Can a Prequel EVER be a Good Film?

the thing about prequels is that they are made with the understanding that you are already familiar with the franchises in which they exist and are able to properly contextualise what they are doing, therefore the experience of watching a franchise's prequels first would be fundamentally limited. one could start watching star wars with the phantom menace and follow the franchise's timeline instead of release order, but certain dramatic developments would be undermined as a result - does "i am your father" really land as well as it should if you already saw a full three movies about said father? the common complaint about prequels is that knowing what happens next undermines the tension, but that is but one element of the film-watching experience and not automatically enough to ruin a film. a good example in this case would be twin peaks: fire walk with me - while the twin peaks tv series begins immediately after the death of laura palmer and revolves around characters dealing with the aftermath (and solving her murder), fire walk with me actually follows her while she is alive and offers a more direct insight into the person she was beyond whatever clues were offered throughout the show itself. you watch this knowing that she is dead, but the journey is very much the destination here. to get hung up on knowing what happens next is immaterial - there's more to cinema than just being surprised.

and temple of doom is definitely a prequel. don't know what rodent's on about.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Prey and Ouija: Origin of Evil are good prequels.

__________________

By now, everyone and their parrot already know who Luke's father is, that moment lost shock value a long, long time ago....

If you had never seen Star Wars and just started from Episode 1, knowing next to nothing, there would still be some surprising twists, just maybe not the ones that people got when they watched them in release order.

Temple of Doom may be a prequel, but it doesn't change very much about the progression of Indy's character, imho. He doesn't change a whole lot during all of the stuff that happens during WW2.

His character arc has to be filled in with the TV series and the last 2 films, where he finally got to, you know, experience bigger changes in his life. Without those, he remains a very static character (which doesn't need to be a bad thing necessarily).

That's like saying your girlfriend is part pregnant.

Only if they don't take a classically trained actor and put them in a green screen room by themselves.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

I gotta go with no, but with possible rate exceptions. It really depends on how you define 'prequel'. I don't think Godfather 2 should qualify, and it was ultimately inconsequential when Temple of Doom happens.


The best prequels to me are the ones that follow completely different characters, making them a separate story in the same universe. With Star Trek (2009) being in a different universe.


The best one that comes to mind is Rogue One. If you count tv shows, it's Better Call Saul.

Any movie about "what this character's younger years were like"; always seems to wind up being a massive disappointment. It can make a lot of money, but I'm struggling to think of any good ones, aside from a few where the fact it's a prequel and not a sequel (Temple of Doom, Good Bad Ugly) is essentially meaningless.

Godfather Part II wasn't a disappointment. It even got more Oscar nominations than the first one.

That is one exception, and I do believe it's better than the first. I'm just saying that generally it's a bad idea.


Also it helps when the prequel stars an actor that's a lot more talented than the original.


That's right. Shots fired.

how often do you think people who've never seen star wars actually start with the phantom menace, though. would they even outnumber the people who start with the original. if cultural osmosis is such that certain aspects of the franchise are already spoiled for people, then they might as well start with the originals anyway (or maybe go with the "machete order" that puts the prequels between empire strikes back and return of the jedi).

so what if indy doesn't undergo any kind of meaningful change in temple, they set it a year before raiders so it technically counts as a prequel.

"People should do whatever I think is best for them" is one heck of an argument

Did anyone say it wasn't?

Rogue One is an excellent prequel

__________________
A hundred percent death proof.

Tomato Necromancy - now with Vitamin R!
https://www.movieforums.com/communit...ad.php?t=65140

But technically, isn't Rogue One a sequel to Revenge of the Sith?

I suppose, but it's still a prequel to the original series.




You're a troublemaker. I'm calling H.R.

If we're including TV series, my pick is The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance. It has the same charms as the movie, it adds to its world's mythos instead of taking away from it, it doesn't have too many pandering "remember this?" winks and nods, etc. It may be my most disappointing series cancellation.

then what is your argument if not that watching the prequels first is as acceptable an approach to the entire star wars franchise as watching the originals first?

the rodent did on page one..

Your mistake is that you read my earlier post and thought I was "making an argument" about how people should watch them or not. Clearly I was not. Go back and re-read it.

Rogue One is the only Star Wars film post Return of the Jedi, that I found to be genuinely good storytelling and filmmaking.

__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201

gandalf26 originally wrote that the problem with revenge of the sith is that knowing what does or doesn't happen to characters in the earlier films prevents it from being a good film. you disagreed with him by calling this a "terrible example" and pointing out that there was "a good chance" that first-time viewers of star wars were starting with the prequels. whether you were specifically arguing that they should only be watched that way is irrelevant, just that you don't seem to have much of a rationale behind defending it as a valid option.

You are now literally trying to put words in my mouth. I never said such thing. I did say:

That's a conditional statement... "If X, then Y". I am not saying people should do X, or that there's a good chance people will do X. I don't much care what people do. The statement is still valid.