A question of preference:

Do you prefer a sequel to a "low budget hit film" be an upgrade? change of location ( the characters go to japan or france for some reason; high school student goes to college ) addition of famous faces ( the main characters long lost uncle is played by an academy award winning actor) with bigger and grander fight scenes, car chases, or explosions.

And of those who may notice, better and brigher cinematography.

or do you prefer the movies that stay true to the original (are there ever really movies like this?) same location, same actors, same essence.

would like to know what you guys think- with examples if u got 'em.

P.S. as an aspiring filmmaker in atlanta i was figurin out away to keep the true grit of an original film for the sequel: shoot both as if its one big movie at the same time. cut it in half with a sense of resolution inbetween. and release the second half a year later.

Instead of having to deal with actors holding out for more money, studio rules,etc.

HA!

im so slick....

....do they do that?

Speaking in the most general of generalities, find out what fans of the original film loved and keep that in mind when creating any sequels. The script style, thematic elements, etc. But be careful not to just make what's essentially a poor quality clone of the first feature (Boondock Saints II?) or to turn popular characters into caricatures of themselves (Disney's Pirates sequels?)

Technical upgrades in terms of cinematography or effects are always welcome, but make the change gradual. It can be jarring for those who pay attention to suddenly see the world of the movie change. (early seasons of Buffy versus later seasons?)

If you're going to have a role or cameo with a big name attached to it, do it unobtrusively. There's nothing more annoying than watching a movie and then all of a sudden INTRODUCING MR. GEORGE CLOONEY, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!

Just a better story would do.