Sequels so bad they ruin the original
- Thread starter Zoloft
- Start date
Off the top of my head, I think of the Pirates of the Caribbean series, Blade, and The Matrix. Each of these I really enjoyed the first, but the sequels just went too far. Alien and Aliens I really like. 3 is okay, I think Alien Resurrection jumped the shark with the clone Ripley in the future. Jason X tainted the Friday the 13th series for me, and I really wish that Lucas would have just done 1 big prequel movie, taking 10 minutes introducing young Anakin, not half of Attack of the Clones, and a good bit of Revenge of the Sith.
Actually, the only sequels that I think excel and make a franchise are Godfather II, Empire Strikes Back, and maybe X-2. Lord of the Rings is one big thing to me. Most sequels and remakes get played I think, because they aren't often done with the genuine growth of the story at heart. Sequels are much more for the dollars and expectations.
Actually, the only sequels that I think excel and make a franchise are Godfather II, Empire Strikes Back, and maybe X-2. Lord of the Rings is one big thing to me. Most sequels and remakes get played I think, because they aren't often done with the genuine growth of the story at heart. Sequels are much more for the dollars and expectations.
I still enjoy the first Matrix. I think its a very clever and well directed movie. One of my favourites, still. The sequels had some good ideas, and I remember defending them at the time, but in hindsight, they really weren't executed that well.
I think the original Matrix worked mostly as a well made action film. With the whole premise simple setup for action sequences.
What it was not was a good setup for a franchise or series of films. With one dimensional characters and a vaguely defined mythology. The sequels just magnified the faults that the original had. As well as losing its strengths.
Action fans were disappointed because the sequels did not deliver on the simple thrills of the first. While genre fans started to question.... well everything else.
This was the ultimate case of over hyping. Everyone was excited to be on board for "The Next Big Thing". Projecting onto it whatever they hoped it would become.
What it was not was a good setup for a franchise or series of films. With one dimensional characters and a vaguely defined mythology. The sequels just magnified the faults that the original had. As well as losing its strengths.
Action fans were disappointed because the sequels did not deliver on the simple thrills of the first. While genre fans started to question.... well everything else.
This was the ultimate case of over hyping. Everyone was excited to be on board for "The Next Big Thing". Projecting onto it whatever they hoped it would become.
I think the best way to explain it comes from the commentary track on "The Wrath of Khan" DVD of all places, or was it "The Undiscovered Country"? Well, regardless, it's on one of those commentary tracks.
The speaker is saying that if you view a piece of art you not only bring all of your previous experience to the viewing, but the viewing also influences all your previous experience. So, whenever you view some piece of art, not only do your already-held beliefs and experiences influence how you feel about it, the act of viewing it itself ends of changing how you feel about all those past experiences.
He says that for him, the episodes of TOS were fairly lackluster and one-dimensional. However, after seeing some of the great performances offered in the movies, he came to have a deeper appreciation for the episodes, because he knows how those characters would end up at a later date.
I think that works both ways. A new viewing can either deepen your appreciation for something you already saw, or it can damage it.
Some good examples are "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Matrix." "The Lord of Rings" only got better as it went on. So, "The Return of the King" makes "The Fellowship of the Ring" seem even better, because when we rewatch that first movie, we know how it will continue to improve. "The Matrix" got worse as it went along. So, "The Matrix Revolutions" makes "The Matrix" look worse because we know how shitty it will all end up.
God, I hope that makes sense, it's 4 A.M. and I need more caffinee.
For me personally, I think "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" comes close to falling into this category. However, I try hard to ignore it and only think about the first three movies. Another example would be what happened to the Batman franchise. "Batman Forever" was bad enough, but "Batman and Robin" almost killed the entire franchise for me. Thank God that Christopher Nolan came along and made "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight"!
First thought I had about this was Matrix. That is one kick-ass movie but I feel that the sequels detracted from it. I say this because part of the attraction of Matrix for me are the unknowns. It also seemed to be a contained piece of work. The sequels seemed to want to explain too much, in ways that didn't seem to gel for me, and those explainations seemed tacked on and they unbalanced the original. After having said that, the Alien sequels, some of which were better than others, didn't detracted any great deal from the original film for me, although they did to a small extent. (It's a bit like 24th century Trek, for me. The more of it they made, the less I liked it. All of it, including TNG, which I used to love.)
