As far as expense, I think if 'Twilight' does well enough, then we should be able to do the big expensive stuff for the sequels. I mean, we have to have werewolves, there's no way around it. They have to be there.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Clearly any film company that makes a film is always going to talk about sequels particularly if they see something as being successful, which Werewolf was.
The coolest thing about the series is that we stay very true to the books; it would be silly for us not to, because the books are exactly what the fans want to see. There's an action side to it, which I love, and there are werewolves now. There aren't just vampires. There's a wolf pack.
Obviously, 'Twilight' had its own alchemy that was amazing, just phenomenal. Nobody thought it was going to make any money. Paramount wouldn't make the movie. Fox wouldn't make it. Nobody wanted to do it.
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.
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.
I think sequels are fine if there's a story, so I think when there is a property that is worthy of a sequel, it could very well happen!
It's always an enormous pressure when you do a sequel. The demands are so high, and it's expensive.
A lot of people ask me, 'Are you going to do a sequel to 'The Guest' or 'You're Next?' - those movies weren't financially viable, so even though there are a lot of fans of it, it'd be a pretty small market we'd be appealing to. It's got to be a big hit for you to really justify that.
I've always been partial to werewolves, perhaps because there's a desperation to their plight that resonates.
I think a sequel is a waste of money and time. I think movies should illuminate new stories.