The Will Smith superhero movie, Hancock,  is indeed headed back to the big screen, and Columbia Pictures has hired Adam Fierro and Glen Mazzara to write the sequel.

Plot details are being kept under wraps, though the scribes will work with Smith and director Peter Berg to build on the world hinted at in the first movie.

While the first Hancock movie took 12 year to get to theaters, the sequel is being put on the fast track, so expect it to fly into theaters sooner than you might think.

via THR

The Author

Stephen Schleicher

Stephen Schleicher

Stephen Schleicher began his career writing for the Digital Media Online community of sites, including Digital Producer and Creative Mac covering all aspects of the digital content creation industry. He then moved on to consumer technology, and began the Coolness Roundup podcast. A writing fool, Stephen has freelanced for Sci-Fi Channel's Technology Blog, and Gizmodo. Still longing for the good ol' days, Stephen launched Major Spoilers in July 2006, because he is a glutton for punishment.

You can follow him on Twitter @MajorSpoilers and tell him your darkest secrets...

Previous post

Dynamite Entertainment Sneak Peek of the Week

Next post

Hey, Kids! Meth...and Comics!

10 Comments

  1. Jacin B
    August 25, 2009 at 10:11 am — Reply

    Sooner than I might think, huh? Well I think it’ll get here next week.

    Hah! Let’s see you try to get here sooner than that, Hancock 2!

  2. Navarre
    August 25, 2009 at 10:17 am — Reply

    Hancock 2, opening in 2 hours! Take that, Jacin! lol

    I really enjoyed Hancock. I found the characters and premise a refreshing departure from government experiments and mutants.

    I also enjoyed the fact that I got to see a hero’s story without knowing it first. When I watched Spider-Man or Batman or Iron Man it was hard not to evaluate its faithfulness to the source material. With Hancock, I was watching the source directly and that was a lot of fun.

    I really hope this series continues and delivers.

    I’m also glad to see an ethnic hero; one whose name isn’t Black Hancock, or whatever.

  3. Gaumer
    August 25, 2009 at 11:21 am — Reply

    Hancock 2: Back on the Wagon

    Or is it off the wagon? I always confuse those two

  4. Navarre
    August 25, 2009 at 11:38 am — Reply

    He’s on the wagon, I hope. Otherwise, NYC is going to have a lot of property damage coming its way.

  5. August 25, 2009 at 11:42 am — Reply

    I enjoyed the movie, but there was a weird point where it seemed to fall apart for me, and then it sorta saved itself.

    Looking forward to the second one, Will Smith is one of my favorite actors!

  6. Sam Dunham
    August 25, 2009 at 1:25 pm — Reply

    I’ll be honest, the first time I saw Hancock, I didn’t like it. I mean REALLY didn’t like it. Thinking back on the film now though, I can see that it has some definite good points, and maybe didn’t deserve the verbal thrashing I gave it then.

    Having said that, I’m not sure about Hancock 2. The major plot of the first one was his mysterious past and the source of his powers. That and the booze. Can’t forget about the booze. With those two plot points pretty much wrapped up, that leaves Hancock with no story. Sure, he can fight a super bad guy, but what would make that any different than any other run-of-the-mill superhero flick?

  7. downbylaw
    August 25, 2009 at 4:00 pm — Reply

    ew….just ew….

    Who was the villain in the movie?

    The 2-disc DVD cover gives away a major plot-point in the movie.

  8. Navarre
    August 25, 2009 at 7:19 pm — Reply

    The villain in the first movie was Hancock. He was his own worst enemy.

    We were watching the rebirth of a great hero. Had nothing to do with the southern-drawl preacher man with the gun.

    Saying Hancock has no more story to tell is like saying Spider-Man has nothing more to do after he catches Uncle Ben’s killer. As long as a person is alive, there is a story to be told. I hope Hancock 2 finds a great one.

  9. Sam Dunham
    August 25, 2009 at 10:00 pm — Reply

    I think we’re gonna have to agree to disagree on this one, but please allow me to back up my earlier post a bit.

    What I was saying is that the elements that make Hancock unique – the elements take him stand out as more than a “Knock-off Superman” was is mysterious past and his alcoholism. With both of those of those elements resolved, all we’re left with is a super-strong, flying man who happens to be (one of) the last of his kind, doing what he can to protect his fellow man. Sound familiar?

    Your point about Spider-Man is valid, but Pete Parker had more than just Uncle Ben’s murder pushing him to be a hero. The protection of his loved ones, his reactions to wrongs being committed, and (at least in the beginning) the thrill of the “hero action” all attributed to his continued work as a hero. Hancock, on the other hand, doesn’t have any of that. All he has is a vague notion to do good.

    I’m not saying that there’s no story to tell (which is a bit of a backpeddle I’ll admit, I was busy at work and wasn’t thinking my post through), I’m just afraid that a sequel would amount to a generic story where Hancock could be interchanged with virtually any pre-established character.

  10. Navarre
    August 26, 2009 at 7:33 am — Reply

    Hey, even if your opinion was only “Hancock sucks” with nothing to back it up, you’re still entitled to it. But, honestly, I think your reply explains the very thing I am talking about.

    Spider-Man was more than just the event that created him, as are all good heroes. You say Spider-Man has protection, justice, and thrill-seeking as motivators. This is true.

    You said Hancock doesn’t have these things. This is also true.

    And because Hancock doesn’t have these things, he is instantly very different from Superman, who of course is all about protection and justice.

    A good hero will be about a lot more than just their origin story. Looking at all of the heroes who have prospered in comics over decades of monthly issues proves that.

    What we look for instead out of our hero is someone we can relate to on some level and a chance to really get to know this person. Hancock is an excellent vehicle for this.

    Because his primary drive isn’t the typical super-hero motivation, Hancock has to really look hard at who he is and who he wants to be. He has a lot of growing up to do.

    Watching him do that allows us to vicariously experience that growth too which, in turn, may even prompt true growth in us…and that’s pretty heroic.

    Hancock is so much more flawed than most heroes and I think that leaves a wealth of possibilities when telling stories about him. Whether or not the writers do that instead of just having him fight some Big-Bad remains to be seen.

    Even the fact that we are taking time to discuss him indicates to me that the character has some worth.

    btw, I don’t see you listed as a member of the Major Spoilers forum, Sam. There is a link to it at the top of the main site page.

    It’s a great place to discuss topics such as this. Drop on by!

You know you have something to say, say it in the comment section