|
|
Post by KO on Apr 3, 2006 21:12:59 GMT -5
The originals are always better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Hygiene on Apr 3, 2006 21:45:15 GMT -5
In general, my opinion is that the first ones are better. However, there are a good number of exceptions - I think when the sequel is not made out of pure profit, when it is made by someone with a good idea and who actually *cares* about the subject, you often get a better movie. My examples of this would be X-men 2, Spiderman 2, Aliens, Terminator 2, Toy Story 2, Star Trek 2, and so on. Sometimes, as in Batman Begins, someone comes along and takes a franchise movie and blows away what has been done in the past.
There are lots of counter examples, too, though, which I don't feel like dredging up from memory. Anyway, I can't really go either way on this for a single answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by spacechief on Apr 4, 2006 2:23:12 GMT -5
Even split. Enough sequels collapse and die, but a lot also turn up the heat and are a lot better.
|
|
|
|
Post by FredC on Apr 4, 2006 6:14:19 GMT -5
It's a split. Sometimes the movies are better than the sequels, and sometimes the sequels are better than the movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Javorsky on May 1, 2006 20:28:18 GMT -5
maybe not a 50/50 split but a lot of sequels are pretty good, once you start running into multiple sequels things can start to get sketchy
|
|
|
|
Post by Chuck on May 1, 2006 20:51:06 GMT -5
Evil Dead II was technically much better than the original.
Halloween III was an hysterical comedy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Kane Hodder on May 2, 2006 6:06:11 GMT -5
I'd take an original or a sequel over a crappy remake any day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skellen on May 4, 2006 10:20:21 GMT -5
If the sequels are well done then great. I love continuing storylines. Remakes though, I tend to avoid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ratso on May 4, 2006 20:19:17 GMT -5
The only sequel that was better than the original is Spiderman 2.
So my vote goes for the originals.
|
|
