Is the prequel to a remake better than the remake? When it got 2 more legacy sequels and another prequel, who cares?

Fans of any ongoing franchise are always going to argue over which one deserves to be ranked at the top of the pile, unless of course we’re talking about some of the most iconic IPs in the history of horror, where the originals have rarely been bettered. With that in mind, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre currently finds itself in the midst of an utterly redundant argument.

Despite being nine films deep, not a single one of the successors to Tobe Hooper’s 1974 classic have come anywhere close to matching the game-changing slasher, although it’s not for a lack of trying. The 2003 remake produced by Michael Bay might not be very good, but it’s still one of the most important and influential terrors of the 21st Century after igniting the remake boom.

Next up was a prequel that went back to the start, but a critical drubbing saw The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning get a planned sequel canceled in favor of Texas Chainsaw 3D, a legacy sequel that picked up where the first installment left off. When that failed, it was back to the prequel well once more for Leatherface, before a second legacy sequel landed in the form of Netflix’s abhorrent Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Going remake>prequel>legacy sequel>prequel>legacy sequel underlines the serious lack of ideas on offer, but Redditors are still locked in debate over whether Marcus Nispel’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is better or worse than Jonathan Liebesman’s The Beginning. While both sides are stating their cases in a variety of ways, the easiest answer is surely “who cares?,” when they’re both every bit as underwhelming as each other.