Liam Neeson Back For ‘Wrath of the Titans’

Published 4 years ago by

clash of the titans zeus1 Liam Neeson Back For Wrath of the Titans

Only a thespian of Liam Neeson’s stature could dress up in armor with the sheen of aluminum foil, wear a brown Santa Claus beard, and utter phrases like “Release the Kraken!” without seeming completely off his rocker (just mildly). He’ll get to repeat that act yet again in the upcoming Clash of the Titans 2.

The actor has confirmed he is set to return as the lightning-happy deity Zeus in the Clash of the Titans sequel, officially titled Wrath of the Titans, which the actor says will begin filming by March of 2011, under the direction of Battle: Los Angeles helmer, Jonathan Liebesman.

Neeson informed The Belfast Telegraph that the 10th draft of the screenplay for Clash of the Titans 2 is currently being revised and polished, but that he thinks “it’s going to be some kick-a** stuff and [have] a very human story to it.” His comments seem to reflect well on Warner Bros.’ decision to hire writers with complimentary styles to pen the script for Titans 2, which will no doubt have its share of massive set pieces and action sequences involving CGI monsters.

Leading man Sam Worthington will return as the warrior Perseus in the sequel, along with actress Gemma Arterton as his significant other, Io. Rumors about Javier Bardem and James Franco boarding the Titans 2 train continue to circulate, while Ralph Fiennes will reprise his turn as Zeus’ sinister (and grimy) sibling, Hades.

clash of the titans hades2 Liam Neeson Back For Wrath of the Titans

"Name is Hades, Lord of the Dead, hi, how ya doing?"

Neeson claimed ignorance about whether or not Liebesman will actually shoot Titans 2 in the 3D format. That’s an especially sensitive issue for the Titans franchise, given how the stereoscopic post-production conversion job done on the first movie was universally deplored – and with good reason. Besides staining the film’s footage with an unpleasant green tint, the 3D version of Clash of the Titans was a blurry mess and inaccurately proportioned – so much so that at times certain characters’ heads even seemed to float like balloons, disconnected from their shoulders.

The original 1981 version of Clash of the Titans was an unbridled campfest full of cheesy F/X, actors in goofy creature makeup, a charmingly odd gold mechanical owl, and respected performers like Laurence Olivier and Dame Maggie Smith somehow managing to keep straight faces despite it all. It’s all quite silly, but entertainingly so.

Director Louis Leterrier amped up the production values for his Clash of the Titans remake and delivered a mindless but otherwise harmless bit of blockbuster action (poor 3D aside). Neither the remake nor the original Titans really lend themselves to a followup, so it’s anyone guess as to what exactly the plot of Titans 2 will encompass – though, admittedly, does it really matter?

clash of the titans 3d Liam Neeson Back For Wrath of the Titans

Clash of the Titans 2 will be released in both 2D and 3D when it finally hits theaters, which is likely to be Spring of 2012. We’ll let you know when an official release date has been set.

Source: The Belfast Telegraph (via Coming Soon)

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. This would be the only reason I would give the sequel a chance. I enjoyed the remake, and was far more entertaining the cheesy original, but a sequel isn’t needed. Hopefully, Worthington will do a better job this time.

  2. The only way anyone could make me see this would be at gunpoint.

    • Not only with a loaded gun, but a straightjacket too. I could ask for earplugs and a blindfold, but I don’t think my captors would be that thoughtful.

  3. Liam Neeson as Zeus had to be the greatest casting EVER. I know most didn’t like Clash, but I really did. I’m looking forward to this. Who knows? Maybe they will learn from their mistakes…

    • Apparently they did as it’s being shot in 3D rather than it being a last minute decision.

      • It doesnt say it is being shot in 3D at all.

        • It’s been known for sometime the film will be shot in 3D. At least that’s what the producers have been saying.

  4. It wasn’t great, but I found the remake moderately enjoyable. Not worth buying and not worth paying to see in the theater at full price, but a semi fun way to spend an evening if you swing by the dollar theater.

    With Liam in it I’ll watch it, but I’ll make sure I don’t make the mistake of watching it in it’s regular theater run.

    • I found it offensive to watch. How that mcuh money and talent can be poured into a film and all that you get is excrement.

      • DSM,

        The movie certainly wasn’t great, and the 3D was horrid, but what the heck was “offensive” about it?


        • The fact that all that money was wasted on a truly turgid piece of cinema, I found that offensive, I was offended that I spent my own mildy hard earned cash of watching such an awful film, and it was offensive to the orignal film.

          • I don’t see how it was “offensive” to the original when the original was just awful. The acting is weak, the characters are weak, the story is weak in the original. The only thing the original has going for it is the special effects by Ray Harry Housen (sp?). How it’s considered a “classic” is beyond me. IMO, the remake and the original are both weak films, but I enjoy the action and special effects more in the remake.

            To each their own I guess.

