Quote of the Day
Sequels are not done for the audience or cinema or the filmmakers. It's for the distributor. The film becomes a brand.
Francis Ford Coppola
I'm not contractually obligated to sequels on anything.
I am a fan of sequels even though they are inevitably awful.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I was skeptical about doing Texas Chainsaw at first because it's such a cult classic. I'd seen some of the sequels and was not a fan of those.
I read 'Treasure Island' for the first time at university. And I started to notice then how unresolved some things were. Later, I realised that Stevenson was interested in sequels, and I wondered whether he would have gone back to it had he lived longer.
Publishers are very risk-averse, so they lean towards licenses and sequels. But the fact is that even those are not guaranteed hits. So, if 'playing it safe' does not guarantee hits, they might as well leave it up to the really creative, risk-taking people, because they couldn't do any worse.
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.
I suppose sequels are inevitable for a writer of a certain age.
People make sequels a lot in Hollywood, and sometimes it feels like there's never an original thought.
At Pixar, we do sequels only when we come up with a great idea, and we always strive to be different than the original.
Sequels are desperate.
I did not want to write one of those sequels that famous first-book authors get into where everybody says, 'Oh yeah.'
Robert M. Pirsig
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.
And one thing Hollywood does well is sequels.
Maybe Oliver Stone doesn't lend himself well to remakes or sequels, because he does them so well the first time.
'Troll 2' is one of the rare sequels where you don't have to waste time watching the first one, since the films have absolutely nothing to do with one another.
After 'Pitch Perfect,' I only want to be in sequels. No. 2 of whatever.
I like to leave a film open-ended, with a lingering feeling. I'll not do sequels of any of my films till I have subjects to explore.
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.
When you do films that have multiple sequels, you develop a character for a film.
You know for years before the notion of sequels, actors were the franchise. John Wayne would rarely do sequels, but he kind of played the same guy with a different name in every movie. I have no problem with using actors as franchises. And that's what is fun to do.
A. P. J. Abdul Kalam
Image of the Moment
Get Social with BrainyQuote
Follow BrainyQuote on Facebook, Twitter and Google+ to share inspiring quotes with friends.
Join us on
Follow us on
Follow us on
Quote of the Day
BQ on Facebook
BQ on Twitter
BQ on Pinterest
BQ on Google+
BQ on Instagram
Quote Of The Day Feeds
Quote of the Day Email
© 2001 - 2015 BrainyQuote