Someone over in the Star Wars Ep. 7 thread got me thinking about this topic and I'm going to put it right once and for all.
This person claims that by throwing out the Star Wars extended universe the new films will ruin the enjoyment he got by reading the novels/comics/etc. because they are no longer official cannon. There's a few things wrong with this, but I want to get to a specific point.
There's tons of people I've talked to, listened to on various podcasts, or chatted on forums with that claim that the Matrix sequels took something away from the original film because they fell so short of the original.
The similar theme here being that, in both cases above, something is retroactively destroying one's enjoyment of something they loved.
This is impossible.
No matter how bad a sequel is, no matter what the new Star Wars will do to continuity, they cannot travel back in time and ruin the first experience a person had with something they loved. Watching The Matrix Revolutions (something I suggest no one ever do), cannot affect how you actually felt the first time you watched the film...and yet I've encountered people who act like that exactly what happened.
The thing about all media is, no matter how intrinsically tied to something else (a sequel for example), can be viewed and enjoyed wholly on its own merit. It is possible to enjoy just The Matrix without taking into account the sequels (in fact, we all did it the first time we watched that film!). It is possible to enjoy Star Wars the films as their own thing and Star Wars the novels as something else.
Someone over in the Star Wars Ep. 7 thread got me thinking about this topic and I'm going to put it right once and for all.
This person claims that by throwing out the Star Wars extended universe the new films will ruin the enjoyment he got by reading the novels/comics/etc. because they are no longer official cannon.
He has a name, you know. It's Valanarch. If you're going to call Valanarch out on something, at least have the decency to say his name.
I don't totally agree. The Star Wars prequel trilogy hurt my enjoyment of the original trilogy AND of the extended universe.
Of course it didn't travel back in time and ruin my earlier experiences*, but being a fan of something is an ongoing hobby, not an encapsulated experience, and so the prequels A) caused my enjoyment of the originals to fall short of where I expected that enjoyment to be (by lowering my ongoing enjoyment) and B) mostly ruined a hobby of mine as a star wars enthusiast.
I actually think tossing the expanded universe is the correct decision for Disney to make, but the collateral damage of ruined enjoyment for some existing fans is real; it's worth it on balance, but don't expect those fans to see it that way.
* This is much, much more complicated than my cavalier dismissal of it, and in a deep sense, I don't even believe what I wrote here. I would recommend the philosophy of Daniel Dennett on this subject for those who are interested.
Someone over in the Star Wars Ep. 7 thread got me thinking about this topic and I'm going to put it right once and for all.
This person claims that by throwing out the Star Wars extended universe the new films will ruin the enjoyment he got by reading the novels/comics/etc. because they are no longer official cannon.
He has a name, you know. It's Valanarch. If you're going to call Valanarch out on something, at least have the decency to say his name.
But regarding your point, I agree.
Dammit, I'm too lazy too look up how to spell his name! Don't blame me if everyone loves their goofy, fantasy inspired names that I can't remember. If his name was "Bob" I would have gladly said "Bob thinks Star Wars can't be an insular experience." Valanarch is the person in question, I'm not afraid to ever call anyone out (I think I've been on the verge of being banned from these forums on a few occasions for being to pointed at others), I'm just too lazy sometimes to open another tab and figure out how to spell someone's name. Yours is easy, though!
@Drawmeomg Do you now watch Episode V and think "this is now less enjoyable because George Lucas lost his mind?" I doubt it. I still watch the original trilogy with the same enjoyment I got when I was 7 (maybe more enjoyment, in fact) even though I really, really hate Episode I.
IMO, if someone can't remove themselves from ancillary properties or even bad sequels/prequels then the problem is with that person and not the property in question.
@Drawmeomg Do you now watch Episode V and think "this is now less enjoyable because George Lucas lost his mind?" I doubt it. I still watch the original trilogy with the same enjoyment I got when I was 7 (maybe more enjoyment, in fact) even though I really, really hate Episode I.
Why yes, I do. Because a lot of my enjoyment from the original trilogy came from deeply investing myself into the expansive world they depict (and not just the action on screen), and that level of immersion is far more difficult / outright impossible in the post-Ep 1 world.
IMO, if someone can't remove themselves from ancillary properties or even bad sequels/prequels then the problem is with that person and not the property in question.
