AfroThunder396
[citation needed]
You're right, it was a typo. I put Civil War on the bottom with my list of later franchise installments.
What sequels ruin the original movies?
- Thread starter dr robbie
- Start date
You're right, it was a typo. I put Civil War on the bottom with my list of later franchise installments.
Shareefruck
Registered User
I think the flaw in this statement is that it assumes that a person should value wanting immediate enjoyment in isolation over wanting to be accurate/honest and, I would argue, the greater gains that result from that. It's similar to the lowering expectations argument, which seems similarly flawed to me.
An experience that does not have bad followups is noticeably more enjoyable and satisfying to me than an experience that does. While perhaps the latter can't directly take away from the positives that undeniably already exist, it can be considered a negative that is introduced to the equation. Therefore, it's sensible to suggest that a movie can be somewhat "ruined" (made to not be as good as it otherwise would have been, or prevented from being perfect) if that negative exists. Given that this is how I see it, asking for it not to be factored in simply because the negative can be ignored, avoided, or predicted is basically pleading that self-delusion and ignorance is the best policy when it results in something positive. I think this is a terrible reason to do something.
Personally, I want to acknowledge and consider the negative effect of bad followups, because I value significantly more, the positive effect of something that manages to avoid it. If I ignore the former, it would only be logical to ignore the latter, which, to me, would be more unfortunate.
Someone can feel differently and it might not be a factor to them (and as a result, they wouldn't appreciate the drawback or benefit of its consideration), but it can be a reasonable factor to others (as it is for me), and it has nothing to do with mental weakness, emotion, or stubbornness, but instead has everything to logic, principle, and big-picture satisfaction.
For example, I think the first six years of The Simpsons is a masterpiece, and it's one of my favorite shows of all time, but the twenty additional years of awfulness is still a negative that I can't deny takes away from it. Does it ruin the show to a point where I hate it? No, but it does ruin the fact that it would have otherwise been perfect and untouchable (which is not nothing). If I tricked myself into thinking that it doesn't take away from it, I would have to lose some appreciation that I have for shows that don't have this flaw. In the equation that you're concerned with, of having the best time possible-- There is a trade-off that is inescapable, and I'd rather give credit (and consequently, criticism) where it's actually deserved.
Last edited:
kingbrath
Registered User
Indiana Jones 4. After the scene in the warehouse where a crate gets busted open and reveals the Ark. Ruined the great ending of the first movie. Aside from that it was just a steaming pile of poop
Roo Returns
Skjeikspeare No More
I wouldn't say ruin, but moves like Darkman 2, Highlander II, Robocop 2, The Crow 2, Iron Man2, Thor 2, didn't move the franchise forward.
Blackhawkswincup
RIP Fugu
Honestly I very much enjoyed Robocop 2
Crow sequels got progressively worse
The Crow: City of Angels was below average but still entertaining enough to watch (Though Perez was a lousy replacement for Lee)
The Crow: Salvation was pretty terrible with very little of redeeming value
The Crow: Wicked Prayer is easily the worst of the bunch with not a single aspect of film worthy of being watched. The star of film alone made it pretty clear how much of a trainwreck this movie would be
Edward Furlong as the Crow=
Roo Returns
Skjeikspeare No More
Honestly I very much enjoyed Robocop 2
Crow sequels got progressively worse
The Crow: City of Angels was below average but still entertaining enough to watch (Though Perez was a lousy replacement for Lee)
The Crow: Salvation was pretty terrible with very little of redeeming value
The Crow: Wicked Prayer is easily the worst of the bunch with not a single aspect of film worthy of being watched. The star of film alone made it pretty clear how much of a trainwreck this movie would be
Edward Furlong as the Crow=
I liked Robocop 2 as a kid, watched it again two years ago. It wasn't awful just didn't have the heart of the first one. Do you know about the whole thing with Frank Miller writing the script and apparently it got butchered and that's why he stayed out of Hollywood for 25 years until Robert Rodriguez worked on Sin City with him?
I never saw Crow movies past the second one but Furlong as The Crow sounds pretty funny. Second one
I remember seeing in the theater that was actually fairly full, and my friends and I pretty much went MST3K on it and just couldn't get into it. Soundtrack was nice though.
SettlementRichie10
Registered User
- May 6, 2012
- 10,055
- 7,895
Maybe you do that. Doesn't mean everyone else does.
The Star Wars prequels **** all over the existing mythology in the OT. Doesn't mean the OT can't still be enjoyed as we all originally interpreted it.
