If we're going by movies, Legends of Metru Nui totally beats out Mask of Light, and that's kind of a prequel, right?

Can't really think of any off the top of my head, have to come back later...

While some prequels have the issue of relying too much on tensions we already know the outcome of, I don't think the Star Wars ones do. The movie's world at the beginning of Ep. 1 is vastly different from the world in Ep. 4, and the story of how that change ocurred was where the storytelling was compelling. Well, for me, at least. But I also accept that I like the prequels a lot more than most people.

I do think the prequels have issues, but none of those issues have to do with the fact that we already know the outcome of everything.

As for the prequel you're looking for, Temple of Doom is a prequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark. It's tensions are completely independent of everything that came from the previous film.

Agent Carter was an excellent series, and although we knew where the characters like Peggy and Howard would eventually end up, the characters were so likable and the story was so engrossing that you still wound up getting invested in what was happening.

Also, The Muppet Movie is a prequel and a great movie, but since it's a comedy, the story is secondary to the characters and jokes.

X-Men: First Class, Prometheus, and The Hobbit (this can depend on what side of the fence you're on about it; I think it was good, if not as good as The Lord of the Rings) are very fine prequels.

Deus Ex: Human Revolution is, I feel, a strong candidate for an excellent prequel game, especially story-wise. Even though there's about the same time difference between HR and the original DX as there was between Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope, there's very little that can be predicted. Honestly, I'm not sure if that's because of or in spite of it's heavy conspiracy element. In the original DX, mechanical augmentations are dying out while in HR they're the hot, new thing.
 
And now I've lost my train of thought.
 
Yeah, DX:HR.

Takuma Nuva

Well, if we step outside of movies, The Magician's Nephew is an excellent prequel. Marco's Millions isn't bad either. And All the Wrong Questions is shaping up to be an excellent prequel series to A Series of Unfortunate Events.

Also I'm one of those crazy people who really liked Star Wars Episode I. Sure, it was more childish than the originals, but I thought that was rather fitting, seeing as it depicted a more innocent age of the galaxy rather than the jaded Imperial era depicted by the original trilogy.

And let's not forget another George Lucas classic, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. I know some people consider it inferior to Raiders and Last Crusade, but it was still generally an okay movie, and what flaws it did have didn't really have anything to do with it being a prequel.

I enjoyed Monsters University quite a bit too.

In comics, The Sandman: Overture is shaping up to be a great prequel to Neil Gaiman's The Sandman.

Marco's Millions isn't bad either.

oh my god i haven't even heard of anyone else ever reading those

Tak stole my prequel idea, but I would say Hotline Miami 2 also sort of counts? If you ignore the fact that the game is a spaghetti of timelines and focus on the prequel sections.

It's kinda amusing that video games do prequels better than movies. I mean, look at Metal Gear Solid 3 or Halo: Reach.

And I am obligated to mention Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep.  Part of this is gameplay evolution, which is natural and can't be imitated in media such as movies, but I think the story also works well.  We can guess that something bad is going to happen to the three protagonists, and probably their Master, while the villain looks suspiciously similar to villains we've faced before (er, later?), but it's hard to guess exactly what their fates and connections to the future are, and something different befalls each one.  It also helps to explain some later developments while raising some new mysteries, as well as expanding the lore/universe and telling us a bit more about the magic weapons used throughout the series. (Originally they were going to go even deeper into that last point, but I guess thins got cut in development or something.)

Also it has Master Aqua, who is very important.

It's kinda amusing that video games do prequels better than movies. I mean, look at Metal Gear Solid 3 or Halo: Reach.

To be fair MGS3 takes place in the 60s while the main series took place in 90s, 00s, and 10s which allowed more breathing room for tension. Personally I believe a prequel should just take some minor aspect of the original and focus on that. STALKER Clear Sky did this well imo. Though it has been a while since I played Clear Sky.

In addition to many of those already mentioned, The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword had a relatively solid story, and helped to unify the ridiculous Zelda timeline into some semblance of order. For that matter, The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap was primarily a prequel to The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords (detailing the villain's origins and how he was originally sealed away), but was generally more compelling if only due to the nature of the game allowing for a more developed story. And the latter three "prequel" Professor Layton games were superior to the original trilogy in many ways, such as the lead female character having better character development and more agency. and the main antagonist being less comical and more complex.

In general, video games can often allow "prequels" to be better than the games that came before them, even if just on a gameplay level, due to technical progress as well as the opportunity to improve aspects of the previous games that were poorly received.

I have been beaten to The Magician's Nephew (excellent prequel, probably one of the best) and Legends of Metru Nui. (dang) 

Basically, a prequel needs to uncover an intriguing mystery that that first story left unsolved and expand on it in an entertaining way. Otherwise, it doesn't work too good.

Marco's Millions isn't bad either.

wait that was a prequel.

how did i not realize it was a prequel.

the one jarjar was in.

 

Marco's Millions isn't bad either.

wait that was a prequel.

how did i not realize it was a prequel.

 

To be honest, I didn't realize it was a prequel at first either. I just thought I had read them out of order (The Boxes, then Marco's Millions). But it turns out they were actually published in that order.

William Sleator is a great author. House of Stairs was dystopian teen fiction before dystopian teen fiction was cool, and Interstellar Pig was a favorite of mine in middle school (or was it high school? Sometimes it all blurs together).

To be honest, I didn't realize it was a prequel at first either. I just thought I had read them out of order (The Boxes, then Marco's Millions). But it turns out they were actually published in that order.

