Zitat des Tages über Fortsetzungen / Sequels:
Like a lot of people, for a long time I thought that the road to hell is paved with bad sequels.
You do sequels because they are tent poles. They open well, and they hold the tent up. But in between, you make a movie you respect.
I think sequels should be earned and we won't do it unless the script is better than the first one.
But, George and Steven asked me to write the Indiana Jones sequels, and I didn't want to.
There's nothing wrong with doing sequels, they're just easier to sell.
I'm not a huge fan of prequels and sequels and the cynical rush to make money on the back of books by other writers who are now dead.
A lot of times in movies, especially in sequels, the characters become caricatures and just sort of improv machines and joke machines, rather than people you can actually connect to.
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.
As we all know, sequels can be tricky.
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.
We wanted to do a sequel with Jim and Jeff. They said that the word was that Jim didn't want to do any sequels. We approached him and he said he would do it, but not until next year. New Line said it was too long to wait.
I'm sure they will have more sequels for 'Tarzan' where he goes to England, school, and whatever else they can think of. It's a natural that they will continue the series.
Obviously, if people love a movie, and it has the possibility of continuation, then there is going to be a question of whether it's worth doing another one. There's also cynicism and skepticism about sequels.
I hate sequels. They're never as good as the first book.
I feel the way I always do about sequels. If there's an idea that excites me enough, and it feels like a way to do something new and fresh, then great. But I don't ever want to do a sequel just for the sake of doing a sequel.
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.
They're just not into doing sequels after Toy Story so I don't think that's a possibility. But if they did, well sure, you'd have to do it. And I'd want to do it.
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.
There are so few good comedy sequels. The only one in recent memory that's good is '22 Jump Street.' It's a hard genre.
I'm proud of all the movies I've made. They're not sequels, they're not franchises. And the reason I pick my films carefully is that I don't want to spit on my life. I like to think of myself as more than that.
I'd love to see a good script of one of my books, in these years of animations and comic book sequels, and had so many written over the years, but none quite clicked.
Sequels are hard.
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.
When people write fan-fic sequels to one of your books, it gives you a very strange feeling. It is very flattering but strange, as if the characters have come to life again without you knowing.
I didn't direct any of the 'Saw' sequels, but people thought I did.
I never actually plan sequels. They demand to be done.
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.
Audiences can be leery of sequels; the studios make a hit, they see dollar signs, and they make a cheap rip-off.
In 'Scream 2', they have this discussion about how sequels always suck.
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!
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.
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.
I've always made sequels, even when I was making Super 8 movies if the audience liked it.
I hate the idea of sequels. I think you should be able to do it in one book.
I am wary of sequels. I understand them from the studio's point of view, but the audience doesn't want more, they want better, and I thought the second 'Ghostbusters' was not very effective, it did not really work, so there's no reason to believe a third would. I'm more interested in new things.
George Lazenby was ill-equipped. It's not for nothing that they didn't offer him any sequels.