@Drawmeomg Do you now watch Episode V and think "this is now less enjoyable because George Lucas lost his mind?" I doubt it. I still watch the original trilogy with the same enjoyment I got when I was 7 (maybe more enjoyment, in fact) even though I really, really hate Episode I.
Why yes, I do. Because a lot of my enjoyment from the original trilogy came from deeply investing myself into the expansive world they depict (and not just the action on screen), and that level of immersion is far more difficult / outright impossible in the post-Ep 1 world.
This is the insanity I was talking about. I can watch it and pretend the prequels don't exist. I can divorce myself from the bad aspects of the new films and enjoy the originals just fine. Everyone should be able to do this, but you're making a conscience decision not to.
IMO, if someone can't remove themselves from ancillary properties or even bad sequels/prequels then the problem is with that person and not the property in question.
Rude.
Truth, IMO, can never be rude. It can be harsh, but never rude.
EDIT: Speaking of bad and good aspects of Star Wars, the originals are not without fault. Luke is terribly whiny in Episode IV and the bad guys are only bad guys because we're told they are bad. They blow up a planet, but one could make the argument that they were acting in a militarily strategic manner. The plot is thin, overall. We still love those films because of what they were when they were originally released and because, let's face it, Han Solo is freaking cool.
You're simply not as invested. That's not a bad thing, but there's also nothing wrong with being deeply invested.
However, if it wasn't affecting your enjoyment, you wouldn't have to pretend it didn't exist, would you? In order to continue to enjoy it as much as before, you literally are pretending that something that really happened didn't happen.
You're simply not as invested. That's not a bad thing, but there's also nothing wrong with being deeply invested.
However, if it wasn't affecting your enjoyment, you wouldn't have to pretend it didn't exist, would you? In order to continue to enjoy it as much as before, you literally are pretending that something that really happened didn't happen.
Who is the insane one, again?
The sane one, IMO, is the one who finds enjoyment instead of aggravation.
@Drawmeomg Do you now watch Episode V and think "this is now less enjoyable because George Lucas lost his mind?" I doubt it. I still watch the original trilogy with the same enjoyment I got when I was 7 (maybe more enjoyment, in fact) even though I really, really hate Episode I.
Why yes, I do. Because a lot of my enjoyment from the original trilogy came from deeply investing myself into the expansive world they depict (and not just the action on screen), and that level of immersion is far more difficult / outright impossible in the post-Ep 1 world.
This is the insanity I was talking about. I can watch it and pretend the prequels don't exist. I can divorce myself from the bad aspects of the new films and enjoy the originals just fine. Everyone should be able to do this, but you're making a conscience decision not to.
The problem is you can't just "forget" things.... no matter what when I see the force being used I now know that midichlorians exist... The force isn't just some kind of magic anymore... it's explained by micro-organisms. When I see Han Solo I am reminded that Lucas is a douche and decided to not have him shoot first...
New material can't take away the original enjoyment, but it can ruin future enjoyment.
@Drawmeomg Do you now watch Episode V and think "this is now less enjoyable because George Lucas lost his mind?" I doubt it. I still watch the original trilogy with the same enjoyment I got when I was 7 (maybe more enjoyment, in fact) even though I really, really hate Episode I.
Why yes, I do. Because a lot of my enjoyment from the original trilogy came from deeply investing myself into the expansive world they depict (and not just the action on screen), and that level of immersion is far more difficult / outright impossible in the post-Ep 1 world.
This is the insanity I was talking about. I can watch it and pretend the prequels don't exist. I can divorce myself from the bad aspects of the new films and enjoy the originals just fine. Everyone should be able to do this, but you're making a conscience decision not to.
The problem is you can't just "forget" things.... no matter what when I see the force being used I now know that midichlorians exist... The force isn't just some kind of magic anymore... it's explained by micro-organisms. When I see Han Solo I am reminded that Lucas is a douche and decided to not have him shoot first...
New material can't take away the original enjoyment, but it can ruin future enjoyment.
I don't think it can. I can watch the original trilogy, stupid edits included, and still enjoy them. I prefer the unaltered originals, but I can still watch and enjoy the crap versions because of what those films mean to me.
Valanarch acts like he will never enjoy the new films because they wrecked the EU (which, IMO, was never canon anyway) which is beyond absurd because the two universes can co-exist. Hell, the films themselves can contradict each other and it doesn't matter because it's a fictional world that's limited only by our imaginations.
