You must log in or register to comment.
I’m not automatically against sequels, but do we really need a sequel to a 40 year old movie?
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
