Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Tue Jul 29, 2014 1:18 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 
Bad Sequels: Do they ruin the original? 
Author Message
Post Bad Sequels: Do they ruin the original?
JJoshay recently asked if a bad ending can ruin a good film. That got me thinking about other things that can ruin movies. Is it possible for a movie to be ruined by another that is related to it. Specifically, can a bad sequel ruin a good movie? Or, can a bad sequel hurt the reputation of the original?

I know it's easy to say "No", but think about it. Do you still love The Matrix as much as you did in 1999 in light of its sequels? Did Return of the Jedi hurt Empire and New Hope? Did the rest of the Superman franchise hurt the first film (and its sequel)? Was Alien damaged by the relatively shitty...Aliens?


P.S. I think this would make a good poll. I wonder if one of our mods cares to take a walk on the wild side and have what would be only the second ever poll outside of the "Polls" section.


Wed Oct 06, 2010 3:51 pm
Post Re: Bad Sequels: Do they ruin the original?
I actually liked the Matrix sequels, flawed as they may be, never was the biggest fan of Superman or Alien, so those sequels mattered little to me. Course there's very few sequels that I do hate(Those damn Saw sequels and the mediocre 28 Weeks Later are best examples I can think of right now)so i'm obviously not the best person to answer that question, but i'll take a stab and say that if you hated a sequel, then shouldn't that arguably reinforce how much better the first film is?


Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:09 pm
Post Re: Bad Sequels: Do they ruin the original?
Maybe if the previous film depends on the sequel in order to be resolved. I find this tends to happen more with films 2 and 3 than with films 1 and 2 (or 1, 2, and 3). And it tends to happen with films that are envisioned and produced as a collective single story, rather than one complete film followed by another.

Other than that, not really.


Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:38 pm
Post Re: Bad Sequels: Do they ruin the original?
The Matrix wasn't ruined, since it can stand alone. However, since Reloaded (which I loved on first viewing) is incomplete without Revolutions (which I found disappointing), my opinion of the former has diminished a bit.


Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:59 pm
Post Re: Bad Sequels: Do they ruin the original?
A bad sequel can make you pine for a mediocre original, maybe. The opposite could be true but most audiences seem to realize the sequel is connected to the first film in spirit only. Oceans 11 was entertaining enough and Oceans 12 was terrible. It had me wondering why the anyone bothered and made me briefly think that the first one was really just a chance for rich actors to have a good time with one another.


Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:29 pm
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7279
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Bad Sequels: Do they ruin the original?
ed_metal_head wrote:
Was Alien damaged by the relatively shitty...Aliens?


You better be fucking kidding here

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:46 pm
Profile
Post Re: Bad Sequels: Do they ruin the original?
Did you just call Aliens relatively shitty...


Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:50 pm
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7279
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Bad Sequels: Do they ruin the original?
Oh by the way I just created a poll to this effect, as per your good suggestion

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:54 pm
Profile
Post Re: Bad Sequels: Do they ruin the original?
O.K. here comes my humble opinion:

I think it depends on a variety of factors and of course, if the original movie can stand in its own. At any rate: I think bad sequels at least dilute the impact of a great original.

Examples:
Superman: Having seen the Richard Donner reconstructed original Suprman, I'd say that the first two theatrical releases are just great as they were. I love them to death. Even the horrible sequels III and IV can't shake that solid two-movie masterpiece. Of course Gene Hackman (delightful to watch as always) and the spot-on choice Christopher Reeve (irreplaceable IMHO) have a lot to do with it.

Aliens was so great (IMHO) that it somehow shifted and enlarged the whole inicial idea. Yes, it did diminish the original a little (which is still fantastic) but only because it was an "all stops out" blockbuster. Alien 3 and 4 are rather weak efforts and they probably brought the franchise to a screeching halt. But the first two still stand as great cinematic achievements.

The Matrix: I like the original, I don't like the sequels at all - they have a totally different tone and some of the worst CGI-FX in movie history. Yes, they diminish the original a little, but they diminish much more the credibility of the Wachowski brothers.

Die Hard: The first is the best by far. I still like it a lot after three rather weak sequels with part II being the worst.

Rocky: Part II wasn't all that bad, so I will forgive cheezy and ultra-dated 80s Hollywood glossy parts 3 and 4 and the horrible part 5 which can only be described with an adjective that still has to be invented. Part 6 is an afterthought, which hardly ruins anything.

Jaws: none of the bad sequels can destroy the brilliant original.

Perhaps it's just me.... but I can see a movie pretending that a bad sequel was never made....

[Edit:] with the exception of Star Wars. I think Lucas blew it simply because now we know much more about the man who made the first movie (A New Hope).


Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:14 pm
Post Re: Bad Sequels: Do they ruin the original?
It's all a matter of the dear proximity effect. Sure, if you mention Superman in the same sentence as Superman II then you'll have a nodding of the heads, a shaking of the hands. But box them together with the dreadful Part III and the equally poor Part IV: No Nukes! and you've got the masses questioning whether Superman is really all that good.

