Unbreakable 2

[November Rain]

unbreakable two should focus on other characters other than david dunn, dunn should cameo as well as mr glass.

not sure what the twist would be though.

the title should definitely be something describing the next character

inflammable -human torch
untouchable - sue
indescribable - the thing
uncatchable - speedster
untraceable - nightshade
uncosolable - the lead villain.

I would have thought david dunn would have worked really well in a sort of more serious hancock movie or when heroes first started out (before it got all too convinient about it's main cast interactions).


as for powers of someone, I would like something relatively simple, like being able to morph into someone else or seeing in the dark or moving things with one's mind and some sort of plant/photosynthesis energy provider to do....something.

heck even a radiation ability would be sweet.

 

[Joker]

Unbreakable was the only M. Night movie I've ever enjoyed, and would be happy to see a sequel as long as Willis and Jackson were both back.

Also, that whole near-anarchist rant by Willis is AWESOME.

 

[Gabe99]

From MTV 9/18/08:
Samuel L. Jackson, M. Night Shyamalan On The ‘Unbreakable’ Sequel That Never Was, But Might Be

According to both Shyamalan and Jackson, “Unbreakable” was originally intended to be a trilogy, but a series of bad reviews as well as fan and film critic misconception of Shyamalan’s work quickly tabled the idea of a possible franchise. As Jackson put it, “He was a victim of what Quentin [Tarrantino] was a victim of. ‘Jackie Brown’ is a great movie, but it’s not ‘Pulp Fiction 2.’ ‘Unbreakable’ is a great movie, but it’s not ‘I see f**king dead people.’”

Shyamalan even sat down with Jackson during the film’s production to discuss where his character could and would go had the film spawned a sequel.

“Back then we talked about what the rest would entail,” recalled Jackson. “I broke out of the mental institution. I’m out there doing stuff and ["Unbreakable" co-star Bruce Willis' "David Dunn" is] after me. It’s very cool. He still wears that rain thing, that windbreaker.”

So the idea seems to be there, and Jackson’s ready to break out the funky hair-do(n’t) and purple suit, so — bottom line — will we see an “Unbreakable 2,” Mr. Shyamalan?

“I do love the [comic book movie] genre, I just wanna make sure that I’m able to express who I am,” explained Shyamalan. “I don’t want to get so lost in the subject that I have to neuter everything that’s me in it, so maybe ‘Unbreakable’ is the comic book thing I should do — I keep coming back to that.”

From AICN:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/9748

Published on Wednesday, August 1, 2001 - 1:59pm

Bruce Willis Comments On The Possibility Of UNBREAKABLE 2!!!
Hey folks, Harry here. Seems that Bruce Willis is doing a play up in Idaho and had a chance to sit down with some of the local press to talk about the play he is doing up there. And Bruce had a very interesting non-denial response to the possibility of him doing UNBREAKABLE 2. His answer to Professor Dark's question is a bit jumbled... a tad incoherent, but promising. Here ya go....

From AICN:
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=9728

Published on Monday, July 30, 2001 - 4:42pm

More on M Night Shyamalan and an UNBREAKABLE 2...
Hey folks, Harry here with more on M Night Shyamalan and the future of his various endeavors. Now here's the thing... if you listen to these radio reports about Bruce Willis allegedly in negotiations on a follow-up to UNBREAKABLE... well, as much as I'd like that... think about it for a second. A couple days ago we ran a story about M. Night and the possibility of an UNBREAKABLE sequel that would involve Bruce, but not Samuel L Jackson... Well these radio reports reflect that. Then the voice clip of Willis could very well simply be some useful researcher pulling soundbytes from the time of UNBREAKABLE's initial release when everyone was talking of a trilogy.Time will tell to be sure, but take it all as rumor for now....

From AICN:
http://www.aintitcool.com/?q=node/7542

Published on Thursday, November 23, 2000 - 4:11am

UNBREAKABLE is part one of a planned trilogy!!!
Hey folks, Harry here... with oh so exciting news for me and my fellow UNBREAKABLE lovers... Just as I thought... "CHAPTER ONE" of a limited edition superhero trilogy!!! YES YES YES!!! Mr Glass is not done with RAINCOAT MAN... oh no... BOX OFFICE GOD WILLING... we'll see the rest of this story. Didn't like the way this first one ended? WELL BUB, THAT AINT THE ENDING! I have faith. How about: UNBREAKABLE, BREAKABLE and BROKEN? Aaaahhhhh, he can do better than that...

