I’m not automatically against sequels, but do we really need a sequel to a 40 year old movie?
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
12 points (83.3% liked)
movies
1679 readers
476 users here now
Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.
A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome
- Discussion threads to discuss about a specific movie or show
- Weekly threads: what have you been watching lately?
- Trailers
- Posters
- Retrospectives
- Should I watch?
Related communities:
Show communities:
Discussion communities:
RULES
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.
2024 discussion threads
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Idk, which is worse a remake or a delayed sequel? Or are they both on the same level?
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.
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.
St. Elmos Embers needs a cameo from Elmo.
Growing up, you don't see the writing on the wall...
Why do they make sequels? Because they didn’t stuff it up the first time