I've seen a TON of movies and have always toyed with the thought of what I would see in their prequels. If done right, many movies could have had successful prequels. For me, personally, they'd all have to end exactly where the first movie that was released began. For instance....

Ace Ventura - I'd be interested in finding out how he got his Pet Detective license. Just knowing how Carrey would play this role (if he did) has me interested.

The Crow - In the movie, Eric was already killed. It'd be very interested in seeing a movie (or as some kind of short that would be an extra on the DVD/blu ray) of his life before he was murdered. I know they were flashbacks of that in the movie itself. But, I don't know. Top Dollar revealed at the end how nothing in the town happens without him saying so and how what happened with Eric and Shelley was because of him. It'd be cool to see how Top Dollar became the boss or leader as he was, how he formed his gang, how Sarah's mom became addicted to morphine and ended up with Funboy, how Devil's Night began (as well as see the first Devil's Night happening)

E.T. - The film began with the ship being on Earth. But how and exactly when did it crash and where were they when it did? What's ET's home like? This, and many other questions has been interested in seeing what they would come up with in a prequel.

Terminator - In Terminator 1 & 2 (don't remember T3 much and never saw Salvation), it always starts with the war between humans and machines. I believe in T3, it was explained that Skynet became self aware and I think they started to fight with the humans or something like that. But it'd be cool to actually see what lead to the war and the war starting off and the prequel ending where Terminator 1 (in 1984) began.

Just my opinions.

I can't think of anything that makes me intrigued to see as a prequel. The Hobbit doesn't count, since it was written years before Lord of the Rings. Don't know if the Star Wars prequels count either, since the concept, at least, was around before filming began, and was explicitly stated with the renaming to Episode 4 six months after its initial release.
Everyone involved agrees Temple of Doom was a mistake.
Deeply worried about Monsters University.
If the writers have done their job properly, there shouldn't be anything more you need to know to appreciate the work, and that therefore a prequel is superfluous.

Not trying to be mean.
Just my opinion.
JonC

I can't think of anything that makes me intrigued to see as a prequel. The Hobbit doesn't count, since it was written years before Lord of the Rings. Don't know if the Star Wars prequels count either, since the concept, at least, was around before filming began, and was explicitly stated with the renaming to Episode 4 six months after its initial release.
Everyone involved agrees Temple of Doom was a mistake.
Deeply worried about Monsters University.
If the writers have done their job properly, there shouldn't be anything more you need to know to appreciate the work, and that therefore a prequel is superfluous.

Not trying to be mean.
Just my opinion.
JonC

I do appreciate their work more than you think. Whenever someone asks me what my top three favorite movie of all time was, the one thing that NEVER changes in E.T. I watch that at least once or twice a year (so that the viewing is not overdone) It's out of appreciation that makes me wonder certain things that movies don't reveal. And I don't think it's the writer's fault. I think they purposely leave certain things out to let the viewer use their imagination. And I understand that. So in that respect, it's probably best they did that. No one appreciates the use of imagination more than me. I am a writer, myself writing my own original material of various things. But what I was getting at is if the movies revealed whatever I (and others) wondered, I'd know what the filmmakers imagined. That's all.

In saying that, while I respect your opinion, being the sensitive type that I am, I was a bit surprised and offended by what you said (even though you claim you weren't trying to be mean): If the writers have done their job properly, there shouldn't be anything more you need to know to appreciate the work, and that therefore a prequel is superfluous

I bolded where I was offended most because you misjudged me right away just like that in implying I don't appreciate the work when you don't know that I do. And since I told you, now you know. So let's not let this miscommunication or whatever you wanna call it go any further. You don't need to misjudge people or be mean, even if you were doing it unintentionally to state an opinion. I did so in the post above yours without offending anyone. And before you get at me, I don't see anywhere in this post where I'm misjudging/offending you. If I am, for whatever reason, let me say in order to state that that I'm not here to cause trouble, I'm sorry and it was unintentional.

I don't know how that statement can be remotely offensive.
Appreciate is perhaps the wrong word. Comprehend is a better one.