From MTV 02/22/10:
Bruce Willis Says M. Night Shyamalan 'Still Thinking' About 'Unbreakable 2'

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Hhhhhhmmmm, LOVED the first movie, but not sure I would want a sequel, it may ruin it, and Shyamalan hasnt been on form since really, not sure about this to be honest.

 

[Art_of_Crime]

**** NO
Unbearable was one two many.

 

[dark_b]

who didnt like the first movie? WTF?

 

[Art_of_Crime]

who didnt like the first movie? WTF?

I didn't
I really didn't

 

[amazingfantasy15]

I really don't think Unbreakable should have a sequel, it worked perfectly as an origin movie. Also I think a sequel would become too comic booky, I like how real world the first felt. Once David starts using his powers more, you'll lose that feeling. I like knowing at the end of the movie David starts to use his powers for good, but I don't think the audience needs to see it.

 

[david icke]

I didn't
I really didn't

I have to say, I find it a little strange for someone who calls themselves 'comicgeek' to dislike a movie like this, which is essentially about comicbooks, taking them seriously and spinning a unique movie out of the medium, without actually being based on a book.

edit: If Shymalan gets his mojo back with this airbending movie I would like to see Unbreakable 2. Ach, who am i kidding, even if airbender is crap, i would still like to see Unbreakable2, I would hope he got his mojo back with that one, and even if it was bad it would not ruin the original for me. The only way movies get ruined for me is if folk go back and tinker with them.

 

[Art_of_Crime]

I have to say, it's a little strange for someone who calls themselves 'comicgeek' to dislike a movie like this, which is essentially about comicbooks, taking them seriously and spinning a unique movie out of the medium, without actually being based on a book.

and yet here we stand.

 

[david icke]

and yet here we stand.

lol, well it might suggest that your handle is not as representative of yourself as you may think.
I mean, you didn't find it the least bit interesting at all? The movie going over the medium in quite a philosophical way, exploring whether the medium has more going on it in than appears on the surface?
How many dramatic films are made that are about the actual medium of comicbooks? Not many, 'Chasing Amy' to an extent, which was not really that great in that regard, and 'american splendour', which was another great movie that explored the medium.
edit: Can't think of any others offhand, but to find no interest in the movie at all in that regard *is* strange , if you are indeed a 'comicgeek'.

 

[Art_of_Crime]

i found the premise of the movie interesting. you are correct about that. however I was not a fan of the execution. It was quite a let down for me. I had high hopes and saw its potential squandered.

as for my name. Elitist_fair_weather_comic_geek was to much of a mouthful.

 

[david icke]

i found the premise of the movie interesting. you are correct about that. however I was not a fan of the execution. It was quite a let down for me. I had high hopes and saw its potential squandered.

Well, there we stand, there *was* something you liked about the movie after all, it's premise.
As for it's execution, personally, I don't see how such a concept could have been weaved into a real life setting any better.
After all, every superhero movie ever made has some sort of heightened realism, the world does not work the way the real world does.
This one came closest to a recognisable real world, whilst dealing with superhero elements, with both concepts not really feeling at all alien to each other.
I honestly don't know how this particular movie's premise could have been executed any better.

 

[Figs]

Well, there we stand, there *was* something you liked about the movie after all, it's premise.
As for it's execution, personally, I don't see how such a concept could have been weaved into a real life setting any better.
After all, every superhero movie ever made has some sort of heightened realism, the world does not work the way the real world does.
This one came closest to a recognisable real world, whilst dealing with superhero elements, with both concepts not really feeling at all alien to each other.
I honestly don't know how this particular movie's premise could have been executed any better.

Not to mention, M Night handled and brought to life the Hero/Villian dynamic/struggle and their qualities and differences better than just about any comic film to date.

 

[david icke]

Not to mention, M Night handled and brought to life the Hero/Villian dynamic/struggle and their qualities and differences better than just about any comic film to date.

Yeah, I never quite thought of that being the best comicbook hero/villan dynamic yet brought to film, but I think you are exactly right.
The closest in quality would probably be Magneto and Prof X in the Singer X-Men movies, or possibly Batman and the Joker in TDK.
But, in Unbreakable, we have a villan that we could believe is also a hero until the end, their tragectories being so close to being the same.