A
Amaris
Guest
It doesn't ruin the first, but "The Arrival II" is so bad I do hesitate when I pick up the first one to watch, since the sequel is on the other side. *blech*
Th two that came to mind for me were Jaws, everything from Jaws 2 on ruined the original. Likewise for all the sequels of Jurassic Park.
Fortunately I don't remember much about 3001 except it involved Frank Poole being back alive and those computers that plugged directly into your brain. Neither it nor 2061 seemed to have much to do with its predecessors though and it is a shame he went to that well too many times.
Never saw any of them past 2, but the way Richard Jeni describes it is sounds like part 4 is the best comedy ever made.
http://flimmr.passagen.se/movie/richard_jeni_jaws_4.action
I agree. The Wachowskis didn't seem to have enough ideas for a whole trilogy. The first film was great, but when they tried explaining everything and demystifying everything in the sequels, it just didn't work. A shame, because I remember the months leading up to the release of Reloaded, when the hype was at its peak, and the Matrix was still cool. I feel guilty about even liking the first one, because of the (low) quality of its successors. The Matrix should have been the next Star Wars, but alas. (Although so many films now use the 'bullet time' trick used in the Matrix)
Same way I feel about the Star Wars PT. It just demystified the originals too much. I like Boba Fett being this mysterious bounty hunter guy, not some 12 year old Maori boy!
And the prequels wrecked the mystery of Darth Vader and Yoda, too.The Matrix is a classic that not even the Matrix Reloaded and the Matrix Revolution can ruin.
Gods and Generals is pretty god-awful, but it doesn't make Gettysburg into a bad film.
The Arrival II is, I assume, as terrible as the fifteen minutes I saw to amuse myself when I rented the first film (which I rather like). I'm glad the Blu-Ray, which I intend to pick up at some point, only has the first film.
The Arrival II is, I assume, as terrible as the fifteen minutes I saw to amuse myself when I rented the first film (which I rather like). I'm glad the Blu-Ray, which I intend to pick up at some point, only has the first film.
Thing is I recall that being basically it. There were whole chunks IIRC that were ripped directly from earlier novels, and also some sillines I think about the purpose of the alien.
I also remember Poole's, ah, lady friend being freaked out because he's circumcised, and that's not done anymore because of the Pope who abandoned religion. Or something like that, it's, er, been a while.
In retrospect what the hell was Clarke on?
I remember watching all the Planet of the Apes movies one week. It was the most goddamn depressing week of my teenage years, which I guess isn't saying much.
It doesn't ruin the original for me though as that had a pretty tight script from Rod Sterling. You could feel the other films doing their half-hearted aping (I am a laugh riot) of that taut work.
The Matrix sequels, though, sort of expose the inherent shallowness of the earlier work - which I felt even when I first saw it, in fairness, it was pretty and had some innovative action scenes but that was sort of it for me.
Unfortunately, Admiral Shran, I can't relate, not completely anyway. The Matrix and Highlander are two of my favorite movies of all time, but their less than stellar sequels have had absolutely no effect whatsoever on how I feel about the first installments. I think the only time a sequel might bring down the original is if the sequel revealed that that the whole saga was just a dream or something similar that invalidates everything.
A sequel cannot retroactively change how you felt about a movie. It's like all those whiners that cry "such-and-such raped my childhood." You loved the original Star Wars trilogy and watched it a hundred times, and the prequel trilogy does not take that away from you. Movies stand on their own. You shouldn't have to have read the specially-made backstory comic book or watch the coinciding webisodes to understand it, and therefore an inferior sequel doesn't take anything away from that movie.
This.
Except it TWOK that started it and was lot of that was studio invovlment when Spock's death didn't go well with test audiences.
If Nicholas Meyer had has way there would of been no screen of the photon tube on the Genesis planet (in fact he refused to film it).
Similar threads
