One of my favorite Outer Limits episodes ("Tribunal") had some rather revolting sequels pinned to it.
Ruined by sequels?
- Thread starter suarezguy
- Start date
One of my favorite Outer Limits episodes ("Tribunal") had some rather revolting sequels pinned to it.
A sequel being bad doesn't ruin the original, but a sequel can undo the ending of the original or change the fate of the characters and that can ruin the original.
Like, Terminator 3 reverses the ending of 2 to justify itself.
The characters' final fate in a movie is a big part of the story, and if you take away that fate you're changing the original story.
Like, Terminator 3 reverses the ending of 2 to justify itself.
The characters' final fate in a movie is a big part of the story, and if you take away that fate you're changing the original story.
But the question is: Did it interfere with your subsequent enjoyment of Aliens?
I don't think a sequel can really ruin a good movie. I still like The Howling and Halloween, despite the umpteen bad sequels.
An even better example: Does anyone really think that the original JAWS was "ruined" by JAWS: THE REVENGE?
The opposite happens more frequently for me. Despite it being his most popular work, Gremlins is not my favorite Joe Dante movie, but the sequel being such inspired lunacy that does riff on the original quite a bit makes me like it more than I probably otherwise would.
Similarly, the live action Addams Family movie has a great cast but a so-so script. Addams Family Values on the other hand is one of my favorite comedies of its era, and enhances my view of the original by its connection to it.
Similarly, the live action Addams Family movie has a great cast but a so-so script. Addams Family Values on the other hand is one of my favorite comedies of its era, and enhances my view of the original by its connection to it.
Am I the only person who liked that they destroyed the world at the end of T3? It was genuinely unexpected, and stopped the whole thing being just another T2.
Although maybe I'm a little more lenient, considering I'd also coped with how T2 completely undid the ending of the original (which I grew up with, whereas I saw T2 later), and it 'overwrote' the predestination paradox that the original ran on. That, and it still kept some of the 'no fate...' stuff by having the TX succeed in killing some of of John's future allies - it's just in that case, being able to change the future wasn't a good thing for the protagonists.
Even Genisys couldn't retroactively ruin its predecessors for me.
Although maybe I'm a little more lenient, considering I'd also coped with how T2 completely undid the ending of the original (which I grew up with, whereas I saw T2 later), and it 'overwrote' the predestination paradox that the original ran on. That, and it still kept some of the 'no fate...' stuff by having the TX succeed in killing some of of John's future allies - it's just in that case, being able to change the future wasn't a good thing for the protagonists.
Even Genisys couldn't retroactively ruin its predecessors for me.
Last edited:
Absolutely. Addams Family Values is far and away better than the first movie.
There are also some examples of movies that make the original better. For example, Empire Strikes Back casts a new dimension on the original Star Wars.
I heard T3 was originally meant to have Sarah Connor but the actress turned down the script because it lacked humanity. It wasn't even written by the same writer as the first two, and it came out in a time when misanthropy was starting to be annoyingly fashionable.
I heard T3 was originally meant to have Sarah Connor but the actress turned down the script because it lacked humanity. It wasn't even written by the same writer as the first two, and it came out in a time when misanthropy was starting to be annoyingly fashionable.
But the question is: Did it interfere with your subsequent enjoyment of Aliens?
I don't think a sequel can really ruin a good movie. I still like The Howling and Halloween, despite the umpteen bad sequels.
An even better example: Does anyone really think that the original JAWS was "ruined" by JAWS: THE REVENGE?
Kind of, yes. The whole plot of the second film is driven by Ripley trying to save Newt. She's absolutely key to both the development of the plot and the character. They dumped on the second film to drive the plot of the third. And I get why they did it, and it worked because it meant that 3 wasn't just a remake of 2. However, it does taint the emotional gravity of the second knowing what happens in the third.
Perhaps not ruin it - it's still a corking film, but blunts that aspect a little.
