I just thought of another (well sorta): the 1984 film Starman starring Jeff Bridges was adapted into a tv series that had Robert Hayes in the Jeff Bridges role. It lasted one season and was horrible. Though if we start adding movies adapted in to tv shows, I’m sure we come up another dozen films.
I can’t help myself.
There can be only one.
And according to “Psycho II,” Mother wasn’t actually even Norman’s mother! :eek::rolleyes: The RiffTrax episode for “Psycho II” is hilarious.
I have a soft spot for those sequels. They are so bad, but I saw them so many times as a kid. I even had a poster for “Psycho III” I got from a local video store.
You know guys, there is a difference between a great film which was diminished by it’s sequels, and a great film which had crappy sequels which do not diminish the original in any way.
This is what I think every time Jaws is mentioned. That movie is pretty universally held up as an all-time classic. If the sequels have diminished it, I’d hate to see the pedestal it was on before they were made.
Rambo is probably a great example though. In your mind’s eye, the word “Rambo” probably conjures up an image of a shirtless Stalone wearing a headband and gunning people down indiscriminately, when that’s not what the first movie is about at all.
How can a sequel diminish the original? By showing something in the original was a lie, something that made the original great.
King Kong vs. Godzilla isn’t even a sequel to King Kong, not really, and it certainly doesn’t diminish the classic. But the later Godzilla movies which makes the horrible monster from the first movie a good guy and a friend to kiddies certainly do.
How would you like a Star Wars sequel where Vader lives and starts a day care center where he uses the Force to amuse the kids and to reassemble broken toys? That’s the later Godzillas.
Was going to make just this point.
I think one way sequels diminish the original is by attempting to explain everything.
Two examples:
1.* The Matrix*. The first film would of been better if the sequels didn’t try to explain what the matrix was. They really removed the sense of awe and mystery the first one had.
- Star Wars. Similar to the Matrix, I think introducing midichlorians in order to explain the Force was a huge mistake. It was an attempt to explain something that was best left as a mystery. Although I think George Lucas’s constant revisions of the original three films probably hurt them worse.
I actually enjoyed 2010, but 2010’s problem was that it was very much an 80’s Science-Fiction movie as opposed to Kubrick’s 2001 which seems absolutely timeless. 2010 lacked the dream-like presentation of 2001 and the overall style of it going back to a much more conventional movie style.
The perfect example is like if you rewrote The Fugitive slightly to make it about Deckard escaping from a Blade Runner and called it “Blade Runner 2: The Fugitive”. They’re both great movies but by following up the stylish Blade Runner with a much more conventional movie and the latter film looks like crap in comparison.
Oceans 11. The Brad Pitt, George Clooney & friends remake superseded the largely forgotten Rat Pack original as a fun heist film. Both sequels were terrible as I’m sure the female version Ocean’s 8 will be.
It’s like Star Wars films. You can make one great standalone film. Given that the studios will want to cash in on the success of that, you can maybe get away with a sequel. If you’re lucky, the second film might even surpass the first like Aliens or Empire. But at least one film will divide fans. Every film after the trilogy is just an unnecessary money grab.
Are you referring to the shot for shot remake with Vince Vaugn and Anne Heche? Unlike Oceans 11, that was just completely unnecessary and forgettable.
The French Connection.
I didn’t know a lot about the original, nor its sequel, when I fired the first one on Hulu/Netflix/wherever … in fact, the only thing I recalled is that Gene Hackman plays a vice cop who ends up getting kidnapped by the bad guys and forcibly hooked on heroin. Turns out that’s in the second movie not the first. The first movie is good, but I think it’s most notable for its style - that guerilla style film-making that was ground breaking at the time.
Also, I’ve been listening to *Unspooled *lately (a podcast with Paul Scheer and Amy Nicholson where they talk about each of the AFI’s 100 best movies, one per episode) and I learned that the original was based on actual people and actual events (with liberties taken) while the second is a complete flight of fancy. In the end, the fact that the two movies get conflated in my mind and the most compelling plot twist never really happened, but all the non-compelling plot twists did, make the original completely diminished by its sequel.
I…think I would like that. It’d be like Kindergarten Cop if Ahnold had actually spent most of the movie with the kids.
It sounds good for about two minutes on Robot Chicken. I’m not sure the premise would hold up any longer than that.
I think Back to the Future 3 slightly diminishes the previous, better, two films, as it’'s both quite poor but inescapable. The first two films can’t really stand alone without the tiresome third one to finish the story.
No, it had three actual sequels. Anthony Perkins returned in all three as Norman. Psycho II was him being released from the mental hospital after 23 years and trying to be normal (spoiler, he fails), Psycho III was more murder hijinks at the motel, and Psycho IV was a TV movie set a few years later that has Norman recounting his childhood to a radio talk show host.
Despite all three, “Psycho” is still a film classic. I don’t think they impact the original at all.
I agree that First Blood is a good example of the OP. The original wasn’t Oscar worthy but a nice yarn of escapism. The sequels were almost literally unwatchable. The last one appearing to made by a committee of teenagers. And maybe that’s giving it too much credit.
As soon as I saw the thread title I knew this was going to be in the top three responses. Despite the ‘Matrix Sequels Suck’ being a popular meme here on the Dope, I totally disagree. I think they offered some interesting characters, interesting ideas and great action scenes. And apparently I’m not alone. If Matrix 2 would have sucked that bad, 3 wouldn’t have quadrupled it’s production cost in profits bringing in $427.3 million dollars at the box office alone.
I haven’t seen that movie, but my impression is that there, and in Last Action Hero, he is playing against the stereotype of the characters he plays. That could be fun. (I liked Last Action Hero.) Different from the character being undermined. Like if Dirty Harry went to kindergarten.
Titanic II
Still better than the third one.
But the third one was in 3D!