And one thing Hollywood does well is sequels.
I'm glad I wasn't in 'Free Willy 3.' That's all I can say on that.
I've never had good fortune with sequels. Everyone says this time is going to be better. And then I've done them and they've just been not - they weren't better.
I didn't make good money on 'Nightmare' until part three. I eventually got some nice merchandising checks.
With both Caddyshack and Vacation, it's not like the subjects were serious enough that they engaged my interest for another round. I love the characters, and the actors were great, but I didn't see the need to make another Vacation movie.
Sequels are scary. And making a sequel to something as good as 'Scanners' is even scarier.
As far as expense, I think if 'Twilight' does well enough, then we should be able to do the big expensive stuff for the sequels. I mean, we have to have werewolves, there's no way around it. They have to be there.
There are expectations with sequels, and people want them to be bigger and better than the prequel.
Then that did very well at the box office, so before you knew it, we were in a string of feature motion pictures. Then they announced that they were going to do some spinoffs of us.
I think a sequel is a waste of money and time. I think movies should illuminate new stories.
An established property can be a blessing and a challenge. On one hand you have all those fans of the original that you can pick up with and continue on with but then you have a lot of people out there who haven't seen the first and might feel like this isn't a movie for them because of that.
We did 'The Simpsons Movie,' which took almost four years; it was the same people that do the TV show, and it just killed us. So that's why there hasn't been a second movie. But I imagine if the show ever does go off the air, they'll start doing movies.
I'm just trying to think what other sequels there were. There was the James Bond movies and not many. I think sequels have become a recent idea of franchising.
We all love the first Rocky, but I’m not too sure about the last one.
You do sequels because they are tent poles. They open well, and they hold the tent up. But in between, you make a movie you respect.
Obviously, if people love a movie, and it has the possibility of continuation, then there is going to be a question of whether it's worth doing another one. There's also cynicism and skepticism about sequels.
I'm not a big fan of prequels to be honest.
There will be a Skype movie soon... someone will crack the code, and it will be great. Then, there'll be 30 Skype movies, and we'll be like, 'Oh, that's boring.'
I'm not much on sequels; I'm not much on remakes for the most part. I don't really like or dislike them.
I hope there are 10 sequels to the 'Guardians' movie!
I'm aware of [Doctor Strange] place within the comic pantheon of it all, the Marvelverse, but I don't email saying, "When are we doing next film?" I'm excited to see.
There have been several television movies, 'Carrie 2,' two musicals! I remember thinking, the first time there was a musical on Broadway, 'Oh my gosh! The people who ordinarily go to the theaters, that's not really the audience.'
I didn't direct any of the 'Saw' sequels, but people thought I did.
'Housefull' was a mass entertainer. Kids loved that film and they asked me when I was coming back. I feel I can't tell them that I am coming back as Baba 3G in a sex comedy, 'Kya Super Kool Hai Hum.'
I did do a war movie, 'Windtalkers.' That was a lot of action. But once you've done one big action/war movie, you don't need to do another one.
