If they did, I wouldn’t be able to enjoy any animated Disney movies - and I love Disney movies.
It depends on whether the movies (or books) form a completed story only in toto, or if each story is independent of the others. The suckitude of Superman III & IV bothers me not, because Superman I & II are whole stories all on their own. But Return of the King is so horrid partly because Two Towers and Fellowship of the Ring depend on it to finish the tale.
For me, usually no. But in the case of Star Wars, the god-awful prequels have forever lessened my ability to enjoy the originals. Maybe it’s because they’re prequels, rather than actual sequels in the sequence of events. But, for example, knowing that Darth Vadar started out as a love-struck puppy dog who turned to the dark side because the emperor said “Boo” just makes it hard to take him seriously anymore in the originals.
Yeah, that’s uniquely bad- although I think the low point is the “Yippee” in Phantom Menace. 
I’ve always said the prequels also messed up the character of Leia- I wonder where she got her fighting spirit when her mother was a deluded, enabling ultra-doormat.
Nurture, not nature: Bail Organa’s wife must have been the shit.
They only ruin the originals for me when the sequels are also done as part of the same creative team (director, writer, etc), e.g…
Ruined: Matrix, Star Wars 4-6, Pirates of the Carib
Not Ruined: Aliens, Highlander, Blues Brothers, Terminator 1 & 2
Somehow, that the sequels get additional justification as being part of the canon or original vision devalues the originals for me, because it feels that the director/writer merely got lucky in making a good film the first time, instead of being truly artistically inspired.
If some other team comes along and craps on a classic movie, on the other hand, it doesn’t bother me at all.
Too bad she wasn’t in the movies, then!
Good news, everybody! Lucas just announced a new set of in-between-quels for Star Wars!
d&r
Not generally.
If I let a sub-par sequel ruin my enjoyment of the original, I wouldn’t have many movies left to enjoy.
That being said, while I can still watch the original star wars movies, and enjoy them, I think the prequels to some extent forced the rose-coloured glasses from my eyes with respect to the originals, which now don’t stand up quite so well as they used to. Damn you Lucas, damn you to hell. Why couldn’t you leave well enough alone. :mad:
I don’t think the second Men in Black ruined the first. I was just disappointed that in the five years between the two MIB movies, they had come up with hardly anything new. It seemed to made up of leftover gags and near-exact retreads of scenes from the first movie combined with an ending that was supposed to be a riff on the end of Casablanca (which would’ve been clever were it not for the fact that it’s already been done a bazillion times by now).
That’s exactly what I do when I encounter a seriously lackluster sequel (or sequels) to a movie I at least somewhat liked–I ignore their existence. The second Blair Witch was pretty much doomed from the start since they couldn’t use the first movie’s “is-this-for-real?” mock-documentary aspect again. However, there were certainly interesting places The Ring 2 could’ve gone but didn’t. For me, the only good thing about the second one was that at least I could play a game of “Hey, I know that place!” when I got bored since I was familiar with a lot of the locations around Astoria and the North Oregon Coast where the movie was shot.
Or maybe Leia got her fighting spirit from her dad(s). We girls don’t only take after our moms, ya know!
Yes. I think it ruins the origional because it has characters you like, and if the later movies are horrible it destroys the love you had for them.
But see? The fighting spirit would have had to come from her adoptive dad, since the only thing the prequels truly succeeded at was proving Anakin Skywalker to be a whiny puss on rye with spicy mustard.
The main problem I have with bad movie sequels lies in how they sometimes have a tendency to point out flaws in their original source.
The Star Wars prequels pointed out a huge number of flaws in Lucas’ style I would never have noticed in the original trilogy. Now I can’t watch any of them without thinking of the prequel crapfests.
The only instance I can think of was Kill Bill: Vol. 2. In my review of it I said it was so obviously a money grubbing exercise, that it had tainted my pleasure from Kill Bill: Vol. 1. Someone at the Dope pointed out that Tarantino had been forced by the studio to release it as two movies rather than one, but still that’s just choosing who to blame.
The studio supposedly told Tarantino “people aren’t going to want to watch this for four hours, cut it down” and he wouldn’t, so they released it as two movies. That’s not really money-grubbing.
Leonard Part 6 completely ruined the previous five movies for me. 