Since someone already did the "Um, actually..." about The Hobbit, I'll do it for these two as well. Red Dragon was published as a book before Silence of the Lambs, and was also the first movie (Manhunter). Hannibal Rising is a true prequel. As for Wicked, it's an alternate timeline. The period it covers already existed in other Oz novels. That being said, on to the real topic.
IMNSHO, the #1 problem with prequels is character arcs. It's almost impossible to have a meaningful arc for a character in a prequel if that character has another meaningful arc in the original product. A prequel arc either tells a story we already know, or contradicts things we know about the character.
The character arc of Han is what I hate about Solo. In the original trilogy, Han was a tough, seasoned smuggler who internally battled with his rough exterior but eventually showed his heart of gold when it mattered most. He had meaningful character definition as a "tough guy" from the outset, and developed well over time. But if you watch the prequel, he spent his whole life as a well meaning loser who could never catch a break and always followed his heart. That kinda destroys anything meaningful about his turn to good at the end of ANH (or other developement in ESB, RotJ, etc.). And it means the "tough guy" we met in Mos Eisley (and ESB, etc), never really existed. Conversely, in Rogue One we're allowed to have a meaningful arc for Jyn Erso and Cassian Andor, because we've never met them before and we don't have to dovetail their story into the original trilogy. Their story is allowed to stand alone, and it works.
The other thing I would like to posit is that it's okay for a movie to exist without character arcs being the most important thing. Hollywood seems to think that every movie these days needs a full character arc (and a romance, and a plot twist at exactly the 40 minute mark, etc...) at the center of the movie. I disagree. Clint Eastwood doesn't change at all in the Good the Bad and the Ugly. James Bond never needed a full backstory with meaningul growth before Daniel Craig. Heck, you can even tell great character stories without a central character arc in movies like The Big Lebowski or No Country for Old Men. The real success of movies like Rogue One, Temple of Doom, or the Planet of the Apes prequels is that they all actually have a good underlying plot without a focus on character growth. If a movie is a good movie with a good plot, it will succeed on it's own merits without giving us an arc about a character we already know.
I'll even go on record and say that as heist movie set in the Star Wars universe, Solo was actually a fairly good movie with an interesting plot, and could even fit in with what I know of the Clone Wars stuff. The fact that they shoehorned Han and Chewie into it is actually the worst thing about it.