Asking since Incredibles will only need about a week to pass the entire gross of Monsters University.

And since Fantastic Beasts should have doubled its gross in this market. Harry Potter 9 would top $200m opening weekend.

And Solo.

It depends what it's about. Phantom Menace was absolutely massive because people really love Darth Vader and wanted to see how he came to be.

Monsters Inc. is iconic and beloved, but 'University' always screamed "cash grab" and a huge part of the first film's appeal was Bo and the dynamic between monsters being afraid of her, who was absent from 'University'. You could also argue that Incredibles has held up better through the years and is more iconic/beloved and more ideally suited to a sequel. It's easier to market it to adults as well, whereas the Monsters films are primarily appealing to families.

Fantastic Beasts is a case of the film being only tangentially related to the HP series. There weren't even any returning characters or locations.

The ones that are most puzzling are the Hobbit films. They still did well, especially overseas, but domestic that $84m OW is going to be forever disappointing. There's really no reason it shouldn't have easily opened to $100m+ or even $120m+. The marketing just did an awful job selling anything new or distinctive (it was just, "look, Gandalf! Gollum! Orcs!") and I guess there was a lot of bad buzz because of the unnecessary split into three films and the middling reviews. But the fact that all three films stayed in that $950-$1B worldwide range is pretty impressive. As Solo shows us, even huge venerable franchises can collapse if audiences aren't getting what they like.

B is right. It depends on the prequel. When studios see one thing work, they instantly think it will transfer to their own property, and that's not always (never usually) the case. You should only make sequels and prequels for the right reasons. I think that's the answer here. It's not about prequels or sequels or reboots or re-imaginings. It's about "is there a following for this?", "is this being made because there's gaps that need filling or because we think we can milk it?", etc.

If I remember right, Phantom Menace was actually the movie that brought prequel into the public's vocabulary. Being the "first" big prequel definitely prevented it from being hurt.

Prequels in general have less suspense story-wise, so less excitement. People generally want to move forward, not backward. Otherwise it can feel like a waste of time/money.

Re: Barrabás' final point - wasn't the first Hobbit's domestic opening slightly dampened by people being glued to coverage of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting?

The Annabelle films might be the smartest recent examples of prequels. Warner Bros. truly found a perfect entry point: "audiences found this doll creepy when briefly shown in The Conjuring, so here is more of it." The doll being a plot point people were genuinely curious to see the origin of.

Yet it still broke the December opening record.

Minions was a success

Some of the films mentioned here are spinoffs, not prequels

Indeed.

Annabelle is now one part of the "Conjuring universe" with The Nun, The Crooked Man and Conjuring 3 all set to be released over the coming years.

I guess the Conjuring spin-offs are also prequels.

Yeah, it's semantics anyway. Spin-offs and prequels appeal similarly to moviegoers. At the end of the day, it's a movie project that was inspired by another more successful movie project, and they will likely be riddled with same pessimism by audiences claiming they're cash-grabs. So it's the same thing in regards to the point of the thread.

I...had never heard of this theory. This doesn't seem very believable to me but I have no idea if there's any data supporting that.

People don't hate prequels. They just in general will have a stigma that is hard to overcome.

A: As a Technical standpoint, you are already limited by what you can do with the story and characters.
B: It's usually different actors, writers, time periods, So unless it is undeniably awesome, you instantly start comparing mentally. Is it too different? Is it too much the same? Why is this happening?
C: You have the annoying factor that you have to reference things that will happen later, or do a callback.

Sidequels work more as they just put aside the timeline. For Instance James Bond, Dollars Trilogy, Mad Max, or even Temple of Doom (Though that is definitely also a prequel)`

Though I think the biggest argument is there are just as many sequels that I hate that are in total prequels.

Solo was a tough sell. But Obiwan as basically Batman and McGregor coming back, and then you have Solo, Bubba Fett, Darth Maul, and Jabba. I see it as the necessary grenade Disney had to step on to go somewhere that could be super exciting.

Have to bump this for Ant-Man and The Wasp . While not exactly a prequel, this film is falling victim to the apathy that plagues them. Marvel usually doesn't have this issue with their standalone films , Black Panther is technically a prequel to Ragnarok. However, I think the people of Earth are dying to know what happens after Infinity War's big ending, and Ant-Man doesn't provide any answers to that.

I don't think anyone thinks the two films you mentioned are prequels. Nobody treats them like that. It's totally different.

I liked it a lot.

I think some people's major frustration is IW happening at the same time and the characters are completely deer in the headlights to it. But I did like how it finally became relevant at the end. I was hoping that Ant man and I'm guessing Captain Marvel will play a big role in the next one.

I wouldn't consider BP a prequel, but I would consider Wasp one. Ditto Captain Marvel.

They were going for a palette cleanser but Thanos set the stakes so high that whatever war force they fight in Ant Man and the Wasp is just going to feel minor, especially considering the timeline. Leaving Ant Man out of IW kind of makes him feel like a minor leaguer who couldn't hang in the big fight