too? That's good.

Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes isn't a prequel though, it's a reboot and there are more films to follow that will be remakes of the originals.

Rise and the next film Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes give a look back at the history, that the original franchise never did.

If they're doing remakes of the originals then yeh fair enough but I'd still kind of say it's a prequel to the original story which kind of fits in with the being spoiled point, isn't First Class a kind of reboot as well and aren't they making more with the same actors?

Yeah but the next X-Men will star most of the original cast, plus the new actors...

It's going to flit between present day and history by using actors from all over the film timelines. Don't forget, Hugh Jackman was in First Class as well.

McAvoy and Fassbender are back as Xavier and Magneto... and Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen are also back playing the same characters, just older.

Well, the best movies are art so that you can enjoy even if you know what's going to happen, in fact, the difference between a movie that can be considered art or not is that it can be enjoyed if you already know the plot. In other words, they are like music.

I conclude is poor execution. Anyway, sequels and prequels tend to be bad because they are making these movies because the first one made money so they wish to milk the concept.

The only good sequels in history where those that greatly deviated from the original or had already been conceived. The two examples that come to mind if sequels better than the originals are:

- Aliens, which was a story James Cameron conceived and called it "Mother", he later adapted it to the Alien universe.
- The Empire Strikes Back, whose story was already outlined by Lucas in 1976.

The Star Wars prequels were made because Lucas felt the pressure to make new entries into the franchise. So they sucked, naturally.

Not that Nevada Smith is a great movie, but it's a good () prequel to The Carpetbaggers. Smith was played by Alan Ladd in the original, running around 1930's Hollywood, but a much-younger Steve McQueen played him in the prequel, which fills in his past and is a revenge western. Of course, Smith wasn't the main character in the first film.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

You made a very interesting point because now, when I think of it,I haven't seen a prequel which would be better than the original.But anyway,I haven't seen many prequels yet.

From wiki list,Godfather II is probably the best prequel looking objectively (critics etc.) but it is something like a half prequel.Temple Of Doom also couldn't be called exactly a prequel.Not sure about about Dollars Trilogy and Planet Of The Apes but I noticed that you said that they aren't exactly prequels,too.

So that makes me conclude that films which are only partly prequels or use original film only as a side story are better then those who are nothing but prequels.Guess,I have to agree that it's really boring to watch something that you know how will end. )

I don't think either of those films are pointless. Prometheus seems to be spawning a new franchise with a slightly different angle on the existing Alien lore; and while The Thing wasn't the best movie around, it still fleshed out the story of the Norwegians and interfaced with the events of the original pretty nicely (down to some pretty important details, like how the axe ended up stuck in the wall). That, I think, was a treat for fans like me.

So yeah, I think prequels can be good, and I believe they can have value too.

Fair enough dude.

On "The Thing" and finding out how the axe got stuck in the wall, or how the weird corpse ended up with those 2 faces meshed together I personally think are best left unexplained. Your see what has gone on at the Norwegian camp and your own mind fills in the blanks, I don't want to be shown how every little thing happened, it's much more mysterious when something is left unexplained. By the end of the Carpenter's Thing (1982) you don't need an explanaion of what went on in the other camp.

I'll agree there, although I hope people who haven't seen either film start with the 1982 original first. That's the film that should be seen first, in order to really appreciate the attention to detail that the filmmakers had in making the prequel. Honestly, I was really worried about whether or not it was just a studio looking to "cash in" on a proven license, so I was glad to see that the film was seemingly been made by true fans.

That's if you believe A) they are prequels and B) they are even a trilogy. Neither of those have ever been confirmed as facts by Leone. It's mostly just a lot of supposition.