Does a bad sequel ruin the original for you?

[Joe the Photog]

No. "Die Hard" is still a great movie even if "Live Free Or Die Hard" is a 2 out of 4 at best.

[Icy Tea]

Every series has clunkers , especially if its just a cash cow for the studio. I wouldn't mind seeing Predators going up against Terminators with human resistance playing spoiler to get any technology they can. Or Terminators being called up to stop Xenomorph Aliens. Arnold could be in either. No Sigourney Weaver, though. She's poisoned the franchise being in too many stinko sequels.
Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Mad Max, Star Trek, so many clunkers.

[RollsRoyce1]

Originally Posted by Mark S.

HALLOWEEN is a flawed masterpiece. Most of the sequels are mediocre to dreck. Doesn't spoil the first.

This is a great example. IMO the first & second Halloween's are great. And I really dug the 4th one because it picked up the story of Michael Myers 10 years later. But, everything that came after is forgettable. So I always viewed Halloween as a classic trilogy 1, 2 & 4.

Rocky 4 is terrible, but I still dig 1-3, and don't hate 5 as much as others seem to.


I think Die Hard was smart in that they repurposed other books or films for most of their movies, thus telling different stories with familiar characters. The 2nd and 5th installment fell flat, but Die Hard, Die Hard with a Vengeance and Live Free or Die Hard were strong movies.