Whether it's from original to remake, prequel to sequel, or even scene to scene, film fans are not unkown for succumbing to Broken Base.
Star Wars: One side will tell you only Empire is worth salt, one camp only likes the original, the largest camp will tell you only the original trilogy was good, because the Prequels were very divisive. Were they meaningful, worthy, Rule Of Cool abiding, or deeper or wangsty and emotionless with no story? And then you have those few that can't stand the original. Then of course there is the debate over the quality of the Expanded Universe
Even more violent and vitriolic than the argument over the quality of the Expanded Universe is the argument over the canonicity of the Expanded Universe. The Non-Canon side of the argument pointed out that George Lucas himself, the creator of Star Wars and the Presumed Voice of God when it comes to Star Wars (at least one would think, anyway) doesn't consider anything other than the films to be canon, the Pro-Canon side of the argument's response was to marginalize Lucas's opinions as unimportant in the overall scheme of things since "he really has no say in the matter", a view Lucas apparently finds rather funny (not to mention irrelevant).
Lucas has clarified his position by stating that the Expanded Universe is a separate entity from "official Star Wars material" (Lucas's own words), and has a separate, unconnected canon all of its own. The Pro-Canon took this to mean that the EU was canon. The Non-Canon side of the argument took it to mean that the EU wasn't canon, and the whole fight started all over again.
The irony is that some Non-Canon fans dismiss the canonical prequels, essentially becoming Hypocritical.
In addition to the additional debates about the EU, the New Jedi Order was particularly divisive as it had a much darker theme then earlier works and involved a great deal of biotech. This can largely be considered the Zahn vs NJO debate in that Zahn represents the earlier era in which there was a much more lighthearted feel in which the heroes always win in the end and none of the major characters die, the NJO begins with killing Chewbacca.
And the Traviss books. Mandalorians=avatars of all that is noble/powerful/good, Jedi=Untermenschen. As can be expected in a universe that is more or less built around the idea of the Jedi being awesome, this generated a bit of a firestorm.
Batman: Were Nolan's films dark, realistic, and thoughtful or just too pretentious and serious? Was Batman Forever (since Batman & Robin is universally hated) entertaining, campy, and respectful to the comics or a long toy commercial with lots of Narm? Were Tim Burton's films deep, beautiful, well acted, and respectful to the material, or too dark, disrespectful, and violent? Was Batman: The Movieentertaining and hammy, or corny?
While Sean Connery's role as James Bond is almost unanimously loved, any other actor playing Bond after him has been either loved or hated by the fans.
Basically, there's two types of James Bond fans: Those who like the more dark, emotional, serious Bonds(and therefore generally prefer Dalton or Craig's roles), and those who like the more camp, joking, lighthearted Bonds(and therefore generally prefer Moore or Brosnan's roles).
Blade Trinity created an upheaval among fans; some felt the Nightstalkers over shadowed Blade (especially Hannibal King), while others felt the Nightstalkers were the best thing about the movie.
Some see Sarah as a broken sympathetic woman who was pushed over the edge by Juno's idiocy and incompetence. Not to mention she found out about Juno's affair with her husband, and the cover up of the injury to Beth. Others see her as a psycho bitch who unfairly condemned Juno to death by intentionally wounding her leg over a genuine mistake she made.
Some see Juno as a good (but flawed) friend who was just trying to make the group of friends close again by taking them caving. And acted heroically when they were being attacked by the mutants (for the most part). While others see her as a incompetent home wrecking jackass who got everyone killed.
Then there's the third group who see both of them as sympathetic flawed characters.
Group 4 sees them both as unredeemable jackasses who deserved everything they got...But felt sorry for everyone else who was dragged down with them.
The surprisingly good sequel gleefully plays with this. Adding more fuel to the fire.
As mentioned below there's also debates over whether The Crawlers adds to the film or ruins it.
Then there's Highlander... oh dear God. You got the Original fans, the Zeist people, the TV series fans, the multiple continuity fans, the "stong immortals" fans and their "weak immortals" nemeses, those who cherry pick, those who actually liked The Source, and those that come up with their own unique views. And guess what, that doesn't cover HALF of the categories these fans are grouped into... AND they all hate each other with such a passion it makes sunis and shias look like first graders fighting in a schoolyard.
Another example would be the recent Millennium-era films that were released from 1999-2004.
Godzilla: Final Wars anyone?
Destoroyah's gender of all things. Fans can't agree on whether it should be a male (which he is in the canon of the films/games), a female (due to many fan observations regarding his...erm...biology), or both/neither (again, due to numerous fan observations).
King Kong VS Godzilla. In general, fans are divided over who should've won even though Toho Studios has stated that Kong technically won. The ambiguous ending doesn't help matters.
Which era of Godzilla films is also hotly debated. Were the Showa (1955-1975) films fun yet cheesy films or low-budget over-the-top messes? Was the Heisei (1984-1995) era a good throwback to Godzilla's darker roots or were they nothing but wangst and boring "beam war" fights? And, then there's the aforementioned Millennium era. Good luck getting the fans to agree on any one era.
