Sequels so bad they ruin the original

[Zoloft]

The Matrix is my biggest example of this. After the second film, I withheld judgement until the third one came out. But that one was SO bad, it reached back into the past and totally gutted not only its predecessor, but the original as well. The Matrix used to be on my top ten movie list, and I can't even watch it any more.

Men in Black II also falls into this category for me, although I don't know why as they are essentially the exact same movie.

Any more examples of movies or literary works you no longer like because of their sequels?

 

[MyCylon]

Hmm, I honestly can't think of one. Generally speaking, if I enjoyed a movie I will simply ignore the sequels if I don't like them.

 

[Zoloft]

I think what makes the difference is when it is the actual author of the original ruining his own characters or settings in the sequel.

 

[bigdaddy]

Hmm, I honestly can't think of one. Generally speaking, if I enjoyed a movie I will simply ignore the sequels if I don't like them.

Me too.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Best example: George Lucas actually going back and changing elements of the OT to conform to his vision for the PT, namely the event involving Greedo and Han with which we are all sadly familiar.

But other than something egregious like that, movies cannot make other movies any worse than they originally were.

 

[Zoloft]

Hmm, I honestly can't think of one. Generally speaking, if I enjoyed a movie I will simply ignore the sequels if I don't like them.

Me too.

But you can't unwatch them.

 

[Shazam!]

Alien3 kinda undermined Aliens but I still liked it.

 

[Too Much Fun]

Men in Black II also falls into this category for me, although I don't know why as they are essentially the exact same movie.

I disagree. I love "Men In Black". Part of why the second one was inferior is because there were many fundamental changes, like the dynamic between Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones being lost because Jones is living as a postal worker for much of it, unlike in the first one where he is a mentor to Smith and they have an entertaining rapport as partners with the cocky young hotshot and the deadpan, perpetually irritated, no-nonsense, cooly efficient veteran, with a hidden sentimentality that his partner draws out.

Also, Linda Fiorentino was a much more interesting love interest than Rosario Dawson (which just goes to show how bad the writing was, as Dawson is generally a much more charismatic actress), and while Vincent D'Onofrio made a splendid villain with his bizarrely effective combination of goofy and sinister, Laura Flynn Boyle was completely forgettable. All she had going for her was hotness. As a character, she was nothing.

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.

 

[Kegg]

The Matrix is my biggest example of this.

The first thing that came to mind when I saw the thread title. You know, I remember when the Matrix was popular. When there were a lot of people who really liked the movie. When people discussed it on these very boards, eagerly awaiting the two sequels (and people defending Reloaded when it came out.) I can count on one hand the amount of people I've seen defending the film in this day and age, though. I rewatched the final film last year for some reason, and it's actually much, much worse than I remembered.

Mostly, though, it only happens if the problems of the sequel make the problems of the earlier film more obvious - of the Star Wars trilogy it's easy to point to Jedi as the precursor of everything that went wrong in The Phantom Menace (right down to the multiple climaxes).

If a good movie is succeeded by a bad movie which has problems entirely unique to that film, this is less common.

Men in Black II also falls into this category for me, although I don't know why as they are essentially the exact same movie.

I kinda sorta liked this in theatres... don't ask me why. Well, it's got Tommy Lee Jones in it, anyway.

 

[WeAreTheBorg]

I know what you mean about Matrix. I still list it as a personal favourite because I am able to separate it from its sequels mentally, but when I consider the trilogy as a whole, the whole thing is brought down, including the original.

 

[Zoloft]

The first thing that came to mind when I saw the thread title. You know, I remember when the Matrix was popular. When there were a lot of people who really liked the movie. When people discussed it on these very boards, eagerly awaiting the two sequels (and people defending Reloaded when it came out.) I can count on one hand the amount of people I've seen defending the film in this day and age, though. I rewatched the final film last year for some reason, and it's actually much, much worse than I remembered.

Sorry, I cannot agree with your assessment that the first film was inherently flawed. Its wasn't, it was a great movie with great style, an interesting story, and a good ending. My distaste for it now is ENTIRELY based on what they did with the world in subsequent films. I simply cannot watch the first one without thinking of the rest, which is the only problem with the first movie today in my opinion.

 

[Kelthaz]

Hmm, I honestly can't think of one. Generally speaking, if I enjoyed a movie I will simply ignore the sequels if I don't like them.

Yeah, pretty much this. The only exception is if the three movies are a tightly connected trilogy such as The Lord of the Rings. My dislike of RotK hurts the first two films a bit.

 

[Kegg]

Sorry, I cannot agree with your assessment that the first film was inherently flawed.

It's easier to see the philosophical posturing being full of itself in the film in retrospect. Considering I haven't seen the movie since, oh, 2002, I don't actually know if I'd like it if I saw it again (admittedly though I was never a big fan.)

 

[The Boy Who Cried Worf]

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.

 

[MyCylon]

Hmm, I honestly can't think of one. Generally speaking, if I enjoyed a movie I will simply ignore the sequels if I don't like them.

Me too.

But you can't unwatch them.

True. But you don't need to watch them again. And some of them are kind enough to fade away in your mind - though not all of them, admittedly .

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

If "Beneath The Planet Of The Apes" didn't ruin "Planet Of The Apes" then such a thing is not possible.

 

[bigdaddy]

Hmm, I honestly can't think of one. Generally speaking, if I enjoyed a movie I will simply ignore the sequels if I don't like them.

Me too.

But you can't unwatch them.

YOU HAVE WATCHED IT! YOU CAN'T UNWATCH IT!

 

[Agent Richard07]

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

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

Robo-Cop 3

Scary Movie 2

Terminator 3

Alien 3

Scream 3 (okay, maybe it was just too convaluted)

Tyler Perry's Madea vs. Godzilla

Batman Forever

Saw 12

Alien Sex Files 8

The Battle Conquest to Escape Beneath the Planet of the Apes

Indiana Jones and the Last Geriatric Adventure

and of course...

Star Trek (the JJ Abrams one...ha-ha!)

 

[JediKnightButler]

Cocoon 2 is the first movie I think of when discussing sequels that should have NEVER even been green lighted. I would hesitate to say that Cocoon 2 *ruined* the first one though, try as I might to pretend like the sequel doesn't even exist, it is nearly impossible to completely ignore what happens in the sequel while re-watching the first movie. The first was perfect just the way that it was and was really a self-contained story that didn't leave anything important unresolved. The second ended up being mostly a retread of the first one except with the main characters coming back as part of the recovery effort- and then to add insult to injury, the directors went and unnecessarily killed off one of the main characters. Some directors/producers need to know better when to leave well enough alone. Just because a movie does well at the box office, it doesn't mean that a sequel is necessarily in order. Sometimes they need to learn to.just.stop.

I was looking forward to "Alien 3" after seeing Aliens but ended up being disappointed/let down by the events of "Alien 3". Once again, it didn't ruin the movie but it pretty much made the hard-fought struggle in Aliens for Ripley to save Bishop, Hicks, and Newt and get them away from LV426 seem pretty pointless. Once again, I pretty much try to pretend that no other Alien movies were made after "Aliens".