Why does it matter if poor sequels are made?

[Astrakan]

The reactions in this thread to the news that Toys Story 3 has been cancelled made me ponder the question asked in the thread title.

Personally I don't care if a poor sequel to a great movie is made. In no way does it diminish my ability to enjoy the original. I find the whole idea that a poor sequel will somehow "tarnish" the original movie to be... odd.

I simply judge any film based on its own merits, and not based on what came after (or before) it. Burton's Batman is still great, even though Schumacher added nipples in a later installment. I love Alien, even though I could've done without seeing Alien vs. Predator. Etc.

But I gather I'm somewhat alone in that outlook?

KM

[limacharliewhiskey]

I care because Robocop doesn't look as good with Robocop 2 and Robocop 3 on its heels. These were 2 of the worst sequels ever made that tarnished a really cool and extreme sci-fi action film.

And Superman III and Superman IV killed off a franchise for 20+ years because some idiot studio exec thought Richard Pryor belonged in a comic book movie. Just left a bad taste in my mouth, and has prevented me from buying the first two on DVD.

I don't oppose sequels in general. I oppose BAD sequels. But hey, maybe Fast and the Furious 3: Tokyo Drift is a good idea and will become a runaway hit like the first film. And maybe Sharon Stone will be more naked and do a spread eagle in Basic Instinct 2: Risk Addiction.

Who has been waiting for Santa Clause 3? I haven't, but it's still coming. The Garfield sequel movie? Didn't even see the first one yet.

Scary Movie 4, with Shaquille O'Neal and Dr. Phil. There's a blockbuster waiting to happen.

But I digress. I am very much looking forward to X3, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, and Mission: Impossible 3.

[tomdkat]

A poor sequel can't change or tarnish the original film itself but a poor sequel can certainly tarnish the image or legacy, if you will, the original film establishes. I use legacy for lack of a better word.

Peace...

[elwood731]

Originally Posted by Astrakan

The reactions in this thread to the news that Toys Story 3 has been cancelled made me ponder the question asked in the thread title.

Personally I don't care if a poor sequel to a great movie is made. In no way does it diminish my ability to enjoy the original. I find the whole idea that a poor sequel will somehow "tarnish" the original movie to be... odd.

I simply judge any film based on its own merits, and not based on what came after (or before) it. Burton's Batman is still great, even though Schumacher added nipples in a later installment. I love Alien, even though I could've done without seeing Alien vs. Predator. Etc.

But I gather I'm somewhat alone in that outlook?

KM

I think there's a general feeling that a poor sequel tarnishes an entire franchise--movies or not. Most people feel the same when it comes to books, video games, or even follow-up albums from musicians. It's just hard to shake everything that comes after. There's also the feeling that when it something is really good, if you can't improve on it in anyway, one should just leave it be.

Toy Story 3 wouldn't have ruined Toy Story 1 or 2 for me, but it would have just made me a little sad they couldn't have left it well enough alone. I get the same feeling when a TV series goes on for too many seasons.

[Astrakan]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

A poor sequel can't change or tarnish the original film itself but a poor sequel can certainly tarnish the image or legacy, if you will, the original film establishes. I use legacy for lack of a better word.

Originally Posted by elwood731

I think there's a general feeling that a poor sequel tarnishes an entire franchise

Point taken, but why does it matter if the image or legacy of a film is tarnished?

For me, it doesn't make a lick of difference. I'm still perfectly able to enjoy certain installments of a series while not bothering with the rest.

I'm not trying to sound condecending, but I just find it a little illogical to let poor sequels or prequels bother you.

KM

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by elwood731

I think there's a general feeling that a poor sequel tarnishes an entire franchise--movies or not.

Thanks for stating what I was thinking.

Peace...

[Astrakan]

Originally Posted by limacharliewhis

I care because Robocop doesn't look as good with Robocop 2 and Robocop 3 on its heels.

I understand that that is what a lot of people think. My question was more with regards to why people feel that way. The contents of Robocop are identical after the release of the sequels. It's not like (unless you're George Lucas) they re-edit the original film to fit with a crappy sequel.

But Elwood and Tomdkat have more or less already answered my question. Even if it still doesn't really make sense to me.

KM

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Astrakan

I'm not trying to sound condecending, but I just find it a little illogical to let poor sequels or prequels bother you.

Logic doesn't really fit in here since logic dictates all of the parts of a franchise need to be "good" for the franchise to be considered "good".

