Why it's not a sequel.

I just saw it. There was NOTHING in the movie that made it a sequel. No reference to the previous story. Not a single one. Sutherland made that comment a year ago, while the movie was still being made. It's obvious they changed their minds about making him the same character.

Here's a review that discusses it: https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/30/16390530/flatliners-review-2017-remake-sequel-kiefer-sutherland-ellen-page-diego-luna-niels-arden-oplev

"Bringing Sutherland in as a mentor figure — one experienced in the dangers of flatlining, and with advice about how to survive — raised the possibility of a Flatliners sequel that would acknowledge the past and push the franchise into the future. It could have helped move the plot along faster, leaving more time for new territory and new developments. And with an experienced older character on hand to draw out the protagonists’ motives and question their purpose, Flatliners could have focused on character development and conflict past the most basic, obvious first steps.
Instead, Oplev and screenwriter Ben Ripley (who also wrote Duncan Jones’ Source Code) opt for the laziest, most predictable route — an almost blow-by-blow remake that runs a new crew of flatliners through the exact same beats as the old ones, but with less energy and creativity. Sutherland’s character is a near-nonentity, a cameo who turns up in a few scenes as a generic cranky medical-center administrator. The character doesn’t do anything specific or interesting to justify Sutherland’s presence."

And this review: http://nerdist.com/flatliners-remake-review-horror/

"And for the record: I reject that this is a sequel. The only apparent tie is Sutherland, who has a small role as doctor who doesn’t even share a name with his original Flatliners character. It’s pure PR because horror sequels get a smidge more respect than remakes."

Also, can you name any other sequel that has the same name as its original? And have you actually seen this movie?