We first heard rumblings last year of a sequel to the Will Smith non-comic book superhero film, Hancock. At first it was just word that a sequel was in the works (presumably in the very early idea stages), with no real details on if the film's star(s) or the director, Peter Berg, would be coming back to do another.
However, fast-forward almost a year and we have some more info from Berg himself, courtesy of SciFiWire, about a possible Hancock 2. It's not info on him or Will Smith officially signing on for a sequel (or anything of that sort), rather what Berg has in mind in terms of a possible plot for a sequel.
[Warning: the following contains SPOILERS about the first Hancock and could be considered spoilerific with regards to the sequel].
Towards the end of the first Hancock, it was revealed that Smith's superhero character is actually an immortal god, who only becomes vulnerable when his companion god (Charlize Theron's character) is in his presence. Berg has said that, "There might be another god out there... Might be another one." He also stated that the sequel would continue with the story of Jason Bateman's character, as he starts his charity campaign.
[END OF SPOILERS]
However, even with Berg and Smith's interest in doing Hancock 2 - and clearly with the $624 million worldwide box office success, Columbia Pictures will want another - Berg reveals that it's unlikely to happen anytime soon:
"They like to fast-track it, but Will's busy, I'm pretty busy... We're excited to do one, but we want the script to be right and the movie to be right. We don't feel a burning imperative to go right back into it."
Hancock was a strange movie in that it was highly successful despite being an original creation. It was rare to see a superhero movie that wasn't based on an already established character, and it took features and conventions we've come to know and love about comic book stories and went in some fresh directions with them. The film was entertaining overall, even if the ending of the movie took an off-kilter turn, with a particularly poor and ineffective villain appearing almost out of nowhere.
Is there enough in the Hancock mythology to do a sequel? I thought it was covered pretty well in the first movie - from a story point of view, I personally don't see the point of doing another. And from the description Berg has given for a possible plot, the sequel doesn't sound all that great. IMO, in this case it's better to leave well enough alone.
However, from a business point of view it's absolutely a good idea and pretty inevitable. Even if the budget was a hefty $150 million for Hancock, the film more than quadrupled that at the box office. I'd say a sequel is pretty much guaranteed profit for the studio.
What do you think about a Hancock sequel? What are your thoughts on the potential plot Berg has suggested?
Hancock 2 is currently in the idea stages and doesn't have a release date yet.
Sources: SciFiWire and MTV Splash Page