Quotes About Sequel

I saw 'Billy Elliot' again, and what I loved about it was the way it had become a social document, a reminder of what happened with the mining communities in the '80s. And I thought, 'Everyone keeps wanting me to make a sequel to 'Beckham,' but maybe a musical remake is the answer, embracing all this theatricality.'

The only reason we made 'Toy Story 2' is that we happened to come up with a storyline that was really good. It wasn't driven by wanting to make a sequel.

I have been in 'Star Wars' since I was 20. And they're not just doing some goofy sequel, like, to service the hunger of it. It actually has been thought out and it has integrity and they took it seriously, which they didn't have to do, you know? It's hard to do, given the appetite and the angles from which everybody's coming at it.

I think 'Star Wars' always has to be bigger and bigger and better every time, and there's a great cast on 'The Force Awakens.' It's ground-breaking.

If 'Mr. India 2' happens, Calendar should be there.

I've never done a sequel - so far, there have been too many new stories and characters calling my name.

You have to be very careful when you're working on a sequel, because it has to be a continuation of what you did before.

The first film always chooses you, but you choose the second one.

'PKP' was a huge success, and even the sequel did well. I became very choosy after that.

'Deadpool 2' played on your expectations of what a sequel to a superhero movie would be.

The time has mainly gone on getting Inform into a decent shape for public use. I suppose the plot of 'Curses' makes a sequel conceivable when compared with, say, the plot of 'Hamlet' but none is planned.

'Sanctus' was done on speculation. I had no agent or publisher. I was being sensible, I suppose, by writing a standalone novel. I figured if that one didn't work, no one would be interested in reading a sequel.

If we get a good response to 'Bhootnath 2' and 'Creature,' we would surely go ahead and make the next part.

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.

One of the difficult things of making a horror sequel in general is because the horror genre is so founded on surprise.

I'm always surprised when a sequel is not as good or better than the first one. I never understand that. You've already set your own bar. You've already done the hard work. It should be easier to make the second one, but a lot of the times, it's not.

I think a sequel is a waste of money and time. I think movies should illuminate new stories.

I cannot explain why they made that sequel to Secret of NIMH. Because they claim that it the original didn't make money, so what was the enthusiasm to make a sequel?

I think, unfortunately or fortunately, the reality of Hollywood is that if your movie makes money, they'll make another one.

Father's Day just be Mother's Day the sequel.

Nothing could've been more easy to predict, than that it was of no avail for him to have right on his side when his adversary had influence and wealth, and therefore could so victoriously justify any extravagancies that he might think proper to commit. This maxim was completely illustrated in the sequel. Wealth and despotism easily know how to engage those laws as coadjutors of their oppression, which were perhaps at first intended for the safeguards of the poor.

I think that 'Hangover II' is as funny as 'The Hangover I,' honest to God, but I think that it's a little bit darker, and the stakes are a little bit higher.

I wanted to play a good guy after doing this lunatic on The Sopranos for two years. And then they did the sequel to Bad Boys, where I get to play the barking captain again.

As for 'Independence Day,' we never intended to do any films in that series beyond the first one.