Films harmed by sequels

[Sane Max]

Hiya

My youngest daughter is a cultural Philistine. I have 3 of them, all different, all very intelligent in different ways… the youngest, she doesn’t read for pleasure! She doesn’t watch Movies much! What the Hell??

Well, over the last few months she realised there are holes in her cultural knowledge and decided to fix that, and has been working her way down the IMDB top 100 and any movies recommended by others. As a result I have re-watched a lot of films and some, I had to overcome reservations to endure again. Not because they were bad – but because my memory of them has been harmed by their bloody awful sequels.

1st Blood ! That’s a GOOD FILM!
Rocky! That’s an excellent film!
Lethal Weapon! What a great film!

There are others, but I would try to keep this to things you can at least sort of wargame…. can you think of a movie with a bad rep due to the awful sequels that is actually rather great?

[Beardgoblin]

Highlander.

 

Definitely poor old Highlander!  Great film, should have remembered “There can be only ONE!”

[Sane Max]

Ooh yes Highlander! Good call.

Matrix of course as well.

[Darkest Star Games]

Alien: really good.  Aliens: Really great!  Everything after: poo!

Karate Kid.  Did it really need sequels?

The Wild Geese.  Great fun flick.  WG2 was horrible!

"I saw this in a cartoon once, but I'm pretty sure I can do it..."

[Deleted User]

Pitch Perfect, the 3rd movie ruined it.

Star Wars.

[jeffers]

Raiders of the Lost Ark.

More nonsense on my blog: http://battle77.blogspot.com/

[Sane Max]

Hmmmm well, ‘Raiders’ and ‘Alien’… I am not sure they qualify. If someone said ‘do you like the Alien movies’ you reply ‘Mostly’ or ‘Maybe we got them demoralised!!!’ or failing that ‘you always were an asshole Gorman’ – but if someone said ‘do you like ‘Rocky’,you actually have to remind yourself it’s a good film.

[Guy Farrish]

Die Hard. Christmas, locked train dramatic unities, Alan Rickman, what’s not to love. After that? Downhill all the way.

Crocodile Dundee. Hogan meets America – funny once. Second time? Nah!

The Mummy (Brendan Fraser) Two not so bad but they lost it when Rachel Weisz disappeared.

Tempted to say Carry on Sergeant, though ‘Great’ is pushing it – but the Carry On series slumped rapidly into the worst excesses of sexist, camp, unfunny Britsh music hall – rarely even aspiring to slapstick levels.

 

[OldBen1]

Home Alone

Escape from New York

The Matrix

[Don Glewwe]

Dirty Dozen?

[Mr. Average]

The French Connection would be one. The Guns of Navarone. Any of the Ocean’s (Insert Sequential Number) Series beyond the original with Sinatra.

Controversially, I’d also say Blade Runner, simply because the first is so artful and complete in itself that the sequel wasn’t really needed, although were the sequel to have stood on its own it would have been superb without the need for the other. If that makes sense?

[Jonathan Gingerich]

No. Because Blade Runner 2049 was ghastly bad…ok there’s no arguing taste of course…

[zippyfusenet]

…keep this to things you can at least sort of wargame…

Starship Troopers meets that criterion. Spawned a line of miniatures and dedicated rules, dinnit? Some say that Verhoeven’s movie ruined Heinlein’s novel, but I think the fillum stands on its own.

ST II and III didn’t actually ruin the original ST, but they tried really hard.

You'll shoot your eye out, kid!

[Thaddeus Blanchette]

You can wargame Bladerunner.

We get slapped around, but we have a good time!

[Rhoderic]

Battle Royale.

[deephorse]

Can a film really be ‘harmed’ by a dreadful sequel?  Surely no matter how bad subsequent titles may be, the original will stand on its own merits.  The mention of Starship Troopers above made me consider this.  ST2 was beyond awful (didn’t know there was a ST3) but it hasn’t affected my liking for the original.  So, no harm done!

Play is what makes life bearable - Michael Rosen

[Rhoderic]

deephorse wrote:

Can a film really be ‘harmed’ by a dreadful sequel? Surely no matter how bad subsequent titles may be, the original will stand on its own merits. The mention of Starship Troopers above made me consider this. ST2 was beyond awful (didn’t know there was a ST3) but it hasn’t affected my liking for the original. So, no harm done!

As I interpret the question, it’s more about the lasting memory/legacy of the film being harmed.

As for the Starship Troopers sequels, yeah, they’re all dreadful and bizarre, but each in a wildly different way. The license and the franchise seem to be getting passed around between ludicrously dodgy sub-B filmmakers as a matter of tradition by this point. Isn’t there even a ST4? It’s basically an anime – all CGI and Japanese-produced, with sleek mechs and other features typical of that genre – yet it’s still an official sequel as I’ve understood it. I like anime but, as with ST2 and ST3, I couldn’t tolerate watching it from beginning to end without skipping forward lots. Fortunately all the sequels are quite obscure.

(That said I only ever liked the first film when it was new and I was in my early teens. In retrospect I’m not into it anymore either.)

[MartinR]

deephorse wrote:

Can a film really be ‘harmed’ by a dreadful sequel? Surely no matter how bad subsequent titles may be, the original will stand on its own merits. The mention of Starship Troopers above made me consider this. ST2 was beyond awful (didn’t know there was a ST3) but it hasn’t affected my liking for the original. So, no harm done!

I tend to agree, the sequels are often so dreadful that they don’t  get seen or a rapidly forgotten about. I didn’t even realise there was an ST3! An utterly appalling sequel was Breakout (ie Cross of Iron II), a film so bad I wanted to tear my  own eyes out, especially every time Robert Mitchum appeared drawling about anti-tank positions with  his  own little musical theme tune. Does that make Cross of Iron bad? no, it will remain a thing of beauty and joy forever.

But then again I’m someone who liked all the Aliens films, so what do I know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[Northern Monkey]

How about Tremors, cheesy but fun and definitely wargame-able, and the sequels were terrible

My attempt at a Blog: http://ablogofwar.blogspot.co.uk/

[Deleted User]

I’m willing to bet Top Gun will join the list.

300 2 ruined it for me. Not in terms of history or plot but the cinematic of it wasn’t up to par with the first movie. The flashback with Cersie didn’t help.

[Author]

Posts