Do sequels/prequels tarnish the original?

I'm posting this in sci-fi/fantasy because so many sequels and prequels are of that nature. I often hear people defend them by saying that they won't tarnish the original. However, I happened to read this article which says that the MGM is suing the producers of Raging Bull 2 in part by saying it will “irreparably tarnish the value of the Picture and MGM’s rights therein.” So, here's a Hollywood studio of all things pissed that a sequel will damage the original. That's kind of rich, isn't it?

 

It makes no sense to ask that question about the category as a whole. There are good and bad examples of any category. A good sequel or prequel can only enrich the original -- The Godfather Part II (as much prequel as sequel), Spider-Man II, The Dark Knight. It's only the bad sequels/prequels that feel like they do a disservice. It isn't categories that determine quality -- it's quality that determines quality. I'll never understand why that isn't obvious.

 

Well I think the OP meant Sequels/Prequels that are worse than the original, correct me if I'm wrong.
My short answer: No. As Aldiar said the franchise can be tarnished but every movie is it's own entity.

 

I tend to agree with all of your points.

However, I think the OP was saying that he/she posted it here merely because there are so many examples of it happening in genre fiction and not to imply it was category specific or category based.

I respectfully disagree. If, by tarnish, we mean damage the perception of the entity, then tarnishing the franchise can tarnish the individual entities in it.

Case in point (and one I've used before): A lot of people forget that the original Rocky was a nuanced, Oscar winning film that had more in common with independent cinema than most of Stallone's films. They forget that in part because the sequels have caricatured the concept to the point where many people think every Rocky movie was a cartoonish fantasy and don't even realize he lost the first fight.

And in terms of sci-fi films, there's a certain perception that Ridley Scott didn't want anyone to realize right away that Prometheus was tied to Alien precisely because every sequel after Cameron's tarnished people's perceptions of the concept as a whole and it would be too difficult to remind people that Scott's film was head and shoulders above shit like AvP.

 

Well, only the OP can correct you, but I don't see anything in that post that specifies bad sequels. In fact, it references a lawsuit about a sequel that hasn't even come out yet.

 

Of course, popular perceptions of a sequel or prequel affect the reputation of the original, and the mindset with which a new viewer approaches the viewing. Of course, memories of a sequel or prequel with blend with memories of the original and affect the viewing experience. The effects are not necessarily invariably negative. But other than that, the independence of a film as a work of art is purely an ideal, in the negative sense of impossible.

In practice, most sequels and prequels are inferior. Presumably this is because the original dramatizes the most important moment and therefore sequels and prequels are by definition of less import. Obviously there are a handful of superior sequels that call this argument into question. (But I sure wouldn't put X2 or DKR in that category.) In any event, that is a separate question.

Another way of putting it is, if you got off on Darth Vader being so bad ass, imagining Hayden Christensen beneath the mask has gotta be a bummer. But it's like not thinking of elephants when you're told not to think of elephants, you can't help it. And I say this as someone who thought Hayden Christensen was a fine Anakin Skywalker because I firmly believe that people don't turn evil from a surfeit of really cool badassery and outside pressures.

 

Only when they do it like in the new Outer Limits, when they'd do sequels to previous episodes but drastically edit entire plots and characters out of them in so doing.

 

This, except I'd modify the last sentence to add that I'm not convinced that such independence is even an ideal. Ideal for the creating artist (and his place in posterity), perhaps, but as an entity/artwork, it seems to me entirely appropriate that even a historical work is judged by its effect over its entire lifetime rather than simply its effect at time of creation.

Truly great masterpieces in any artform still manage to stand the test of time, even when the world is awash with cheap copies/replicas/"works inspired by"/etc. If the impact of the original is diminished by subsequent works, I'd suggest that perhaps the original isn't as wonderful as it was thought at the time. For instance, consider any of the masterpieces of classical sculpture: they still retain a power and presence despite zillions of cheap knock-offs for sale to put in your back garden.

