Franchise Fatigue Quotes

I'm pretty skeptical about Hollywood and its fascination with the sequel and the franchise.

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

If 'Dabangg' starts looking like the 'Golmaal' or 'Dhoom' franchises, then people wouldn't be able to connect with it.

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 think about it, and I realize there's been some version of a Batman or Spiderman or Superman franchise since I was a boy, since before I was a boy.

When a movie becomes very successful, it's automatic that people will start thinking a sequel, a prequel, a quel-quel.

Other than Peter Jackson doing 'Lord of the Rings,' I don't get it when filmmakers follow up a movie with a sequel to the same movie. God bless 'em if they can be up for it, but that would drive me insane.

We work in an environment where your options are to do, you know, Batman 10, so when you get to do a movie that's a really great film like this, people really step up to the plate and enjoy it.

I have an allergy to sequels and remakes in general.

I looked long and hard at third films in series to see if there were any good ones that I could learn from. And there weren't any that hadn't just gone off the train tracks by their third film. Until, that is, I got to the third 'Lord of the Rings' film.

I hate sequels.

You just can't put a '3' after the title of the film. If you have a franchise that has worked, it does not mean that you can go on making it.

I am a fan of sequels even though they are inevitably awful.

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.

Like a lot of people, for a long time I thought that the road to hell is paved with bad sequels.

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.

You won't see me doing 'Transformers 5.'

After 'The Fellowship of the Ring,' the films that followed it, instead of having their own unique aesthetic, they all wanted to be 'Lord of the Rings' as opposed to learning from 'Lord of the Rings.'

Audiences can be leery of sequels; the studios make a hit, they see dollar signs, and they make a cheap rip-off.

Oh Young Frankenstein - that's right, Body Heat, Raiders Of The Lost Ark. I mean, you know, it - they just keep going on and on and on - Mission: Impossible. And, you know, I think that the writers are having so much fun now with them that, you know, half the time, you know, people are just sitting around saying - trying to think of what's a great movie to copy.

And I'm not anti-sequel, but I just feel like there are very few ideas that are meant to be continued.

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.

I don't think it'd be the right choice to continue indefinitely creating 'Souls' and 'Bloodborne' games.

The first Halloween was very well made. The second one was also well made, though I didn't like it as well as the first one. The third one had nothing to do with the series at all and perhaps shouldn't have been made at all.

In terms of doing another franchise after 'Transformers,' I don't know if that would be best for me. I'm really happy to inhabit the world of independent film.