 

William Sleator is a great author. House of Stairs was dystopian teen fiction before dystopian teen fiction was cool, and Interstellar Pig was a favorite of mine in middle school (or was it high school? Sometimes it all blurs together).

I always thought Millions was a companion book, since I read them in that order as well.

loved those two books. especially Boxes.

I had no idea what you guys where talking about until I Googled. I read those books aaaaages ago in middle school and remember really enjoying them. Perhaps I should pick them up again.

As for the prequel you're looking for, Temple of Doom is a prequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark. It's tensions are completely independent of everything that came from the previous film.

I've always found it hard to think of Temple of Doom as a functioning prequel. It could easily have been set after Raiders of the Lost Ark with little-to-no change in plot, not to mention that it doesn't really delve into the backstory of Raiders characters aside from Indy.

I mean, we know that Indy survives, but we kind of expect that of the main character.

Well, if we step outside of movies, The Magician's Nephew is an excellent prequel.

I already see a pattern shaping up when it comes to the good prequels: they have to either be a) set early enough that few or none of the original characters are there, or b) avoid overlapping plot points.

I think Fishers nailed it my mentioned the fact that good prequels expound on mysteries. Prequel sequels—i.e. installments that come between the prequel but before the original—are very hard to do right. Attack of the Clones and Web of Shadows were some of the weakest movies in their series, IMO—the latter because the end of Legends of Metru Nui revealed that all of the Matoran made it to Mata Nui.

As for many of the other comments—I cannot speak as well to the video game industry so I'll take y'all's word for it when it comes to the viability of video game prequels. There's a vast difference between video games and other forms of art that seems to have manifested itself here.

The tv short series Fireball Charming served as a pretty masterful prequel to the earlier Fireball series, I think... This doesn't count for much, granted, since the Fireball series has like 2 minute episodes and it's a comedy, so the rules of the game are just completely different, but still. Charming set up and explained a lot of the jokes in the original series in really hilarious ways. It is pretty prominent example in my mind of a good prequel. Just, extremely obscure.

 

As for the prequel you're looking for, Temple of Doom is a prequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark. It's tensions are completely independent of everything that came from the previous film.

 

I've always found it hard to think of Temple of Doom as a functioning prequel. It could easily have been set after Raiders of the Lost Ark with little-to-no change in plot, not to mention that it doesn't really delve into the backstory of Raiders characters aside from Indy.

 

I mean, we know that Indy survives, but we kind of expect that of the main character.

 

~B~

 

 

As for the prequel you're looking for, Temple of Doom is a prequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark. It's tensions are completely independent of everything that came from the previous film.

 

I've always found it hard to think of Temple of Doom as a functioning prequel. It could easily have been set after Raiders of the Lost Ark with little-to-no change in plot, not to mention that it doesn't really delve into the backstory of Raiders characters aside from Indy.

 

I mean, we know that Indy survives, but we kind of expect that of the main character.

 

It's been long enough for me that I'd forgotten Temple of Doom even was a prequel, so definitely agreed about that hardly qualifying as one.

 

~B~

I'm really not sure how something can hardly qualify as a prequel. A good prequel, just like a good sequel, explores the universe of the first film without repeating story elements. Not only does 'Temple' showcase a new location with different mystical objects, but also goes deeper into Indy as a character, mainly in exploring his fatherly, more paternal side. If you really feel a need to have it's status justified, the film implies that this is Indy's first run in with something akin to magic. But it takes place before 'Raiders', which really is the only thing that makes a prequel a prequel.

After all, you wouldn't say that 'Last Crusade' hardly qualifies as a sequel because it doesn't directly tie into plot from 'Raiders.'

I mean, I think you're limiting your prequel story telling abilities by saying they have to exploit a mystery left unresolved from the previos film. They don't. They just have to continue building on the world and the characters. In that way I think the difference between sequels and prequels is, superficially, nothing more than a date stamp.

The Indiana Jones series is an interesting question as it pertains to this aspect of prequels and sequels, and I think it comes down to the fact that it's very episodic in nature. It's one of the few trilogies I can think of with little relation between the installments; each is understandable outside of its context.

 
I don't see how prequels and sequels only differ by a date stamp. The difference you suggest is valid in an Indiana Jones-style series, but in a serialized universe like Star Wars, there are a great many more wrinkles to deal with.

I don't see how prequels and sequels only differ by a date stamp. The difference you suggest is valid in an Indiana Jones-style series, but in a serialized universe like Star Wars, there are a great many more wrinkles to deal with.

Of course. Sorry I'm not sure I was clear with that point. I meant only that their storytelling goals are the same- expand on universe and character. The three Indiana Jones films do this while still being episodic (even if it is minimal compared to the Star Wars series). Obviously there can be a storytelling order in which experiencing that story would make most sense. You couldn't watch Empire Strikes Back without having watched A New Hope (though you could watch the prequels without having seen the originals). But, as an aside, I also I think the Star Wars universe has the potential to include serialized elements with the Anthology films coming out. It's too early to know for sure, but the upcoming Rogue One may very well be appreciable outside the wider story.

Really, as with everything else storytelling, it all depends on the story being told and the goal of the storyteller. There are different kinds of sequels and prequels, and I was only suggesting that we not set limits to say what qualifies as one... unless those limits are the very strict dictionary definitions of the two words. And even those can be hindering sometimes.