One of the hardest moments for any sequel is the expectations to match the original film or surpass it. However, some sequels can be downright terrible and there is the belief that it can damage the reputation of the original. ‘Does a bad sequel hurt the previous movie?’ – This is what the VGU staff had to say on the matter.
8 Best Movie Fight Sequences with top-of-the-game action: Kill Bill Volume 1, Inception, The Matrix, and more that will take your breath away.
The kids of Elm Street don't know it yet, but something is coming to get them in their dreams.
Alien 3 celebrates 30 years. David Fincher's feature length debut is controversial both for its production history and the final product.
Absoloutly not, as I feel that a sequel does not hurt the previous movie, nor does a bad first film, make the sequel bad. Even in a trilogy, the films are individual.
I think it depends. A while ago, movies stood on their own with little to any connection between them. Thus you could say "this movie is awesome!" and completely forget the sequels exist. Or perhaps the sequel was the better one.
Today, it seems movies intertwine with each other and don't tell an "entire" story so they lead into one another. In THAT instance, I'd say yeah, you run the risk of hurting the brand.
Mostly not. Never got all the hate for the Matrix sequels though. They are not as good as the first, but still kick ass entertaining sci-fi movies.
Bad sequels, or in these days reboots, can't really take much away from the originals. But they can sure kill interest in a franchise for many.
I have very low hopes for the new Terminator films for example...
I think it really does depend. The problem isn't so much that it hurts the previous film, it's that peoples general perception of the franchise goes down on the whole.
What happens is you start talking about a film (like Spider-Man) and the first thing out of someone's mouth is "Yeah, but Spider-Man 3 sucked". While it doesn't truly make the previous film any worse, you always have to contend with the stigma it's brought to the franchise.
generally the answer is NO, it does not, films are rated individually. a very strong film will always remain strong regardless of how the next sequels fair because it can stand on its own. for example: the godfather, it is ranked as the best film of all time but the third film was not as good but still you can never take away whatever the classic achieved. the same goes with other films like starwars, rocky, jurassic park, terminator etc. even if it has the same director or actors or continuity plot it will not as long as the film can stand on its own and has a closure on it.
on some cases, if a film has a direct continuity or is just a part of the next film involve then i can say it can hurt the film because the previous film ended in a direct cliffhanger like matrix reloaded & matrix revolutions, pirates of the carribean 2 and 3 etc. wherein the first part was good and the followup was bad then i can say the entirety of the film should be based on how it faired
overall.
the thing is you have to analyze the film as a story and not overlook it as a franchise wherein if one sucked the others will also suck. lord of the rings has 3 films but basically a single story but spiderman also has 3 films but is just a layered story that has a closure in betweens.