A Quote by Michael Lehmann

I don't like sequels at all. If the movie's good the first time, why bother? — © Michael Lehmann
I don't like sequels at all. If the movie's good the first time, why bother?
Then you have these people in the movie theaters that talk the whole time during the movie. You ever go with somebody like that to a movie but you don't realize until you get there that you're with somebody like that? Brand new movie. First day it's open. You're there together and the entire time they're sitting there: Where's she going? Why'd he do that? Is he mad at her? I don't know, let's watch and find out together shall we? You know who you are. You're denying it right now: I do not do that. Why is she saying that?. What's she gonna say next?
What bother me, not "bother me," exactly; that's not the right way to put it. But especially in the horror genre, once a movie like Paranormal Activity comes out and becomes popular - and that's a totally fine and valid movie - everyone starts copying it. Everything becomes a found-footage movie that looks like somebody shot it with their phone.
If the playwright knew every little thing about his play, why bother? There must be discovery all the time, otherwise why bother to do it?
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 would happily have done any of the 'Bourne Identity' sequels. There are good sequels, but I'm not good at making them.
The reason why people don't get called back to sequels is because they did badly in the original [movie].
The thing I do miss about the way some sequels were in the past was that each film felt like its own unique, complete tone. Now, sequels are tonal facsimiles of the ones before them, like a television series, whereas back in the past sequels would often be radically different from the ones before.
I have to stay interested. I can't do the same thing over and over again, which is why I don't do - I've made sequels, but it's the movies that are not sequels that I enjoy the most.
It makes you feel good when a movie works. Usually when I see an old movie I've made, I say to myself, 'Oh God, why did I do this?' and 'Why didn't I change that?' and things like that.
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.
Most people know me at Pixar as the guy that doesn't like to do sequels or very reluctant to do sequels.
Sequels are hard. What people want is to see the first film again for the first time and that simply isn't possible.
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.
A movie star is someone people look at and go, 'I want to be like that person'. There's the responsibility of desire. It's not something I'm interested in trying. I would fail miserably at it, so why even bother?
I've always said that with a lot of the horror franchises that I've started, it's like directing a pilot. I come in, I direct the first movie and all these directors come in and direct all the sequels after me and hey have to kind of retain the look, the tone, and the characters.
I've done so many movies with first-time directors, and honestly I just go with gut instinct. People that usually can tell me a good story, and talk to me about why the movie is the movie they want to make. I just go with my gut.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!