Sequels face the risk of being constantly compared to the first film.
Second novels are bears. As are other people's expectations for them. I think taking the time you need with the second book is key. Writers spend years and years on their first novels and then are often expected to turn out a second at warp speed, a recipe for failure.
Everyone gets that second album syndrome.
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.
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.
In 'Scream 2', they have this discussion about how sequels always suck.
If one book's done this well, you want to write another one that does just as well. There's that horror of the second novel that doesn't match up.
As a fan of music, there's nothing I hate more than hearing an artist write a new album off the back of a successful record. Usually they've rushed it, or they've gone into the studio with all the big guns to replicate what they'd just created.
The superheroes have taken over all the screens in the world. And good luck to them: they're making a lot of money for a lot of people. But the studios are going to become victims of their own success. People are going to get bored with that stuff.
It's just assumed that a horror sequel is going to be bad. It's never going to be as good as the first one.
