There's a meta-ish moment in the second
Die Hard installment that presumably exists to comment on the generally absurd nature of movie sequels in general, and to win the affections of a potentially conflicted audience at the same time. Confronted with an explosive situation that even he recognises as being perhaps a tad too familiar, veteran cop John McClane deadpans: How can the same s**t happen to the same guy twice? In this case, you have to admire the filmmakers for addressing the problem: a lot of sequels exist in an unnatural state. Firm in the knowledge that a continuation will make money, regardless of whether or not it makes sense from a narrative perspective, movie studios will always find a way to make a sequel if there's the slightest possibility of audiences buying it. Occasionally, this involves making a movie that simply reprises the original. John McClane's moment of meta-realisation is interesting for a number of reasons, though. Is it okay for filmmakers to rehash successful movies if that's ultimately want the public want? How far can you verge from the formula of the first movie, as not to erase the spirit of the original completely? It's a toughie, for sure, and very few sequels have managed to get it right. In the cases of the 10 movies I've assembled here, the filmmakers involved simply opted for the easiest route: re-making the original flicks all over again, with a few minor tweaks for variation. You know, 'cause it's a sequel.