Burning Questions: Can a Bad Sequel Diminish a Classic?
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 12:30PM Michael C here. When you tune in to the movie chatter frequency one of unavoidable refrains you hear is that such and such sequel has spoiled a classic film. You know the drill. Part III forever tarnished The Godfather, turning a perfect two-part saga into a disappointing, lopsided trilogy. Oliver Stone ruined Gordon Gekko by dragging him out for a belated encore. “Blah blah Jim Carrey blah blah The Grinch blah blah blah MY CHILDHOOD!”
And so on.
This chorus was most recently heard lamenting the way Oz the Great and Powerful helped itself to a box office bonanza by trampling the sterling legacy of the Judy Garland classic. Next it will be Evil Dead’s turn to besmirch the memory of a cult classic. Amid all outraged accusations of violence towards film history shouldn’t we stop to consider if the basic idea has merit? Can an inferior sequel actually diminish the standing of a classic?
Let me state right up front my answer is a firm “No, it can’t.” Except when it can. Let me back up...
No matter how steep the decline in quality from its predecessors, I do not believe any sequel, prequel, or remake can affect the experience of watching the original. Not even a little. Between the opening and closing credits a movie creates is its own world, and if it stands on its own it will be immune to guilt by association with any and all abysmal successors. I honestly don’t know what people are talking about when they declare a crappy sequel “ruined” a beloved movie. Quint’s Indianapolis speech from Jaws remains pure movie Heaven in spite of all the schlocky cash grab sequels Universal cranked out. And none of the subsequent Grand Guignol freak shows detract from the intensity of the original Clarice/Hannibal duets from The Silence of the Lambs.
Yet there are times when I have found that an awful sequel manages to detract from the original. It is, however, misleading to say that the sequel ruined a classic. More accurate to say that terrible follow-ups can sometimes highlight flaws already present in a movie.
For example, after King Kong and The Hobbit it’s hard to watch the LOTR trilogy and not think that they might have benefitted from more discipline in the editing room. Likewise, suffering through three overstuffed Pirates sequels causes one to pay more notice to the convoluted plotting obscured by Captain Jack Sparrow’s hijinks in the first film. In such cases, the fault lies not in the sequels but in themselves.
I suspect that all the hue and cry over tarnished classics has to do with a certain nerdish tendency towards completism. The calamity isn’t that the original is ruined but that the superfan is forced to forever acknowledge a crummy film. I’ve been there myself, sadly rewatching Elizabeth: The Golden Age, trying to will it into not being so damned mediocre. But why bother? Cut the ties, absorb the disappointment and move on. Elizabeth is still there and it’s still terrific.
You can follow Michael C. on Twitter at @SeriousFilm. Or read his blog Serious Film.
Reader Comments (24)
I feel like a horrible sequel can often enhance the original's quality. Usually sequel water cooler commentary always features the phrase "It's not as good as the original" no matter how great the sequel is.
I tend to think this isn't the case for me personally, but for when I try to convince someone the original was amazing. For example, telling people Scream or The Matrix are genuinely excellent will often get me glares because of the mediocre to bad sequels.
This is gonna sound weird, but in some cases, the lower the quality of the sequel, the less its ability to tarnish the image of the original. Like, if it's truly, truly awful, it will be so forgettable that the original won't even be associated with it (e.g. Jaws) but if it has some level of decent quality or if it's at least perceived to have some level of quality (e.g. Oscar nominations for Godfather III) than it's more often associated with the original and can create that negative connection.
Wouldn't Manhunter be considered the original film for Hannibal Lector and The Silence of the Lambs be the sequel? That would be a example of a sequel bettering the original in almost every way, but then going off the deep end in every possible way for all the following sequels.
Don't consider Silence a sequel to Manhunter, and not just because of the fact of different Lectors or different directors with distinctly different styles. Separate universes with, eventually, the Ratner-directed Red Dragon assuming the prequel to Silence over Manhunter that had more connective tissue to the Hopkins-Lector. Speaking of which, no Jodie as Clarice has always made Hannibal a non-starter for me. Never seen it except the notorious Ray Liotta at the dinner table shots.
Pretty sure Sex & The City 2 ruined the first (admittedly just okay) movie but much of the damage was done to the TV show for a lot of people. SATC2 suddenly became conflated too much to the superior series when, especially in the early years, the show was just a different animal. Saying you liked SATC definitely gets a lot of judgment from people when a decade ago, there were plenty of straight guys openly admitting to watching the show (usually copping to trying to understand women) and enjoying it.
Tony T talking about Batman Forever and Nicole Kidman yesterday had me thinking, that movie was not nearly as bad as people think even though you have to look at it from the point-of-view of pre-superhero movie boom. Very enjoyable and I always enjoyed it gave a Robin origins story without having to make him a kid. It was directed by Schumacher whose reputation and the Batman brand was forever ruined by the follow-up Batman & Robin.
