6 replies to this topic

[blue]

Maybe it's just me, but I'm getting the impression that the "original" movies, games, books, etc. are suppuse to be superior to their sequels whether they're good, bad, better, or worse. So does that mean that the agricultural revolution is a sequel to hunting-and-gathering because it only relied on few selected organisms to survive while the other has multiple organisms to choose or democracy is a sequel to absolute monarchy because this form has multiple voices to hear while absolute monarchy has total control or the late 2000s reccession is a watered down version of the Great Depression, etc. I'm aware there are good or superior sequels and why people prefer the originals over the sequels. I just want to let it out since I thought of the over a year. So let me know your thoughts on this topic.
Correction- Months

[RedAuthar]

...I'm not exactly sure where you going but if I got this right...

I believe Movies/Books/Games/etc. and life are two different topics, and not bound by the same rules. Does that make sense?

[Vlad Yvhv]

Sequels often suffer because they try to capture what made the origional good. Some make serious improvements, though. Take Aliens, for example. It kicked the series up enough notches that the more atmospheric Alien³ really sucks in comparison.

Spinoffs generally tend to suck, because they often have to retcon parts of the origional, and often tend to mess around with aspects that made the origional good. Or they make a cartoon that has no real ties to the origional.

Also, none of the Tremors sequels are better or worse than the origional. They all work well because they change the circumstances. They keep throwing curveballs at the people who thought they knew how to beat the monsters. The TV spinoff was a bit weaker, but that's because Sci-Fi threw its production values under the bus so they could work on Earthsea.

As for stuff like remakes: It highly depends on the quality of the origional. The origional The Thing is an awful "man in a suit" monster movie that really doesn't follow the story it's based on very much. John Carpenter's remake is generally considered to be the definitive The Thing, because it's totally badass on multiple levels. In the middle of the road, we have the A-Team movie, which really does justice to the show and updates it rather well. And then we have the absolutely awful remakes that they like to call "reboots" because they're ashamed of the term "remake". Pick a "rebooted" movie series and it sucks. If the origional was bad, a remake will usually be better. If it was good, the remake will most likely suck, because they've screwed around with what made the origional good.

[blue]

...I'm not exactly sure where you going but if I got this right...

I believe Movies/Books/Games/etc. and life are two different topics, and not bound by the same rules. Does that make sense?

Yeah, you're right. I think I've integrate life and entertainment abit.

Sequels often suffer because they try to capture what made the origional good. Some make serious improvements, though. Take Aliens, for example. It kicked the series up enough notches that the more atmospheric Alien³ really sucks in comparison.

Spinoffs generally tend to suck, because they often have to retcon parts of the origional, and often tend to mess around with aspects that made the origional good. Or they make a cartoon that has no real ties to the origional.

Also, none of the Tremors sequels are better or worse than the origional. They all work well because they change the circumstances. They keep throwing curveballs at the people who thought they knew how to beat the monsters. The TV spinoff was a bit weaker, but that's because Sci-Fi threw its production values under the bus so they could work on Earthsea.

As for stuff like remakes: It highly depends on the quality of the origional. The origional The Thing is an awful "man in a suit" monster movie that really doesn't follow the story it's based on very much. John Carpenter's remake is generally considered to be the definitive The Thing, because it's totally badass on multiple levels. In the middle of the road, we have the A-Team movie, which really does justice to the show and updates it rather well. And then we have the absolutely awful remakes that they like to call "reboots" because they're ashamed of the term "remake". Pick a "rebooted" movie series and it sucks. If the origional was bad, a remake will usually be better. If it was good, the remake will most likely suck, because they've screwed around with what made the origional good.

Like I said on my first post of this topic, I get why people prefer the original more than the sequels because of repitition, expecting to have the same feeling as the orginal, and shifting the direction so severely.
I meant only sequels, but I guess spin offs and remakes count.

[RedAuthar]

Spin offs are sequels that don't really follow the main storyline but a side story.
Remakes are stories retold.
Both sorta do fit as a type of sequel.

[Reed Teran]

In essence, I believe the Nostalgia Critic Theory:
Most sequels suck.
Disney is the sequel monster.
Some originals are horrible.(coughcommandocough)

[blue]

While I do get where you're all going, but even so, the best originals have its own flaws and yet many people overlooked them.
This where I made my own theory called primitive syndrome. It's when the original was made and released at the time, many people who saw this the first time thought it was great. Overtime, when its sequels were released it varies great to atrocious depending on their execution. However, when some of them look back, they've realized that the original was its own slip-ups and either forgive or despise it and some of the aspects didn't aged well.
Though that just me.