The end of Terminator 2 completely contradicts everything that happened in the course of the two films and destroys any sense of internal logic and I still love those films. There's plenty of gaping plot holes that don't prevent me from enjoying a film or TV show. There's Lost, a show that the entire premise hangs on the hope that the audience will forgive the fact that they drop dozens of plot threads which many people were more than happy to do. I wasn't one of them, I think Lost sucks ass.
Bottom line, we don't have to be tied down by the rules we've set up in our heads. Instead of trying to tie these things permanently together we can love them individually or even as little 3-film chunks. Or one film chunks, if that's what we choose. I decide to be optimistic in my partaking of entertainment. I read mediocre books (The Maze Runner series comes to mind) if they have an interesting premise but suck in the execution. I will read a cliche comic if I like the artwork. I will watch a slow moving, plotless film if it has amazing cinematography. And I can enjoy The Matrix without the sequels.
Actually I disagree with OP, and in fact I've started thinking about this a lot recently.
My reasoning is based on practical expectations of what the audience will do. If you watch Empire Strikes Back, you will probably watch Return of the Jedi afterwards, but you would probably watch A New Hope before watching either. And if you liked the Star Wars original trilogy, there is a distinct likelyhood you will go on to see the prequel trilogy as well. Therefore in both cases the films must be judged as a whole series, rather than each individual trilogy in a vacuum, or each individual film in a vacuum which would make even less sense, but only serves to illustrate my point.
Try to also look at it in reverse. If something *****ty gets a sequel, is your opinion not affected by how bad the original is? Best case scenario, someone who didn't see the original goes to see the sequel, likes it, and ends up watching the original purely as a result.
The lesson here, I think, is that it helps to avoid making bad things and to avoid all association with bad things wherever possible.
Canon is a different issue, however. Something being made canon or not canon shouldn't really affect your enjoyment of something because canon-ness is arbitrary to begin with. No fictional works is real, canon-ness is just a label, a mind trick, and being that it's a mind trick, you can just as easily decide by yourself what is canon.
Actually I disagree with OP, and in fact I've started thinking about this a lot recently.
My reasoning is based on practical expectations of what the audience will do. If you watch Empire Strikes Back, you will probably watch Return of the Jedi afterwards, but you would probably watch A New Hope before watching either. And if you liked the Star Wars original trilogy, there is a distinct likelyhood you will go on to see the prequel trilogy as well. Therefore in both cases the films must be judged as a whole series, rather than each individual trilogy in a vacuum, or each individual film in a vacuum which would make even less sense, but only serves to illustrate my point.
Try to also look at it in reverse. If something *****ty gets a sequel, is your opinion not affected by how bad the original is? Best case scenario, someone who didn't see the original goes to see the sequel, likes it, and ends up watching the original purely as a result.
See, I disagree with this entirely. You can watch and enjoy individual films in a vacuum. You can watch just The Matrix and enjoy it for what it is and ignore the sequels knowing that they stink. Also, despite not liking any of them, I continue to watch the Resident Evil films because the first couple of video games were so awesome when I originally played them. The films are all terrible, but I've watched every one of them (on DVD, come on, I'm not THAT big of a masochist). If they ever make one that isn't awful, I'll admit that it's the good one in the bunch. I'm a huge fan of the original Friday the 13th films, except the 5th one is terrible and it follows the loose continuity of those films and includes a main non-Jason role from 4 and 6 so it's canon, as far as those films go. I don't have to like it or even watch it to enjoy the others in the series, even the ones that involve the story's continuity.
Canon is a different issue, however. Something being made canon or not canon shouldn't really affect your enjoyment of something because canon-ness is arbitrary to begin with. No fictional works is real, canon-ness is just a label, a mind trick, and being that it's a mind trick, you can just as easily decide by yourself what is canon.
Thank you, that's what started this debate in my head. Canon is as much in the eyes of the fans as it is the creators.
Oh, and I should clarify. I was actually thinking from the perspective of judging/rating a movie, not enjoying it. Judging and enjoying are mutually exclusive.
