We understand when crappy-ass movies that do phenomenally well at the box office are made into sequels; a no-brainer, right? So, the Will Smith-Charlize Theron vehicle Hancock (2008) made more than half a billion worldwide on a $150m budget. Cool.
But does it really need to be made into a sequel? Seriously, while a promising concept, the film barely held up; the textbook definition of mediocre. And taking into account how sequels are traditionally inferior to the original, how exactly can this bode well for Hancock 2?
But hey, big money rules the world and Hollywood is no exception.