So, two answers. Yes, if you're going to rely on the memory of the public to color the experience of Superman with the experience of all the Superman films. No, if you're going to actually screen the movies. Since nostalgia lends itself to, what?, 50% of an opinion's content when you're running through a list of movies with the great looking lady you've just met, you're priming the Superman experience with the bad memories of Superman III.

The solution is really elegant, simple and all kinds of buxom: preface your opinions, all of your opinions, with the statement "all sequels are the mutant stepchildren of my beautiful second wife." Some of those mutants have special talents (The Dark Knight) and some of those mutants are locked up in an institution (Son of the Mask).


Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:23 pm
Post Re: Bad Sequels: Do they ruin the original?
I only think a sequel would diminish the original is if the original hadn't contained a conclusion and needed the second part to be told fully.

Like if Kill Bill Vol 2 was totally bad (most people enjoy the first more but 2 is still really good IMO) then Vol 1 isn't that great because it doesn't contain a full story just a good half of a bad one.


Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:08 am
Post Re: Bad Sequels: Do they ruin the original?
pig nash wrote:
I only think a sequel would diminish the original is if the original hadn't contained a conclusion and needed the second part to be told fully.

Like if Kill Bill Vol 2 was totally bad (most people enjoy the first more but 2 is still really good IMO) then Vol 1 isn't that great because it doesn't contain a full story just a good half of a bad one.


I agree with this sentiment. Highlander 2 was crap, especially because it had the same creative forces behind it as the first one. But its existence has not diminished my love of the original.

I still like Aliens about the same (personally prefer the original, though), but if you watch it having already seen Alien 3 then, if you treat them all as canon, you realize how pointless the final 30 minutes Aliens is. Ripley battles to save Newt and then the kid gets killed off in the opening credits! of the next movie. If Ripley and Hicks had abandoned her (as Ripley did the 1/2 the marine platoon in the second act when they got abducted by the aliens), then the aliens would have been wiped out (no queen stowing away and dropping eggs about) and she and Hicks could have escaped into the sunset...or sunrise....or whatever they got in deep space.


Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:43 am
Post Re: Bad Sequels: Do they ruin the original?
majoraphasia wrote:
It's all a matter of the dear proximity effect. Sure, if you mention Superman in the same sentence as Superman II then you'll have a nodding of the heads, a shaking of the hands. But box them together with the dreadful Part III and the equally poor Part IV: No Nukes! and you've got the masses questioning whether Superman is really all that good.
I can only speak for myself, obviously, but unless the masses have an especially spotty long-term memory, the flaws of III and IV would only highlight the qualities of the first two--particularly the spare-no-expenses production values and the sincerity of the first. IV is B-grade and III, if anything, is a deeply cynical parody. (II tries to be a deeply cynical parody, and it almost works at times.)

Think of it like the Star Wars prequels. They didn't cause people to question the qualities of the originals. If anything, memories of the originals became that much more idealized in comparison.


Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:33 am
Post Re: Bad Sequels: Do they ruin the original?
ed_metal_head wrote:
JJoshay recently asked if a bad ending can ruin a good film. That got me thinking about other things that can ruin movies. Is it possible for a movie to be ruined by another that is related to it. Specifically, can a bad sequel ruin a good movie? Or, can a bad sequel hurt the reputation of the original?

I know it's easy to say "No", but think about it. Do you still love The Matrix as much as you did in 1999 in light of its sequels? Did Return of the Jedi hurt Empire and New Hope? Did the rest of the Superman franchise hurt the first film (and its sequel)?


I have a tendency to dismiss everything about sequels except the story if they suck. If the story is fucked, I consider the series to be improperly finished. In other words, no. :mrgreen:

ed_metal_head wrote:
Was Alien damaged by the relatively shitty...Aliens?

Only...if you live on...Pluto....yeah...mind...jammed


Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:41 am
Post Re: Bad Sequels: Do they ruin the original?
Ken wrote:
majoraphasia wrote:
It's all a matter of the dear proximity effect. Sure, if you mention Superman in the same sentence as Superman II then you'll have a nodding of the heads, a shaking of the hands. But box them together with the dreadful Part III and the equally poor Part IV: No Nukes! and you've got the masses questioning whether Superman is really all that good.
I can only speak for myself, obviously, but unless the masses have an especially spotty long-term memory, the flaws of III and IV would only highlight the qualities of the first two--particularly the spare-no-expenses production values and the sincerity of the first. IV is B-grade and III, if anything, is a deeply cynical parody. (II tries to be a deeply cynical parody, and it almost works at times.)

Think of it like the Star Wars prequels. They didn't cause people to question the qualities of the originals. If anything, memories of the originals became that much more idealized in comparison.


You're far more optimistic than I realized. And your post is generous and predicated on the belief that people actually analyze the films they watch. This is not often the case. People often use the naked emperor argument when chatting film and Superman is mentioned in the same breath as Superman III when what's required is evidence of a franchise exhausting itself. It is in this way that Superman is tarnished; relying on the positive/negative memories of the experience is a surefire way to reduce Superman into a happy accident.


