yes. you would give me shit all the time when i would complain about terrible remakes and sequals. remember karate kid? you defended that based on its ability to make people money. well now this is bad, but its gonna make money. now you know how it feels. only its not as insulting as karate kid was.
Oh, I see where you're coming from.
First, let me say that I generally don't "berate" someone in the instance he/she has an opinion different from mine on a topic I'm invested in. Even if I disagree strongly with the opinion, and argue against the opinion, I try to stay mindful not to needlessly throw personal attacks and insults toward a person. So, you saying I berated you over a disagreement kinda threw me off (hence the response).
That said. Let me clarify a bit here, since I guess I don't see this in exactly the same context as you seem to.
When it comes, particularly, to needless sequels that add nothing to (or possibly detract from) their respective franchises, I'm sure we can mostly agree (on principle). Where possible disagreement may come up will be with variance of opinion on the actual "quality" of the sequel, and where the line gets drawn on whether it should or shouldn't have even been made. I really don't mind sequels, so long as it makes sense for there to be sequels
(EX: See below for my feeling on 300 getting a sequel), and they are not obviously being spammed out for money (ala Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, Fast and Furious, Die Hard, etc).
^ HOW THE F*** does 300 get a sequel?!!?
In regards to MGS5, here, I'm sure we can fully agree that this game serves no real purpose other than to make Konami money off the franchise name. MGS has run its story arc, and better would be for them to do new arcs, titling the games Metal Gear [something else] if they want to keep using the "Metal Gear" name.
Note - I have no problem with Metal Gear Rising.
On the particular topic of remakes, it's clear our opinions differ drastically. For one, I'll admit I'm very lenient when it comes to remakes (and movies in general), as I can see the value in (or at least understand the goal of) updating an old property to draw-in a new audience. I get that ... especially with movies. Now does Hollywood go wrong with a lot of remakes? YES, they do. But I'm not one to be as sensitive and/or as harsh about it as some others choose to be.
About The Karate Kid remake, particularly, I don't have a problem with it. I actually really like the movie. Some people really hate it. And ironically, it was, at one point, going to BE titled "The Kung Fu Kid", but someone in marketing decided something like "Hey, we'll make more money with it being 'The Karate Kid'. It's pretty much the same movie, anyway!". That, and maybe Dreamworks' trademarking of "Kung Fu" names has some "legal" influence on the name (according to a Jackie Chan blog). Whatever.
http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/jackie-chans-karate-kid-remake-to-be-called-kung-fu-kid/
http://jackiechan.com/blog/1017815--The-Karate-Kid-Worldwide-Promotional-Tour
The next day, I booked a theater and bought 120 tickets for all my friends and colleagues to watch The Karate Kid, which is called "Kung Fu Dream" in Chinese. Remember, since Dreamworks registered "Kung Fu Panda", they also registered "Kung Fu" everything! So in China, that is not a problem.
And just for arguments' sake ... if it
were titled "The Kung Fu Kid", for instance, would it really have made ANY difference for a some people? Instead of complaints being "It's a terrible remake of The Karate Kid!", complaints would be "It's a terrible rip-off/wannabe of The Karate Kid!".
Point being ... I don't see MGS5, here, being in the same context as something like The Karate Kid. I don't have a problem with The Karate Kid. I see MGS5 as completely unnecessary. Others' opinions may very well differ/vary.