I think this is more of a matter of personal preference and expectation. When we're given something great, we want that greatness to be sustained. This is true in many aspects of our lives.

Look at the pro team that wins two championships back-to-back. The expectation is for them to keep winning championships for that team to keep it's "incredible" status, at least until they make history.

Look at the guy on Jeopardy who won 1-2 (if not more) million dollars. He damn neared lived on the set, he was on the show for so long. People expected him to maintain that momentum and when that momentum can't be maintained, people feel disappointed.

The accomplishment will still be respected but it just won't be the same. With regard to the bad sequels, the original work will still be acknowledged as being good even though the franchise might not be.

Peace...

[Astrakan]

I'm starting to feel like I'm being difficult here... but... who cares about the franchise? You can't watch a franchise. You can only watch individual movies...

I suppose if you decide to have a franchise marathon it might be annoying to have to watch a poor installment, but unless they're all very connected (more Back to the Future and less Die Hard) you could just skip the entries in the series you disagree with.

KM

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Astrakan

I'm starting to feel like I'm being difficult here... but... who cares about the franchise? You can't watch a franchise. You can only watch individual movies...

This is true, you can't watch the "franchise" all at once, however it's the concept of the franchise that draws people in. Look at Star Wars. If "A New Hope" was the only movie, Star Wars wouldn't be the same as the original trilogy.

The "Star Wars franchise" is what people are fascinated with. The same goes for Lord of the Rings.

You don't have to buy into the idea, since that's your choice, but you really should understand the idea so you can better understand where folks are coming from.

Peace...

[elwood731]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

The "Star Wars franchise" is what people are fascinated with. The same goes for Lord of the Rings.

Star Wars is a good example. Fans generally love episodes 3-6 at this point. Episodes 1 and 2 leave a sour taste in most their mouths. It is a little frsutrating since the rest are good that two would be so bad, or not live up to expectations. They're also part of the story that can't be enjoyed and seem like major missed opprotunities. Same with the Robocop sequels. I think that's more why people don't want to see bad sequels made. For me personally, the prequels do not in anyway affect my enjoyment of the original trilogy.

The Highlander franchise is another example. Most like the first film, and many enjoy the fourth film. However, the second film is almost hated by all and the third film just feels out of place. Because of that, it becomes difficult to enjoy the franchise because it seems so confused. It doesn't hurt enjoyment of the first film so much, as the fourth. It does hurt enjoyment of the first film a bit, simply because all the sequels seem to contradict its ending, so you have to pretend they never happened.

[Enron]

I really don't care if poor sequels/prequels are made but when they are I can't help but think of how many original/new script ideas that got passed over in favor of cashing in on the safe bet. I don't know, I guess that sequel-mania is partially a product of studio execs not wanting to go out on a limb and risk their job security.

[NotEd]

I think it depends on how the films are presented. If a sequel is part of a continuing storyline, like say the Matrix sequels or Star Wars prequels, it can be kind of disappointing to a real fan if they see characters, plots, etc that completely undermine the expectations of those who were fans enough of the original movie/movies to have come back for more.

And if they screw it up enough I can certainly see a fan having it affect their opinion of the original(s) because they know how disappointing a character will turn out. It might affect the ability to enjoy the original as much as before, although it would have to be really awful to turn all but the most dedicated fan against it completely.

Screwing with the story or favorite characters is completely different than making a sequel just to cash in on the popularity of the original. Direct to video/DVD sequels, like Disney's, are a prime example of this. The thing is I think expectations are so relatively low for a release like this that it is much less likely to affect the viewer's opinion of the original. Sure, it might be crap, but how good did you expect it to be?

[MARVEL]

I have a strange view on this. When it comes to the Matrix films I have to say that the sequels diminished the 1st because when I watch the first I can't help but think about where the story is going and thinking about the cave techno rave scene and the psuedo important religious undertones of the other two and how they took a kinda fun little movie and made it something else.
In the case of SW since the story was told backwards there was a different feel of how the prequels would enhance the story going forward.
On the other hand, look at Star Trek. I have all of the films except 5 and it's pretty much universal that that is a true stinker but it didn't ruin any of the others. I just won't buy it or watch it.
But of course that's my opinion.

[reapersaurus]

Two words:

Matrix Revolutions.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

Two words:

Matrix Revolutions.

Come on, it wasn't that bad...

Peace...

