Gareth Edwards Not Directing the 'Monsters' Sequel for Vertigo Films
by Alex Billington
May 14, 2011
Wait - there's a sequel to to the cult sci-fi hit Monsters in the works? Apparently so. ScreenDaily (via The Playlist) is reporting details on Monsters 2 coming from the Cannes Film Festival, as Vertigo Films is currently working on early pre-sales and financing. Unfortunately, writer/director Gareth Edwards will not be returning, as he has moved on to helm Godzilla for Legendary out in Hollywood. Instead, "emerging hotshots" Brent Bonacorso, of a short called West of the Moon, and Jesse Atlas will take the reigns this time, with Edwards and the film's co-star Scoot McNairy at least executive producing. Very interesting news.
The sequel will spend more time in the "infected zone" world that Monsters established. It will continue by introducing a teacher living in a protected walled city, who has to go into the infected zone to find his long-lost brother, a former military man who is now a "Col. Kurtz-esque figure." Vertigo's Allan Niblo says: "We wouldn't have done it if we didn't find the right talent [in the two new directors]. Gareth loves their vision. People want to see more of this world." Indeed, but does that mean we need to rehash this in a sequel that probably won't be as good? Niblo promises there will be "lots more creatures" in the sequel. It seems like the only reason they're doing that is because people complained about the lack of the creatures, but to me that was just an idle complaint because I was satisfied with the original vision Edwards had for it.
ScreenDaily also adds that the budget will be bigger than the first Monsters (which was a point of contention considering the amount of visual effects Edwards did on his own), but it'll still stay under $5 million. Vertigo has Monsters 2 scheduled to be delivered by the end of 2012, so we've still got a while to wait on this one. No cast has been set yet. Considering I was in Cannes last year when I first discovered Monsters, and I'm here again now, I really think this isn't necessary. They're just trying to keep the buzz going. Let's hope they truly can keep the same vision and expand upon it without watering it down. We'll keep you updated!
Reader Feedback - 12 Comments
i'm with you on this, Alex. commercially viable, undoubtedly. creatively necessary, nope. Monsters may have suffered from its title and from being marketed in the wrong way. full on creature films are great, but i don't think Monsters was ever intended to be one. i loved Monsters' half-improv / low budget feel, its focus on the human characters and on metaphor, the fact it had echoes of many films but was still its own thing. most of all, i loved the fact that it was a time capsule of a film - a short story set in a particular universe. can we not enjoy a film for all the reasons we do - and then *move on* to new things, as Edwards himself has done, rather than go back and retread the same story again? thought not.
Anonymous on May 14, 2011
Monsters was about monster as much as Signs was about aliens....
Anonymous on May 15, 2011
Dunno. Monsters was great, but I bet only about 3 people saw it, or maybe lots of folk saw it but thought it was pish cause it didn't have explooooooooooosiiiiiiooooooooooooooooooonsssssssss
Crapola on May 15, 2011
Monsters was great. This doesn't sound too good
Dan W on May 15, 2011
Loved Monsters, Jon Hopkins score is amazing!
happy camper on May 15, 2011
I loved monsters, and Id be pissed about this if it wasnt for the fact Edwards is doing Godzilla instead. That could be fucking cool, the few monster(in Monsters) scenes were intense imagine a full blown picture.
Cody W. on May 15, 2011
Glad to see I'm not the only one who enjoyed MONSTERS. A sequel is welcome, disappointed that Edwards won't be involved, though.
DwainIBe on May 15, 2011
Brent certainly seems to have the right visual flare! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld2j-5n-Y5w
Dominic on May 16, 2011
Ugh, I found Monsters to be so horrendously boring and miserable. A crappy love story and a terrible monster movie, everything about that flick was so disappointing to me. It was seriously one of my most hated movies of the year. That said, i kinda dont care about this. I wanted to like the first one, me paying the first movie and an additional one just feels like a waste of my time, I want this flick to fail and bury a possible franchise for good.
Voice of Reason on May 16, 2011
Its a romance movie wrapped with a monster movie feel. Why do you need a sequel?
Anonymous on May 16, 2011
Guess they're changing the theme. Sure go for it.
Anonymous on May 16, 2011
Utter Fail. The first film wasn't that good at all. The second will probably ruin it even more.
Drw on May 17, 2011
Sorry, new comments are no longer allowed.