What sequels ruin the original movies?

[RobBrown4PM]

I can't say it ruins the original movie, but Alien 3 was just a terrible follow-up to Alien and Aliens.

It wasn't a terrible movie, and I have come to appreciate it a lot more in the last 15 years. The movie gets a bad rap for killing off two major characters from the sequel, and having an atrocious development cycle and bogged down a lot of the plans for the movie.

If you watch it without the hate people lay on it, you will find that it is an incredibly deep movie with a lot going on.

 

[Roo Returns]

Alien 3 was in production hell for about 2-3 years. They originally wanted Florina 161 to be an ice planet and have monks. It was much much darker than Aliens and yes killing off Hicks and Newt was viewed as a big $^$^! to the public at the time.

It's a good movie with a great director beginning a great run in Hollywood it just went in a totally different direction from what everyone anticipated.

I'd say honestly, Alien Resurrection was a well directed film with an awful script. That movie is so dated. The two redeeming qualities are it got Jeunet some mainstream notice and he was able to do Amelie, but more importantly, helped Ron Pearlman become more than "the dude who played the beast on tv" and led to Blade II, Hellboy, Sons of Anarchy, etc.

 

[Osprey]

It's not great like the two before it, but Alien 3 is still a good movie. Honestly, if it had been named something else, with different characters, it could've become a bit of a cult classic (kind of like how Darkman is, but, if it had been reconfigured as a sequel to Burton's Batman, it'd probably be hated). It's just that, being an Alien movie, people (myself included) expected it to be excellent like the first two movies and it was a full tier below them. Being much darker and killing off popular characters was initially disappointing, but, over time, one can start to appreciate that, because of it, it's actually (or, at least, tries to be) a deeper movie than either of the two before it. It may've missed the mark a bit, but how many other third movies in a series even take the risk and try that, especially nowadays?

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).

I agree with this. It isn't that bad sequels can "ruin" movies--that's silly--but they can harm your enjoyment of the original. It's like how something that's been successfully parodied to death makes it hard to go back and enjoy the original. For example, if you're seen the Scary Movie series, it's harder to go back and watch certain horror movies like Scream seriously, since the parody bits creep in from your memory while watching. It doesn't have to be a conscientious parody, though. As movie series go on, they usually can't help but start to parody themselves by trying to outdo or avoid what was done before. They often just end up making a mockery of the original premise, so that it's harder to go back and watch the original without noticing the flaws in its premise.

 

[Shareefruck]

It's not great like the two before it, but Alien 3 is still a good movie. Honestly, if it had been named something else, with different characters, it could've become a bit of a cult classic (kind of like how Darkman is, but, if it had been reconfigured as a sequel to Burton's Batman, it'd probably be hated). It's just that, being an Alien movie, people (myself included) expected it to be excellent like the first two movies and it was a full tier below them. Being much darker and killing off popular characters was initially disappointing, but, over time, one can start to appreciate that, because of it, it's actually (or, at least, tries to be) a deeper movie than either of the two before it. It may've missed the mark a bit, but how many other third movies in a series even take the risk and try that, especially nowadays?



I agree with this. It isn't that bad sequels can "ruin" movies--that's silly--but they can harm your enjoyment of the original. It's like how something that's been successfully parodied to death makes it hard to go back and enjoy the original. For example, if you're seen the Scary Movie series, it's harder to go back and watch certain horror movies like Scream seriously, since the parody bits creep in from your memory while watching. It doesn't have to be a conscientious parody, though. As movie series go on, they usually can't help but start to parody themselves by trying to outdo or avoid what was done before. They often just end up making a mockery of the original premise, so that it's harder to go back and watch the original without noticing the flaws in its premise.

Exactly, thank you.

I think when people say "ruin", they don't mean it in the literal sense anyways. It's the well-earned untouchable aura of a movie that's ruined by followups, it doesn't mean that the movie itself is left in irredeemable ruins.

 

[cupcrazyman]

Bad Santa 2 is going to be a disaster.

Looks like a total train wreck !

 

[cupcrazyman]

Star Wars Episodes II & III were ruined by:

Hayden Christensen acting & dialogue +
Jar Jar

 

[Kimota]

Matrix 3 ruins Matrix 2. Matrix 2 isn't a bad movie, but it gets lumped in with the third one because they were made together. Obviously no where near the first, but 2 gets **** on a lot pretty unfairly.

I hated Matrix 2 much more than Matrix 3. One of the worst experiences I've ever had at the movies. Pure torture.

 

[Shareefruck]

The way I see it, the first Matrix was a flawed/corny movie in its own right that was masked by its own appealing style/novelty/mystique..... the latter two films were awful and sort of took that gloss/hype/surrounding atmosphere away, allowing everyone to see the franchise and that first movie for what it really was.

 

[Osprey]

The way I see it, the first Matrix was a flawed/corny movie in its own right that was masked by its own appealing style/novelty/mystique..... the latter two films were awful and sort of took that gloss/hype/surrounding atmosphere away, allowing everyone to see the franchise and that first movie for what it really was.

