Discover the most popular and inspiring quotes and sayings on the topic of Sequels. Share them with your friends on social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, or your personal blogs, and let the world be inspired by their powerful messages. Here are the Top 100 Sequels Quotes And Sayings by 93 Authors including Sam Raimi,Seann William Scott,Nathan Fielder,Madhur Bhandarkar,Tim Federle for you to enjoy and share.
I've always made sequels, even when I was making Super 8 movies if the audience liked it.
To do a sequel is so weird, you don't really think about it.
I'm not into things that feel like a sequel. There's just something magical about when something happens for the first time.
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.
The biggest difference in writing a sequel is that now there are expectations. But also - and this is the awesome part - now there are fans, too!
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 like doing sequels. Basically, I think it's a fun thing to follow characters in time. In real time.
In 'Scream 2', they have this discussion about how sequels always suck.
It's always an enormous pressure when you do a sequel. The demands are so high, and it's expensive.
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.
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.
When I first did 'The Fast and the Furious', I didn't want there to be a sequel on the first one. I thought, 'Why would you rush to do a sequel - just because your first film is successful?'
There are a lot of parallels between doing a sequel and doing low budget movies, which is they give creative parameters. As a creative person myself, I work better with parameters as opposed to anything goes.
Early in my career, I decided not to do sequels. I know that children enjoy them, but I valued the feeling that this was the only time I would write about these characters. I felt it gave me an added incentive to do my best by them, to tell readers everything I knew, to hold nothing back.
People make sequels a lot in Hollywood, and sometimes it feels like there's never an original thought.
You never know in a movie if it's going to be a sequel, but right now I'm proud of what we produced.
When you do films that have multiple sequels, you develop a character for a film.
What they don't realize is that sequels are bound to disappoint those who have waited for them.
I do think that at a certain point, the reboot sequel mode has to give way to original ideas and back to a place where, you know, films are, you know, a medium and the cinema is a place you go to see something that is, you know, wholly new.
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.
Why not dream your own wonderful sequels? When you have finished a book, it can go on in your mind, the characters doing just what you want them to do.
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 contractually obligated to sequels on anything.
We had to do the same thing here. To top that sequel was quite a task. Mike had a couple of good conceptual humour and character ideas, which got me back into it.
A sequel is an admission that you've been reduced to imitating yourself.
When you make a film for a million and a half dollars and it opens at 20 million, the next question out of everyone's mouth is, 'When's the next one, when's the next one, when's the next one?'
The only reason ever to make a sequel is to spend more time with the characters that people love: to tell more of their story.
I've never done a sequel - so far, there have been too many new stories and characters calling my name.
I think sequels are very dangerous if you assume and presume success. I think you have to plan each film as a standalone and commit yourself to that as your primary objective.
In our benighted age, when films about amusement park rides and electronic fidgets scoop the honours, perhaps Hollywood redux is the best we can hope for.
At Pixar, we do sequels only when we come up with a great idea, and we always strive to be different than the original.
I think I've done a lot of movies that people would like to have seen a sequel to. But I grew up in a time when we didn't do sequels. You just did a movie because you wanted to do a movie and you wanted to tell a story. It wasn't to build a franchise.
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.
If you think about it, a lot of great horror films have bad sequels just because the market demands you to make the other one right away. Thank God no one in the 'Evil Dead' family thinks that way.
I mean, frankly, I'm not speaking as a representative of Disney or Pixar, I'm speaking as just myself as a filmmaker: I don't go into anything that often thinking about a sequel.
On the sequel, you've lost the element of surprise. Usually, on the first one you may not go very, very deep into character; the second one you start to explore the character a bit more.
I think there are some people that are capable of making a sequel more special than the original. And we have seen that when the original Terminator came out, then Jim Cameron outdid himself with the sequel. Then it became the highest grossing movie of the year when it came out in 1991.
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.
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.
Like a lot of people, for a long time I thought that the road to hell is paved with bad sequels.
After 'Pitch Perfect,' I only want to be in sequels. No. 2 of whatever.
You know, people really know me from 'The Best Man.' I've done five other movies since then, but it always comes back to 'The Best Man.' It was time to do the sequel.
I think the movie business is in trouble. It's all movies that you've seen before. Everything's a remake; they want things that are familiar rather than things that surprise you.
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.
People will turn their noses up at a sequel or that type of thing, but Pixar really works hard - if they're making a sequel - to make a sequel an original movie, to make it an original story.
We're in the age of the series, trilogy, boxed sets.
For the only true sequel is the one that flickers briefly into being in your mind, O my friend by the fireside, in the moments after you read the last paragraph and lay the book down.
That's kind of my ideal sequel - a movie that continues the story, takes one character and moves on, and moves forward with that character that survived with the first one.
If I had done a sequel to 'Day of the Tentacle,' there probably wouldn't have been a 'Full Throttle.' If I did a 'Full Throttle' sequel, there wouldn't have been a 'Grim Fandango.' It's important to make new stuff up.
Once you get into a feature, whether it's a sequel or an original one, you have to start all over again, and you're creating a world, creating new characters. You're also tracking emotions. You're trying to create emotion and create a character that you can fall in love with for two hours.
