Jonathan Liebesman Might Be Directing Clash of the Titans 2
As we learned in April, although the Clash of the Titans remake made $487 million worldwide, director Louis Leterrier decided that he would not return to direct the sequel that Warner Bros had quickly greenlit. We have been waiting to find out who they would choose to direct instead and word is, according to the LA Times, that up-and-coming director Jonathan Liebesman (Darkness Falls, Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, The Killing Room) is their top contender. Liebesman is currently in post-production on the sci-fi alien invasion action film Battle: Los Angeles, which I've heard some incredible things about already.
LA Times says that Warner Bros wants to starting production on this sequel by early 2011 so that they can still get Sam Worthington back before he moves on to shoot Avatar 2. Liebesman isn't locked, as they say a number of filmmakers are still currently in contention, but he's "one name that's risen to the top." The only other news is that it will be shot in 3D from the start, not converted this time (which was one big issue). I really like Liebesman, I think he's a director to really keep an eye on coming up, but I don't know how he'll be able to recover Clash of the Titans. I'm more concerned about the script and the story and where they can take it from where Leterrier left us at the end of the remake. I guess we'll find out soon enough - stay tuned!
I didn't care much for Clash. A sequel isn't necessary.
Daniel Felts on Jun 10, 2010
fuck it, why not? Maybe can redeem it.
Xerxex on Jun 10, 2010
script and story first of course. but please get a director that can direct a sword fight. Leterrier can direct a modern action flick but in Clash of the Titans I was like you're killing me Smalls
silver on Jun 11, 2010
This sounds intresting i will wait with intrest for information of the Clash of the Titans Sequel.
Cineprog on Jun 11, 2010
The remake sucked big time (I rly didn't like it!), so why waste money on a sequel?!?
Patrick on Jun 11, 2010
"The remake sucked big time (I rly didn't like it!), so why waste money on a sequel?!?" This.
sean on Jun 11, 2010
I still dont see why everyone hated on this remake. As a fan of the original, I fully embraced the remake and thought it was great. Loved what they did with Hades and how they updated the story and will definitely see a sequel!
Cmurder on Jun 11, 2010
How 'bout an R rating? Eh? EH? EHH?!
Demtor on Jun 11, 2010
I can explain you why I hated it. The movie is about 100 mins long which is the usual length for action flicks, still (imo) all the scenes seemed underdevelopped to me. For example, when Perseus is captured by the argonauts he decides within 4/5 minutes to fight along their side. Or when the argonauts fight those sand people with the scorpions and decide to form an alliance with them, it's all dealt within 2 minutes, it is decided so quickly (sure we just killed a few men of you (and vice-versa) and chopped your pets, but nvm we are friends now). In the movie all decisions seem to be made within a blink of an eye, everything seems to be rushed. Also the locations change way to quickly, I mean how fast can they travel?!? Ofc it is an action flick and it's action we want to see, but still I couldn't really enjoy it. Ah and the ending...should you ever have an unpleasant meeting with a giant Kraken, just give it head...;-P
Patrick on Jun 11, 2010
Liebesman is cool. He did a great job with TCM: The beginning in keeping the tone and mood of the Nispel film. Has a good visual eye. I sort of dig him...
ryderup on Jun 11, 2010
How the [expletive] did this laughable testament to filmmaking incompetence make $487 million dollars? Hollywood's oldest secret: all you need is the name (i.e., the brand "Clash of the Titans) and you can trick entire nations into thinking you gave a damn about plot, pace, acting, pathos, arc, emotion, logic, meaning, value, fresh dialog, proper framing, editing, score, or anything else that actually goes into telling a good story or making a good film. Now, I don't know what the BIG BAD NEWS is--I don't. For example, whether the candidate for President of the United States is liberal democrat or conservative republican, it doesn't matter what they promise or what they think they know: once they become president all those secretive government agencies take the first month of their presidency telling them all the terrible truths they don't didn't know BEFORE they were president. Whatever the BIG BAD NEWS is it almost invariably, without fail, erodes the president's resolve to his own promises. Sure, some of it is just the ancient false promises of snake-oil salesmen trying to get ever more power, because we all know you can never have enough power, right? The same is true for Hollywood. I don't know what the BIG BAD NEWS is that obviously gets dropped on talented filmmakers and storytellers when they go to make some big budget Hollywood tentpole film, but it's obviously BAD...bad enough that Hollywood now has a 25-year history of abject, inexcusable stupidity. Isn't Hollywood supposed to be bastion of imagination and creativity and storytelling? Nope. You see they practice what they preach. They are all name: "HOLLYWOOD." All brand. No substance. And they still have board meeting trying to figure out why they are losing entire sectors to other media like PC games. Clash of the Titans was embarrassing. Understand, I remember the original and have a sentimental place in my heart for it and I wanted to like the remake. I gave it more chances than it deserved. In the end, its trash. It made $487 million not because it was good, or even poor (even that is too kind). It made $487 million because Hollywood preys on our hopes as eager audiences for good films, especially with ones with names we remember from former days. And that's it.
Sabler on Jun 11, 2010
@Sabler you can swear on FS.net.
Xerxex on Jun 11, 2010
New comments are no longer allowed on this post.