            • Don’t you like Godzilla flicks? Are they suddenly acting and effects extravganza’s?

              I like the original film, a lot of people do.

              • Gotta say… I watched the original again before seeing the new one and it does not stand the test of time. It was borderline campy. :)


                • I’m not saying it isnt campy. I’m also not saying its the best film ever made.
                  I am saying that ist more fun the remake. Sam Worthington is an acting vaccuum on the same levels as Orlando Bloom.

                  • DSM,

                    “Sam Worthington is an acting vaccuum on the same levels as Orlando Bloom.”

                    Can’t argue with that…


                    • Maybe this will help y’all feel better about Orlando Bloom and Sam Worthington……
                      “Hayden Christensen”
                      I don’t know about you, but now they don’t look as bad.

                    • Frozen Golfer

                      I actually don’t have a problem with Hayden. I think he is a bad actor sure, but he isn’t in that much and there are far worse than him. Paul Walker for example makes Hayden look like Patrick Stewart. Bloom in my opinion is about the same as Hayden, but he is in far to much and doesn’t deserve to be and he was in LOTR for crying out loud. Still love the films, but he brought down the quality.

                      I don’t hate worthington really I just dislike him. He’s the best actor of all the above listed (excluding Patrick Stewart obviously lol), but he’s still not very good and in way to much crap really doesn’t deserve the a list status he’s been handed.

              • Uh, yeah I would say some the Godzilla flicks have great acting and special effects. Mothra vs. Godzilla and Godzilla vs. Biollante are both films with great acting and great special effects for their time.

                • I would also add to that Gamera 3: Revenge of Iris. It’s not Godzilla, but it’s stil the same genre. The special effects in that film are ahead of it’s time, and the acting was superb.

                  • You hit the nail there with those three films, but dont forget the original, nothing in any series can beat it.

              • BTW, I didn’t say you can’t like the original, but I just don’t see how it’s a “classic”. But like I said, to each their own.

            • The original was a classic. It was a good film. It just needed the new Hollywood motion picture hocus-pocus. The current film did not need to eliminate the original story line, just the special effects.

          • “I was offended that I spent my own mildy hard earned cash”

            Words can not explain how funny I found that line.

            • Cheers.

          • I agree. So glad I waited to watch it on Netflix. The movie was poorly made, not equivalent to the original ‘Titans’ movie. The remake lacked a good story line, which they tried to make up for with overly muscled and super hot male actors–which they killed off for no good reason. I just cannot believe they are making a sequel. Where have all the good movies gone? They try to make up for the bad movies with clever CG effects and sexy male leads. No need for creative talent these days.

            • “Where have all the good movies gone?”

              Thank goodness, we have “Inception”… 😉

              • Oh, they do get made.

                Nobody goes to see most of them, and settle for the junkpile.

    • I saw it in the theater, but I DIDN’T see it in 3D. Maybe that’s why I liked it…

      • Same here, but watching it a few times later you can tell Sam Worthington acting wasnt great at all and there where a few holes.

  5. I enjoyed the remake, although the 3-D was so unnecessary. I hope they don’t use it for the new film.

  6. No. This cannot be. The first film was terrible. Are these people mad? Oh wait, I forgot the first film made a lot of money. This is why they are making a sequel to this film. And the same disillusioned crowd will run out to see this one. Sigh.

  7. Not this delusional “crowd”.
    Fool me once … and all that.
    I agree with DrSam, it was an insult to the original.

    • :)

  8. Another one? is there even a story out there for a sequel or arethey making it up??? I found te first one ok but a sequel isnt needed.

    • Of course it will be some made up totally unrealistic (for an unrealistic) movie.

      Ditto on your response.

      • Well then its going to suck.

        • There’s PLENTY of stories in Greek Mythology the writers can draw from.

          • Meh.

  9. The original might have been cheezy and campy but at least they got the costuming correct. The GREEK Gods should not be depicted in armor straight out of Excalibur (which coincidentally Liam was in! :D)…..who decided THAT was a good idea and then which idiots gave it the green light?

    The re-make was also just over the top in their re-imagining of the visuals like turning the 3 Graeae from old blind women into creatures better suited to an alien flick. The story was also so boring that no amount of CGI could save it and I nearly fell asleep twice.

    Plus you cannot beat the 1981 Medusa! Deadly and evil. While even that wasn’t exact to the myth, Harryhausen knew how to divert from the original and make it better. He was a master limited only by the tech of the day.

    • @”The original might have been cheezy and campy but at least they got the costuming correct. The GREEK Gods should not be depicted in armor straight out of Excalibur (which coincidentally Liam was in! )…..who decided THAT was a good idea and then which idiots gave it the green light?”

      Have you ever seen a real Greek God? Didn’t think so. So, how do you know the original got the costuming “corrrect”? A God being clad in shinning armor is just as believable as one in white robes.

