One thing that a lot of fans do that annoys me is that whenever a sequel or adaptation of a work they love is made, if they don't like it they'll declare that it ruins the work it's based on. It's even more annoying when they declare that before it's even made("They're going to ruin it!!!!!"), as though there's no possibility that it's going to be good. Even if it does suck, I see no reason why it tarnishes the work it's based on. Does a bad book adaptation make the book worse? Just go back to reading the book and forget about the crappy movie.
Something a lot of fans do that bugs me
- Thread starter TalkieToaster
- Start date
Yes.
And?
And?
I can already tell that the YouTube adaptation of this thread is gonna suck and ruin the whole series of threads like this. 
One reason people might get upset about it is because a bad adaptation can often (but not always) hamper the chances of a new, better adaptation being made within the decade. For instance, fans upset about the adaptation of Starship Troopers because it satirized the fascist wet dream of the novel. It doesn't actually take away from the source material obviously, but they were excited to see to an adaptation that was true(r) to the novel rather than one that mocked it, and it and its series of terrible sequels have apparently put that on the back burner for the better part of two decades now. The "ruined it" talk is generally just typical fanon hyperbole and hysterics.
One reason people might get upset about it is because a bad adaptation can often (but not always) hamper the chances of a new, better adaptation being made within the decade. For instance, fans upset about the adaptation of Starship Troopers because it satirized the fascist wet dream of the novel. It doesn't actually take away from the source material obviously, but they were excited to see to an adaptation that was true(r) to the novel rather than one that mocked it, and it and its series of terrible sequels have apparently put that on the back burner for the better part of two decades now. The "ruined it" talk is generally just typical fanon hyperbole and hysterics.
Fans can sometimes go overboard, but to be fair, the Star Wars prequels turned the force from a zen thing into bacteria in your blood.
I do think that if a company tries to remake or make a sequel to something considered classic which is a big part of a lot of people's childhood memories, they are agreeing to be judged by the standards of the original. So yeah, fans can be unfair, but also, the writers knew exactly what they were doing and thought the free millions of dollars were worth the fan outrage. They could have gone with an original idea, not pissed off any fans and made a lot less money. They chose the money. Hell, I'd take 300 million dollars to be yelled at by a bunch of offended fans. That's a damn good deal. I shed no tears.
I do think that if a company tries to remake or make a sequel to something considered classic which is a big part of a lot of people's childhood memories, they are agreeing to be judged by the standards of the original. So yeah, fans can be unfair, but also, the writers knew exactly what they were doing and thought the free millions of dollars were worth the fan outrage. They could have gone with an original idea, not pissed off any fans and made a lot less money. They chose the money. Hell, I'd take 300 million dollars to be yelled at by a bunch of offended fans. That's a damn good deal. I shed no tears.
Fans are weird
True, but my point was that even if the sequel sucks compared to the original, there's no reason to be mad about the fact that it exists, as though that somehow ruins the original.
You make an interesting point and one that is often valid. However, I think there is some precedent where sequels did, in essence, ruin the original.
Alien3 is possibly the most glaring example of this. It basically took what everyone loved about Aliens (Ripley's heroic rescue of Newt and triumph of the Aliens) and gutted it by killing Newt and revealing that Ripley was, herself, infected. The sequel meant that everything Ripley accomplished in the second film meant absolutely nothing.
Another example could be the "Rocky" movies. The first film was a serious and Oscar winning film about a down on his luck loser who gets a big break, loses, but gets the girl. With each sequel the series got more and more cartoonish until people all but forget how good the original was.
I also think people sometimes get made about sequels, not because they ruined the original, but they effectively prevented better sequels (or at least foreclose potentially more satisfying story lines for sequels).
In this category, I think you could include Superman Returns. Singer had an opportunity to reboot the Donnerverse, keep the stuff that worked (the Williams score, the Reeve style of portraying Superman, etc.), jettison the junk (Lex as a real estate swindler) bring it into the 21st century and wipe the slate clean of Superman 3 and 4. Unfortunately, he was overly slavish to the junk and then he threw in a plot "twist" with implications that made the idea of sequels unpalatable (basically, the kid, the idea that Richard White was the actual good guy in all this, Superman abandoning the kid AGAIN, etc.). As a result, we had to wait years for yet another 'reboot' Superman movie...one that was, itself, flawed.
I think your point about a sequel preventing a better movie from being made is pretty valid.
However, to me it seems like bad sequels making people forget how good the original is actually pretty rare(one exception would probably be The Hangover). It seems to me like Rocky is still generally considered a classic despite the sequels(and it seems to me like the sequels are generally considered pretty good, except for Rocky V). Another example would be Jaws, which is still considered a classic despite the crappy sequels.
