Top 75 Sequels Quotes

There’s nothing wrong with doing sequels, they’re just easier to sell.

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.

Sequels are scary. And making a sequel to something as good as ‘Scanners’ is even scarier.

When you do films that have multiple sequels, you develop a character for a film.

I have been lucky because sometimes things go really pear-shaped with a second or a third part, but I have been lucky enough to be in good sequels.

I don’t think I can make a film without Salman. He is in ‘Mr. India 2’ and also in the sequels to ‘No Entry’ and ‘Wanted.’ I’m his new Sooraj Barjatya.

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.

I think true connectivity is something that is rare in sequels. I mean I love the first ‘Die Hard’ film; you won’t find a bigger ‘Die Hard’ fan than me. But I feel like with the sequels, they’re just taking that character and dropping him in different scenarios. There’s no real connective tissue.

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.

In ‘Scream 2’, they have this discussion about how sequels always suck.

But, George and Steven asked me to write the Indiana Jones sequels, and I didn’t want to.

I suppose sequels are inevitable for a writer of a certain age.

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.

You sometimes get the sense that when people make sequels, they get conservative. If something worked, they do it over and over and over again.

In my opinion, where comedy sequels tend to go bad is that they get sillier and lighter.

I have an allergy to sequels and remakes in general.

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.

George Lazenby was ill-equipped. It’s not for nothing that they didn’t offer him any sequels.

I take a firm stand against sequels. My industry brethren are a little shocked at how firmly I’m committed to not doing sequels.

Before sequels became the most reliable way to make a buck, Bond set the standard for lavish serial adventures. Before Hollywood found gold in multimillion-dollar adaptations of comic-book characters – in the Superman, Batman and Spider-Man blockbusters – Bond was the movies’ first big-budget franchise superhero.

If you look at the best-seller list for American fiction, they’re all sequels to detective stories or stories about hunting serial killers. That’s what’s called American fiction these days.

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.

Maybe Oliver Stone doesn’t lend himself well to remakes or sequels, because he does them so well the first time.

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.

When I saw ‘Blade Runner,’ my understanding was that ‘Blade Runner’ and ‘Alien’ were sequels to each other – or they were related. They were set in the same world.

There are so many sequels where everything between the special effects is just boring.

Sequels are generally done in a rush. They’re done with a sense of urgency. The first time, you spend a long time developing to get it over the line. The second time, you don’t. Your expectations are different, and your motivations are different.

We are proud to be the No. 1 most funded film on Indiegogo… and with a totally new property. In a world filled with sequels and reboots, Lazer Team is a brand-new IP being made possible by the people who want to see it.

Once I had started film, I suddenly said, ‘Wow, I love it.’ I moved there from New York. But I’ve always gone back to the theater, and it is more satisfying, really, because you get to give a continuous performance – no sequels.

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!

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.

We are at a point in the video game industry that the industry is hollowed out. It is out of touch with the zeitgeist, creating sequels and formulaic games over and over again. The energy comes from the indies.

I never actually plan sequels. They demand to be done.

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.

We always looked at the movie sequels that we admired, and they always pivot and they always try new things. Even if you swing and miss, at least you’re trying something different.

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.

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.

There are expectations with sequels, and people want them to be bigger and better than the prequel.

When you have films like ‘Bourne’ that succeed, not only does it beget sequels, but it begets people taking chances.

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.

I don’t know if I would do sequels. I almost feel like when I’m done with them, they’re going to have to find their own way.

I’ve always made sequels, even when I was making Super 8 movies if the audience liked it.

There have been funny sequels, but I don’t know if there have been that many that feel like they’re – you know – they’re just as great a movie to watch, just as fun an experience but different.

I hate sequels. They’re never as good as the first book.

I’m not contractually obligated to sequels on anything.

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.

As we all know, sequels can be tricky.

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.

I wouldn’t be creatively satisfied if all we did were sequels, but in the same breath, I’ll say that I wouldn’t be creatively satisfied if everything was an original. It’s good to use the different parts of my brain. Very different rules apply.

Sequels are not done for the audience or cinema or the filmmakers. It’s for the distributor. The film becomes a brand.

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.

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.

And one thing Hollywood does well is sequels.

Usually, people begin with very clear ideas of good movies, they begin with clear ideas about their characters, and then, as they do sequels, they seem to forget the characters more and more, and try to out-spectacle.

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.

I would say the main thing is, don’t just copy yourself, which is what a lot of sequels do. And in some cases, it works. Like James Bond movies. But James Bond is a different type of character.

Sequels are always tricky.

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 think you kind of need to acknowledge that the reason why sequels do well is because people that loved the first one come back.

I didn’t direct any of the ‘Saw’ sequels, but people thought I did.