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.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
A sequel is such a daunting thing, because you don't want to lose the magic and the charm of the first one.
I'm not into things that feel like a sequel. There's just something magical about when something happens for the first time.
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.
As we all know, sequels can be tricky.
I hate the idea of sequels. I think you should be able to do it in one book.
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 pointedly avoid doing sequels, since for the most part I find that a sequel rarely stands up to the original.
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.
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 don't like sequels at all. If the movie's good the first time, why bother?