I hated The Matrix. It was being hyped up so much that I impulsively bought it when it came out on DVD, figuring that that was a safe purchase because so many people couldn't be wrong. I watched it once and then gave it away to a friend. I couldn't and still can't understand the appeal. I've never seen the sequels and don't plan to see them. The Matrix ruined The Matrix for me.

 

[Caeldan]

While yes, there are plenty of bad sequels... I do agree that some can ruin an original but that list isn't nearly as long as people are making it to be.

The Matrix sequels though absolutely do ruin the first movie, because when it first came out it created an entire mythology that people were investing into. Then the sequels came out and basically explained every 'mystery' in a very bland fashion and all of the mystique of the first movie was removed and replaced with 'that's it?'

That's the type of sequel that can ruin an original. Where they take what is special about it and just make it ordinary.

 

[HanSolo]

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.

Agreed.

 

[HanSolo]

Star Wars Episodes II & III were ruined by:

Hayden Christensen acting & dialogue +
Jar Jar

+CGI that aged like milk and the overuse of blue/green screen does not allow the actors to deliver naturally grounded performances. Contrast any clearly obviously CG'd prequel scene with the scene in Episode 7 where Rey steps out into nature on a new planet for the next time. Taking in the breeze by a lake and smelling her surroundings. That feels real. Little felt real in E2 and E3

+Horrendous writing. Even the best Star Wars movies have some questionable writing in parts, but leaving the dialogue up to Lucas hurt the films. Terrific actors were bogged down by really bad scripts. And that's just the dialogue. The plot, built upon a compelling concept, was messy. Particularly episode 3. Which, I've argued time and time again that Episode 1 should never have existed, and if it had it should've been a brief intro to episode 2. But rather that the events by which the Sith rose to prominence again, and Anakin came into his jedi training could've been handled by no more than 6-8 minutes of exposition. And that episode 3 should have been split into two parts with the first part being the clone wars and Anakin's initial fall to the dark side. The second part being the unraveling of the Jedi and Anakin's descent into Darth Vader

 

[Tkachuk4MVP]

Matrix 3 ruins Matrix 2. Matrix 2 isn't a bad movie, but it gets lumped in with the third one because they were made together. Obviously no where near the first, but 2 gets **** on a lot pretty unfairly.

I hear this a lot, and the gap in Rotten Tomatoes percentages somewhat confirms it, but I've never understood the opinion that Matrix 2 was that much better than 3. They were pretty much the same bad movie.

 

[Roo Returns]

I don't know if it's been talked about before but the Iron Eagle sequels definitely hurt the original. The first one was a fun yet campy feel good poor man's Top Gun (although it was released before Top Gun) that was memorable as Louis Gossett Jr. was on a real hot streak then. The second killed off the main character in the first scene and his replacement was unlikeable, and the third became and action movie, and fourth retconned the main character as being alive.

First one should have been remembered as a fun 80s flick but the sequels prevented that.

 

[polepoplarpope]

I'm concerned with Bad Santa 2 and Trainspotting 2.

 

[Neely2005]

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.

I feel the same way.

 

[chicagoskycam]

I agree, no sequel ever ruined the original for me. There are many movies I still like as originals and just disregard the II.

Matrix - the 1st can stand on it's own without the sequels unearthing every mystery. I liked parts of II. The first one was much well known for effect IMO than some great story. Also the fight scenes were very well done. It also kicked off right around when DVD players were catching on and affordable, it's one of the 1st DVD's I owned.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Any Terminator film after T2

Terminator 3 was bad, I never saw Terminator Salvation and Terminator Genisys is maybe the worst movie ever but Terminator and T2 are still classic films.

 

[Eisen]

It wasn't a terrible movie, and I have come to appreciate it a lot more in the last 15 years. The movie gets a bad rap for killing off two major characters from the sequel, and having an atrocious development cycle and bogged down a lot of the plans for the movie.

If you watch it without the hate people lay on it, you will find that it is an incredibly deep movie with a lot going on.

Honestly, I thought, even then, that it was my favorite. I didn't care about Hicks and Newt anyway. Aliens, since part1, was only Ripley to me and all the other characters just devices to move her along.

 

[Brodeur]

Ocean's Twelve was on last night and I couldn't help but hatewatch for the last 30 minutes. Plot holes aside, I felt like it diminishes the pay off from the first movie.

The Night Fox was an interesting character but he got turned into a total jabroni in Ocean's Thirteen.

 

[GarbageGoal]

What?

I thought Civil War was just as good as Winter Solider.

I just watched Civil War again last night. Winter Soldier was better, and Civil War was basically an Avengers movie. Granted, a good Avengers movie....better than Age of Ultron, but certainly not the more low key spy thriller vibe Winter Soldier had.

 

[GarbageGoal]

The Matrix should have been a standalone movie, but if I'm to understand it was meant as a trilogy the whole time (obviously if the first one was successful). THAT can ruin an original. Most films are meant as standalones until Hollywood sees the cash cow and invents artistic license to make more of something, and it's hard for me to punish an original first film for that.

 

[Emperoreddy]

Ok I actually do think the prequels have hurt the OT Star Wars because bits of their **** of leaked into the original movies thanks to the constant special edition updates.

 

[MetalheadPenguinsFan]

Home Alone 3

 

[frisco]

2010: The Year We Make Contact

My Best-Carey