 

[Bad Superman]

Yep, it's a little late for a sequel.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

I have to say, I find it a little strange for someone who calls themselves 'comicgeek' to dislike a movie like this, which is essentially about comicbooks, taking them seriously and spinning a unique movie out of the medium, without actually being based on a book.

edit: If Shymalan gets his mojo back with this airbending movie I would like to see Unbreakable 2. Ach, who am i kidding, even if airbender is crap, i would still like to see Unbreakable2, I would hope he got his mojo back with that one, and even if it was bad it would not ruin the original for me. The only way movies get ruined for me is if folk go back and tinker with them.

I think Air Bender isn't a good gauge on whether Shymalan has his mojo back, mainly because he didn't write the movie. I've never found his directing to be weak, rather it's his writing that has gone down the crapper.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Unbreakable was superb. Although I think a sequel could deter the first film's meaning. It would go a little to much into the comic book realm. The first film was a deconstruction of the hero and villain. Could they do it again?

I don't see how that film got horrible reviews.

 

[Deaths Head II]

I would really love to see a sequel, but I worry about how it would turn out. The idea of seeing more of Willis' and Jackson's characters intrigues me though.

 

[scifiwolf]

What doesn't bother me about the sequel is that the idea was in place before the first movie. They just chose to tell the origin first. This doesn't smack as much of a sequel-for-the-sake-of-a-sequel as other movies have in recent years.

 

[Crook]

Unbreakable was superb. Although I think a sequel could deter the first film's meaning. It would go a little to much into the comic book realm. The first film was a deconstruction of the hero and villain. Could they do it again?

Why not? It flipped the script on the origin angle, I can't see why the same can't be applied to the actual hero/villain chase and showdown concept.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel but I wonder where would they take it to?
Mr.Glass was a great antagonist.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Why not? It flipped the script on the origin angle, I can't see why the same can't be applied to the actual hero/villain chase and showdown concept.

You could be right about that. I think I'm just worried about how it would turn out. It needs careful attention.

 

[El Payaso]

i found the premise of the movie interesting. you are correct about that. however I was not a fan of the execution. It was quite a let down for me. I had high hopes and saw its potential squandered.

Same here. I didn't like the execution of what could have been a great movie.

I haven’t seen the film in many years so if I’m making a mistake about anything here as it happened in the movie feel free to correct me.

The very explanations and analysis of the comics sounded rather simplistic and dull - the villiains have bigger eyes and are the exact opposite of the hero. They sounded like something any amateur could notice with a superficial look. Because not every villian has bigger eyes than the hero or they're the exact opposite of him.

Then we have the hero's "weak spot": water. Now, either David Dunn is about to die every time he takes a shower or drink water - or anything that contains water, namely any possible beverage - or he (and/or Shyamalan) is mistaking for a weak spot the fact that David could die drowned if he's pushed down the water - which then again is every human being's weak spot. But most important: water being a weak spot just makes no sense at all, unless you’re the Human Torch. It was just too random.

I get Elijah has some screw loose, but was he really thinking that applying a comic book rule to the real world would work?

As a villiain he sucks. Even as a comic book villiain concept: you have to be a threat to the hero and what he represent, not merely be against them. Any cop - or for that matter any child with a bat - can beat Elijah; the only extraordinary thing there is about him is that he's extraordinarily weak and easy to defeat. Even an accidental hit could send him to the hospital or kill him. That doesn't work. He doesn't represent a threat, and I don't buy such a physically limited character could get the money to put bombs without anyone noticing it.

And talking about his plan: absurd. Again, I don't buy that Elijah was seriously thinking that if he would put a lot of bombs and cause a lot of accidents there was any chance that a superhero would just come up. I know comic geeks doesn't think straight but this came up as just nonsennsica. And the fact that his plan worked doesn't make it look any more plausible, even for a movie about superheroes - because in the Unbreakable world, superheroes are not a common thing, I'd understand that you might cause accidents in order to catch Superman's attention in a world where Superman already exists. But Elijah didn’t have the slightest precedent that superheroes could be real. And the fact that the only one superhero out there lived in the same city as him doesn’t help the coherence.

 

[Crook]

Good points on the first two, but the latter is a bit misguided. Nonsensical, radical, improbable, was exactly the point of Elijah. He lived on comic books and came to live by it's rules. Admittedly however, his reasoning for seeking Bruce's character wasn't too out there. Everything does work on a spectrum, and it's only logical that if Elijah is on one end, someone could conceivably be on the other.