Nothing would make my kids happier than to do another movie.
You might have been able to fool people the first time, or something, but you really can't make a successful sequel today unless people really, really liked the predecessor.
To everyone who thinks writing a sequel should be easy because you've already clreated the universe: Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha! Heh. No.
I hate the idea of sequels. I think you should be able to do it in one book.
'Evil Dead 1' was never supposed to have a sequel.
I'm always the last person they go to with a sequel, because I'm the most skeptical. You know, I'm very proud of what we've done, and I don't want to screw up our series.
Most people know me at Pixar as the guy that doesn't like to do sequels or very reluctant to do sequels.
As long as we, again, kind of keep earning the sequels with material and I'm confident Mike can, I'm in. You know I always want to do those. But I also want to keep going in some of the direction as Meet the Parents has.
By definition a sequel can't be original. So you've got to figure out what worked the first time around.
I don't write any kind of sequel or remake.
I did not want to write one of those sequels that famous first-book authors get into where everybody says, 'Oh yeah.'
Trilogy: Three times the tripe.
I'm pretty skeptical about Hollywood and its fascination with the sequel and the franchise.
And I'm not anti-sequel, but I just feel like there are very few ideas that are meant to be continued.
The impossibility of a sequel ever recapturing everything - or anything - about its ancestor never stopped legions of writers from trying, or hordes of readers and publishers from demanding more of what they previously enjoyed.
With a sequel, you always worry for its integrity.
If we just made one movie, 'The Hobbit,' the fact is that all the fans, the eight-, nine- and 10-year-old boys, they would watch it 1,000 times. Now, they've got three films they can watch 1,000 times.
I think Hollywood is in love with sequels. If it's successful once, just jazz it up and shoot it out there again. I think it's unfortunate.
You could go so wrong with a 'Planet of the Apes' reboot; you could make it melodramatic, you could make it campy, you could fall into so many traps with it.
The first is that instead of writing a sequel, which is what most people do, this is in fact a prequel. Although we didn't know that when we began the process.
One hopeful sign that the filmmakers can learn and grow is that the sequel does not contain a single pie, if you know what I mean.
If I do do a sequel, I'm going to have to know for sure that the script is better than the original. So I'm going to be very careful about that because I'm not eager to repeat myself.
Is this a movie?' I heard someone ask.
Naw- this is too original for Hollywood. They do sequels.
Yes, there is a sequel on the way!
Every time you said it, you really said it. It wasn't like a sequel where Hollywood just lines up the same actors and hopes it works again. It was like a remake with a new director and crew trying something else and starting from scratch.
Every film is a remake of a previous film, or a remake of a television series that everyone loved in the 1960s, or a remake of a television series that everyone hated in the 1960s. Or it's a theme park ride; it will soon come to breakfast cereal mascots.
My life's a sequel to a movie where the actors' names have changed.
A whole new generation is looking at the videos, and going to the video shop and buying the re-release of the complete trilogy, which you can buy at a reasonable price.
If the new movies do contradict my books in some way, I can probably come up with some hand-waving story that will explain the apparent discrepancy. If there's one thing we authors are good at, it's hand-waving.
THE RETURN OF SHERLOCK HOLMES
THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
A movie as specific as 'Heathers,' which took place in a specific time and specific place and in which many of the characters got killed off, I never thought it made sense to see a sequel.
When you make these films, they become like your children. But at a certain point, they don't belong to you anymore; they belong to the world.
When you're writing for a sequel and there's a movie that's been deemed sacred ground by the fanbase that's the predecessor, you cannot do anything to tread on that, so it's a bit trickier than just being able to sit down and write something.
Obviously, after every film you do, you wonder what you're going to do next.
In an industry afflicted by sequelitis, it has taken John Boorman almost three decades to make the sequel to his much-cherished Hope and Glory, but Queen and Country turns out to be well worth the wait.
You sign for a sequel for everything these days, just in case, options. In the past, you avoided them like the plague because it meant somewhere down the road you couldn't take a job because you had to do a sequel. Now it's a feature of pretty much any feature you do.
Sony is looking at 'Descender' as a franchise of films rather than just one movie.
Forget movies - I'd rather choose books!
With all these tentpoles, franchises, reboots and sequels, is there still room for movies in the movie business?
Human Millipede 6 was the highest-grossing movie of the summer and returned Nicholas Cage to Oscar-winning status.
The biggest challenge was trying to convey the story of the making of a film that isn't finished yet - and which won't be finished until the third film, The Return of the King, reaches our cinemas towards the end of 2003!
12 Years a Slave
In regards to those other franchises that are being remade, we must take pains to mention that we're the only one where the original creators are actually making the movie. It's a special feel of quality, like a Good Housekeeping quality.
A great novel is worth one thousand films.
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.
There would be no sequel to the sadness
Films like Harry Potter and Narnia, I'm sure they'll do another one. The biggest audience of course is the youngsters.
Sure, you could go out and make Jaws today. But all of the sequels to Jaws weren't good. They are all worthless. The Godfather II is the only sequel that I have ever seen that is as good as or better than the original.
If you make a good first film and audiences respond, than hopefully you'll have the opportunity to do a sequel.