 

I've never thought it was a matter of tarnishing or reputation, but more a matter of changing the perception of what happens in the original (which might include but isn't limited to reputation). Before Watchmen will change how many of us interpret Watchmen, whether we like it or not; James Bond is always potentially the total sum of all the films and books, not just the ones Fleming wrote. It's inevitable. I'm reading Byrne's run on Fantastic Four right now, and I'm aware that Ben Grimm became/was always Jewish even though Byrne writing the books did not "know/could not guess that. (And what stj said, really.)

 

Occasionally a sequel surpasses the original/prime installment in quality and popularity. Aliens, in my opinion, would fall into that category. It also seems that Terminator 2 is held in higher regard than the original Terminator. While Star Wars ANH will always be my all-time favorite movie, I've felt that ESB is a better, overall story.

Of course your mileage may vary.

 

To a point.

I mean, I watch Alien almost every year, and I'm not a big fan of some of its sequels (and continue to ignore the fact the Alien vs Predator films even exist). So on the one hand, these bad sequels are a bit of an issue, and on the other, I don't even think about any of the sequels - even Aliens - when watching the movie.

As to general tarnishing?

I only today learned that there was a Casablanca TV series. It's quite possible that a Raging Bull sequel would be consigned to the trashbin of forgetfulness as quickly as that was (and, say, The Day the Earth Stood Still's remake has already disappeared to).

 

I don't argue that there isn't a change of perception when it comes to the original, but never once has that led me to enjoy the original any less. I hate Alien:Resurrection with a passion, but when I watch Alien I love it as much as first time I saw it. Never was my enjoyment of an original work lessend by what came after it.

 

It depends on the viewer. Obviously the films themselves don't change, and each work stands on it's own. It's up to the viewer whether they can separate bad sequels from a great original in their mind.

Battle for the Planet of the Apes or the Tim Burton remake don't ruin the original Apes for me. I can separate them from the original, and I enjoy the other sequels on their own terms to varying degrees.

I agree that good sequels can elevate the original. I think the TOS films make me appreciate the series more. Seeing The classic characters age over the course of the films somehow made me feel closer to them, made them more real in my eyes, even when I go back and watch the show I get that feeling.

 

Yeah, I tend to think that a classic original can withstand even the most forgettable sequels/prequels/remakes.

Example: Alfred Hitchcock's PSYCHO remains a classic film, and eminently rewatchable, despite two theatrical sequels of varying quality, two obscure tv-movies, and a completely pointless remake. None of which tarnished the reputation of the original, or makes it any less enjoyable to watch.

Ditto for Darth Vader. He's still cool in the original movies, no matter what one thinks of the prequels.

 

Do sequels/prequels tarnish the original, I would say no. They can tarnish the film series but not an individual film.

A great film will always be a great film.

 

No.

 

While, a sequel or prequel can add to the story and universe of a movie, I don't think it can change the actual quality of the movie.

 

No, it doesn't change the quality itself. However a lot of what is quality is subjective. If a series drags the original down to where people stop perceiving the quality of the original then the series has arguably tarnished the quality of the original.

 

I don't think anyone said that sequels and prequels destroyed the remakes. And many of us even pointed out that sequels and prequels don't necessarlly worsen your viewing experience.

You didn't see Darth Vader the same way after seeing the whole original trilogy, nor do you see him the same way after seeing the prequel.

As for remakes, the same applies. Although, contra Kegg, after seeing the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still, the scene in the original where Carpenter praises humanity in the secular temple of Abraham Lincoln is painfully maudlin sentimentality. And the scene where we see the flying saucer is left unguarded at night is painfully naive. The score in the remake sensibly avoids trying to impossibly repeat the novelty of the theremin score for the original.

I'm sorry but if you think that seeing other versions or sequels and prequels doesn't change your thinking, either you're extraordinarily compartmentalized in you thinking, or on one level you're not engaged with the material the way most of us are. More detached? More immediate?