Poll: Which is worse?

[Blindswordmaster]

A great movie that you love getting no sequels, or a couple really shitty sequels? CHOOSE!
Note: The movie in question that started this thought process was Highlander.

 

[Marter]

No sequels is better.

Why would I want something I love to get bad things associated with it?

 

[Ein987]

No sequels. If it was a good movie, it doesn't need one.

 

[Dimitriov]

No sequels is the better option by far. This is true of other things than movies as well.

 

[Seives-Sliver]

I would prefer no sequals, most of the time a sequal is rushed out and looks horrible, or...Well...The Matrix sequals can handle this for me.

 

[Ceil-Sama]

No sequels. If you really want bad sequels, look in a fanfiction community.

 

[BanthaFodder]

if you ask me, the best kind of movie is one where sequels aren't needed, but you still want more.
for example, Lucas coulda ended Star Wars after the first one. the Death Star blows up, Darth Vader flies away, and everyone lives happily ever after... he COULD have ended it, but it's a damn good thing he didn't.
for me, no sequels is worse. if a sequel is bad, it's not like they're going back and changing the original awesome one. Jaws is still a masterpiece, even though the last outing had a roaring, exploding shark fighting Michael Caine in a seaplane

 

[Vault101]

and then you get the dreaded.....Reboot

no seaqules definietly

 

[MajWound]

I direct your attention to "The Boondock Saints" and "The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day". I wish now that there was no sequel. This movie could have remained unblemished for all eternity.

 

[Dr. Pepper Unlimited]

Star Wars anyone...?

I'd rather have nothing horrible attached to what was already wonderful.

 

[SilentCom]

A series of bad sequels is worse because it makes people want to forget about the movies. If sequels were not made then at least fans would be optimistic about the potential of there being a sequel.