Even the monsters that go up against Godzilla fall under this. On the one hand, you got fans who want to see Godzilla go up against more original monsters. On the other, you got fans who want Godzilla to fight more classic monsters like Ghidorah or Mothra. They rarely, if ever, agree with one another on any level.
Question: Are 28 Days Later and its sequel movies zombie movies? It may seem like a simple yes-or-no question, but there are places on the Internet where you will be lynched if you get the answer wrong.
The concept of whether or not zombies can run explodes nearly every time a new work arrives featuring speedy undead (and while the creators of 28 Days Later never actually refer to the infected as "zombies", creators of works such as the video game Left 4 Dead do, leading to a barrage of complaints such as "STOP CALLING THIS A ZOMBIE FILM/SHOW/GAME"). The terrifyingly divisive nature of the question came to a surreal peak after the UK digital channel E4 aired Dead Set, a show about a zombieinfected undead running creature infestation on the Big Brother house written by comedy writer Charlie Brooker. When Brooker referred to it as a zombie show whilst promoting it, Simon Pegg (of Shaun of the Dead fame) took umbrage. The result? The two having an argument via a nationalnewspaper.
The Lion King sequels. To some, they are extremely impressive and some of the few good Disney sequels made. To others, they are crap.
Which is less broken than it sounds considering that that they're comparing different sources (they're good in comparison to most Disney sequels, but not a patch on the original movie).
Horror fans seems to be split over the quality of audacious foreign horror films when compared to American horror films. They're either refreshing and daring, or gory pretentious crap.
Also among horror fans there's a sub-debate on what should be considered a Horror film as oppose to a Thriller and vice versa. Some feel that Thrillers are neutered horror films made for people who can't hack "Real" horror.
And within the film medium there's the whole debate over when is dark, bleak, and depressing, too dark, bleak and depressing? And the use of the Downer Ending... Some are of the opinion that people are Completely Missing the Point and that horror is SUPPOSED to be dark, bleak, and depressing. Others take the view that using such a limiting definition and emotional palate only serves to make everything ultimately seem exactly the same.
The thing is; by nature Horror is very dark, bleak, and depressing anyway. Just look at H.P. Lovecraft's work along with Edgar Allen Poe, and the Frankenstein novel. This isn't anything new really. The dividing line comes from people trying to deviate from the formula for better or for worse. While others think this actually takes away the effectiveness of the genre rather than add to it (however if it's a genre mash up it's usually seen as ok). This is likely a microcosm of the debate over people liking/hating the fact that some horror stories add either action, humor, and or sci-fi.
The disagreements over bleak and dark tone seems to be mostly a matter of personal taste than anything. Same with having actual ghosts/demons/aliens etc..in the film.
And whether or not to use humor and comedy. Does it add to the movie, and mood or destroys it?
For the Literature medium there are those who prefer the short and simple stories to the 900 page Doorstops. Mostly because they think Horror stories are much more effective as short stories, as bigger books tends to drag.
There's also a debate over perceived attitudes towards the genre. For instance on message boards there will be a fan who'll be like "Yaaay they're making Terror On Cliched Street part 20!", and another disgruntled one who'll be like "*ugh* Hollywood has run out of ideas". The latter thinking the former is everything that is wrong with horror today. While the former think that the latter group are a bunch of pretentious Jerkasses who think foreign horror is the best thing since indoor plumbing, and is taking the genre too seriously. While the latter fires back by saying they're the ones that are giving horror fans a "bad name" (and by extension the whole genre).
Even then people argue that if it doesn't have any supernatural/fantasy/sci-fi elements it's not a real horror film. Hell some think adding too much sci-fi and technobable ruins the genre, likely a microcosm of the Maybe Magic, Maybe Mundane approach where they use science or sci-fi to explain away the paranormal/supernatural (which some see as a cop out). Same thing can be said for adding in action (See James Cameron's Aliens below)
In addition to the above is it a bad idea to try and explain everything in a horror story/plot. Or is it best to leave it mysterious and vague?, Or is that a Writer Cop Out?
There's also accusations of people Running the Asylum for the worse, By keeping all of the arguably negative stuff around because they think it's the norm for the genre. Basically creating a horror version of Sci Fi Ghetto.
It doesn't help that the horror genre is subjective (and polarizing) to begin with.
Speaking of horror films, there seems to be a divide on how to make zombie films, and what makes a good zombie film as oppose to a generic zombie film. Should they be humorous zombie killing action pieces? Or dramatic, thought provoking, Socio-Political commentary and or deep character studies?
Punisher: War Zone, it's either completely horrible or the best Punisher film ever.
There's also a debate on whether or not Punisher is actually mainstream film material. Most of the violence people complained about in war zone came directly from the comics.
Believe it or not there are quite a few people who hate James Cameron's Aliens, feeling that he destroyed the concept of the first film.
Similarly Terminator 2: Judgment Day. Mostly over it's "lighter" tone compared to the first film which was darker with a lot of horror undertones.