Although they are prequels, I know a lot of people who really hate what George Lucas did and it has admittedly, change the complexion for people who consider themselves fans of Star Wars.
I disagree, and have no interest in giving a prolonged explanation to persuade you otherwise.
Joey - Good point
Brian Z - True enough. I still love the original Rocky as modest sports fairy tale, but you have to continually remind people of the franchis's humble beginnings. This goes to my point that it is not so much that bad sequels diminish the classic film, but more that they are irritating to acknowledge.
Amir - I think this also has a lot to do if the originial talent is attached. Hannibal, for example, would be harder to dismiss if Demme was attached.
MDA - Technically true, but let's not kid ourselves which film those sequels were made to cash in on. Also, you better watch it with that "bettering the original" talk. Manhunter fans are legion. : )
Its likely to become more of a problem, or potential pitfall anyway, because big event movies aren't really made to be stand alone stories anymore - they're launching pads for multi-film, multi-year narratives, more like TV, and so the success of one film is inextricably linked to the success of the films that follow it.
Blanchett's performance aside, Elizabeth is pretty mediocre as well.
It's true that the perceived distance from the original is huge. Brands tainted: Pirates, Shrek, SATC (the first movie was actually a personal favorite, but the backlash on the second has been strangely vicious), The Godfather. Not tainted: Elizabeth (I regularly forget there was a sequel), The Wizard of Oz (I think this has spun off in enough directions by now that it only adds to the reputation of the original's impact), Jaws, The Silence of the Lambs. All of the originals still stand on their own though, and I don't start doubting them because of the crappy follow ups.
Oh, and I didn't include the Screams because I love all of them. They constantly toy with the idea that the series has played out to a degree, and use it to allow for punchlines at their own expense.
So many factors affect how you view sequels; I don't think it's ever cut and dried. I just saw Oz the Great and Powerful, and it seemed so far removed from the original that I hardly thought of the precursor at all. For me, Godfather III is a strange animal. I was so thrilled to see how the story would continue, and the second film was such a touchstone for me, that it hardly mattered that Part 3 wasn't exceptional. Parts 1 and 2 had created an unattainable standard, so I was not expecting perfection. And I was younger, less cynical. I just wanted to see Pacino, Keaton and Shire once again inhabit these indelible roles. Anticipation was high, and of course it came out at Christmas--a real gift. I thought the end result was pretty fascinating, with all of its faults. Al should have been up for Best Actor. I remember watching it in the theater, and people laughed at Sofia's final line. My friend actually shouted SHUT UP! Coppola's choice to cast his daughter certainly was the major error--if only Winona Ryder hadn't had to quit due to exhaustion. This still didn't ruin the experience. I have the movie poster hanging in my living room--it's so cool.
I don't know anyone who looks at a masterful film through tainted eyes because of its mediocre successor(s). I think that most people are savvy enough to distinguish between the superior and inferior on their own merits despite their relationship. In fact, because films in a single franchise are often times helmed by different directors, it's almost best sometimes to consider them as separate entities, as they are not the product of a singular vision.
People are bringing up an interesting point. Nowadays, too many films seem to be ready-made for sequels, so it's hard to look at a film as a standalone experience anymore, because the sequels appear to be inevitable and that makes it harder for a lousy sequel to have no impact on its original no matter how good it is (all of the superhero movies that are coming out right now and animated films). One other thing that makes it hard is when you watch the original film and remember a plot point in the sequel that affects your experience (for example, I can't watch the ending of Aliens without remembering what happens at the beginning of Alien3, or I can't look at the Uncle Ben scene in Spiderman without thinking about the contexts added in Spider-Man 3. This is why I avoid sequels as much as I can unless I hear they're really good, though I wouldn't say that a bad sequel takes anything away from a masterpiece of an original. The movie is there, intact and can still be enjoyed. The worst a sequel can do is change the context in which you watch the original film, with information you probably didn't want to have (and the filmmakers probabl never had in mind when the made that movie)....
so many excellent comments here.
Troy -- i don't know anyone who CONSCIOUSLY makes a point of doing this but i think everyone does it.
Richter Scale -- excellent point abotu context. Admittedly i have the same queasy feeling about Aliens ending because of Alien3. It would REALLY piss me off if i didn't think the films are kind of dark and hopeless to begin with (and if i didn't think Alien 3 was underrated for what it attempts to do)
Roark -- this is one of the reasons I've lost so much love for mainstream blockbusters. If i want to watch TV, i watch TV. This is why the Harry Potter series bugged me so much (one of hte reasons). It was so clearly conceived and plays like a tv series so why is it dominating the movie theater?
In terms of building a film series, it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation. If you don't plant seeds for a larger universe then when you do make sequels, people say you're making it up as you go along. However, the idea that one film is just an extended trailer for the next is absolutely ridiculous and lazy. I know it's not popular around here but Nolan's Batman Trilogy is an excellent example of a large story being told while each film remains its own thing (well TDKR isn't as standalone as the others but it isn't those films extended it either).
