SPOILER ALERT: This story contains spoilers for ‘Smile 2’, in theaters now.

Parker Finn, the writer and director of the 2022 horror hit “Smile” and the just-released “Smile 2,” has taken one of the most recognizable horror ideas of recent years and blown it up even bigger for the sequel. In this chapter, troubled pop star Skye Riley (Naomi Scott) begins to question her reality as she is haunted by increasingly disturbing and violent images. Finn has spoken Variety about making a movie about a music superstar, the haunting ending, and what future sequels could look like.

How did you come up with the idea for “Smile 2”? It’s such a drastically different story than ‘Smile’.

I wanted to see if I could wow the audience with what we would do for the sequel. I wrote and directed that first film that existed on its own. I had no plans for a sequel at the time, and I think sometimes they are made for the wrong or cynical reasons. If I were to ask the audience to give me time again, I would try to offer something unexpected and fresh. That first month I was thinking about ideas. Everything that came to mind I ended up throwing away because I thought, ‘It’s coming too fast. It’s too obvious a place to go.”

I needed to be able to attach this story to a character that I could invest in thematically and emotionally, that would offer something new to this story, this world. I was struck by a bolt of lightning with this idea for this character of Skye Riley, this mega pop star. It felt like a huge swing that certainly no one would have guessed, and it was such an intriguing world to me: this idea of ​​someone who is so famous and public, who is always expected to portray this persona, and the world has to greet with a smile despite what is happening behind the scenes.

I looked at some of these demigod women that we have elevated: what is the real human being there? You know, Taylor Swift can’t be Taylor Swift all the time. It felt like an interesting place to start. Plus, I didn’t want to put it in dark, dingy basements or spidery addicts or anything like that. This world of a pop star is glamorous, glitzy, shiny and supposed to be fun. I thought, ‘Can I present that world authentically, and still make it feel quite icy and disturbing tonally? Disturbing and very isolating and lonely?” That felt powerful to me as a place to start.

It was reported that you got an $11 million budget increase compared to the first film, but “Smile 2” feels even more epic in scale than that amount allows. How were you able to create such a decadent glimpse into this pop star world while still helming a film with a modest budget?

One of the biggest challenges of the film was, “How are we going to pull this off?” When I went to pitch it to Paramount, I think they were gobsmacked by the swing in the first place. But the next question was, “How are you going to make this happen?” They stood behind me and supported me, which was incredible. It was important to me to build credibility with this pop star and her world, so it was something we took very seriously. I didn’t want it to be something that was stuck or on the periphery. It was an essential part of the story: this is her life, this is her world. I thought it was such an interesting experience to involve an audience.

A few things about how we pulled that off: First of all, I brought back the same creative team from the first film. They’re all incredible artists, but we’ve also become great friends and collaborators and kind of have this acronym. It’s a strange thing to say about a sequel to a studio horror film, but this was truly a passion project for all of us. We knew we would be pouring a 10 gallon film into a 5 gallon bucket. So it was about: “How can we make very smart use of the resources that we have Doing have?” It’s about being incredibly specific and having a very strong plan. I’m kind of an obsessive prepper, as far as wanting to be able to wrap my arms around the movie. We knew we were going to walk on this barbed wire, but we are very happy with how we pulled it off.

It moves quickly, but at one point it sounds like one of the characters is saying, “This is going to ruin the tour.” Was that an intentional reference to a certain real-life pop star who recently got into trouble?

We made that joke a lot on set. The line is not precisely that, but I’ve already seen the memes happening, and I think it’s great that people are picking up on that.

This movie goes into spoiler territory and has such a wild ending. Do you think everyone at the last Skye Riley show is now infected with The Smile?

I think you’re asking the right question.

In this film we learn a little more about the demon’s backstory. If you film more chapters, will you delve even deeper into the lore?

I definitely have all these thoughts and considerations surrounding The Smiler, and it’s helping me learn how to use them in the film. I love that it’s incredibly specific, unique and personal to everyone it comes into contact with, as it’s designed to get into the cracks of a character’s brain and feast on the worst things in their minds . Everything we learned about it in the first movie, we might realize, “Oh, that was just one version of it interacting with (“Smile” main character) Rose, and that’s for Skye.” Yes, there is a through line, but this one has some new tricks up its sleeve and things we didn’t know about it before.

I often feel like less is more with things like mythology in horror films, especially when it comes to supernatural matters. First of all, I’m much more interested in the character story. I love the things that happen in the night, but I want to use that supernatural impulse to explore the human horror, the internal psychological stuff. But I also notice that sometimes, if you explain it too much – you give it a name and an origin – the whole audience starts to condemn it. I think the fear of the unknown is much more frightening, but I also think it’s worth handing out breadcrumbs to take an audience with. They’re little treats you can eat on the go, which I love, but when I answer a question or close a door, I want to make sure I open two more.

Have you thought about what a third film might look like?

I’m happy to be the first to deliver this to the world. I think there’s a lot of exciting paths we can take, but for me, from 10,000 feet up, looking at what ‘Smile’ is, I would want to make sure that if there were more stories to tell, that we would again doing things in an unexpected way and continuing to jump over rails like we did from “Smile” to “Smile 2.” I love the idea that each thing can become crazier, crazier, and more unhinged than the last, and at some point we’d be like, “How on earth is this where we went with ‘Smile’?” That feels very exciting to me. I want to make sure it does something worthwhile every time we come back.

You’re looking to write and direct a remake of the 1981 cult classic “Possession.” What can you tease about your vision for that film?

It’s certainly still early. I’m incredibly excited about it. ‘Possession’ is one of my favorite films of all time. Here’s what I’ll say: the idea is to do something that both honors and pays tribute to the original, but it’s a spiritual successor that I’m trying to put in dialogue with the first film. I hope I’ll have all the ferocity, teeth and sort of mania of the original. We don’t do anything with it that is safe or purified. It will be for people who like the original. That’s who I’m making this film for.