Does 'Hancock' Deserve a Sequel?

By: Elisabeth Rappe

The superheroic team of Peter Berg, Will Smith, and Columbia have been bantering about a Hancock sequel since last July, so it's no surprise that it's gone and become official. According to The Hollywood Reporter, Columbia has hired Adam Fierro and Glen Mazzara to bring back the boozy immortal. Berg is expected to return as director,
though THR is mute as to whether Charlize Theron or Jason Bateman will be reprising their roles. (Given the way the last film ended, it could really go either way, couldn't it?)

While the plot is being kept under wraps, Smith already gave a few hints last winter. Smith says that the Hancock universe was "full of unexplored characters" and that we would meet them in a sequel. He certainly was a character with a long history, and a whole "last son of Krypton" thing going (I'm trying not to spoil anything), so I could see a sequel venturing into some kind of Phantom Zone territory. Or maybe they'll go downright Biblical with his immortal lineage. Who knows! It's too early to know!

When I last reported on a return to Hancock, a lot of you were intrigued by the idea of a prequel exploring his illustrious and godlike past than a sequel starring a reformed and purposeful hero. I guess all hope of a true origin story is shot, but maybe they will cater to your comments, and fill it full of flashback sequences! After all, Smith has The Last Pharaoh on his slate, so they'll have plenty of ancient sets and costumes available!

What do you think? Does Hancock deserve a sequel? What should they change in the new movie in order to make it more worthy of your hard-earned dollars?