As for the question of the article, more often than not bad/disappointing sequels/prequels don't diminish the original films for me. The Star Wars Prequels, which I don't hate but recognize are vastly flawed films, don't affect my view of the original films because they're so different in tone and story that they really feel like a standalone entity. Hell, I despised X-Men: The Last Stand and Spider-Man 3 did some unnecessary retconning but I don't like their first two films any less for that.
However, I do think Blade 2 & 3 make me look at the first film a little different. I was really excited for Blade 2 but incredibly letdown when I finally saw it and Blade 3 was just plain terrible. Neither film connects narratively with the first film but they revealed just how uninteresting the character of Blade is beyond learning about his world (film one). I still like the film quite a lot but I do wonder whether it was a big fluke. The Matrix Trilogy conjured up some similar feelings but I've watched the original so many times that I can (mostly) recognize the failure of the sequels as their own thing.
IMHO good to great movies that are not diminished by badly perceived (or just plain bad) sequels/prequels:
Planet of the Apes, The Godfather, Jaws, Star Wars OT, Grease, Saturday Night Fever, Alien/s, Back to the Future (2 was ok, 3 was bad), The Exorcist, Mad Max 1&2, Jurassic Park, The Karate Kid, The Silence of the Lambs, Shrek, The Matrix, Elizabeth, Pirates-Curse of the Black Pearl, Donnie Darko (did anyone else know there was a sequel? It was atrocious...)
For me these are all movies that can be watched undiminished regardless of how bad their sequels were. I have to admit I actually like the SW Prequels but the general perception that they are bad doesn't diminish the OT's brilliance. The Matrix original can stand on it's own while Mad Max 1 needs Mad Max 2 to make it feel complete as does Alien/s- but you can forget the rest. The original Planet of the Apes is a true classic and nothing else came close until the recent prequel/hopefully reboot??.
Finally, the fabbo fun of Grease will never be diminished despite Grease 2...
Can we all just agree that BRING IT ON is still awesome and none of its follow up films diminished its inherent greatness?
Good question but i find myself a bit ambivalent when it comes to providing an answer.
Bad sequels are incredibly disappointing, but diminishing the quality of the movie before it? Not so much. At least for me. I might have been disappointed with X3: The Last Stand compared to the greatness of X2, but i can still put on X2 and enjoy myself.
But I also have a problem.
I love a good ending. Whether it comes to books, movies, TV or any form of entertainment, i think a strong ending is the cherry on top. It doesn't need to have closure (like the lovely endings for both Before Sunrise and Sunset) but ending on a low or flat note does tend to ruin my viewing experience. A terrible ending can be a complete movie killer for me, no matter how great the beginning and middle were. I initially HATED the ending of Birth and had no plans of ever watching the movie again. But for some incredible reason i don't remember (i think it might have been around the time i started reading TFE), i decided to give it a second chance years later and learned to appreciate it.
Now that i think about it, this kind of thinking can probably extend to sequels. With sequels that set an ending for a particular set of movies or a franchise, if the ending is terrible, i do think there will be a chance that it will diminish the quality of the previous movies for me.
I STILL haven't seen The Godfather III because of the terrible reviews and this same fear. I have seen clips on YouTube though. I checked out a Kay and Michael scene (because they were my favorite parts in The Godfather II) and the ending. I liked the ending because it was a pretty apt fate for Michael but i'm still holding off on watching the rest of the movie.
@ Ryan T - As far as i'm concerned, Bring It On never had any sequels. Never.
The Godfather III is not a masterpiece, ok, but it's a hell of a movie. I love the way Coppola switches the epic tone to a dense feeling of decadence. If we compare Coppola's career to Visconti, the director the most inspired him, we're not in front of a The Leopard, the The Godfather Part I. We're seeing Coppola doing Visconti in his German period, with pitch-black pessimism, shakesperean decadence and a physical sense of vanquish. Michael is just like Ludwig, the lonely king with rotten teeth. Remember Helmut Berger has a small role here.
It works way more as a concept than execution, but it's a very very beautiful movie and we can see the genius again in several sequences.
I live in an alternate universe where bad sequels don't exist. My fiance and I often say things to each other like, "The Matrix was such a good movie, too bad there was never a sequel."
Deborah - I think I am going to move to your universe
Michael & Deborah -- see you there. I'm moving, too!
ryan t -- i HATE that those exist. It was hard enough to defend Bring It On (which is totally brilliant) because of its genre and silliness but now people just think of it as this "brand" and the brand sucks. But that movie? Great. I'm so proud that it was on my top ten list that year and that i didn't feel ANY shame about putting it there.
Bad sequels or remakes do not necessarily damage the original film's greatness.