A Quote by Panos Cosmatos

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.
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.
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 would happily have done any of the 'Bourne Identity' sequels. There are good sequels, but I'm not good at making them.
I don't know if I'm a sequels kind of person. I prefer each film to have its own unique identity.
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.
I'm just trying to think what other sequels there were. There was the James Bond movies and not many. I think sequels have become a recent idea of franchising.
I take a firm stand against sequels. My industry brethren are a little shocked at how firmly I'm committed to not doing sequels.
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.
The best sequels throughout time keep what you really like about the first thing, but they aren't afraid to do their own thing for the next season and kind of grow, in a way.
The trick with sequels is, you have to give people what they liked before, yet be innovative enough so they don't feel like they're seeing the same movie.
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.
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 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 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'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.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!