Does a bad sequel or prequel harm the original?

In the past I have always been in favor of any and all sequels/prequels getting made. My thought was always, if it sucks I can just ignore it. Caddyshack 2 doesn't ruin my enjoyment of the original Caddyshack in the least.

Then I got to thinking about Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. I asked myself, does the fact that Spock comes back somehow diminish the impact of his sacrifice? I must admit it does.

Fast-forward to The Avengers. I enjoyed it so much, I immediately began to compare it to other movies I consider as my favorites of all time. I was ready to welcome a new one into the fold. But something was missing, but what? My list seemed odd.

Star Wars!

Why was it no longer anywhere in my list?!

I remember a time when almost anyone you talked to would obviously have Star Wars as their favorite movie. Whenever the question of favorite or best movie would be asked, it was as if Star Wars was a given, and any list was just whatever came after that.

I don't know too many people that still feel that way. What happened? Did the prequels and George Lucas edits somehow diminish the originals?

I didn't think it possible, but it would seem that is exactly what happened.

I used to think maybe I just got older, and the same kind of film making no longer appeals to me like it did. Movies like The Avengers and Harry Potter prove that even though I am older, I can still appreciate what some consider a kids movie, if it is a good movie. I think I just have to say George Lucas just made some really bad movies that has damaged his original work.

Maybe I don't want to see Ghostbusters 3 after all. A reboot would be easier to ignore. That is kinda what Caddyshack 2 was anyway.

They are just movies.

Quit over thinking it all.

Alien 3 absolutely destroys Aliens. I have to pretend it doesn't exist. I imagine a better future for Hicks and Newt than the crap that was 3.

Superman three and four. Gads.

There are a lot more, but I will stop. I named the ones that bother me the most.

micdavis said:

They are just movies.

Quit over thinking it all.

Click to expand...

I can't maintain that level of cognitive dissonance. When I watch Wrath of Khan, I know Spock isn't really making the ultimate sacrifice. When I see the beginning of A New Hope, I am just not as impressed with Darth Vader as I used to be after hearing "Nooooo!"

I'm still in favor of sequels/prequels and reboots. Some of the best movies out there are sequels and reboots like the Maltese Falcon and Terminator 2.
I just have to acknowledge they can have more impact on the originals than I previously gave them credit for. Caution! Tread lightly!

rodneyfaile said:

I can't maintain that level of cognitive dissonance.

Click to expand...

It's easier when senility starts to set in.

The crappy prequels and endless revisions to the Star Wars films has not affected my love for the originals in the slightest. In fact it makes me appreciate them even more. Same goes for other film series. I can focus on what I like and ignore the rest.

For me, the answer is no. Jaws is one of my all time favorite movies; the fact that Jaws 2, 3, and 4 were rubbish doesn't diminish that. The Star Wars Prequel Trilogy was disappointing, but it didn't affect my love of the Original Trilogy. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was a horrid prequel, but I still love Raiders of the Lost Ark. And so on; I'm sure you understand the point I'm trying to make here.

With regards to...

rodneyfaile said:

I think I just have to say George Lucas just made some really bad movies that has damaged his original work.

Click to expand...

...obviously I don't feel that way. The Not-So-Special-Editions of the Original Trilogy movies, on the other hand, are an entirely different matter. Lucas' tinkering, particularly with Star Wars (Episode IV, A New Hope, whatever you want to call it) has indeed damaged his original work. His added and re-edited scenes have ruined the pacing of the original versions of the Original Trilogy movies and, for me, made them far less enjoyable to watch.

No. A good film stands individually. If the sequels are good (Aliens), fine, if not (The Sting II), ignore them.

I don't think so, Alien was great, Aliens was fantastic, Alien 3 was pretty poor but it doesn't take anything away from the first 2, just like the Prequels don't ruin the Original Star Wars trilogy, if you choose you can simply not watch them.

I'll vote 'yes'. When I used to think about Indy - the trilogy of films - there was always an almost magical power that those films had. It was an unnassailable kingdom of perfect entertainment, perfect character. Once KotCS hit (and I'm not a hater by any stretch, I think there was stuff to like about that movie) and was substantially...less than the three which preceeded it, and I thought about the Indy movies, they were no longer flawless and awe-inspiring as a whole, and I don't get that same giddy response as we fade in on the Paramount logo. I still enjoy the movies, but something has been lost.

In short?

It can.

Depends on who you are!

Star Trek V does not make me dislike Star Trek II.

Insurrection does not make me hate First Contact.

Star Trek '09 does not make me never want to watch Star Trek again.

Similarly AvP and AvPR does not make me never want to watch Alien or Predator again. Sure I can get up in arms that both franchises were thrown in the toilet by those two films, however that certainly does not make me want to throw away my copy of the first 3 Alien films (yes I said "3". I like Alien3). Nor does it make me dislike the Predator films (that franchise redeemed itself slightly with "Predators"; perhaps "Prometheus" will put the Alien series back on track as well).


