Social Question

filmfann's avatar

Do poor sequels make the original film worse?

Asked by filmfann (40194 points ) October 31st, 2012

I watched an interview with Quentin Tarantino, who remarked that The Matrix used to be his favorite movie, but that the sequels were so bad, he lowered his opinion of the original film.
I often tell people how good the original Rocky and First Blood movies were, because the follow-ups were so bad people forget.
Inversely, The Road Warrior made the movie Mad Max much more watchable.
Do you allow badly made sequels to effect your taste on the original films?
What movies does this bring to mind?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

15 Answers

Seek's avatar

I generally avoid sequels. At the very least, I wait until I can rent the DVD from the library instead of actually spending money on it.

The exceptions to my “no sequels” rule include a continuing story (The Lord of the Rings) or some mindless action movie you watch more for the swordplay and the nudity than any actual “story” that might be involved. Conan, for example. Also, something that’s ironically bad (The Evil Dead and Army of Darkness) gets a pass.

I agree with the Matrix assessment. They should have stopped after the first. There was no reason to keep it going, from a storytelling standpoint.

El_Cadejo's avatar

I still love Star Wars…..

I agree with the Matrix however. I did lose a bit of respect for those movies due to 2&3, Now whenever I watch the first one I just need to pretend the other two never happened, kinda like what I do with ep1–3 :P

cookieman's avatar

No, because I can choose to ignore the sequels.

For example, in my mind, there were only two Christopher Reeve Superman movies.

elbanditoroso's avatar

No – they don’t make the original film worse; it generally stands on its own.

It makes the director and scriptwriter of the sequel look like an idiot, however. Almost all sequels are NOT done for artistic reasons; they are done out of greed. And it shows.

marinelife's avatar

The originals films stand on their own.

Nullo's avatar

An interesting question, in light of the announcement of more Star Wars movies.

I think that each film stands on its own merit.

ucme's avatar

No, not in the least, Quentin was either drunk or caught in a sea of pretentious froth when he came out with that nonsense.

RareDenver's avatar

Had this discussion with a friend recently on remakes. In my opinion a bad remake or sequel doesn’t detract from the original. Unless of course someone fucks with the original. Looking at you George Lucas (Greedo shot first indeed). My mate completely disagreed and is horrified that they are doing a remake of The Evil Dead and is concerned that it will ruin the original.

Seek's avatar

But… Evil Dead II is a remake of Evil Dead.

So complaint fail.

Symbeline's avatar

To me it makes me appreciate the original a lot more, if it’s much better than the sequels. For example, I love the first Wrong Turn movie. Granted, it’s one of those one time movies where it’s only scary once, because it isn’t scary after you already know what’s going to happen…but when I first saw it, it got me on the edge of my seat. Tension, atmosphere…it did the trick, for me anyways. I still enjoy it of course, only the effect of tension and fear is gone…so imagine, I could relive that four more times with all the sequels this has, which I’ve all seen. But they all SUCK.

Two and three are direct sequels, and they seem more like comedy than anything else, number four is a prequel and five is a sequel to that prequel…now, because they’re general slasher movies, I can understand and forgive that what I felt in the first is absent here, but they made the killers into goofs, the scenarios are completely ass and there isn’t any cool or freaky imagery like in the first. So, they all just make me want to watch the first movie all the time haha. As long as they keep popping out these movies I’ll watch them…but if they ever get rid of the old yellow tow truck, I’m DONE man lol.

So while I don’t think poor sequels make an original better or worse, it often makes me appreciate the original work a little bit more.

Luiveton's avatar

This makes me think of how Taken was so much better than Taken 2. It’s like, we liked it when the daughter was kidnapped, but when the director decides they’re bored and want to kidnap the wife and the father the next movie it’s just annoying.

This probably has nothing to do with anything on here or anywhere in the universe, but does anyone else find Mel Gibson handsome or is it just me??

Seek's avatar

^ He was in Max Max and Gallipoli. Not so much after JewGate.

ucme's avatar

I think Gibson’s a massive cock ;¬}

filmfann's avatar

Gibson is a terrific filmmaker, even if he spouts that nonsense when he is drinking.
He was in an okay movie earlier this year: Get The Gringo, which is kind of a sequel to Payback.

Luiveton's avatar

I think Braveheart’s probably one of the best movies he’s ever made. And he used to look even more attractive back then.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther