Sequels so bad they ruin the original

[The Borgified Corpse]

This kind of thing seems to happen more often with TV. Buffy was so bitchy & unlikable in the final season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, that it made me reexamine the entire series as to whether I ever actually liked her at all. I had a friend who was a big Alias fan but sold all her DVDs once the show ended because she didn't like how the finale left things with Sydney Bristow's mother.

On topic - I liked "Mortal Kombat" and "Charlie's Angels" well enough, but their sequels (which are two of the worst movies I've ever seen) were so bad that they made me never want to see anything even remotely related to them ever again.

Mortal Kombat: Annihilation pisses me off because they killed of Johnny Cage in the 1st 5 minutes! He was the best character in the entire first movie and they killed him!

The first thing that came to my mind was Highlander 2, but that is an example where it just might be best to ignore the sequel all together as it completely fucked the plot elements of the first.

Trying to reconcile Highlander 2 with any other aspect of the Highlander franchise, including the original movie, will make your brain explode! (I actually once came up with a unified field theory for the Highlander franchise. It was really lame and had something to do with time travel generating radiation that caused genetic mutations, which was supposed to explain why there were so many more immortals on the TV series than there were in the original movie. It still doesn't fit and I'm not even sure why I bothered trying.)

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"!

Indiana Jones & the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull tiptoes into that category for me. It doesn't really ruin the previous 3 movies but it does bring the average of the series way down.

As for the crappy Batman sequels, I think they have such a different look from the Tim Burton movies, that when combined with the cast changes, it's easy to think of Shumacher's efforts as almost an entirely different continuity, just like the later Nolan films.

 

[Amaris]

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.

I can honestly say the first 15 minutes of the film is the "best" part of the film. That, my friend, is no hyperbole.

 

[Admiral Shran]

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.

Well, to each their own.

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.

But Lucas DID rape my childhood!

As for the crappy Batman sequels, I think they have such a different look from the Tim Burton movies, that when combined with the cast changes, it's easy to think of Shumacher's efforts as almost an entirely different continuity, just like the later Nolan films.

Oh if only, if only. I can see how this would be easy to do, what with the cast changes and completely different atmosphere. However, there are references to the Burton movies in "Batman Forever" and Shumacher and the studio clearly intended them to be the same continuity. The scheduled fifth movie, "Batman Triumphant," would have had George Clooney as Batman and the Scarecrow as one of the villians. The Scarecrow was to planned to bring out Batman's worst fear, the return of the Joker. They even planned to use clips of Jack Nicholson as the Joker in flashbacks. The horror, the horror! Thank God "Batman and Robin" was such a bomb that they abandoned this idea and eventually rebooted the franchise.

 

[Harvey]

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.

I can honestly say the first 15 minutes of the film is the "best" part of the film. That, my friend, is no hyperbole.

Glad I turned it off while I was 'ahead.' I'm just shocked that at any point in the production of that film somebody thought it was a good idea. It's not as if the first film was highly-budget or anything, either. Invest in a half-decent script, and a sequel could have been very watchable. *Sigh*

 

[Saul]

I try not to let the sequel mess up how much I loved the original. Blues Brothers 2000 and Star Wars: TPM for example.

But I agree the Matrix sequels sorta spoiled my enjoyment of the first film a little. Maybe because it's a direct continuation, I see it as a whole.

 

[Turtletrekker]

The first thing that came to my mind was Highlander 2, but that is an example where it just might be best to ignore the sequel all together as it completely fucked the plot elements of the first.

Yup. AFAIC, the Highlander saga consists of only the first movie and, when I'm in a good mood, the third. The rest of the movies, both TV shows and the animated series just flat-out sucked IMHO.

 

[Turtletrekker]

I don't understand this mentality. I don't see how poor sequels can ruin one's opinion of the original.

It depends on whether or not the sequels are self-contained or if the build upon the larger story. I'm of the mind that a story can have a great set-up, begining and middle, but if the ending is unsatisfactory, then the whole thing might suck retroactively. This is actually how I feel about The Sopranos.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I saw this thread title and thought this idea for a topic was bullshit. Basically, how could a movie be so bad that you can't ignore it and it actually brings down other movies. Then I saw the Matrix sequels on this list. It didn't ruin the first movie, but it did bring it from a cool movie to watch to a guilty pleasure I have to defend. It certainly kills a lot of the enthusiasm I have for it.

These days, I notice that it's easier to make fun of. I'm not sure if the stupidity of the sequels were the reason or if it doesn't actually hold up well on reviewing, though, so I can't entirely blame the other movies.

 

[ring]

Matrix trilogy comes onto my mind...the original was fantastic and it went on giving expectation to people about all next two sequel which were in pipeline....second was good but the third one marred the whole package...to be on safer side original was still best if you exclude the other two...

 

[StarshipDefiant]

I saw this thread title and thought this idea for a topic was bullshit. Basically, how could a movie be so bad that you can't ignore it and it actually brings down other movies. Then I saw the Matrix sequels on this list. It didn't ruin the first movie, but it did bring it from a cool movie to watch to a guilty pleasure I have to defend. It certainly kills a lot of the enthusiasm I have for it.

