Sony Pushing Ahead on Hancock 2, Hires Two Writers

August 24, 2009


Sony has hired "The Shield" writers Adam Fierro and Glen Mazzara to write Hancock 2 for the studio. The original producing team is expected to return, although it hasn't been confirmed whether director Peter Berg will be back to helm this one. We are sure, though, that they wouldn't be moving forward if they weren't able to get Will Smith back as Hancock, so he's probably back. Plot details are being kept under wraps, though the writers will work with Smith and director Peter Berg to build on the world hinted at in the first movie, which involved a line of "immortal beings" who have been around for more than 3000 years.

Hancock was made for $150 million and ended up earning $228 million at the box office last summer. Peter Berg spoke to SciFi Wire recently about where the story in the sequel might be headed. "There might be another god out there," he revealed. "Might be another one." He also confirmed that the subplot involving Jason Bateman's character would pick up where it left off. "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," Berg said. Apparently Sony did feeling that burning desire, as they've made the first big step in hiring these writers.

Find more posts: Movie News, Opinions



haha now this is one really REALLY bad idea.

DoomCanoe on Aug 24, 2009


uugghh...... hancock sucked ass... HARD. But it made a crapload so of course a sequel is inevitable.

teyhtr on Aug 24, 2009


Will Smith needs to make I Am Legend 2 before he makes Hancock 2.

whomever on Aug 24, 2009


They should find another random superhero script that has nothing at all to do with hancock and gut all the good bits so that the sequel will live up to the same standards as the original. Honestly, I can't understand how the first one managed to get made. The script for the first one was decent. The writing and much of the dialogue was kinda bad, but the basic idea of the script and the basic story elements were pretty clever and actually original. They bought the script because it was the director's "Favorite script in a years", to paraphrase his own words, and then they totally gutted everything that was interesting about it. The good idea ended up on the floor, as did all the edginess. What could have been a great dark, dramatic flick with some pretty decent action/suspense scenes was totally ruined and perverted into an idiotic popcorn flick. The cut the balls off that script. That movie was one of the reasons I stopped reading scripts before the movies got made. The script-to-screen conversion was just so bad. To this day I can't think about this movie without asking myself how the hell the people involved with that never stopped and asked themselves why they were even bothering to keep the first half of the film. They spent over a million bucks to buy a script they then turned around and threw out the window. Why the hell would you do that? I don't really care about the sequel one way or the other, tho. If these guys were smart they'd just throw the whole thing out and spend the development time to come up with something new, rather than try to revive a film they did a pretty amazing job at screwing up royally.

Squiggly_P on Aug 24, 2009


>.> <.< I liked Hancock. 🙁 As for a sequel? Hmm...I need to see more before I can give an opinion. It could be good. 🙂

Sabes on Aug 24, 2009


Hancock was a train wreck, like Squiggly stated why they bought a great script that they then gutted I have no idea.

mopic nerd on Aug 24, 2009


With a 185 Million dollar budget half of which goes to Will Smith. Whatever. District 9 Part 2 please with a third of the budget.

JimD on Aug 24, 2009


Only the nerds didn't like Handcock, everyone he are like fucking haters on everything that isn't a serious movies.

Kris on Aug 25, 2009


The nerds? I love explosions and "summer" movies but Hancock was terrible, it was two different movies. It was so obvious how they chopped and added story elements from all the rewrites. District 9 and Star Trek are examples of movies made by people who know what their doing and who can tell a coherent and enjoyable story.

mopic nerd on Aug 25, 2009


Good to see, I'm not the only one who thinks that Hancock was extremely bad : )

Michael on Aug 25, 2009


i just watched this again and thought how I'd like a sequel, but nothing cheesy like another god. Then it's just another crap superhero movie. It had an interesting idea and somewhat original story, at least for film. I appreciate the fact they don't want to run into it. I had an idea when I watched this but now I forgot it. Could have been longer though, instead of rushing Smith and Theron into battle so quick the first time. LOL Mopic nerd said Star Trek was good. lol

Tra la la la la di da on Aug 25, 2009


I would like to see a sequel. The movie was fairely bad but entertaining, a summer blockbuster that earned more than 600 million dollars worldwide, and don't forget the amazing charlize theron.......

