I like to write about a lot of things, which is why my books are different. This is probably why I don't like to write sequels, but chiefly I like to write about people.
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.
While I always thought of making sequels to movies like 'Ghayal,' the filmmakers would almost always veto the idea.
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.
I've just written a very gritty, non-magical take on the King Arthur legend, 'Here Lies Arthur,' and I'm currently toying with some other historical ideas, as well as working with the illustrator David Wyatt on some sequels to my Victorian space opera 'Larklight.'
Sequels are very rarely a good idea, and in any case, the success of the book changed my relationship with the club in some ways.
Believe me, sequels are just as hard to make as original films.
I'm still an English professor at Rice University here in Houston. They've been very generous in letting me on a very long leash to just work on 'The Passage' and its sequels.
After 'Pitch Perfect,' I only want to be in sequels. No. 2 of whatever.
I've always avoided sequels, unless I felt there was something fresh.
'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.
The 'Saw' sequels went in a direction I wouldn't have gone in. With 'Insidious 2,' I wanted to push a potential franchise in the direction I thought it should go in.
I did not want to write one of those sequels that famous first-book authors get into where everybody says, 'Oh yeah.'
The reason why Hollywood cranks out so many sequels and adaptations is because the audience is so overwhelmed with choices, the only way to get them in the theater is to give them something familiar.
I'm not contractually obligated to sequels on anything.
When you have films like 'Bourne' that succeed, not only does it beget sequels, but it begets people taking chances.
I don't like sequels at all. If the movie's good the first time, why bother?
