I mean, frankly, I'm not speaking as a representative of Disney or Pixar, I'm speaking as just myself as a filmmaker: I don't go into anything that often thinking about a sequel.
At the end of the day, you just want to go to a team that believes in you... and hopefully wants to build a franchise around you.
My passion for 'Star Trek' is actually rooted in my love of television and the art of franchise and a premise designed to stick people together that have to figure out what to do.
I don't think action alone is enough to sustain a film franchise. There are tons of action movies out there that come and go and people don't care about.
You can't think of a franchise from day one. It starts with the audience accepting the idea.
I think in the wake of the domination of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, everyone is now looking for a grand plan.
What's great is what Coach Popovich and R.C. Buford and the whole family have done a great job in continuing to build the franchise and still be very, very competitive.
I've always made sequels, even when I was making Super 8 movies if the audience liked it.
When you make a film for a million and a half dollars and it opens at 20 million, the next question out of everyone's mouth is, 'When's the next one, when's the next one, when's the next one?'
I take a firm stand against sequels. My industry brethren are a little shocked at how firmly I'm committed to not doing sequels.
I want to be a guy the Royals build their team around.
I'm one of the lucky directors that pretty much every movie I've done has started a franchise. But I never think this way. I think that's the way you break it, if you go, 'then at the end, at the end we'll see you later.' I was forced to do it in 'Clash of the Titans.'
I made a decision back in 1978 that, in a trade off for money when I directed Halloween, I would have my name above the title in order to basically brand these movies my own.
I think it's good to tell the fans "this movie's going to lead to that, and that will lead to..."
Hollywood today is all about being consistent. All thinking in mainstream film business takes place in one box.
I think I've done a lot of movies that people would like to have seen a sequel to. But I grew up in a time when we didn't do sequels. You just did a movie because you wanted to do a movie and you wanted to tell a story. It wasn't to build a franchise.
I think Hollywood has seen what fandom can do for a project. You can definitely see that when you go to Comic-con.
When I first did 'The Fast and the Furious', I didn't want there to be a sequel on the first one. I thought, 'Why would you rush to do a sequel - just because your first film is successful?'
My approach has always been to put 100% into the movie I'm making right now. I think sometimes filmmakers put too much thought into the grand franchise they're going to build. And guess what? If the first movie doesn't work there is no franchise, so I'm always concentrated on making the best, best possible movie right now.
I'm always the last person they go to with a sequel, because I'm the most skeptical. You know, I'm very proud of what we've done, and I don't want to screw up our series.
There are franchise players to build around that have championship-level talent, skill, basketball IQ, and character - it's hard to find those guys. Those guys are rare.
If you can get a second-round pick that makes it, it's unbelievable for that franchise, what you save and all the other things to build. You're always looking for guys like that.
