I'm not big on sequels; I've done them, but I like doing little things that have their own timelessness to them, classic type things, and then you go onto something new.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I didn't really want to do another sequel. I go to those movies, and I just sort of enjoy them like a viewer.
I don't know if I would do sequels. I almost feel like when I'm done with them, they're going to have to find their own way.
I've always avoided sequels, unless I felt there was something fresh.
I think a sequel is a waste of money and time. I think movies should illuminate new stories.
Early in my career, I decided not to do sequels. I know that children enjoy them, but I valued the feeling that this was the only time I would write about these characters. I felt it gave me an added incentive to do my best by them, to tell readers everything I knew, to hold nothing back.
I pointedly avoid doing sequels, since for the most part I find that a sequel rarely stands up to the original.
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.
My gut feeling about sequels is that they should be premeditated: You should try to write a trilogy first or at least sketch out a trilogy if you have any faith in your film.
I'm not into things that feel like a sequel. There's just something magical about when something happens for the first time.
It's always scary when you're doing a sequel to a film, because you don't want to just repeat the first film in a different location like most sequels. You want to do something totally different, and something that actually expands the world of the main character.
No opposing quotes found.