Getting back to Star Trek II- I can see where you are coming from as it seems like a copout to bring Spock back in the third film. Honestly I'm glad they did. While Nimoy's performance in Star Trek II was fantastic, his work in The Motion Picture was forgettable. I would not have liked that to be his only "other" Trek film.

Spock dying and being brought back was not the first time a main character "cheated" death- Nomad restored Scotty after it killed him. And Chekov was shot to death in Spectre of the Gun, only to magically be okay at the end without much explanation.

Actually I'm trying to think of an occasion (at least in Trek) in which a main character died and "stayed" dead. Sarek was the first one I believe.

I think the only "death" I could really relate to this topic would be Kirk's death in "Generations." Frankly he had become too old for the role and it was fitting for him to go saving the day one last time (a cheesy ripoff of Spock's death mind you... but at least he stayed dead. :lol). I don't think I would have been too impressed if they filmed Shatners book "The Return" and brought back Captain Kirk. :rolleyes

Anyway I think I've rambled enough. :lol


EDIT- Man I just read that after "Generations" Shatner pitched the idea to Paramount of Kirk being brought back to life by the Borg for the next Trek film. Am I ever glad they didn't!


Kevin

Sometimes a sequel can be okay. I think it's when they start pumping out two or more poorly-plotted (in other words, it feels like they were just trying to make something up on the spot so they could revisit the characters/setting of the original) sequels that it can turn loving a movie into loathing it. I love Disney movies, but so many of their sequels are poorly-done, in my opinion anyways.

Alien 3 was a disappointment to me....
Superman 3 & 4 were painful.

But nothing has ever sucked as badly as Highlander II.

When ever anyone mentions bad sequels to me, I think JAWS!! :lol
For me, the first one was an absolute masterpeice! but the sequels were poor, especially number 4 which IMO was horrifically poor in every way!

I love the original Jaws! to me the sequels do cast a bit of a shadow over it, but I dont really love it any less

outlander said:

Alien 3 was a disappointment to me....

Click to expand...

I can't remember where but I read an article with Fincher.

He explained his take on A3 and it totally changed the movie for me.

I didn't care for it all when released, but now I enjoy it.

@micdavis,

Do you happen to remember where you saw that article? I'd be curious to see it.


Re: the general question,

For me, yeah, a bad sequel/prequel can absolutely diminish my enjoyment of the original. I have no idea why this is, and I really wish it weren't the case. But...it is. I mean, I can usually still enjoy the original, but I can't "unsee" the lousy later entry, usually.

That effect, however, can be minimized if the sequel/prequel is less connected to the central story of the originals. For example, someone mentioned Jaws and the lousy sequels. Jaws, to me, stands on its own just fine. There are no open questions at the end, no lingering "but what happened next?" feeling. The shark dies (oh, sorry, spoiler alert...), and that's that. For me, that makes it easier to ignore the sequels.

By contrast, the Matrix sequels heavily hurt my enjoyment of the originals. Why? Because I still had that "What happened next?" sense after the first one, and the sequels were just a real disappointment or "meh" at best.

Some of it, I think, also has to do with my enjoyment of the original and how I connect to it. I like Jaws. I don't LOVE Jaws. I like Highlander, but I don't LOVE it. Thus, for me, the crappy later entries are easier to ignore. But I LOVE Alien and Aliens, and Alien3 (and resurrection) just didn't do it for me. I pretend they don't exist. I've seen A3 once. Literally. Saw it in the theater, don't recall ever watching it again. Resurrection I've seen a couple times, but more to try to "make" myself like it. It didn't work.

And then there's Star Wars. The original films are in a category unto themselves, and my experience with those films is markedly different from almost any other film franchise. For me, I could ignore the prequels. Really, I could. But I can't ignore the constant tinkering, not least because Lucas won't LET me ignore it by giving me some archival version of the originals adapted for modern viewing conditions (IE: not the "official ebay rips" from 2006). THAT has almost killed my love of those films. I still enjoy them, but they're about this close to being "just" movies for me, when they originally were much more. I suppose part of me holds out hope that Lucas' business instinct will override his artistic instinct and he'll finally release a cleaned-up ORIGINAL version of the films.


Anyway, I suppose folks' mileage may vary. I do honestly envy people's ability to still fully enjoy the original even after seeing a lousy sequel/prequel. It's my inability to do so that has kept me from watching the fourth Indy film. I don't feel like I'm missing much, but I am curious. Although, I know that once I watch it, I'll never be able to "unsee" it, so it's easier for me to just pretend it doesn't exist and retain my enjoyment of the first three.

Do lousy remakes, which have no continuity with the original film, ruin your enjoyment of a movie in the same way a lousy sequel would?

A lot of people get really upset over bad remakes.

After playing Mass Effect 3, I can safely say that yes, a sequel can ruin the original.