• Stereotype_Be@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’m not automatically against sequels, but do we really need a sequel to a 40 year old movie?

    • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Idk, which is worse a remake or a delayed sequel? Or are they both on the same level?

      • Stereotype_Be@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s a good question. I think I’ll take a sequel 40 years later over an awful remake that’s bound to change a lot of the original story.

        • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          I think you’re right. As an example there’s the Paul Rudd Ghostbusters movies. Ok sequel, nothing really wrong with it. The second one wasn’t watchable, but at least they’re not trying to replace the originals.

  • kowcop
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    Why do they make sequels? Because they didn’t stuff it up the first time