Anyone sick of the "prequel" trend?

[Zorak Masaki]

Am i the only one sick of prequel films? It seems that since the SW prequels hollywood has the bright idea to start making MORE prequels. I dont count batman begins as that was the start of a new franchise, but from what ive heard, theyre making prequels to texas chainsaw massacre and friday the 13th, and ive also heard that the next james bond film (casino royale) will be taking place BEFORE Dr. No (i could be wrong though). Why does hollywood want to make prequels as opposed to straight sequels to those aforementioned films?

[Wonderwall]

Im more sick of the adaptation/remake trend thats been going on for a few years now. Never makes sense, usually they arent as successful, are worse movies, and are easily forgotten. Hollywood cant come up with ideas no more. I think its time for Ron Howard to make that movie about a crazy scientist who goes back in time for some reason and his best friend is a talking pie. I smell money with that pitch.

[BatKid]

and ive also heard that the next james bond film (casino royale) will be taking place BEFORE Dr. No (i could be wrong though).

Yeah, you are. CR is taking the Batman Begins route, wiping the slate clean.

Why does hollywood want to make prequels as opposed to straight sequels to those aforementioned films?

Because sometimes the story doesn't allow you to go forward. So the next logical step would be to tell how everything started.

[Mr. Manager]

Im more sick of the adaptation/remake trend thats been going on for a few years now.

I agree. That's why it's great seeing a movie that's not a remake, adaptation, sequel, or prequel. It's great to find a film with an original premise these days.

[DarkAngel]

Why does hollywood want to make prequels as opposed to straight sequels to those aforementioned films?

What difference does it really make? Those are just labels. If a studio is only interested in a quick buck, then the quality isn't going to be there regardless of whether the movie is a prequel or sequel. There are plenty of movies released each year that are bad, many of which are neither prequels or sequels, but rather "originals".

The real issue is the overproduction of movies with no real desire for achieving greatness or even a moderate level of quality. You could outlaw prequels and sequels and we'd still get plenty of crap each year. If you get good directors, actors, writers, etc. on board, people who really care about the product they're creating, you'll get a good movie regardless of whether its a prequel or not.

[The Weed Of Cri]

Prequels/sequels are just a part of the general malaise that's spread through Hollywood, causing a laziness and fear to try anything new. The prevailing wisdom is that it is easier to market a movie that has a pre-sold audience -- one that is familiar with the concept and characters, than take a chance on an unproven property. So besides prequels and sequels, we also to contend with a proliferation of remakes which rarely measure up to the originals, and endless films based on properties from other media, such as novels, comic books, and TV shows.

Sometimes, they work (Spider-Man, Harry Potter), sometimes, you can't help asking yourself, "What in the name of God were they thinking? (The Dukes Of Hazzard, The Wild Wild West).

[IDistractedYou]

the next james bond film (casino royale) will be taking place BEFORE Dr. No (

If I remember correctly Casino Royale was actually the first James Bond novel originally printed in the 1950's. So technically its not a prequel, they've just finally gotten around to making a movie of the first bond novel.

Prequels and sequels more than five years after an original release tend to irritate me, there might be some good ones but I can't think of any off of the top of my head.

Offtopic but does anyone else find it amusing that Ian Flemming also wrote Chitty Chitty Bang Bang?