Does Indiana Jones count in this discussion? Because for me personally, dismissing Kingdom of the Crystal Skull entirely comes at no cost to my enjoyment and admiration of Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Does Indiana Jones count in this discussion? Because for me personally, dismissing Kingdom of the Crystal Skull entirely comes at no cost to my enjoyment and admiration of Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Perfect example, and strangely ignored by a lot of the people who feel the opposite of me. No one I've ever met will say Indy 4 took away their enjoyment of the original(s) yet I've encountered plenty of people who say the Matrix sequels make the first one not look as good. Weird.
I don't hate Indy 4 as much as many people do, but I don't watch it the same way I watch the originals. I watch it as sort of a campy b-movie. Maybe that's what they wanted us to do...
That's probably because indy 4 doesn't explain, setup, or inform anything that happens in the other movies. So it's easier to separate.
You've already said that you've, in every case of this you've encountered so far, been able to separate the impact of sequels from your revisit of the earlier films. That's great, but I think it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that people who can't always are flawed in some way and should try harder to do so. If only for the fact that a good film shouldn't have to rely on the audience trying hard to ignore directly related things to effect them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Virtue, Jacques, is an excellent thing. Both good people and wicked people speak highly of it..."
That's probably because indy 4 doesn't explain, setup, or inform anything that happens in the other movies. So it's easier to separate.
You've already said that you've, in every case of this you've encountered so far, been able to separate the impact of sequels from your revisit of the earlier films. That's great, but I think it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that people who can't always are flawed in some way and should try harder to do so. If only for the fact that a good film shouldn't have to rely on the audience trying hard to ignore directly related things to effect them.
You're sort of making my point for me. The audience shouldn't ever have to ignore anything. A sequels plot is informed by the previous film, not its quality. Films and TV shows and books and comics can be enjoyed in a vacuum. You are right about one thing, I am an a-hole who thinks it's bonkers that people can't separate elements of fiction. I'll concede that point.
Retroactive enjoyment may be in your head, but that doesn't make it any less real.
If all you have is the memory of watching something and enjoying it, and then something clouds that memory, it is going to worsen your retroactive enjoyment.
I saw the first Matrix film again a few years back, for the first time since seeing the sequels. I had almost forgotten entirely how amazing of a movie it was. I was watching it in awe. Every time I had thought about it between seeing the sequels and then, my memory was tainted by the awfulness that was the sequels.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
You're sort of making my point for me. The audience shouldn't ever have to ignore anything. A sequels plot is informed by the previous film, not its quality.
And quality is totally divorced from plot now?
also other technically non-plot stuff can be affected but it's basically no different so whatever
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Virtue, Jacques, is an excellent thing. Both good people and wicked people speak highly of it..."
I mean, basically the idea that there is something wrong with you if a bad sequel/prequel turns you off to the originals is bonkers. That's just not how (most) human brains work.
You're sort of making my point for me. The audience shouldn't ever have to ignore anything. A sequels plot is informed by the previous film, not its quality.
And quality is totally divorced from plot now?
also other technically non-plot stuff can be affected but it's basically no different so whatever
Some films are all plot. Some aren't. Some are bad. Some are good. Quality doesn't have to be divorced from plot, but it can be. Especially when it comes to prequels. You don't have to be the slightest bit concerned that the Matrix sequels weren't good because the first one was great on its own.
I mean, basically the idea that there is something wrong with you if a bad sequel/prequel turns you off to the originals is bonkers. That's just not how (most) human brains work.
Proof that my highly evolved mind is superior to (most) humans.
So now someone who enjoyed episodes IV-VI for their plot prior to the prequels should ignore plot and try to find enjoyment elsewhere? I guess I'm okay with that, but it's not their fault if they can't find it. That'd be absurd.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Virtue, Jacques, is an excellent thing. Both good people and wicked people speak highly of it..."
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This person claims that by throwing out the Star Wars extended universe the new films will ruin the enjoyment he got by reading the novels/comics/etc. because they are no longer official cannon. There's a few things wrong with this, but I want to get to a specific point.
There's tons of people I've talked to, listened to on various podcasts, or chatted on forums with that claim that the Matrix sequels took something away from the original film because they fell so short of the original.
The similar theme here being that, in both cases above, something is retroactively destroying one's enjoyment of something they loved.
This is impossible.
No matter how bad a sequel is, no matter what the new Star Wars will do to continuity, they cannot travel back in time and ruin the first experience a person had with something they loved. Watching The Matrix Revolutions (something I suggest no one ever do), cannot affect how you actually felt the first time you watched the film...and yet I've encountered people who act like that exactly what happened.
