XavierMike

I think 2010 comes close to hurting my opinion of 2001. In 2001, they leave the viewer to interpret the meaning of the monolith, but in 2010, they try to explain it as a self-replicating maching destined tp turn Jupiter into a star.

And to compound things, Kubrick destroyed the props from 2001, so there would never be a sequal, yet there it is.

chanster

For me Superman IIII and IV are pretty innocuous because of the comic book origin of Superman. They are pretty much stand-alones and can easily be forgotten. Heck I even kinda like Superman III for some weird reason.

I agree that prequels do more damage than sequels, however.

Dr Mabuse

that's the meaning you took from that film??? 'well ok then'...

back to topic...

'Rocky...

the original 'Rocky' was a truly great film... deserved the oscars it won including best picture'...

i can't believe that dolt Stallone would foul up what would have been remembered as his best achievement with such mindless crap as every sequel they made...

it didn't ruin 'Rocky' for me i guess... but if there was an example of sequels that COULD foul up a great film besides 'Star Wars', it would be 'Rocky' in my book...

this is hilarious... good stuff man...

coli

This is true, and I think we all need to take into context, a standalone movie sequel and a continuous story sequel/prequel.

A movie Indiana Jones and Temple of Doom/Last Crusade has no effect on Raiders of the Lost Ark when I watch it, cause esssentially they are all standalone movies that have a beginning and ending.

Star Wars movies on the other hand are told with the big picture in mind, except for the Original Star Wars, as that can standalone if you want it to. If you watch Empire, you have to watch Jedi to complete the story, and in someways, the fact that the Prequels are out, it in someways completes the whole saga.

Rad14

I don't think The Exorcist was hurt by its prequels or sequels, but I feel that they should have left it alone after the original as practically everything else were crap.

IMHO
Exorcist: The Beginning - Terrible
Dominion: Prequel to The Exorcist - Sleep inducing
Exorcist II: The Heretic - Beyond words

The only "sequel" as such with anything akin to terror or horror is Exorcist 3

DRG

In a way, the Nightmare on Elm Street sequels kind of ruin the original, because by bringing Freddy out into the light and making him a wisecracker, the character loses some of the menace that made the original film effective.

paradicelost

Always thought that was established that he did. It would seem you kinda missed the point of the film if you think he didn't actaully kill people. Just my interpretation anyway. Though i've gotton off-topic.
I remember Secret of the Ooze hurting my opinion of the first TMNT when i was a kid.

hardercore

Infernal Affairs

Bluelitespecial

Live free or die Hard

Michael Corvin

What did that ruin? Die Hard or Die Hard 3? Personally I felt it captured the spirit of the first film far better than 2 or 3.

wm lopez

THE GODFATHER 3.
Why would Mike wanna get back with his ex-wife?
How did Connie turn into such a black widow?
And Mike's whole personality is so different from parts 1 & 2 it doesn't seem like the same character.
And the son turns into such a American prissy wuss after a scene in part 2 that he wants to help his dad.

panchor

Actually I understand Mike's change of personality in part 3. He is older and he views things in a different way, IMO.

I also like Connie's character in part 3, but his kids, they just ruined it for me. Both the son and daughter.

Superman07

Interesting. I'd actually go the other route somewhat - as I felt each of the Back to the Future series was weaker than the previous, by no means do I think any of them was bad, or that they ruined the series. In fact, I think it would have been very incomplete without all 3!

raven56706

Son of the Mask

XavierMike

Christmas Vacation 2

d2cheer

Um... none.

Each movie is judged seperately. Why would go back and think the original sucked just because the sequal did?? IMHO it is pretty sad that you would let an inferior sequal change your thoughts about a movie you once thought highly of.

raven56706

Caddyshack 2

rexinnih

First thing that came to my mind when I saw this thread.

Richard Malloy

I think this is a fair point, and never would an inferior sequel change my opinion of a well-loved original. But there are instances where a sequel directly attempts to alter/explain an event from the original that has the effect of undermining that original.

"2010" comes to mind for me, and its inconsistent postulations regarding Hal's actions in the original. I concede, in this case, the sequel altered my own perceptions of the original film until someone made what now seems an obvious point in a discussion many years ago that caused me to revisit the whole subject in one of the more interesting discussions about any film that I've ever had the pleasure of participating in (that discussion starts just about here.)

DieselsDen

As much as I respect THE GODFATHER PART III, I do agree with your observations. At the end of II, he shuns Kay and restricts visitation with the kids due to her betrayal. Yet, at the beginning of III, we find he's entrusted her to raise them.

As another poster pointed out, yes, the film is about redemption and paying for one's sins. But the transition between the two sequels is a bit jarring and lessens the impact of II where Michael has become a hollow man.

I really despised the way the Connie character was given such a big role in the movie. I know that without the Tom Hagen character we needed someone else, but the whole matronly Black Widow act (as you so rightfully described) was a bit much.

That being said, I think that GODFATHER III is an excellent movie and a fitting conclusion to the Best American movie series ever made.

Brack

Enough about about sequels that "ruined" the original. What about sequels that were completely unnecessary and really offered nothing new, like Cocoon: The Return? While I liked the characters enough to not hate it, I couldn't help thinking "we've done this already, haven't we?"

UAIOE

Hey Brack, "Men in Black 2" called and wants on that list.

kurupt

I agree, for the most part, with the people saying that each movie stands on its own, but sometimes, just sometimes, this type of compartmentalization is impossible. It's kind of hard to take the scary Michael Myers of the original Halloween as seriously as I used to because, as hard as I try, I just can't wipe my mind of the same Myers character catching a karate kick in the chest from Busta Rhymes. It's kind of guilt-by-association.

Brack

yes, see, now we're thinking .

Brack

I can, only because no one (actor) has really gotten Michael Myers right since the first movie. He usually walks stiffly or like he's a badass (H20), and the remake made him into a WWE wrestler body, which for some reason I didn't find scary.