It came right on the heels of A Room With A View. And that was such an enormous success, so I think people were hoping that Maurice would also have that kind of success.
The first chapter sells the book; the last chapter sells the next book.
I would say the main thing is, don't just copy yourself, which is what a lot of sequels do. And in some cases, it works. Like James Bond movies. But James Bond is a different type of character.
We knew no matter how well 'Phir Hera Pheri' does, it would always be compared to 'Hera Pheri.' Yet, we took it as a challenge.
It is difficult to meet fan expectations, especially when people say, 'Oh, the last one was the best one.' It creates more pressure each time for the next game to top the last one.
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.
The reason why people don't get called back to sequels is because they did badly in the original [movie].
People loved the first two 'Toy Story' films so much, and the last thing I wanted to do was make a disappointing third film.
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.
The way you set up for a sequel is by having a successful film. The focus is on making a successful film, and making a film that travels around the world, and that people enjoy and have fun with, and that people are able to escape with.
There's a thing with genre movies and science fiction movies that number two is the charmed; two seems to be the best. I loved 'Terminator 2.'
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.
When we did the first sequel [of the Austin Powers] , it was on coattails of the first one doing so well when it was released on video, so we really didn't know what to do with the second plot.
The brilliance of 'Sharknado 2' is it's more of the same - similar formula, more of the experience.
You just can't put a '3' after the title of the film. If you have a franchise that has worked, it does not mean that you can go on making it.
We all know the dangers of sequels. Lightning doesn't strike twice in the same place too often, and I think you've got to move beyond it, go the extra mile and have the courage not to just repeat the first one.
You have to be very careful when you're working on a sequel, because it has to be a continuation of what you did before.
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.
Believe me, sequels are just as hard to make as original films.
A sequel is going to be a pressure no matter who directs it. A sequel is only made when the original film works.
My favorite sequels are basically all Mike Myers films - 'Wayne's World 2,' 'Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me,' 'Shrek 2.' Anything he does, it's best the second time around. He needs to do 'So I Married an Axe Murderer 2.'
We made 'Housefull 4' because 1, 2 and 3 were loved by the audience.
'Step Brothers 2' would have been fun, there's no doubt about it. Maybe someday. Does that idea age? I don't know. It all depends on how the movie ages.
The kind of love that people have for Hrithik and me, if there were a 'Kaho Naa Pyaar Hai 2,' the film will get a bumper opening only, for sure.
