What sequels ruin the original movies?
- Thread starter dr robbie
- Start date
Most of those Disney sequels were straight-to-video cash grabs, we can discount them out of hand since they were never intended to be good.
Dumb and Dumber's first sequel (prequel) sucked, but the REAL sequel wasn't bad.
Any horror movie generally should have called it quits on the first film - Nightmare on Elm Street being prominent amongst that crowd.
God, I know there's more out there, just can't really bring it to mind right now. Maybe Highlander? It was designed to be a stand-alone, the sequel necessarily had to ignore what happened at the end of the film. That said, I've never seen any of the sequel films
I guess a lot of people would say 2010: The Year We Make Contact ruined 2001: A Space Odyssey, but it had Roy Scheider so it wasn't terrible. On that note, though, Jaws really didn't need sequels either, especially Jaws 3D. Other than that there's been tons of trash comedy films that have gotten trash sequels, but whether they ruin the original? It'd have to be good in the first place, wouldn't it?
chicagoskycam
Land of #1 Overall Picks
It would be almost easier to discuss which sequels equaled or surpassed the original. So many are horrible and some don't even carryover the original cast.
Prairie Habs
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 11,974
- 12,403
None, that's not how movies work.
The Canes didn't have their 06 championship taken away because they missed the playoffs the next year. They had it taken away because they cheated and hurt my dear sweet Koivu.
The Canes didn't have their 06 championship taken away because they missed the playoffs the next year. They had it taken away because they cheated and hurt my dear sweet Koivu.
dr robbie
Let's Go Pens!
Yeah, they can. Hockey =/= Movies.
When a movie goes back and either undoes or changes something in the original or changes a character's personality, it can ruin it. Basically sours the original movie.
In Independence Day, they unkill a major character.
In Matrix, they unkill a major enemy and make his destruction turn into a plot on choice that is shoved down our throats
Basically, when we watch a sequel for the first time, we carry over the characters and setting into the new plot. When we go back and watch the original again, we do the same thing.
izzy
go
The beginning of Hostel 2 ruins Hostel
I know people think Hostel was just a gorefest movie but it was actually pretty good IMO
I know people think Hostel was just a gorefest movie but it was actually pretty good IMO
Canadiens Ghost
Mr. Objectivity
I guess I'm lucky because I've never felt any sequels/remakes, no matter how bad they were, ruined the originals. A good movie remains a good movie.
BonMorrison
Registered User
Shareefruck
Registered User
^ I'm going to go off on a rambly tangent, but I always notice traces of this type of attitude and I always completely disagree with it. To me, it's similar to the "you'll enjoy it more if you lower your expectations" thing.
Sure, having awful sequels doesn't actively take away from the existing value that a good movie already has-- nothing can take that away-- but NOT having awful sequels actively improves that value over time for me. Something can feel admirable, pure, and uncompromised in its quality, integrity and sentiment, and that itself has added value that I appreciate. As a result, just by virtue of not preserving that, it puts a ceiling on how something feels over time. You can ignore that a thing was followed up by bad things and appreciate the good thing for what it is, but it's not going to be AS good as if those followups never never existed or became associated with it in the first place. It's the same thing with a musician who sells out his principles. Sure you can just ignore it, and that initial value doesn't disappear, but there's more appreciable and admirable value when someone never sells out that I think would be a shame to ignore (and you can't have it both ways-- either you think it is a factor or isn't).
The "lucky" comment is an off base and annoying way of assuming that it's inherently a more beneficial approach. There's no objective way to know which difference holds more weight-- whether "not letting bad followups hurt good movies" is more enjoyable or "appreciating good movies that aren't hurt by bad followups" is. I see the drawback of having my attitude of course, but I also think the reward outweighs that drawback, personally (which is why I always argue in favor of this).
