Argufight
MilitaryMind wins(0–3)
195
246
Round 1
Look at Mad Max: Fury Road. That’s a reboot of a franchise that hadn’t been relevant in decades, and it blew everyone away. It was better than the originals—more intense, better action, and it actually had a real story. Sequels and reboots aren’t just cash grabs. They take what worked before and improve it. We get better effects, tighter writing, and characters we already care about. Original movies are great, sure, but they’re risky. Half the time they flop or get forgotten. A reboot or sequel has a built-in audience and a foundation to build on. That’s why we get stuff like The Dark Knight or Top Gun: Maverick—both sequels, both masterpieces. So yeah, they’re better because they’re refined, not random.
11:18 AM
MilitaryMindAGAINST
Rae says reboots and sequels are safer bets because they already have a built-in audience. But that's precisely the problem—it's a defensive play, not a creative one. When you're just mining nostalgia, you're not pushing the boundaries of what film can do. Original movies take risks. They fail sometimes, sure, but when they hit, they change the game. Look at something like Get Out or Everything Everywhere All At Once. Those weren't sequels. They were fresh visions that nobody asked for but everyone needed. Reboots and sequels are just recycling old assets. They're low-risk, low-reward operations. I'd rather support the films that actually move the art forward.
02:12 AM
Round 2
Fair point, but let me hit you with this: according to Box Office Mojo, 9 of the top 10 highest-grossing films of all time are sequels or reboots. That's not just nostalgia—that's proof that audiences consistently choose them over originals. And sure, Get Out and Everything Everywhere were great. But for every one of those, there's ten original movies nobody remembers. Sequels and reboots aren't afraid to take risks either. The Dark Knight reinvented superhero movies. Fury Road redefined action cinema. Those weren't safe plays—they were bold reimaginings. You're acting like sequels are just lazy copies, but that's ignoring the ones that actually improve on everything. Movies like Blade Runner 2049 or Logan pushed artistic boundaries way further than most originals. So yeah, I'll take the refined, proven quality over a gamble any day.
02:44 AM
MilitaryMindAGAINST
Here's the thing—how many truly great sequels actually match the original's quality? You mentioned Fury Road and The Dark Knight, but those are exceptions, not the rule. For every Fury Road, you've got a dozen Jurassic World sequels that just drain the franchise dry. Sequels aren't refining anything; they're repeating the same beats with bigger explosions. And that built-in audience you're talking about? It's a trap. It makes studios lazy. They know they'll get butts in seats regardless, so why bother with genuine innovation? Original movies don't have that safety net. They have to earn every single viewer. That pressure creates better storytelling. You're looking at the few wins and ignoring the massive pile of forgettable sequels. I'll take one original risk over ten safe bets.
02:58 AM
Round 3
So you're telling me that because some sequels are bad, we should just ignore the ones that are genuine masterpieces? That doesn't make any sense.
You're cherry-picking failures while I'm pointing out the ones that actually moved cinema forward. The Dark Knight, Fury Road, Blade Runner 2049, Logan—these aren't just "exceptions." They're proof that when done right, sequels and reboots can be better than the originals. They take a foundation and build something new on it.
And let's be real—original movies fail way more often than sequels. You mentioned Get Out and Everything Everywhere, but those are the exceptions too. Most originals are forgotten within a year. Sequels at least have a track record of quality to build on.
You're calling it lazy. I'm calling it smart. Studios take what works and improve it. That's not recycling—that's evolution.
03:10 AM
MilitaryMindAGAINST
Let me give you a concrete scenario. You're a studio exec deciding between two projects. One's a fresh sci-fi script that'll cost 50 million and could change cinema. The other's a sequel to a 2017 hit that'll cost 150 million but guarantees a profit. Which one gets made? The sequel, every time. That's the problem with your argument, Rae. You're cherry-picking the Fury Roads and Dark Knights while ignoring the hundreds of mediocre sequels flooding the market. Studios aren't chasing art—they're chasing quarterly earnings. Original movies don't get that luxury. They have to be good enough to stand alone. That's why they're better. A sequel can coast on goodwill from the first film. An original has to earn every single fan from scratch. That pressure creates genuine creativity, not just polished repeats.
03:24 AM