These days, I notice that it's easier to make fun of. I'm not sure if the stupidity of the sequels were the reason or if it doesn't actually hold up well on reviewing, though, so I can't entirely blame the other movies.

Yeah, I don't know how one can think like this, although I've probably had similar thoughts on movies before.

With that said, while not really bringing down the original for me per se. I thought Universal Soldier: Regeneration sucked.

 

[T.Geiger]

Not to derail, but proper editing of otherwise poor movies can make them significantly better by removing unnecessary scenes and changing pacing.

I've recently watched edited versions of the Matrix sequels that makes them actually fairly decent (the "hacked" editions). Surprisingly enough, of the many changes made, the ones that altered the tone the most were just giving the two films happy/upbeat endings. You know, like the first one had.

I remember how utterly disappointed I was with the acting in Freddy vs Jason. True, horror movies are not known for oscar worthy performances, but these were atrociously bad. Even the late, late, late horror movies on at 3a are better. The "Antman" version of this movie removes a lot of this poor performance. It completely changes the tone to much more closely match the feel of the Nightmare on Elm Street series, and even re-titles it as movie 7 (with a great music track selection for the credits). I would never watch it any other way again.

On topic, I usually just refuse to acknowledge that the extra movies even exist. So I can't really think of a movie that destroys the previous ones for me. I'm tempted to say the Star Wars prequels, but the truth is that I was already getting burnt out on them by the time the first audio clip of Jar Jar hit the net. (I haven't seen E1, but I didn't find E2 or E3 to be awful, just thoroughly average). At this point, I really just don't care about the Imperial era anymore. I do still have a bit of interest in the Old Republic era though.

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

I don't see why the concept is so outrageous. You can watch one movie and say the first hour was great, but then the movie lost its way and they blew it on the ending. Your enjoyment of the first hour hasn't been taken away, but you're less likely to recommend the movie to your friends or rent/buy it on DVD because the ending sucked.

If you treat sequels as all part of the same story, it's pretty much the same concept.

 

[kipron]

The concept of someone resenting something that caused them to change their opinion of a film..that seems bizarre and childish to me.

That's like, resenting the knowledge that Santa isn't real. It shouldn't erase the excitement you felt as a kid.

When it comes to movies, I agree that watching a sucky sequel can highlight seams in the original. But it should also highlight the things that worked..indeed, one should be glad to get a new perspective on something they may have been praising a little too blindly.

 

[I am not Spock]

I saw this thread title and thought this idea for a topic was bullshit. Basically, how could a movie be so bad that you can't ignore it and it actually brings down other movies. Then I saw the Matrix sequels on this list. It didn't ruin the first movie, but it did bring it from a cool movie to watch to a guilty pleasure I have to defend. It certainly kills a lot of the enthusiasm I have for it.

These days, I notice that it's easier to make fun of. I'm not sure if the stupidity of the sequels were the reason or if it doesn't actually hold up well on reviewing, though, so I can't entirely blame the other movies.

I blame the sequels for wrecking the coolness factor we all had when the first came out. I remember when the Matrix was still cool. Now, when you mention the Matrix, you don't hear 'yeah, that film was awesome', you hear 'urgh, the sequels sucked'.

With the Star Wars prequels and the fourth Indy film, they were made a long time after the previous ones, so they're easier to distance away from the others if you don't care for them. But the Matrix sequels came out a few years after the first, and were advertised as a direct continuation, so they unfortunately, they turned people off the first (superior) film.

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

ROCKY 5 ruined cinema as we know it.

And that says a lot, because the previous entries weren't exactly masterpieces.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

ROCKY 5 ruined cinema as we know it.

And that says a lot, because the previous entries weren't exactly masterpieces.

That's an interesting example, because though Rocky V is a terrible movie, its follow-up, Rocky Balboa, is pretty good.

 

[Aragorn]

The love for Rocky IV is a joke since that was the most braindead, heartless film of the series. It was a 90-minute music video where Rocky takes enough direct punches to kill him 40 times over and then he ends the Cold War.

 

[Davros]

The Terminator sequels sucked pretty bad, but I do not let them tarnish the awesomeness that was the original.

 

[Too Much Fun]

Blasphemy! "Terminator 2" is a masterpiece and better than the first in every way possible (not that I don't like it too). "Rocky IV" is hilarious. Not intentionally, but better to be unintentionally funny than simply suck/be boring.

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

The love for Rocky IV is a joke since that was the most braindead, heartless film of the series. It was a 90-minute music video where Rocky takes enough direct punches to kill him 40 times over and then he ends the Cold War.

Those punches make Rocky braindead, as we learn in Rocky V.

"Adriaaan...I tink dat Drago's *DRAGO!* punches gave me drain bamage."

"No, you've always been that dumb. That's why Paulie likes you, you're the only person he's met stupider than him."

"Dat's it bitch, I'm killin' you off in da next moovie."