Sure, having awful sequels doesn't actively take away from the existing value that a good movie already has-- nothing can take that away-- but NOT having awful sequels actively improves that value over time for me. Something can feel admirable, pure, and uncompromised in its quality, integrity and sentiment, and that itself has added value that I appreciate. As a result, just by virtue of not preserving that, it puts a ceiling on how something feels over time. You can ignore that a thing was followed up by bad things and appreciate the good thing for what it is, but it's not going to be AS good as if those followups never never existed or became associated with it in the first place. It's the same thing with a musician who sells out his principles. Sure you can just ignore it, and that initial value doesn't disappear, but there's more appreciable and admirable value when someone never sells out that I think would be a shame to ignore (and you can't have it both ways-- either you think it is a factor or isn't).
The "lucky" comment is an off base and annoying way of assuming that it's inherently a more beneficial approach. There's no objective way to know which difference holds more weight-- whether "not letting bad followups hurt good movies" is more enjoyable or "appreciating good movies that aren't hurt by bad followups" is. I see the drawback of having my attitude of course, but I also think the reward outweighs that drawback, personally (which is why I always argue in favor of this).
Last edited:
b1e9a8r5s
Registered User
Good point.
My list of the top of my head...
T2
Empire
Godfather 2
Wrath of KHAN!
Dark Knight
I'm probably missing a few, but there aren't all that many.
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
I can't think of any sequel that ruins the original movie for me. Jaws has one of the worst line of sequels ever in terms of quantity and quality, still one of my all-time favorites.
I can't say it ruins the original movie, but Alien 3 was just a terrible follow-up to Alien and Aliens.
Miamipuck
Al Swearengen
I can't think of a sequel that has ruined an oreginal to me. Most times I will not watch a sequel if I think its going to suck. For instance, I have not seen the sequels to Caddyshack, Slapshot, Dumb and Dumber.
I think it's worse to remake a film rather than have a sequel, to me a bad sequel is more forgivable than a bad remake.
I think it's worse to remake a film rather than have a sequel, to me a bad sequel is more forgivable than a bad remake.
End on a Hinote
Registered Abuser
Came here to post this.
Harry and Lloyd were brilliantly dumb in the first one. The second one they were just idiotically unfunny stupid coupled with a very poor story that actually had some potential before it was executed.
I personally don't even consider the second one cannon.
tony d
Registered User
Dumb and Dumber 2 because of the length between the 2 movies. A good sequel should be at most 2 yrs. after the original.
Canadiens Ghost
Mr. Objectivity
What is there to disagree with? You view movies a certain way, other people view them another way. There is no right or wrong way, objectively or subjectively to watching movies and the level of enjoyment they bring us. It's not a conscious decision, it just is.
It's like if I say I prefer the color blue and you disagree with me because you prefer the color red... what does it matter?
My "lucky" comment came about because there are people in this thread that seem to have soured on the originals because of the sequels and that seems to genuinely suck for them (to a certain degree). I feel I'm lucky because I can simply ignore bad sequels so that they do not ruin the originals for me.
For example, I loved the original Matrix. It's one of my favorite movies. I liked the second one but hated the third. Well, even if I know how the trilogy ends, the third movie doesn't ruin the first one for me in any way and I still enjoy it as much every time I watch it.
Can't say any movie really ruined anything for me, but I have to say Anchorman 2 was just mailed in like crazy. Huge disappointment. Even Zoolander 2 had its moments.
And it wasn't even that it was the same jokes, I love Austin Powers and its the same jokes but there was just something truly awful about anchorman 2
And it wasn't even that it was the same jokes, I love Austin Powers and its the same jokes but there was just something truly awful about anchorman 2
Mimsy
Registered User
- Mar 21, 2015
- 434
- 234
I mostly fall into the "sequel didn't ruin the original" category, but will suggest "The Heretic" as a bizarre follow-up to The Exorcist. The film has some interesting ideas, but the execution is terrible. It's a piece of crap.
I liked Kick-Ass. I expected the sequel to be terrible. It was.
As for prequels ruining the original, don't get me started.
I liked Kick-Ass. I expected the sequel to be terrible. It was.
As for prequels ruining the original, don't get me started.
Blackhawkswincup
RIP Fugu
I disagree
Part II is unwatchable but Dream Warriors and Dream Masters are both very well made and entertaining
Dawn of the Dead
