I hate sequels. They're never as good as the first book.
I'm always surprised when a sequel is not as good or better than the first one. I never understand that. You've already set your own bar. You've already done the hard work. It should be easier to make the second one, but a lot of the times, it's not.
The only reason I would write a sequel is if I were struck by an idea that I felt to be equal to the original. Too many sequels diminish the original.
There are expectations with sequels, and people want them to be bigger and better than the prequel.
You only have to go hardcore humiliation on the first film. On the subsequent sequels, you can coast.
I looked long and hard at third films in series to see if there were any good ones that I could learn from. And there weren't any that hadn't just gone off the train tracks by their third film. Until, that is, I got to the third 'Lord of the Rings' film.
I am a fan of sequels even though they are inevitably awful.
Believe me, sequels are just as hard to make as original films.
People will turn their noses up at a sequel or that type of thing, but Pixar really works hard - if they're making a sequel - to make a sequel an original movie, to make it an original story.
The first Halloween was very well made. The second one was also well made, though I didn't like it as well as the first one. The third one had nothing to do with the series at all and perhaps shouldn't have been made at all.
If I do do a sequel, I'm going to have to know for sure that the script is better than the original. So I'm going to be very careful about that because I'm not eager to repeat myself.
Sequels are desperate.
In 'Scream 2', they have this discussion about how sequels always suck.
I think sequels should be earned and we won't do it unless the script is better than the first one.
If you'll think about various series you've read, can you think of any instance in which, say, the tenth volume of the series is notably better than the first nine? I can't.
Every sequel needs to be bigger and better.
I pointedly avoid doing sequels, since for the most part I find that a sequel rarely stands up to the original.
Sequels to most movies are always fluff and not as good as the first.
It's tough to make a sequel that stands up to the original especially one that has, over the course of time, become a bit of a cult favorite.
My experience is that sequels are rarely as good as the originals.
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.
I think true connectivity is something that is rare in sequels. I mean I love the first 'Die Hard' film; you won't find a bigger 'Die Hard' fan than me. But I feel like with the sequels, they're just taking that character and dropping him in different scenarios. There's no real connective tissue.
I have been lucky because sometimes things go really pear-shaped with a second or a third part, but I have been lucky enough to be in good sequels.
The last thing I want to do is to present something as 'Stephen King, Part II,' and have it be something that's a big disappointment.
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.
