• TachyonTele@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 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
      ·
      5 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
        ·
        5 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.