Movies that suffer due to the sequels and Prequels?

[LordofhouseEl]

Was having a discussion with a friend who was saying he wants a sequel to John Wick and I disagreed with him saying it would only destroy the allure and brilliance of the first film. With that in mind name sequels that brought down the quality of the first movie in the respective series.

Mine are.

1. Matrix (should have just left it as one movie)

2. Star Wars Prequels (I know I am not the only one who watches the OT and looks at Darth Vader differently).

This thread is meant to be fun and subjective please guys no fighting and arguing as I am on this positive thing for 2015.

 

[Octoberist]

I completely ignore the prequels so that doesn't bother me.

 

[O_B_Juan]

Jaws.

 

[Greens]

None.

 

[Gort Baringa]

Conan the Barbarian.

Destroyer should never have been made!

 

[Victarion]

Can someone explain the means by which one film affects another film in a way that damages the quality of said film?

 

[Schlosser85]

I'm with Victarion. I don't get why one movie should change another's quality. It doesn't change anything about the original or wipe it from existence.

If I don't like sequels or prequels, I just disregard them.

Like how I consider the Terminator and Alien series to both end with #2. The rest feel like bad fanfiction, so that's how I treat them.

 

[Sundancer]

Can someone explain the means by which one film affects another film in a way that damages the quality of said film?

I"m sure an argument can be made about Luke and Leia being brother and sister in RotJ after sharing an open mouth kiss in ESB.

We didn't think about this as kids, but if we had the Internet back then I'm sure people would be blasting that plot twist.

 

[jmc]

I think the argument by some is that a bad sequel/prequel can affect how they view previous films in the same series. It's easy enough to say just ignore it, but when you know where the next story goes sometimes it's hard to look at that previous film the same way anymore.

 

[Victarion]

I"m sure an argument can be made about Luke and Leia being brother and sister in RotJ after sharing an open mouth kiss in ESB.

We didn't think about this as kids, but if we had the Internet back then I'm sure people would be blasting that plot twist.

I would argue that Lucas hadn't thought that far ahead when he reached that point in the script. Lucas might have once said that he was thinking about the concluding film. But, we have to remember that the last person we should take as the definitive authority on Lucas is in fact, Lucas.

Since I view each entry in the OT as a standalone, Lucas's sudden reveal didn't affect the quality of the first two. However, if people were to go after the plot twist itself, that would indicate that the criticisms are leveled at ROTJ rather than TESB.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Can someone explain the means by which one film affects another film in a way that damages the quality of said film?

I'm with Victarion. I don't get why one movie should change another's quality. It doesn't change anything about the original or wipe it from existence.

Some posters here talk about Raimi's Spider-Man in such regard.
"Spider-Man 3 made me see the faults in Spider-Man 1 & 2"

 

[MadVillainy]

No prequel, remake, reboot, sequel affects the quality of the first film. That's silly. Beyond silly.

 

[-Arya-]

Like others have said, I ignore lower quality prequels/sequels. You could argue that prequels/sequels squander and denigrate the overall mythos, but I wouldn't go as far as saying it ruins the quality of the first movie.

 

[Visualiza]

None.

As others have said, I don't think that there is such a thing.

Even if a particular character goes through such radical changes as to make them unlikable or boring, that still shouldn't have any bearing on the quality of the strongest movie in that particular franchise.

To me, this is like asking if Wednesday's dinner affects the quality of Tuesday's dinner. It's something I've never experienced and can't imagine experiencing.

 

[Victarion]

Some posters here talk about Raimi's Spider-Man in such regard.
"Spider-Man 3 made me see the faults in Spider-Man 1 & 2"

I'd like to know more about this. Usually, it is as jmc says: if you have an incomplete story, it does sort of chain the sequel to whatever came before. There's some exceptions to this, the Star Wars OT, TDKT, and to an extent Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy where each movie can stand on its own sufficiently so that one can ignore any of the sequels. I say "to an extent" with Raimi because there is that one of Harry and Norman, though you could take Harry's "NO!" and him at the wedding as a sign that Harry rejected Norman's legacy.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

None. Bad sequels/prequels have no bearing on the original. Am I supposed to hate Jaws because The Revenge was one of the worst movies ever made?

 

[Drz]

I completely ignore the prequels so that doesn't bother me.

Here's the answer folks. :b

 

[Warhammer]

If I don't like sequels or prequels, I just disregard them.

Like how I consider the Terminator and Alien series to both end with #2. The rest feel like bad fanfiction, so that's how I treat them.

 

[The Batman]

Like everyone else said, I disregard any sequels/prequels I find lame.

The only ones I don't ignore are Batman Forever and Spider Man 3. Despite being lesser films than their predecessors, they complete the character arcs started in their respective first film.

 

[redhawk23]

Can someone explain the means by which one film affects another film in a way that damages the quality of said film?

Star Trek 2009 was an okay movie in most regards but really skated along on what it promised more than anything from the film itself. It was unfortunately followed by Star Trek Into Darkness. Instead of clearing the table for new adventures, Star Trek 09 was left setting up rehashed bull****.

The first Saw is tight little indie film thriller that was unfortunately tied to a decade's worth of annual crappy sequels. The other films color perceptions of what was even in the first film to begin with.

 

[bullets]

It can't literally change the quality of the original film , but I could see how it could affect public perception in some cases. The first Saw film got good reviews , but some people won't remember that.

 

[redhawk23]

"You fought in the clone wars?"

What was once an enigmatic hint at a backstory is now the subject of several films, cartoons, and video games, many of which quite crappy.

There are inevitably kids and even adults now who will see the Star Wars films in episode order rather than release order. Darth Vader stepping into the Tantive IV in A New Hope is quite a different character in the context of the preceding 3 films than when he first made his iconic entrance for audiences in 1977.

 

[Jochimus]

Jaws.

Eh, you could always just ignore'em.

Most people remember the Jaws sequels as being The One Where The Shark Eats A Helicopter, the 3D one with Dennis Quaid, and the One In The Bahamas Where The Shark Gets There Before Mrs. Brody Does, and that's pretty much all the GA remembers about them...seriously, the only time you ever see them televised anymore is when networks like AMC or Spike are particularly desperate. Whereas the original Jaws is stuffed with so many great character moments you could spout pretty much any line from the movie and people will get it almost on reflex.

 

[Monsieur Xavier]

A bad pre/sequel can taint a franchise but not the original movie.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Can't this be true of both sides often and not a hard and fast rule? Does a sequel that you or others always dislike "affect" your appraisal of the original? Not always no. Can it, especially if, yes, there are elements that are germane to the plot of the previous film or films. Mostly I side with generally there being little influence but I think it can happen.