Thu Oct 07, 2010 12:30 pm
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7279
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Bad Sequels: Do they ruin the original?
johnny larue wrote:
pig nash wrote:
I only think a sequel would diminish the original is if the original hadn't contained a conclusion and needed the second part to be told fully.

Like if Kill Bill Vol 2 was totally bad (most people enjoy the first more but 2 is still really good IMO) then Vol 1 isn't that great because it doesn't contain a full story just a good half of a bad one.


I agree with this sentiment. Highlander 2 was crap, especially because it had the same creative forces behind it as the first one. But its existence has not diminished my love of the original.

I still like Aliens about the same (personally prefer the original, though), but if you watch it having already seen Alien 3 then, if you treat them all as canon, you realize how pointless the final 30 minutes Aliens is. Ripley battles to save Newt and then the kid gets killed off in the opening credits! of the next movie. If Ripley and Hicks had abandoned her (as Ripley did the 1/2 the marine platoon in the second act when they got abducted by the aliens), then the aliens would have been wiped out (no queen stowing away and dropping eggs about) and she and Hicks could have escaped into the sunset...or sunrise....or whatever they got in deep space.


Excellently put Johnny. I love when someone makes my point, but makes it better.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:26 pm
Profile
Post Re: Bad Sequels: Do they ruin the original?
pig nash wrote:
I only think a sequel would diminish the original is if the original hadn't contained a conclusion and needed the second part to be told fully.

Like if Kill Bill Vol 2 was totally bad (most people enjoy the first more but 2 is still really good IMO) then Vol 1 isn't that great because it doesn't contain a full story just a good half of a bad one.


Kill Bill was great overall because Volume 1 set up for Volume 2, which brought the epic masterpiece together as whole. If Kill Bill was wasn't Volume 1 AND Volume 2 then it they would have only been a few entertaining entries in Tarantino's repertoire (although Volume 2 still would have been a superior film to many). I feel like I have become Kill Bill's major advocate on this site.

johnny larue wrote:
I still like Aliens about the same (personally prefer the original, though), but if you watch it having already seen Alien 3 then, if you treat them all as canon, you realize how pointless the final 30 minutes Aliens is. Ripley battles to save Newt and then the kid gets killed off in the opening credits! of the next movie. If Ripley and Hicks had abandoned her (as Ripley did the 1/2 the marine platoon in the second act when they got abducted by the aliens), then the aliens would have been wiped out (no queen stowing away and dropping eggs about) and she and Hicks could have escaped into the sunset...or sunrise....or whatever they got in deep space.


That is why no one should sensibly take Alien 3 seriously as an entry in the series (or Resurrection... or AVP... or especially AVP2, which was just a joke of a movie and goddamn it, it wasn't funny). Alien 3 is a stylishly rendered but poorly written studio hack job, not much more. I view it more as a curiosity then an entry in the Alien series, which if you ask me ended with the second film, elevating Alien and Aliens as one of the best one-two punches in cinema history, ranking along with the likes of The Godfather and The Godfather, Part II... yeah, I said it.


Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:02 am
Post Re: Bad Sequels: Do they ruin the original?
Oh I really like the whole of Kill Bill, that was just the best example I could think of where 2 movies were so intrinsically linked.


Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:30 am
Post Re: Bad Sequels: Do they ruin the original?
Grrr. Every time Kill Bill is mentioned I'm reminded that the long-ago promised Whole Bloody Affair version turned out to be apocryphal. Apocryphal, I tells ya!

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/dvd-talk/50288 ... ffair.html

They're both *** movies but I'm almost positive that the intended version, the version Tarantino and the Weinsteins withheld for more buckage, would be a significant improvement over what we've been left with.


Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:56 am
Post Re: Bad Sequels: Do they ruin the original?
JamesKunz wrote:
ed_metal_head wrote:
Was Alien damaged by the relatively shitty...Aliens?


You better be fucking kidding here


Am I? Remember I said "relatively shitty". It's not a shitty movie (quite a lot of fun), but when you compare it to what came before...

JamesKunz wrote:
Oh by the way I just created a poll to this effect, as per your good suggestion


Thanks James, but that wasn't really my suggestion. What's the use of having two topics for the same thing? I was hoping that someone would take *this* topic and convert it into a poll. Right here in the middle of the General Forum. Why should polls be relegated in another sub-forum? The occasional "General" topic makes for a good poll and I see no reason why we can't have them right here.

And before you say this idea is ridiculous, there is a precedent. Trevor did it once. That's before we had these weekly polls for which I see no reason.

pig nash wrote:
I only think a sequel would diminish the original is if the original hadn't contained a conclusion and needed the second part to be told fully.


You know what? I love this. Fantastic point and completely the way I feel. I just hadn't realised until you put it into words.


Fri Oct 08, 2010 10:45 am
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], Google [Bot], nitrium and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr