Sequels/prequels that retroactively ruined the originals

sup gaiz

The Star Wars prequels are sort of the classic case. They turned the force into a tangible thing and did a whole lot of other stuff that explained too much. + it was clear Anakin and Obi Wan were never really friends. + way too much other stuff, seriously.

The finale for How I Met Your Mother is the perfect example for TV.

Anything else?

2011's The Thing, which served as a prequel for the 1982 film of the same name, was on its own merits a fairly average attempt at recapturing the spirit of the original. However, knowing that it was originally supposed to be a straight remake rather than a prequel does have its problems when it comes to the ending of both films...

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Terminator Salvation did so much damage to the franchise and the story Cameron had created 30 years earlier

__________________
"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"

"I need your clothes, your boots and your motorcycle"

Iro got there first...


The Thing. When I watch it now though I watch it with the mindset that it's a remake. That way, it doesn't ruin Carpenter's film.


Terminator 3 was the one for me that ruined it all. Salvation was at least watchable.




Though not technically sequels of each other... Romero almost ruined his Dead Series with Diary Of The Dead.


The Karate Kid Part II and Part III and The Next Karate Kid were pretty dull. Just treat the first one as a stand alone film. In fact, I think I even said that in my review.


Gremlins 2 was way too child friendly after the first film was a pretty cool black comedy filled with snot and murder.

__________________

Critters 2, 3 and 4.


The first one was great. I even have it at 55th place in my Top 100. The sequels are complete gash.

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace with its horrible effects, laughable plot and pretty much everything murdered the franchise hideously leaving the series dead for decades.

Another superhero film like this is Batman and Robin. Luckily Nolan did a good necromancing job.

The finale was actually the best thing the last three seasons of that show had to offer.

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

Even though I know Highlander wasn't that good a movie to begin with, it's rather impressive how it spawned three sequels that all had their own continuity and all did varying levels of damage to the relatively well-defined premise and plot of the original.

Ok, this entire concept is impossible. A sequel cannot ruin something that came before it because you already watched and enjoyed the prequel. It's fine that there are terrible sequels (Gremils 2 is not one, it's an amazing film), but they can't actually affect the films that came before. Just freaking watch the first film(s) and pretend the sequels don't exist. I'm sorry, but Superman is still an amazing movie despite Superman IV. Terminators 1 and 2 are off the charts awesome. The Matrix is still great. This concept of retroactively ruining something is absurd.

Sheesh.

__________________

I LIKED THE STAR WARS PREQUELS!

Terminator Salvation didn't really damage the franchise; it was already damaged at that point.

It was Terminator 3 which undid the continuity established in the earlier films by making Judgment Day something predestined to happen all along (while in the previous films, it was something that could've been prevented by changing the past).

If it greatly changes the continuity then it can damage the earlier films (ex. Terminator 3 basically made much of Terminator 2's plot pointless, since in the end it was impossible to prevent Judgment Day anyway).

The Force being a tangible thing was already established in Return of the Jedi; when Luke revealed that Leia was his sister, he told her that she also had the potential to learn his powers - so this meant it was something inherited genetically.

Agreed. Well, I don't think much of any of the Matrix movies but I do agree that sequels can't alter or worsen their predecessors. I don't have any problem putting movies like PMMM part 3, Terminator 3, Superman 3 and 4, Batman and Robin and the like in the "pretend they never happened and never watch them again" category. If anything, a sequel I dislike to hate makes the originals seem even better by comparison.

__________________
You will find that if you look for the light, you can often find it. But if you look for the dark, that is all you will ever see.
Iroh

Saw.

To be honest Saw did a decent job of maintaining a somewhat believable continuity, at least compared to most horror flicks (which just involve the killer somehow surviving of coming back to life a million times - and then coming back to life again even after "the final chapter").

You've got a point regarding continuity, but that's not really where my concern lies. Moreso the gap in quality between the first one and it's 27 sequels.

I think the original would be rated quite a bit higher if the Saw repuation hadn't been sullied by how **** the next ones would go on to be.

If they do an 8th one, I think they need to just reboot it at this point.

I've also wondered what they're going to do once they run out of trap ideas?

Mentioned it before, but Pirates of the Caribbean 2 is one of the worst.

It undid the happy ending of the first film - and by the end of the 3rd film Will gets screwed over and is cursed to only see his wife and child once every 10 years. And while I'm not really into "happily ever after" endings, it definitely fit a lighthearted adventure film like Pirates, and there wasn't any benefit plot-wise to having the 3rd film end the way it did.

It brought back the villain (Barbossa) from the first film, and ruined him by turning him into a likable character without any reason given for his 'change in heart'. They even had him be the one to marry Will and Elizabeth in the 3rd film - why would Will or Elizabeth want to be 'married off' by the guy who'd previously contemplated throwing her to his crew to be raped - just because he decides he's a "nice guy" all of a sudden?

It portrayed Jack as a much more cowardly character. He drags his crew all around the seas endangering their lives just to save his own ass, and he even contemplates abandoning them when the Pearl is attacked by the Kraken (though he changes his mind). In the first film he was a rougish character, but still honorable beneath his rough exterior.

It took minor, unremarkable characters (like Norrington) and tired to shoehorn them into major plot roles.

And most of all, it took a great film and ended up turning the series into a bunch of mediocre, GCI-laden cash grabs with Johnny Depp being the only entertaining part of the films.

Then don't freaking watch the sequels?!!?!?!???!?!?!?

Again, it's literally impossible for a sequel to retroactively damage a film that came before it because you already saw and enjoyed the previous film!

A bad sequel by the same filmmaker can make you question said filmmakers talent (The Matrix), but it can't damage the previous film. The previous film is still there and it's still the same film!

I don't think you're understanding what people are saying, which is that the very bad sequel makes it so they can't look at the original in the same way anymore, thus "ruining" it. If it's a continuous story, then the plot going off the rails into utter stupidity can ruin the appeal of the opening films. But you're right in that I think Matrix can be enjoyed as a solo film without bothering with the others, which I don't think were so stupid anyway.

The Star Wars prequels are the only ones that come to mind for me, but I try my very, very best to ignore they even exist. And I haven't rewatched any since their theatrical release. And I refuse to acknowledge the Episode IV, V, and VI titling.

__________________
I may go back to hating you. It was more fun.

Oh I understand just fine and, no matter how you slice it, it doesn't hold up.

The Matrix Reloaded can't go back in time and make you not like The Matrix the first time you saw it and, if it colors your perception of The Matrix, then the problem lies with you and not with the film.

I can watch the original Star Wars trilogy and enjoy them just as much as I did when I was a kid watching my VHS copies over and over or I can watch the entire saga and accept that some of it works and some of it doesn't. Either way I still enjoy 4, 5, and 6 just as much as ever.

Bottom line, all films can be viewed in a vacuum, though the best are viewed in context that doesn't tarnish an entire series. Terminator 1 and 2, for example, are great as stand-alone films (you could probably get away with watching T2 without having seen the first film) and they are great as a back-to-back pair despite the fact that 2 lousy sequels exist. I don't have to watch T3 and I don't.