WedgeCyan said:

I only like Raiders. And I don't think it's that weird to only like the original Star Wars. I've never seen a sequel I thought was better than the first one. (yet)

For me, Indiana Jones consists of Raiders and Temple of Doom. The only reason I can sort of enjoy Last Crusade is Sean Connery, but it still doesn't feel like an Indy movie to me, and the less said about #4 the better. And Doom only works for me because they tried to do something legitimately different than Raiders.

I also only really acknowledge the first Back to the Future - #2 is entertaining, and #3 is just campy, but neither feels like it belongs in the world established by the first one. I mean, why give Marty such a crippling flaw (the "chicken" thing) in the sequels? That alone makes him feel like a different character than the BTTF1 Marty to me.

I'm not against sequels as a rule (I'd say The Godfather Part II is superior to its predecessor, for instance), but generally, unless they're planned for in advance, they undermine the original.

And superhero/comic book movies tend to be exempt from all this, as they're designed to be continued on and on. Even then, sequels generally aren't as good as the first (the only exceptions that come to my mind there are Spider-Man 2, The Dark Knight, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and X2 - hell, maybe even First Class or Days of Future Past, too), but even the subpar sequels don't usually undermine what the original was trying to do like "standard" sequels tend to.

I guess my point is, I don't see anything wrong with only liking (or acknowledging) the first in a series.