Now I'm going to offend you, because there is no way to explain this that you will not find offensive.
You want prequels because you never understood the original films in the first place. You appreciate, you like, even love these movies, but you don't seem to have any idea what is going on or why.
I'm not sure how you can watch E.T. every year and still think they crashed. They didn't crash. They landed, were doing research, and were scared away before E.T. had a chance to get back on board.
Writer's don't just explain things because they want to leave some
things to the imagination. Usually they don't explain things because the answers just don't matter.
Nobody, least of all the writers, care how Ace Ventura got a Pet Detective License. It's irrelevant. Not only is it irrelevant, it weakens the joke. It's like watching Monty Python and wondering "how did someone come to open a cheese shop that doesn't sell any cheese?"
Nobody needs to see Eric Draven's origin story, because we've learned everything we ever need to know about him in the film. We don't need to see the origin of Devil's Night BECAUSE IT'S A REAL THING (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_Night).
James Cameron wrote and filmed how Reese came to end up in the past during Terminator 2, and he (you know the guy who created it,) didn't think it was important enough to actually leave in the film. Because it doesn't actually matter.
In many ways, Terminator: Salvation IS a prequel, in that, it covers the gap between the war and John Conner defeating Skynet. It doesn't go all the way to the start of Terminator, in part because they were sure it would be a hit and more movies would be coming. But they were idiots, made a bad film telling a story nobody cared about, and that was the end of that. A lot of this material is also covered in the TELEVISION SERIES.

Your statement:

But what I was getting at is if the movies revealed whatever I (and others) wondered, I'd know what the filmmakers imagined.
literally makes no sense.
The closest I can guess, is that if the filmmakers made another story that explained every little missing piece of information and ambiguity, you'd have a better understanding of what they intended.
Except they may have wanted the ambiguity. They may not have an explanation of why something happened. It might have been an accident. It might not even have been their idea. Because of changes between shooting and final cut, it might no longer make sense even to them.
And that assumes that they even are given the chance to explain these things, and not come out with material that invalidates their original intentions, because of studio impositions, or even that they changed their minds.
Ridley Scott didn't come out with the whole 'Decker is a replicant' thing until after they started shooting, and then kept hemming and hawing all the way up to the final film. That's why it's so cryptic in the original release, Scott didn't really know the answer himself. (He's since decided he was a replicant.)

But if you really want to know what the filmmaker intended, read. Most filmmakers will be more that happy to explain their intentions in magazine interviews, behind the scenes books, or DVD commentary tracks.
And if can't find it in any of those (like the Matrix sequels,) it's because the filmmakers deliberately want you to come to your own conclusions.

Annoyed,
JonC

I don't know how that statement can be remotely offensive.
Appreciate is perhaps the wrong word. Comprehend is a better one.

Now I'm going to offend you, because there is no way to explain this that you will not find offensive.
You want prequels because you never understood the original films in the first place. You appreciate, you like, even love these movies, but you don't seem to have any idea what is going on or why.
I'm not sure how you can watch E.T. every year and still think they crashed. They didn't crash. They landed, were doing research, and were scared away before E.T. had a chance to get back on board.
Writer's don't just explain things because they want to leave some
things to the imagination. Usually they don't explain things because the answers just don't matter.
Nobody, least of all the writers, care how Ace Ventura got a Pet Detective License. It's irrelevant. Not only is it irrelevant, it weakens the joke. It's like watching Monty Python and wondering "how did someone come to open a cheese shop that doesn't sell any cheese?"
Nobody needs to see Eric Draven's origin story, because we've learned everything we ever need to know about him in the film. We don't need to see the origin of Devil's Night BECAUSE IT'S A REAL THING (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_Night).
James Cameron wrote and filmed how Reese came to end up in the past during Terminator 2, and he (you know the guy who created it,) didn't think it was important enough to actually leave in the film. Because it doesn't actually matter.
In many ways, Terminator: Salvation IS a prequel, in that, it covers the gap between the war and John Conner defeating Skynet. It doesn't go all the way to the start of Terminator, in part because they were sure it would be a hit and more movies would be coming. But they were idiots, made a bad film telling a story nobody cared about, and that was the end of that. A lot of this material is also covered in the TELEVISION SERIES.

Your statement:

literally makes no sense.
The closest I can guess, is that if the filmmakers made another story that explained every little missing piece of information and ambiguity, you'd have a better understanding of what they intended.
Except they may have wanted the ambiguity. They may not have an explanation of why something happened. It might have been an accident. It might not even have been their idea. Because of changes between shooting and final cut, it might no longer make sense even to them.
And that assumes that they even are given the chance to explain these things, and not come out with material that invalidates their original intentions, because of studio impositions, or even that they changed their minds.
Ridley Scott didn't come out with the whole 'Decker is a replicant' thing until after they started shooting, and then kept hemming and hawing all the way up to the final film. That's why it's so cryptic in the original release, Scott didn't really know the answer himself. (He's since decided he was a replicant.)

But if you really want to know what the filmmaker intended, read. Most filmmakers will be more that happy to explain their intentions in magazine interviews, behind the scenes books, or DVD commentary tracks.
And if can't find it in any of those (like the Matrix sequels,) it's because the filmmakers deliberately want you to come to your own conclusions.