How has this thread gone this far without
(or are all just pretending it never happened?)
This isn't an actual movie. It's just an internet meme.
Double-Shift Lasse
Just post better
I'm with those who suggest that no films have really been "ruined" by poor sequels. But I will add that, and I know it's a prequel, but the concept of midichlorians kind of "ruins" The Force for me.
TFA, although it's actually a remake of Episode 4. My son and I were cracking up that people thought a remake was great. Remember in the old days when people actually wrote new screenplays for new movies. Those were the days.
Big Poppa Puck
HF's Villain
Big Poppa Puck
HF's Villain
Engebretson
Thank you, sweet rabbit
I don't think Quantum of Solace ruined Casino Royale, but QoS was a disappointing way of finishing off that main storyline from Casino Royale.
On the other end of the spectrum, Skyfall was an excellent rebound from QoS, although it wasn't a direct sequel.
On the other end of the spectrum, Skyfall was an excellent rebound from QoS, although it wasn't a direct sequel.
kook10
Registered User
- Jun 27, 2011
- 4,724
- 2,829
you can add
Breakin 2 - Electric Boogaloo
Mannequin 2 kind of ruined the original as it was bereft of the genius comedic mind of Andrew McCarthy. Compare that with Weekend at Bernie's 2 which is so good.
Last edited:
Oscar Acosta
Registered User
- Mar 19, 2011
- 7,695
- 369
Unaffiliated
Registered User
Unpopular opinion, Highlander 1 sucked balls, Darkman really wasn't that good, and Iron Man 2 was much better than people give it credit for.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,889
- 13,683
There's too many of them.
Here's some sequels that were good (though not necessarily better than the original):
- Rocky II, III and IV.I understand Rocky IV is just a bunch of montages but it was still great
Rocky V was horrible though
- Lethal Weapon II was just as great as Lethal Weapon I, but III and IV were pretty bad.
- Both Die Hard II and Die Hard III were good movies.
- OP mentioned Disney movies, I thought Toy Story 2 & 3 were decent.Same with Mighty Ducks II.
- X-Men 2 was better than X-men.
- Days of Future Past was just as good as First Class.
- The Dark Knight was better than Batman Begins.
- Rush Hour II was pretty much equal to Rush Hour I (though III sucked).
- Terminator II was a good movie.
That's just on top of my head.
Here's some sequels that were good (though not necessarily better than the original):
- Rocky II, III and IV.I understand Rocky IV is just a bunch of montages but it was still great
Rocky V was horrible though
- Lethal Weapon II was just as great as Lethal Weapon I, but III and IV were pretty bad.
- Both Die Hard II and Die Hard III were good movies.
- OP mentioned Disney movies, I thought Toy Story 2 & 3 were decent.Same with Mighty Ducks II.
- X-Men 2 was better than X-men.
- Days of Future Past was just as good as First Class.
- The Dark Knight was better than Batman Begins.
- Rush Hour II was pretty much equal to Rush Hour I (though III sucked).
- Terminator II was a good movie.
That's just on top of my head.
The correct answer is none.
A poor sequel may negatively impact the franchise as a whole, but a good movie remains a good movie regardless of the quality of any other related movies.
It's illogical to suddenly like a movie less just because a related movie isn't at the same level. Revisionist history at its finest.
A poor sequel may negatively impact the franchise as a whole, but a good movie remains a good movie regardless of the quality of any other related movies.
It's illogical to suddenly like a movie less just because a related movie isn't at the same level. Revisionist history at its finest.
Johnny LaRue
Registered User
I completely agree. Winter Soldier was the best in the series.
In terms of a sequel ruining a series, I was tempted to say episode 7 of Star Wars series because it's easily the worst SW movie ever made; however, the prequel trilogy ruined the series a long time ago.
No sequel has ever ruined the original for me. I loved the first Dumb and Dumber, Anchorman and Hangover movies, but didn't care for the sequels. I still love the originals though.
The only sequel I remember liking was Scream 2.
The only sequel I remember liking was Scream 2.
Roo Returns
Skjeikspeare No More
Iron Man 2 I had an issue with the bad guy. Never felt like a true threat.
Highlander and Darkman? I'll agree they haven't aged well and the pace and style is definitely from a past era, but both really good movies. I watched Darkman again this past summer because I hadn't seen the film since the early 90s. It totally gave me a Tim Burton's Batman era vibe. A darker version which is what the studio was going for. Really interesting too to see a superhero movie starring Liam Neeson pre Taken and Frances McDormand.
