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.
The impossibility of a sequel ever recapturing everything - or anything - about its ancestor never stopped legions of writers from trying, or hordes of readers and publishers from demanding more of what they previously enjoyed.
If you think about it, a lot of great horror films have bad sequels just because the market demands you to make the other one right away. Thank God no one in the 'Evil Dead' family thinks that way.
People still come up to me and say, 'Hey, 'Teen Wolf!' 'Teen Wolf Too' closed a week after it opened. Where did they see it?
Sequels are desperate.
In my opinion, where comedy sequels tend to go bad is that they get sillier and lighter.
There's nothing worse than the sequel that's a letdown from the first movie.
George Lazenby was ill-equipped. It's not for nothing that they didn't offer him any sequels.
There's a real danger in doing a sequel. There are some benefits, but that all hinges on how well you execute. Quite frankly, most sequels don't execute well.