[Astrakan]

Ok... so I guess I "get" why people care... I just don't "understand" it. If that makes any sense. Or perhaps "agree with" would be a better choice of words.

Allowing for a poor sequel/prequel to tarnish your opinion of other movie(s) in the series seems completely illogical and entirely based on an emotional response, something which simply doesn't happen to me when it comes to movie series, but which I suppose isn't something anyone can help.



Anyway, thanks to those of you who explained it to me.

KM

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Astrakan

Ok... so I guess I "get" why people care... I just don't "understand" it. If that makes any sense. Or perhaps "agree with" would be a better choice of words.

Yep, I agree, "agree with" fits your position better. This is one of those "to each his own" kind of things.

Allowing for a poor sequel/prequel to tarnish your opinion of other movie(s) in the series seems completely illogical and entirely based on an emotional response, something which simply doesn't happen to me when it comes to movie series, but which I suppose isn't something anyone can help.

I don't think "logic" applies but I'm with you on the emotional response aspect of your point. Enjoyment of something is purely subjective.

Peace...

[reapersaurus]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

Come on, it wasn't that bad...

Peace...

You don't want to get me started.
There's a metric boatload of discussion on how much Revolutions stabbed the entire franchise in the heart.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

You don't want to get me started.
There's a metric boatload of discussion on how much Revolutions stabbed the entire franchise in the heart.

Well, I'm dying to hear some of the problems with Revolutions.

Shall I start a "what's wrong with Matrix Revolutions" thread in Software?

Peace...

[Taxi]

Yes, but the REAL question that I think Astrakan is getting at, is does Revolutions make The Matrix a worse movie? If you don't like Reloaded or Revolutions, then does that mean you won't watch the original anymore?

Personally, that seems odd to me.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Taxi

Yes, but the REAL question that I think Astrakan is getting at, is does Revolutions make The Matrix a worse movie? If you don't like Reloaded or Revolutions, then does that mean you won't watch the original anymore?

By virtue of tarnishing the Matrix franchise, I think for some Revolutions can make The Matrix a worse movie, since it's part of the franchise.

Personally, a poor sequel doesn't impact the original movie negatively but I can understand those feeling otherwise.

Peace...

[reapersaurus]

Originally Posted by Taxi

Yes, but the REAL question that I think Astrakan is getting at, is does Revolutions make The Matrix a worse movie? If you don't like Reloaded or Revolutions, then does that mean you won't watch the original anymore?

Personally, that seems odd to me.

That's the great question of this thread, ya.

And IMO, such a colossally bad movie like Revolutions (which completely sacrificed what the first 1 (and part of 2) were good at and replaced it with a GIANT MECHA BATTLE against hundreds of thousands of overpowered robots) DOES affect the first great movie.

It doesn't change what frames were in the first movie, but it taints the first great movie's promise in a way that the dreck like Highlander 2 et al doesn't.

Because The MAtrix' sheer coolness was partially a result of the great world they created, and the PROMISE of more great story there, Matrix Revolutions' complete inability to deliver on any of the promise of the world it created does degrade the original in a unique way that is rare for sequels.

If the Matrix sequels had not DIRECTLY continued the storyline from the first movie, this wouldn't be so pronounced.

[tomdkat]

That's cool, reaper, but Matrix Revolutions is just one movie. How does your point relate to sequels in general, if not a reiteration of the "tarnished franchise" point made above?

Peace...

[mighty mint]

Great question Tom, I wonder if some might feel that the Rocky's are an example...some might even think that of Firstblood? Ironically two Stalone movies.

I agree with the concept of making a movie franchise right off the top with the idea of a trilogy cap to tell the story. I "think" that is what leaves such a bad taste in Reapers mouth...it wasn't that the first movie was a success and then they made bad sequels - It was that they built a great foundation for the trilogy in the first movie and then crapped all over it in the following ones. Of course this is all our opinions as movie-viewers...I find it hard to believe that in the beginning they had the same story arch that they had when they were finished the films. If so, then the first film wasn't as great as we all believe it to be...It is just a great first act in a story that is somewhat weak with an ending that sucks.

Bad sequels/prequels are simply a turnoff because it is a sign of NO imagination in Hollywood. Some of the recent remakes of tv shows into movies are solid proof of really really bad movie making.

[JimboQ]

What about some of our favorite bands that have enjoyed longevity in the buisness, though having say, some personnel changes, label switching (which can very much change the original vibe in many ways), changing with the times (going semi-electronic)? Many bands of many genres ha