      • You’re kidding right? The “gods” are supposed to be representative of the CULTURES they come from. Last time I looked, the Greek Gods did not hail from Arthurian Legend or Excaliburland. If we are going to suspend the truth about there not being gods, then man has supposedly seen and interacted with them hence how they are depicted in Greek Art (and other Mythos for that fact).

    • I’m going to guess, then, that you’ll despise “Thor”, given that the armors of the various gods consist of ancient/future-tech components. I mean, REALLY, what idiot thought THAT look could work?!? 😉

      • Actually yes, I am a bit displeased at the direction the makers of the Thor movie chose as opposed to the look from the comics. Not saying they should all be dressed in furs but it is was too gleaming and futuristic to be even the comic version of Asgard.

        • I remember Asgard being “gleaming” from the comics – or at least as “shiny” as they could make it on a matte comic book page. And Thor doesn’t look like he wears anything remotely close to an old Viking furry costume in the comics – never did AFAIK.


        • Actually, this looks JUST LIKE THE COMICS. Look at them again.

          • Archaeon while I agree that he’s way off on how Thor looked in the comics they never wore Fur or anything like that I do have to say that your way off in saying that this looks just like the comics. Asgard on the outside is similar, but not just like however the Throne room is not very similar at all pretty strikingly different in fact and the armor of the gods is way off the only one that looks even close Is Thor everyone else is way off. However nothing at all looks JUST LIKE the comics.

        • The look in the comics was precisely the retro/future-tech look the film is employing…It’s the “Kirbyesque” style that takes ancient armor and “techs” it up.

          I reeeeeally don’t know from whence your criticisms are coming.

    • You are 100% correct. In spite of all the CGI updates, they could not top the 81 Medusa–even in stop-go motion as dated as it may be. That goes for Percy Jackson too. What makes the “updated” Medusa not work is the idea that she is supposed to be so ugly that a direct look would turn a man to stone. Instead, she has the upper body of a supermodel (or, in Percy’s case, Uma Thurman)

      Which lends itself into the biggest problem with 50% of today’s CGI FX. It does not matter if it is technically better than a previous incarnation. The FX should serve the story, not the story for the FX.

  10. The problem with Clash ws it’s lack of delivery and timing, in terms of action sequences. I’ve mentioned on here before the director’s inability to build up any sense of tension and with so much going on, it never excited or thrilled, things just more choatic as the movie went on. For all the assortment of monsters on show, the feeling on peril ws never there.

    From a visual point of view it did have things going for it and It did look quality on Blu Ray. I liked how the Gods were realised on screen and agree that Neeson was a spot on choice for Zeus.

    The potential certainly was there for an exciting rollercoaster of a blockbuster.

    After this Avatar & Terminatior Salvation – Hollywood clearly believes Worthington is the next big leading blockbuster actor but I remain unconvinced. All three films were dependant on action and effects, and not his screen impact which in all movies was minimal at best.

    I just hope Wrath Of The Titans is apporached with a lot more skill and a better sense of pacing. I’m all for lots of quality CGI monsters and beasts fighting it out, but only when you’re given time to breathe as a viewer and actually take in what’s going on in the screen. When the effects are just thrown in your face, they lose any appeal no matter how complex they are.

    You would hope too that Transformers 3, Spidey 4,& Pirates 4 would learn from this as well but I doubt they will.

    • I concur.

    • Great points all around, lebsta.

    • Lebsta…

      Points, well made…Hear, hear!

    • I disagree. There were other bad things about Salvation; Worthington (and Moon Bloodgood, for that matter) was not one of them. Avatar was a massive hit, and I’m sorry- all the actors have to be on the game to help convince an audience of that world, even if they are turned into blue warriors.

      I loved his work in Greg McLean’s Rouge though. So did you, I’m sure.
      (his character was crocodile dinner)

  11. Yeah, I’m not going to be seeing this movie unless I see some good Teasers, even then since I didn’t see the Hash of the Titans( I mispelled Clash on purpose) Sam Worthington can’t act, Didn’t like him in Avatar, or the abombination that was Terminator:Salvation. I’ll stick to the original Clash of the Titans, campy as it was.

  12. I’m a big Ray Harryhausen fan, so I like the original. After the trailer for the new one I was really looking forward to it. But the movie sucked. Maybe I would have liked the original cut, but the final version was a completely different movie from what I’ve read.

    I do like Liam Neeson a lot, though. I’d rather they didn’t make a sequel, but I hope it’s better than the first.

  13. @ Aidy, Ink @ Archeaon – thanks for all your agreements. May our debates on films long continue

  14. I’d rather see a God of War movie than a sequel to Clash of the Titans, but I might see this for Gemma and Liam Neeson.

  15. I didnt expect much and I Liked it .
    It probably didnt hurt that I saw it in 2D.

  16. Even tho I’m ok with the remake, Liam as Zues is the only reason why i will go see this.