Annoyed,
JonC

You are right in saying if I wanted to know what the filmmaker intended to read or listen to DVD commentary tracks. I have read interviews with several cast members, directors, etc of certain movies and got their insight as to what was intended or what they'd change if they could change anything. I usually skipped the commentary tracks as it got in the way of the movies. But since reading the interviews, I listened to tracks on movies I liked a lot (Dark City being one of them) to get more insight on things. So that turned out to be a lot of fun for me.

Now, to reply to the other parts of your comment piece by piece:

You want prequels because you never understood the original films in the first place. You appreciate, you like, even love these movies, but you don't seem to have any idea what is going on or why.........................................

wow despite never meeting me, you really know me a hell of a lot, don't you? Fact is, you're wrong. dead wrong here whether you wanna believe that or not. I actually do understand movies I love (maybe not every single thing about the movie at first, but after watching it, I understand things I didn't understand before), If I didn't, I wouldn't love to appreciate them. I wouldn't even like them. That's just the way I AM. I know some people may like a movie based on the special effects or how scenes are executed and some may like books based on it's quality of words. But as for me, I don't like things (movies, books, etc) I don't understand regardless of anything. I have to understand it before I love or hate it. In saying all that, I do love and appreciate the movies I have seen as they were. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't be interested in understanding them even further. I will agree though that whatever isn't in the movie is left out for the viewer to use their imagination/thinking to draw their own theories or conclusions or their own explanation as it relates to things that weren't explained the movie, which were things also left out due to the filmmakers not feeling they're important/relevant. And perhaps in some cases, were left off due to time constraints as well. Although, that case may not be a very often one when compared to the filmmakers purposely leaving them off because they felt it wasn't important or for the viewer to draw their thoughts.

I'm not sure how you can watch E.T. every year and still think they crashed. They didn't crash. They landed, were doing research, and were scared away before E.T. had a chance to get back on board...................After I first watched it the first time (which was on VHS in the mid-90's, I didn't understand why they were on Earth so I read about the movie on the internet before watching it and the site (A site I remember all too well - allaboutet.org since I recently came across a report for school I wrote when I was younger that was all about ET) claimed that the ship crashed. And THAT is why I thought that they crashed. However, upon viewing the beginning of the movie, I see that the site was probably wrong and you were probably right.

Writer's don't just explain things because they want to leave some things to the imagination. Usually they don't explain things because the answers just don't matter.............The second sentence makes sense as if they felt it mattered, they probably may have explained it. Not to mention, no one's gonna sit through a 4-5 hour movie (some will get bored. In today's world, people don't have time to watch a movie that long. And sitting that long isn't good for anyone's health anyway) which is why they're usually close to 2 hours. Extended Editions that are released later on on home media are really the only exceptions to that. As for leaving some things out to the imagination, you can tell I already drew that conclusion as I stated that in my comment above (the one where I replied to you) where I said "I think they purposely leave certain things out to let the viewer use their imagination."

Nobody, least of all the writers, care how Ace Ventura got a Pet Detective License. It's irrelevant. Not only is it irrelevant, it weakens the joke. It's like watching Monty Python and wondering "how did someone come to open a cheese shop that doesn't sell any cheese?"......................understand your point. I agree, actually.

Nobody needs to see Eric Draven's origin story, because we've learned everything we ever need to know about him in the film. We don't need to see the origin of Devil's Night BECAUSE IT'S A REAL THING.....I get the Eric Draven part. But to say we don't need to see the origin of Devil's Night because it's a real thing doesn't make sense to me. The Earth is real too. But it's still got an origin that some people are interested in knowing about it's origin, which means it's beginning like how it all came to be and such. Devil's Night is a real thing, yeah of course. I realized that already. But it's still got an origin. An origin I'd like to know of. But interviews, commentary, perhaps even comments boards or Twitter/Facebook of anyone involved in the making of the movies has any of those outlets to which fans can ask them questions about, those may very well give me insight to that. If not, I'll use my imagination to draw my own conclusion.

James Cameron wrote and filmed how Reese came to end up in the past during Terminator 2, and he (you know the guy who created it,) didn't think it was important enough to actually leave in the film. Because it doesn't actually matter. In many ways, Terminator: Salvation IS a prequel, in that, it covers the gap between the war and John Conner defeating Skynet. It doesn't go all the way to the start of Terminator, in part because they were sure it would be a hit and more movies would be coming. But they were idiots, made a bad film telling a story nobody cared about, and that was the end of that. A lot of this material is also covered in the TELEVISION SERIES............did not know this as I did not see Salvation or the TV series since they didn't get good reviews. Upon reading your comment, I'll check them out.

Prequel to Prometheus...

The Life of David~