Film & TV Prequels

[Shadows]

What is your opinion on prequels?

Personally, I kind of hate them. I think they are just designed to get your money...its like, why the fuck wasn't that the first one?

Some people say the 2nd or 3rd movie is more so 'milking the cow' but I find it to just be more riveting and exciting to see what happens NEXT not before.

An example, would be "the Hobbit" to Lord of the Rings.

I think movie creators should just stick to sequels or new ideas, not make prequels...b/c if not we will get stupid shit like "Before the Matrix" or something...I don't want to slap my forehead.

If anyone can name a prequel that was awesome, I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[Snowman]

from a few years back... Red Dragon with Ed Norton and Anthony Hopkins. that was actually good as Hannibal was a guy who was untouched and Norton's character in the movie he was the only one to have arrested Hannibal.

Red Dragon the "prequel" the story was before Silence of the Lambs. even though it was a Pt 2.

 

[Cooper]

Half of The Godfather II is set before I...that doesn't suck.

 

[Casey]

Sometimes it just doesn't make sense to start at the "beginning" of the story, because you are telling the story of an event, and if that event captures the interest of the public and does well, then it's sometimes natural not to tell what happened afterwards (especially if the event in question had a solid conclusion), but rather, to tell the story of the circumstances and happenings that led up to that event happening in the first place.

Sometimes prequels are actually written afterwards as well, for example, the book 'The Magicians Nephew', written by CS Lewis in the Narnia series, is the story of how Narnia came to be, the origins of the White Witch and Aslan etc.

Chronologically it's the first in the series, but it wouldn't make any kind of sense to have made the movie of this before making 'The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe', would it? Because while 'The Lion, The Witch....' isn't the first part of the story, it's still the 'entry point', so to speak, to the entire series.

 

[Prize Gotti]

The Hobbits is a real book, been around for as years just like LOTR.

 

[S. Fourteen]

"Before the Matrix" has a potential to be good. And I'm not talking about two hours of Neo in his cubicle drinking coffee. Morpheus briefly speaks of the history of the matrix in the movie and to show what happened could be very much entertaining.

I think they fucked up the matrix sequels, and I think the trilogy is hella overrated but what made the first one good can be easily applied to a prequel.

I also think people hate too much on the first three episodes of Star Wars. They did a decent job of giving us the whole story.

 

[Chronic]

The Hobbit makes sense. It's far less marketable (if you wanted to do the books justice and not just put out a movie) and exciting than LOTR. Also it's not really a prequel, it's a completely seperate story. It's Bilbo's story and the ring is kind of just there. You'll see Gimli's and Legolas' father and learn more about the world so if done well it should really just add to the story/characters.
The movies are far less enjoyable if you didn't read the books and I'm not a huge fan of the movies. Since The Hobbit is a far shorter story they can fit pretty much everything in without making it superficial (which was LOTR's main problem to me).

Don't have a problem with prequels persay but they do usually suck.

 

[Preach]

being intrigued by not knowing what comes next (when you watch a sequel) and being intruiged by not understanding how something went from point A to B (when watching a prequel) are two very different experiences. a lot of people wanna say that prequels are there to get your money, but c'mon, don't be ignorant. as are sequels. as was the first movie itself. what's your point? there is no actual difference between a sequel and a prequel other than the chronology of the events in the films in your own head. if you avoid prequels because you think they represent some money-scheme that sequels do not, you are probably missing out on a lot of good films.

 

[Rahim]

Some are good, some are bad. Underworld 3 was a good prequel.

 

[Prize Gotti]

"Before the Matrix" has a potential to be good. And I'm not talking about two hours of Neo in his cubicle drinking coffee. Morpheus briefly speaks of the history of the matrix in the movie and to show what happened could be very much entertaining.

I think they fucked up the matrix sequels, and I think the trilogy is hella overrated but what made the first one good can be easily applied to a prequel.

I also think people hate too much on the first three episodes of Star Wars. They did a decent job of giving us the whole story.

Some parts of Animatrix tell you what happened before, from how it all started;

(2 Parts)

[YOUTUBE]oPofkx8XckQ[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]20T3vNO0HTM[/YOUTUBE]

 

[hizzle?]

The Hobbits is a real book, been around for as years just like LOTR.

And was written way before LOTR.

 

[DarkPhantom13]

Although i really hate prequels, i would rather them make 10 prequels than go back to the original movies and change them up (ie: the original Star Wars trilogy and E.T.) I think it's the stupidest thing in the world for them to go back to a movie thats already a classic and "fix" it with fuckin bullshit new scenes and content.