As for sequels that nullify something good from the previous film(like your Alien 3 example), I think the solution is simple: pretend it never happened. Just act like the crappy sequel doesn't count and that'll leave the happy ending from the previous movie intact. They are fiction, after all, there's no reason you have to act like they're all equally "real". Besides, don't forget that Aliens itself was a sequel. Imagine if it had never been made for fear of ruining the original, we'd be without one of the greatest sci-fi sequels ever.
I tend to agree with you that the best course of action is to try and pretend the bad sequel never happened.
Still, sometimes, it is hard to unsee that which has been seen. At some points, a bad sequel can be like the bad ending to a book or standalone movie. Sure, maybe everything that led up to it was great but that doesn't mean the crappy ending didn't bring the whole thing down.
Still, sometimes, it is hard to unsee that which has been seen. At some points, a bad sequel can be like the bad ending to a book or standalone movie. Sure, maybe everything that led up to it was great but that doesn't mean the crappy ending didn't bring the whole thing down.
If you want to take the Alien films as an example Alien and Aliens are generally held in high regard but they are totally different in style one is a suspesne film the other an action film. With Alien 3 they went back to more of the style of the first one but when you compare them Alein is the far superior film, they also alienated part of the audiance at the start by killing off Rebecca and Hicks when they was no need to, they could simply have been ejected into a different escape pod. And I won't mention how did the egg get onboard, I could by a face hugger coming up with the Queen at the end of Aliens. But Alien 3 had a bit of a Nightmarish development various script writters/directors etc.. Even Superman Returns was the eventual product of a development hell for a new Superman film. And their are countless other films/TV shows that go through development hell.
But in more general terms a sequel is compared against it's immediate predessor and/or the first film.
But in more general terms a sequel is compared against it's immediate predessor and/or the first film.
JAWS is a great example. Another might be PSYCHO.
People often seem to have the same odd attitude toward remakes as well, as though an inferior remake is somehow going to spoil the original.
Again, the bad remake of PSYCHO didn't hurt the original movie's reputation any . . ..
Indeed! I remember when the AVENGERS movie came out (Steed and Emma, I mean, not Cap and the Hulk). Diana Rigg didn't even appear in that movie, but pretty much every review raved about how great she was in the original TV series--and how poor Uma Thurman suffered by comparison!
Remakes and sequels also tend to mean that the original gets re-released in a spiffy new deluxe edition, or gets played again on cable, or the original novel gets a snazzy new tie-in edition, and the original cast gets spotlighted in "Where are they now?" type articles.
I think Terminator 3 is also a huge example of ruining prior installments.
If a series has a clean, satisfying ending that ties everything up, and a sequel would require undoing the things accomplished in the ending, you probably shouldn't make the sequel. Especially if you can't get the original writer and director to touch it. Or, make the sequel unrelated to the original action.
They could have put their apocalypse in an alternate universe like Abrams did for Star Trek and it wouldn't have ruined the ending of the second. What they did with Terminator 3 is kind of like if they made a Lord of the Rings sequel where it turned out the ring wasn't actually destroyed.
It is a good point that with examples like Psycho and Jaws, people barely remember that the sequels were even made. It's a little different for action and scifi franchises because they have a lot more different types of media surrounding them and people have more emotional attachment to the characters.
If a series has a clean, satisfying ending that ties everything up, and a sequel would require undoing the things accomplished in the ending, you probably shouldn't make the sequel. Especially if you can't get the original writer and director to touch it. Or, make the sequel unrelated to the original action.
They could have put their apocalypse in an alternate universe like Abrams did for Star Trek and it wouldn't have ruined the ending of the second. What they did with Terminator 3 is kind of like if they made a Lord of the Rings sequel where it turned out the ring wasn't actually destroyed.
It is a good point that with examples like Psycho and Jaws, people barely remember that the sequels were even made. It's a little different for action and scifi franchises because they have a lot more different types of media surrounding them and people have more emotional attachment to the characters.
A bad sequel, or a series of bad prequels, can certainly put a bad taste in one's mouth for a franchise as a whole.
Sure, I might still really like Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back, but, I don't like Star Wars as a franchise as much as I once did.
People are more emotionally attached to action and scifi characters? That's probably true around here, since this is a scifi board, but I'm not sure that's generally the case.
Heck, PBS ran a sequel to Pride and Prejudice just a few weeks ago . . . and, trust me, the world is full of Jane Austin fans who are as invested in those characters as some of us are in Batman or Sarah Connor!
Similar threads
