2006-06-23 16:07:48 · 31 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
It doesn't bother me, as long as the actor replacing the original is decent. I believe James Bond fans love Roger Moore as much as Sean Connery. Christian Bale was the best Batman on film, and I loved the first Batman! I will see Superman, and if I can enjoy myself watching a man fly and lift heavy stuff, who cares that the original (who would have been WAY to old had he lived) isn't there in the tights? Not me!
2006-06-23 16:16:15 · answer #1 · answered by ralfinader 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It depends on whether the sequel seems to be worth my time. The new Fast and Furious was good. Even without the original cast, it was still a good movie. But the Son of the Mask was pure garbage just like I thought it might. So some are worth seeing and others are not.
2006-06-23 16:13:25 · answer #2 · answered by Majixion 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Usually the sequels are not as good anyway. Sometimes movies with different characters and actors are okay, but movies with different actors playing the same characters is horrible. Look what happened to Mortal Kombat and Mortal Kombat: Annhilation. Christopher Lambert (I believe he played Rayden in the original) was the perfect actor for that part. When they had a new Rayden in the sequel, it was horrible.
2006-06-23 16:40:39 · answer #3 · answered by rebekkah hot as the sun 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dan Aykroyd, Joh Belushi, Jane Curtain (that *****) and that i do no longer comprehend if he became unique member yet Eddie Murphy became so humorous, and so became Garrett Morris The skits I cherished the appropriate have been Donnie & Marie getting it on kissing, Eddie Murphy as James Brown doing "warm tub", something the Blues Brother's did, Chevy Chase at clumsy Gerald Ford, the conheads (fairly the daughter, Lorraine Newman), Gilda Radner as Rosanna Radannadanna
2016-12-08 12:06:07 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yeah! what is the point of watching it? Why do producers even make a sequel if they don't have the original cast. I think it should be illegal to make sequals unless you have the original cast EXCEPT if one of the cast members die-that's different.
2006-06-23 16:16:03 · answer #5 · answered by Dani A. 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes!!!
I don't think they're really sequels without the original cast and they're usually **** house i.e. Fast and the Furious 2.
2006-06-23 16:12:05 · answer #6 · answered by honky550 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. The sequels don't interest me when the original actors don't return - except Harry Potter, where the original Dumbledore died.
2006-06-23 16:09:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no but the key for choosing a sequel is in were the money comes from. If the studio is well known it will be filmed better.so even if the movie is with a bunch of no names at least the storyline will be tolerable
2006-06-23 17:19:14 · answer #8 · answered by Jason R 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Home Alone 3 was made when Macaulay Cullkin was too old for the part. It wasn't as good as the first 2. The story line stunk, but the bad guys were good.
Remakes aren't as good as the origionals either.
2006-06-23 19:02:52 · answer #9 · answered by Patty Pooh Pooh Pie 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, even if they do have the original cast members, perhaps not for the Star Trel series of movies. I did see those.
2006-06-23 16:52:20 · answer #10 · answered by johnb693 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