The thing about all media is, no matter how intrinsically tied to something else (a sequel for example), can be viewed and enjoyed wholly on its own merit. It is possible to enjoy just The Matrix without taking into account the sequels (in fact, we all did it the first time we watched that film!). It is possible to enjoy Star Wars the films as their own thing and Star Wars the novels as something else.
Rant over. Flame away.
But regarding your point, I agree.
Of course it didn't travel back in time and ruin my earlier experiences*, but being a fan of something is an ongoing hobby, not an encapsulated experience, and so the prequels A) caused my enjoyment of the originals to fall short of where I expected that enjoyment to be (by lowering my ongoing enjoyment) and B) mostly ruined a hobby of mine as a star wars enthusiast.
I actually think tossing the expanded universe is the correct decision for Disney to make, but the collateral damage of ruined enjoyment for some existing fans is real; it's worth it on balance, but don't expect those fans to see it that way.
* This is much, much more complicated than my cavalier dismissal of it, and in a deep sense, I don't even believe what I wrote here. I would recommend the philosophy of Daniel Dennett on this subject for those who are interested.
Dammit, I'm too lazy too look up how to spell his name! Don't blame me if everyone loves their goofy, fantasy inspired names that I can't remember. If his name was "Bob" I would have gladly said "Bob thinks Star Wars can't be an insular experience." Valanarch is the person in question, I'm not afraid to ever call anyone out (I think I've been on the verge of being banned from these forums on a few occasions for being to pointed at others), I'm just too lazy sometimes to open another tab and figure out how to spell someone's name. Yours is easy, though!
@Drawmeomg Do you now watch Episode V and think "this is now less enjoyable because George Lucas lost his mind?" I doubt it. I still watch the original trilogy with the same enjoyment I got when I was 7 (maybe more enjoyment, in fact) even though I really, really hate Episode I.
IMO, if someone can't remove themselves from ancillary properties or even bad sequels/prequels then the problem is with that person and not the property in question.
Why yes, I do. Because a lot of my enjoyment from the original trilogy came from deeply investing myself into the expansive world they depict (and not just the action on screen), and that level of immersion is far more difficult / outright impossible in the post-Ep 1 world.
Rude.
This is the insanity I was talking about. I can watch it and pretend the prequels don't exist. I can divorce myself from the bad aspects of the new films and enjoy the originals just fine. Everyone should be able to do this, but you're making a conscience decision not to.
Truth, IMO, can never be rude. It can be harsh, but never rude.
EDIT: Speaking of bad and good aspects of Star Wars, the originals are not without fault. Luke is terribly whiny in Episode IV and the bad guys are only bad guys because we're told they are bad. They blow up a planet, but one could make the argument that they were acting in a militarily strategic manner. The plot is thin, overall. We still love those films because of what they were when they were originally released and because, let's face it, Han Solo is freaking cool.
However, if it wasn't affecting your enjoyment, you wouldn't have to pretend it didn't exist, would you? In order to continue to enjoy it as much as before, you literally are pretending that something that really happened didn't happen.
Who is the insane one, again?
The sane one, IMO, is the one who finds enjoyment instead of aggravation.
The problem is you can't just "forget" things.... no matter what when I see the force being used I now know that midichlorians exist... The force isn't just some kind of magic anymore... it's explained by micro-organisms. When I see Han Solo I am reminded that Lucas is a douche and decided to not have him shoot first...
New material can't take away the original enjoyment, but it can ruin future enjoyment.
I don't think it can. I can watch the original trilogy, stupid edits included, and still enjoy them. I prefer the unaltered originals, but I can still watch and enjoy the crap versions because of what those films mean to me.
Valanarch acts like he will never enjoy the new films because they wrecked the EU (which, IMO, was never canon anyway) which is beyond absurd because the two universes can co-exist. Hell, the films themselves can contradict each other and it doesn't matter because it's a fictional world that's limited only by our imaginations.
The end of Terminator 2 completely contradicts everything that happened in the course of the two films and destroys any sense of internal logic and I still love those films. There's plenty of gaping plot holes that don't prevent me from enjoying a film or TV show. There's Lost, a show that the entire premise hangs on the hope that the audience will forgive the fact that they drop dozens of plot threads which many people were more than happy to do. I wasn't one of them, I think Lost sucks ass.
