I'm not really a sequel guy. I did 'Angels & Demons' after 'The Da Vinci Code,' because I like working with Hanks, and I felt it was a really different sort of world that we were visiting. That was, of itself, interesting.
Sequels are scary. And making a sequel to something as good as 'Scanners' is even scarier.
There are a lot of parallels between doing a sequel and doing low budget movies, which is they give creative parameters. As a creative person myself, I work better with parameters as opposed to anything goes.
I always like to make sequels. It's a nice business to be in.
Other than Peter Jackson doing 'Lord of the Rings,' I don't get it when filmmakers follow up a movie with a sequel to the same movie. God bless 'em if they can be up for it, but that would drive me insane.
I think artists sometimes go back to something when we never should, for many different reasons. You hear a lot of stories that make you feel good about the work and the project; sometimes you try to relive that, like, 'I want to make a part two.'
I've always avoided sequels, unless I felt there was something fresh.
Believe me, sequels are just as hard to make as original films.
I would happily have done any of the 'Bourne Identity' sequels. There are good sequels, but I'm not good at making them.
