Sony is Very Interested in a Zombieland Sequel, But in 3-D!
After Zombieland came on the scene last month, there was no doubt that its director, Ruben Fleischer, was going to become very busy, very quickly. And despite some other very lucrative offers, today Moviehole reports that Sony is quite interested in a follow-up sequel to the darkly hilarious undead comedy. Fleischer told them not only is Sony extremely interested, but it sounds like the project will be given the digital 3-D treatment, and we'll see Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin back again on the big screen sometime soon, splattering zombie blood and body parts right in our bespectacled faces.
But it's still unsure as too how far off the sequel might be. With so many offers for Fleischer on the table, anything can happen. On top of that, it sounds like he is interested in tackling a romantic comedy of some sorts, but without all the walking dead and stuff (which is good, because I already saw Shaun of the Dead). Oh and speaking of which, though it might not be fair to compare the two, Zombieland certainly held its own against Edgar Wright's comedic masterpiece, and though I don't consider it to be in the same league, I respect the slightly different comedic approach Fleischer took on this one. I think most people would agree.
Hopefully 3-D hasn't run its course by the time this gets made, after all there are plenty of other gimmicky horror films in 3-D down the line that could ruin the fun. But since it's just another fun trip to Zombieland, I don't think anyone will have a problem with it. Stay tuned for more from Fleischer and for any news on a Zombieland sequel, which we hope arrives much sooner than later. Is this something you want to see?
Reader Feedback - 16 Comments
Hell yeah. Best movie of the year hands down.
Johnny Heartless on Nov 24, 2009
Zombieland > Shaun of the Dead
Jambi on Nov 24, 2009
I'm picturing some really kickass Zombieland stuff in 3D. I'm liking the idea.
-Peter- on Nov 24, 2009
no! and you know why? because it cant be as awsome and fresh as the first one and the last thing people need is an american pie/final destination version of zombieland. Not holding my breath here though.
Buggy166 on Nov 24, 2009
fuck 3d. but I'd love to see a sequel to zombieland.
Colt on Nov 24, 2009
The zombie action isn't what made Zombieland a great film. The characters/story/plot are what counted. Zombieland 2 in 3-D sounds like a fucking terrible idea. Way to fuck up a movie.
whomever on Nov 24, 2009
Tra la la la la di da on Nov 24, 2009
Let me say this very clearly: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Why ruin a good chance at a sequel? Putting it in 3*gags*D would for lack of a better word make it suck.
xerxex on Nov 24, 2009
Mr. Anderton please for the love of good tell me you are not a 3D lover!?
xerxex on Nov 24, 2009
They'll probably have a 3d and a 2d version. I'll see it in the 2D version. I like 3D but only for movies that warrant it.
Vold on Nov 25, 2009
Anderton, I agree with you that the 3-D craze is out of hand. As for the 3D adding more "depth" to a film I disagree, 3-D is more of a distraction, something "popping out" of the screen would take me out of the film itself, I don't see the need, for 3D to be a "normal" movie experience. Now if Avatar does good I'll see it in Imax 3-D, but I can say for a fact that will be the only film I ever see in 3-D. As for Zombieland it is a toss-up, and I say it leans on the gimmick side, but I could be wrong. 3-D to me is just a waste of time.
Xerxex on Nov 25, 2009
I haven't watched Zombieland first so i'll have to watch it first then.
Fisherr on Nov 25, 2009
Zombieland was a piece of shit.
dawnofthedeadremakewasmuchbetter on Nov 25, 2009
3-D WILL Blow balls and ruin the sequel
ben on Dec 5, 2009
I could live without the 3D. Too often, it's merely a gimmick to have something leap out at you and go "BOOGA-BOOGA-BOOGA!" Notable exception was "Avatar," which, for all its flaws as a story, made truly lovely use of 3D not to jump out, but to gently *recede* and create immersive depth (far more depth than the script, as it happens). As for a Z-Land sequel... OK, so here’s how I see it. In the sequel, the troupe stops in Columbus, OH after all (where else do they have to go?). Once there, they discover that Columbus’ parents (”Paranoid shut-ins,” remember?) are not only still alive, but have carved out a fortress-like enclave of fiercely disciplined but VERY eccentric survivors. Columbus gets to introduce Wichita/Krista to the ‘rents after all. Hilarity ensues. Oh, and as for Tallahasse? Remember how evasive he was at answering the whole “laying pipe” question himself? How appalled he was at the notion that Columbus wanted to go Heels-to-Jesus with Wichita? The lack of mention of poor Buck’s mother? Tallahasse just might be gay. Interesting, yes? Can anyone say Neil Patrick Harris? Kind of a limited shelf life for the franchise, though; these zombies are VERY sick, not (apparently...) breeding, and rapidly running out of fresh humans to nosh on. Really is just a matter of waiting them out. And did *anyone* think of using a CB radio?! ("Breaker-breaker: NOT a zombie, here, c'mon back!") And is anyone alive at the power generation plants (where's all that electricity coming from? Pretty good security at nuke facilities...)
Noocyte on Feb 18, 2010
Sorry, no commenting is allowed at this time.