Mk on Aug 25, 2009


BOOOOO!!!!!!! Sony just does not get it anymore. First the Rogen mess of Green Hornet and now this. $$$$ ....nothing more.

Clover on Aug 25, 2009


I frankly enjoyed Hancock (on blu-ray). I wasn't expecting much of anything and was pleasantly surprised. Maybe it was my mood. I would probably feel different if I had been looking forward to it and saw it opening week. (a'la Terminator)

bozoconnors on Aug 25, 2009


District 9 was pretty bad, Hancock was pretty great, your opinion does not matter because it is wrong, in this world we the beautiful people only listen to people who's opinions are right

Dr Robotnik on Aug 25, 2009


Wouldn't there have to be two more "gods"? I thought that was the point of Hancock?

S on Aug 25, 2009


Hancock: Great Idea, Perfect Actor in the Lead, Terrible Script and a HORRIBLE Director! It is rare that to get a movie with such potential that crashes and burns like Hancock did. It had so many elements that could have worked...the superhero trying to find his place...the comedic element of the man trying to help him and the lost love who is a hero herself....but then Hollywood & Peter Berg stepped in and it all went to HELL!! This movie angered me due to how much it assumes we in the audience are stupid! Not us Hollywood....YOU!

Jay on Aug 25, 2009


I loved Hancock, I got everything out of it, comedy, drama, story, characters. But I agree with Jay teh film assumed that we are all stupid, but then it that the audience is actually smart then it tried to be something else. I just hope these new writers can bring out a better story and help to flesh out the Characters more then the first one. But either way I loved Hancock and the haters aren't going to change my opinion.

Xerxex on Aug 25, 2009


@ #3 Dude. He got blown up at the end of Legend. I don't think they make sequels based on alternate DVD endings.

jasonmd2020 on Aug 25, 2009


#9, thanks for proving my point...Star Trek and District 9 are are serious movies, not my fault all these nerdy movie freaks can't enjoy a stupid funny movie or something different from a Spiderman or Wolverine moive...

Kris on Aug 25, 2009


one question, why?

harrison on Aug 25, 2009


#19 I heard they might do a prequel to I Am Legend which means it will show what happened to the people infected and how people tried to escape New York City. I liked Hancock but I think they should do a prequel to I Am Legend first. 🙂

Caitie on Aug 25, 2009



Silver on Aug 25, 2009


#15 I can't argue with that sort of logic, you got me, viva la beautiful people! ;P #20 I didn't think Star Trek was serious. The reason I didn't enjoy Hancock was that it had a lot of potential it didn't live up to.

mopic nerd on Aug 25, 2009


i don't see how hancock should get a sequel. the first one felt like it was something will smith needed to fulfill the end of a contract obligation. almost like his '... pounds' movie. the story was weak and the movie felt like it was quickly put-together. they must plan to pay will a sick amount of money. i wouldn't return unless they paid me at least 20-mil.

JL on Aug 26, 2009


the cgi from hanjob was great the story sucked im glad to hear of a sequel but another god i think thats been done already and wouldnt there have to be two more? opps i gave away the plot , see what imean

sam on Sep 4, 2009


i liked hancock but the only reason it sucked is because will smith was not given more control over the movie! Compare Bad Boys & I Robot to does not have that will smith feel!

LuckyLoser on Oct 3, 2009


People are idiots sometimes, i dont know why they would think a sequel is going to be bad. For example, a lot of people thought Ironman 2 would suck, now it looks like its gonna be a million times better than the first ironman

joe on Feb 14, 2010

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed -or- daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main account on twitter:
For the latest posts only - follow this one:

Add our updates to your Feedly - click here

Get the latest posts sent in Telegram Telegram