Although Wanted, based on the miniseries by Mark Millar and J.G. Jones, doesn’t debut until June 27, it looks as if a sequel is already in the works.
In an interview with Pajiba, screenwriters Derek Haas and Michael Brandt reveal that Universal Pictures already has hired them to pen a follow-up.
“We’re just finishing up a book adaptation for Universal of the James Siegel novel Deceit,” Haas tells the website. “We’ve been hired to write the sequel to Wanted by the same studio. And we’ve got a few more things in the hopper that it’s a little premature to talk about.”
He goes on to discuss their experience working on the first movie: “Wanted has been terrific. We first started working on it when only the first issue of the comic came out, and as the book became crazier and crazier, we tried to keep the script grounded. Timur Bekmambetov is directing and has been interesting and gratifying to work with. The movie is going to be a gigantic, hard-R action movie that we hope will satisfy the comic fans.”
Haas also says that he and Brandt would like to do something with The Drifting Classroom, Kazuo Umezu’s post-apocalyptic horror manga.
wow. consider that gun jumped.
isn’t it a bit premature to begin work on a sequel to an untested property?
maybe if they actually do the sequel, it’ll have more to do with the book, since the movie only seems to have 2 character names and nothing else.
Comment by KoozyK — May 7, 2008 @ 9:19 am
Hiring writers isn’t that much money, but it speeds up the rest of the process since everything else has to wait for them. If the movie tanks, the studio isn’t out all that much money. If they movie does well, then they can get the sequel out that much faster.
Comment by Jason M. Bryant — May 7, 2008 @ 10:46 am
Is it wrong of me to hope this movie tanks so that people in Hollywood stop thinking they can change everything about a property except the name and still get comic fans to see it? I’d like for them to take us a little more seriously than that.
Comment by Blake — May 7, 2008 @ 11:26 am
This movie was made for general action film/Angelina fans, not the fanboys.
Makes more sense, really. 100,000 fanboys equates to not even $1 million in box office. That barely covers the catering budget on a big-budget picture.
Comment by Adam D. Kline — May 7, 2008 @ 11:44 am
I’m going to predict this is one of the big movie casualties of the summer. I’m prepared to eat crow should it hit, but I have a feeling… what’s this opening against?
Comment by Birmy — May 7, 2008 @ 11:47 am
Re: Bimy
it’s opening against Wall-E. it’s as good as done.
Comment by KoozyK — May 7, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
this one we not satify the comic community, but already for a sequel?
that just crazy talk.
Comment by joe asylo — May 7, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
D2DVD!
Comment by furioso2012 — May 7, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
the series sucked and so will this movie
Comment by john — May 7, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
[quote=Adam D. Kline] This movie was made for general action film/Angelina fans, not the fanboys.
Makes more sense, really. 100,000 fanboys equates to not even $1 million in box office. That barely covers the catering budget on a big-budget picture.
Comment by Adam D. Kline — May 7, 2008 @ 11:44 am
—–
Exactly. A point that self-important comic fanboys fail to grasp. In crime terms, comics are small-time, two-bit crooks, while movies are the Mafia.
Comment by artjunkie — May 7, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
“Is it wrong of me to hope this movie tanks so that people in Hollywood stop thinking they can change everything about a property except the name and still get comic fans to see it?”
No, but it’s wrong for you to think that people in Hollywood actually care whether comic fans see their movies.
Comment by kalorama — May 7, 2008 @ 9:47 pm
I read the trade paperback collection. I really liked it. But it makes perfect sense to me to do the movie as they’re doing it. Most of the costumed supervillain stuff is just WAY too inside for a non-comics audience to get. If you’re a die-hard comics fan, then, yes, you’re going to know that this guy is a riff on that one, this situation is wink-wink, nudge-nudge supposed to be a play on that, but all of that would be lost on the vast majority of filmgoers. Making them ultracool assassins — people with skills that make them feel that they are apart from and above the rest of society — fulfills the same basic plot function. And when you boil the story down, it’s REALLY about Wesley joining the dark side, not about what kind of tights he’s wearing. That core element is right there in the trailers.
Comment by xonofvulcan — May 8, 2008 @ 10:11 am
I’m not one to cry foul over organic web shooters and characters not being VW bugs, but I just don’t see the sense in adapting a movie from a property if you’re going to deviate from it so much. I mean if they wanted to make another guns blazing Angelina Jolie vehicle, they could’ve just made an original flick and not even have to worry about licensing (though I’m glad to see comic creators get paid).
Without the superhero hook, it seems to me that Wanted will be just another action flick, and with a void of originality in Hollywood flicks, do we REALLY need that? It may still be good, but you kind of wonder what if they went out on a limb and stayed somewhat true to the book. That’s not “whining” just a desire to see something new and completely different on screen.
What’s next? How about when they do the “We 3″ film, they drop the whole animal angle and just cast three people?
On another note, people complain about how annoying fanfolk are when these movies come out, honestly the Hollywood defenders, (the folks who are always saying “Hollywood doesn’t care…”, “Get over it…”etc.) are almost just as annoying. Both sides, honestly have valid points.
In the end though, the creators gave this their personal thumbs up, so I guess if they’re happy with it, that’s what matters. *shrugs*
Comment by haterbreaker — May 10, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
“Both sides, honestly have valid points.”
Not really. It’s already been well-established that Hollywood doesn’t care about being scrupulously faithful to the source material when adapting comics to film. It’s always been that way and, given that they make a mint with that approach, there’s no reason to expect it to change. So it makes no real sense when people flip out upon finding out that a comic-based movie isn’t 100% faithful to the source. What film adaptation (from any source material) is? It’s one thing to be disappointed in the fact that it doesn’t happen and wish that it did. It’s another thing entirely to act surprised or shocked when it happens, and rant and rave about what an injustice it is and hope that the film tanks so they’ll star doing them “the right way.” Because unless you have no clue about the history of how the film industry works in these instances, that reaction doesn’t make much sense.
Comment by kalorama — May 11, 2008 @ 2:53 am