Quote

I think a sequel is a waste of money and time. I think movies should illuminate new stories.

I didn't really want to do another sequel. I go to those movies, and I just sort of enjoy them like a viewer.

Maybe because I'm a child of the '80s, but for me, a sequel is a story that follows the previous one, and sometimes if you haven't seen the original, then you don't understand the second one. Like 'Back to the Future 2.' If you haven't seen the first one, you're not going to get anything out of 'Back to the Future 2.'

That's always the trick with the sequels, is how much do you repeat from the first one. Because we all get bummed out when you go see a sequel and it's beat for beat.

I would never do something like Speed 2 again. If I'd wanted to make those kind of movies I could have signed up for five of them while it was in the can. It wasn't worth it to me. That was just an innocuous, boring movie.

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.

I don't like sequels at all. If the movie's good the first time, why bother?

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.

The truth is when you have a movie that was as successful as 'Chronicle' was, it's not as quick of a process. There are a lot more voices coming in and saying 'This is what the sequel should be' because there's a bigger expectation and a bigger fear of failure. And that's really what's going on with 'Chronicle 2.'

I think you kind of need to acknowledge that the reason why sequels do well is because people that loved the first one come back.