That said, Aliens suffers on re-watching like most action films, as it is a little bit brainless. Aliens is much more re-watchable, and the third, bad as it is, does throw up some interesting ideas.
And as for Jaws <Michael Caine voice> No, no it bloody doesn't. Because 3-D already lowered your expectations </Michael Caine voice>.
The Fast & Furious series is one of the few that actually got better as the series continued. The decision by Justin Lin and Vin Diesel to transition from street race movies into heist/caper films really opened it up to a wider audience, and made them a lot more fun as well. Whether that momentum can continue without Paul Walker remains to be seen, but I loved the shit out of Fast & Furious, Fast Five, Fast & Furious 6, and Furious 7.
I think the original Jaws was ruined by its own second half. A shark hunting a boat for days on end at sea? Give me a break! It's a freaking fish! A shark breaking apart a wooden boat with its own snout? Give me a break! That's the most sensitive portion of its anatomy! The amusing social satire of the first half devolved into utter nonsense in the second. Rubbish, I say!
Time is also a factor. Mediocre or forgettable sequels tend to get, well, forgotten, while the originals are still watched and enjoyed by future generations.
Who really reads or remembers Tom Sawyer, Detective anymore?
And Hitchcock's PSYCHO is still regarded as a classic, while the sequels are gradually fading into obscurity.
Who really reads or remembers Tom Sawyer, Detective anymore?
And Hitchcock's PSYCHO is still regarded as a classic, while the sequels are gradually fading into obscurity.
I didn't even know that Psycho had sequels.
Bad sequels can affect my enjoyment of he original but not as much with old movies. Older movies were made as stand alone products so the sequels usually felt shoe horned in anyway. It depends on how big the sequel was I guess. Sequels that have a tenth the budget of the original and none of the original actors? Yeah those just get forgotten, but bad successful sequels are different.
Sequels that tarnished the originals for me.
Transformers - I liked the first one, but after sitting through 2 and 3 I never want to see a car turn into a robot ever again.
Hangover - The original feels tarnished by the awful sequels. I still like it, but not as much as I used too.
There's a super-duper Psycho bluray box set coming out here in December, and it selling point is that it has all the sequels (including the remake and the previous attempt at 'Bates Motel' from years back.) Most of them never had a commercial release in Australia, so the sellers seem to think there is a market that would pre-order it for $100 a pop.
I'm curious how that's going to turn out.
I'm curious how that's going to turn out.
For the record, I kinda like PSYCHO II and actually attended the world premiere of PSYCHO III years ago (hosted by Anthony Perkins himself). Never saw the later TV-movies, although I am enjoying BATES HOTEL.
But the fact remains that the various sequels and prequels have had little or no effect on the original film's reputation. The sequels are footnotes at this point.
(Just to confuse matters, Robert Bloch, who wrote the original novel the movie was based on, also wrote two or three sequels--which have nothing to do with the movie sequels!)
But the fact remains that the various sequels and prequels have had little or no effect on the original film's reputation. The sequels are footnotes at this point.
(Just to confuse matters, Robert Bloch, who wrote the original novel the movie was based on, also wrote two or three sequels--which have nothing to do with the movie sequels!)
I like them too. Just not enough to spend 100 bucks on them.
I have the second novel. If it hadn't been published prior to the second film, I'd swear it was a commentary on the rest of the franchise. It was probably just generally taking potshots at Hollywood, but it was weird to read an almost meta sequel to a fairly straight thriller. I think it even references Hitchcock's movie.
I have the second novel. If it hadn't been published prior to the second film, I'd swear it was a commentary on the rest of the franchise. It was probably just generally taking potshots at Hollywood, but it was weird to read an almost meta sequel to a fairly straight thriller. I think it even references Hitchcock's movie.
Yep. The only thing that can ruin Originals for me is over watching them. And even then a long enough break from watching can revive my interest in them.
The idea that, for example, crappy Terminator 5 could ruin my enjoyment of T1 & 2 is just ridiculous.
Similar threads