Bottom line, we don't have to be tied down by the rules we've set up in our heads. Instead of trying to tie these things permanently together we can love them individually or even as little 3-film chunks. Or one film chunks, if that's what we choose. I decide to be optimistic in my partaking of entertainment. I read mediocre books (The Maze Runner series comes to mind) if they have an interesting premise but suck in the execution. I will read a cliche comic if I like the artwork. I will watch a slow moving, plotless film if it has amazing cinematography. And I can enjoy The Matrix without the sequels.
My reasoning is based on practical expectations of what the audience will do. If you watch Empire Strikes Back, you will probably watch Return of the Jedi afterwards, but you would probably watch A New Hope before watching either. And if you liked the Star Wars original trilogy, there is a distinct likelyhood you will go on to see the prequel trilogy as well. Therefore in both cases the films must be judged as a whole series, rather than each individual trilogy in a vacuum, or each individual film in a vacuum which would make even less sense, but only serves to illustrate my point.
Try to also look at it in reverse. If something *****ty gets a sequel, is your opinion not affected by how bad the original is? Best case scenario, someone who didn't see the original goes to see the sequel, likes it, and ends up watching the original purely as a result.
The lesson here, I think, is that it helps to avoid making bad things and to avoid all association with bad things wherever possible.
Canon is a different issue, however. Something being made canon or not canon shouldn't really affect your enjoyment of something because canon-ness is arbitrary to begin with. No fictional works is real, canon-ness is just a label, a mind trick, and being that it's a mind trick, you can just as easily decide by yourself what is canon.
See, I disagree with this entirely. You can watch and enjoy individual films in a vacuum. You can watch just The Matrix and enjoy it for what it is and ignore the sequels knowing that they stink. Also, despite not liking any of them, I continue to watch the Resident Evil films because the first couple of video games were so awesome when I originally played them. The films are all terrible, but I've watched every one of them (on DVD, come on, I'm not THAT big of a masochist). If they ever make one that isn't awful, I'll admit that it's the good one in the bunch. I'm a huge fan of the original Friday the 13th films, except the 5th one is terrible and it follows the loose continuity of those films and includes a main non-Jason role from 4 and 6 so it's canon, as far as those films go. I don't have to like it or even watch it to enjoy the others in the series, even the ones that involve the story's continuity.
If only we could...
Thank you, that's what started this debate in my head. Canon is as much in the eyes of the fans as it is the creators.
Perfect example, and strangely ignored by a lot of the people who feel the opposite of me. No one I've ever met will say Indy 4 took away their enjoyment of the original(s) yet I've encountered plenty of people who say the Matrix sequels make the first one not look as good. Weird.
I don't hate Indy 4 as much as many people do, but I don't watch it the same way I watch the originals. I watch it as sort of a campy b-movie. Maybe that's what they wanted us to do...
You've already said that you've, in every case of this you've encountered so far, been able to separate the impact of sequels from your revisit of the earlier films. That's great, but I think it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that people who can't always are flawed in some way and should try harder to do so. If only for the fact that a good film shouldn't have to rely on the audience trying hard to ignore directly related things to effect them.
You're sort of making my point for me. The audience shouldn't ever have to ignore anything. A sequels plot is informed by the previous film, not its quality. Films and TV shows and books and comics can be enjoyed in a vacuum. You are right about one thing, I am an a-hole who thinks it's bonkers that people can't separate elements of fiction. I'll concede that point.
If all you have is the memory of watching something and enjoying it, and then something clouds that memory, it is going to worsen your retroactive enjoyment.
I saw the first Matrix film again a few years back, for the first time since seeing the sequels. I had almost forgotten entirely how amazing of a movie it was. I was watching it in awe. Every time I had thought about it between seeing the sequels and then, my memory was tainted by the awfulness that was the sequels.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
also other technically non-plot stuff can be affected but it's basically no different so whatever
Some films are all plot. Some aren't. Some are bad. Some are good. Quality doesn't have to be divorced from plot, but it can be. Especially when it comes to prequels. You don't have to be the slightest bit concerned that the Matrix sequels weren't good because the first one was great on its own.
Proof that my highly evolved mind is superior to (most) humans.