There's also a split over what the franchise should cover. One group want more exploits with Arnie's T-800 model, while the second group think Arnie is played out, and want to see future John Connor lead the resistance against the machines. The latter group is getting their wish....Maybe. After the lukewarm reception of Salvation the direction is up in the air.
The divide basically boils down to More/Less time travel, More/less Arnie, More/Less future resistance battles, More/Less Kyle Reese and Sarah Connor. Exemplified by the responses at the bottom of this article. The base is essentially shattered into a million pieces.
This might have caused some resentment towards T2. Some fans felt Cameron just rehashed the first Terminator film, but with better special effects, instead of giving them a movie about the future John Connor.
The current split seems to be between whether The Sarah Connor Chronicles or Terminator Salvation is the superior take on the franchise, but there is relatively wide agreement that Salvation wasn't nearly as good as hoped.
George A Romero's Diary of the Dead is either a sign of his further decline, or his rebound.
Both Alien vs. Predator, and Alien vs Predator: Requiem has a Broken Base. Fans of the former hates the latter, and fans of the latter hates the former. And then there's the other group of fans that hate them equally and the last group that like them both equally.
The Matrix movie was followed by those other two sequels. Also check out thisxkcd on Matrix's 10-year anniversary: "- Wanna put on the other two? - Crash! Wham! Ow! Ow!"
Toy Story vs Toy Story 2. While the first one was an instant classic, the sequel is often thought of as being an Even Better Sequel which has led to much dispute between fans of the first. At least the third movie had universal acclaim.
Shrek gets this as well, between its first and second movies. But definitely not its third.
On the topic of Pixar: Is Cars 2 a shining example of sequelitis, or is it just as good as the original (however good you thought the original to be)?
The film Paranormal Activity has about 3 different endings, and sure enough there's 3 different groups of fans that support one of the 3 endings over the others.
The Resident Evil films, so much so that from an objective point of view it's actually 2 completely different groups of fandom at each others' throats. One group is the fanbase from the games, the others are solely fans of the films. In the beginning there might have been some cross polination. But around the time the second film arrived (or maybe the third) fans of the game split off. Relatively leaving only the Periphery Demographic as a fanbase for the film franchise. These two groups DO NOT like each other.
Some of the A Nightmare on Elm Street sequels created a Broken Base. Dream Warriors (whom some even see as THE best NOES film), and The Dream Master are usually highly reguarded. Where as Freddy's Revenge, Dream Child (Though some say had a great sureal eerie look, and interesting ideas), and Freddy's Dead is the least liked, though there are a few who say Freddy's Revenge, and Dream Child is not as bad as everyone makes them out to be, But fans generally all agree that Freddy's Dead is the worst. And don't even bring up ''New Nightmare'' which is especially polarizing, The Critics loved it though. And then there's the remake.
Friday the 13th has the same issues especially with the polarizing New Blood and Jason Takes Manhattan
In Blade Runner, is Deckard a Replicant, or is that a ridiculous idea that would defeat the entire point of the film?
Tom Savini's version of Night of the Living Dead. Some saying it's a terrible remake that tarnishes the original. While others says that it's incredibly underrated and complements the original, Some saying it's far more entertaining. Sub-arguments of this film are;
Patricia Tallman's interpretation of Barbara vs the original actress (O'dea) interpretation. Plus there's the Took A Level In Bad Ass that Tallman's character took.
Tony Todd vs Duane Jones' version of Ben.
Whether or not the revamped ending is better than the original.
The Halloween series. Some prefer the films with Jamie Lloyd to the Continuity RebootH20, and Rob Zombie's films are nearly as divisive.
Phantasm III is polarizing among the phantasm fandom. Also there's other points of contention like..
Is the Tallman of supernatural origin?, Or alien origin? (in the Sci Fi sense). The series is very vague about this.
The sudden death of Liz from the second film is kinda dicey as well.
When, where and how certain characters got infected in The Thing. In fact this could actually be a positive as it's part of the appeal when discussing the film.
Then there's the prequel...which is another can of worms.
The two versions of The Shining: Stanley Kubrick's version is a horror masterpiece, or a travesty that defiled Stephen King's original novel. The remake is a triumphant vindication of King's vision, or a dreadfully sub-par made-for-TV movie.
The upcoming World War Z film already has this thanks to leaks revealing that the adaption is very loosely based on the book.
Pretty much everything in all films really is a broken base. From Megatron and Optimus being brothers, is that metaphorical or not and does it make sense with any past canon? Is Dino actually Mirage and Que Wheeljack? With a lot of fans just ignoring Ironhide's and, sometimes, Jazz's deaths. To the ever popular "Is it a bad movie or not?"
Planet of the Apes: The timelines of the original film. There are devotees of the "it's all a giant circular timeline" theory, ie the aftermath of 'Battle' ends up back at the beginning of film one, and devotees of the idea that Zira and Cornelius changed history by coming into the past with Caesar.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes has gotten into this, with those who loved it and think it was an intelligent film and those who think it had way too many plot holes, Mythology Gag stuff and logic failures.
