The "Unbreakable" Trilogy

As many of you probably know, M. Night Shyamalan's Unbreakable was going to be a a "Superhero" trilogy. But since the first movie had mixed reactions, he put sequels off. He did, however, say that he'd still consider it in the future. The idea was to show the transformation of one man into a superhero and then show his life as a superhero.

What did everyone here think about this movie? Does anyone here think there should still be sequels?

 

I love Unbreakable and own the DVD, however, I am hesitent about a "super-hero" trilogy idea.

To me Unbreakble is more about Bruce Willis and Sam Jackson's characters finding their places in life, rather than becoming heros or villians.

However, I could see it working as well.

 

Well, of course it wouldn't be your typical superhero movie. Definitely more personal than that. Think of the last 30 minute of Unbreakable to see what I mean. It would probably be a lot more complex than just Good vs. Evil.

 

Haven't had the pleasure of seeing Unbreakable yet, but the idea for the trilogy as a metamorphisis for a character sounds like an original and intriguing idea.

 

Perhaps Shyamalan could make it like the Star Wars prequel trilogy which, IMO, shows how good and evil can be mixed and complexed greater than any other story has shown.

 

Good point. Considering Shyamalan's style, I could see it being done very well. More of a "personal" struggle with one-self and those around you.

Then Michael Bay takes helm of the third one and the last half hour feature a huge car chase and explosions

 

-_-_-_-_-_-, I recomend you see it as soon as possible.

 

lol, ST.

 

Unbreakable was a fantastic film, in my mind the best superhero film ever (yes, it's got Spider-man beat by a wide margin too). But I hope that it isn't made into a trilogy. I think that the story works best on its own.

Now, I may be proven wrong. It wouldn?t be the first time that happened. I?m sure that some people were disappointed when George Lucas made sequel to Star Wars, but then we got the Empire Strikes Back, which was nearly as good (I?m not one of those that considers Empire the best ). Of course, then we got Return of the Jedi, so maybe the sequel thing isn?t such a good thing after all in terms of Star Wars.

 

Jon LOL

Yeah I loved this film as well. I am open to the idea of a trilogy if he does it well... I trust him. All three of his popular films have been incredible.

 

I liked Unbreakable a lot, it was a very intelligent idea.

I heard Night wants to do a sequel in which Mr Glass takes on a sort of apprentice and teaches him how to destroy David Dunn.

The beauty of Unbreakable is how the conventions of superheroes are put into this deeply personal thriller.

 

i really loved unbreakable, it was just plain great, the triology sounds nice

 

I love Unbreakable, definitely in my list of best films. Indeed, for me it's the best comic-related movie Not too sure about any trilogy, but if they're anything like the first movie...wow!

But as it is, I prefer to leave it with just that one awesome movie.

 

I think Unbreakable stands better on it's own. Though I respect Shyamalan's directing talent, so if he thinks it woudl be better presented as a triology, he may be right.

 

Unbreakable could be seriously tarnished by two bad sequels. But, what if the sequels actually compliment the first movie? Wow... that would be great!

 

Mr. Glass taking on an apprentice? Naw, I'd want it to focus on David Dunn. Mr. Glass shouldn't even be in a sequel.

"I think this is where we shake hands." - Mr. Glass

 

..not have Mr. Glass?

The sequel would HAVE to have Mr. Glass.

Glass IS Dunn's Arch-Nemesis!

He's Lex Luthor.

He's The Joker.

He's Gleek the SuperMonkey


I'd love for a trilogy to be made.

"Unbreakable" was a fantastic film with an ending that still drops my jaw...

 

Unbreakable is a great film, much better the Sitxh Sense, and damned close to as good as Signs. I think a trilogy would work if done right. Part of that would include having M. Night do both movies. I think if he did them, he could come up with something that would make it well worth it. Too many sequels are done by someone other then the people who did the first movie, which is why so many sequles are just re-hashes. They're done by people who didn't work ont he first one and aren't nearly as creative as the people who did.

 

I just went to Movies.com and found some interesting information on a possible Unbreakable 2:

(08/10/01)
Willis was talking with interviewers about the Sam Shepherd play True West that he and his Company of Fools were performing in Idaho when he mentioned that he'd be up for making Unbreakable 2, according to Ain't It Cool News.

(08/10/01)
The first Unbreakable film was just part of a trilogy that M. Night Shyamalan envisioned. The rumors first started at the end of last year with Willis talking about it in a chat on Yahoo!. (Coming Attractions)

(08/09/01)
Reportedly, the recent success of the American DVD release of Unbreakable has increased the likelihood of a sequel. According to M. Night Shyamalan, "I have been in contact with the studio about this. Initially they declined a sequel because the film did not really perform like the Sixth Sense. But after the success of the DVD set, they are a little more receptive to the idea. I was always kind of mixed about the prospect of doing a sequel but I had always had little treatments here and there I had jotted down while I was making the first." (Empireonline)

(08/09/01)
Bruce Willis is in talks to star. (AICN)

All of this is from 2001, so I'm not certain what progress has been made on the possibilty of actually doing this. However, at Movies.com, it says a possible release date for the movie could be 2004. Very cool

 

I would love to see the story fleshed out the way it was supposed to. Unbreakable was simply supposed to introduce the characters and show that David Dunn had discovered his abilities.

Definately one of the best comic films.

 

I loved Unbreakable, but always saw it as a stand alone. HOWEVER, seeing as Night had it planned out as a trilogy all along, I wouldn't doubt his ability to make two more great movies. I don't know, I wouldn't care if he didn't, but I'd certainly see the sequels if he did!

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

As was mentioned above, the initial reports that it was to be a trilogy was an urban legend, began by comments Shyamalan made about the nature of the film. He stated that he wanted to make a film that was basically the first third of your average superhero film (ie. Superman, Spiderman). The first third of course involves the realization of power and the coming to terms with it. Then the villian is introduced and conflict begins for the second part to finally culminate in the climactic final battle in the third part.

Unbreakable was always meant to stand alone and, in my opinion, it should. There should not be a sequel.

 

Actually, the true story, from Night himself, is somewhere in the middle of all this.

When Night began conceiving the story while shooting The Sixth Sense, he originally envisioned it a three part story... and he signed on to Bruce Willis before he had written one page of the script, which follows why Bruce Willis and Samuel Jackson, who was brought on board at Willis' urging, supposedly suggested to Shyamalan he go ahead with the three-part idea. Even though they were committed before Night showed them one page of the script, which wasn't finished yet, Night wasn't so sure. The latter two chapters were to deal with, respectively, Dunn's growth as the superhero and then the "ultimate confrontation" with the ultimate arch-villain.

However, Night stated in a video interview (I believe it's on the Unbreakable DVD) that the last two chapters didn't really resonate with him... He identified most with the first chapter. If I recall correctly, the second and third stories only went as far as a synopsis or treatment. They were pretty much ditched in the development stage.

The studio wasn't committed to three, Night never promised three... he had the idea, and canned it about as soon as it came to him because it didn't feel right.

I agree with him. The "Unbreakable Trilogy" would have simply diluted what made Unbreakable so great... it defied pretty much all the usual standards of telling a superhero story... including lame sequels. It's enough of a story within itself for any reasonably intelligent person to see everything up to the point where David embraces, after great reluctance, that which is extraordinary about his otherwise ordinary persona... no further explanation needed...

Night's movies are not for people who need to be spoonfed answers. That being said, there are plenty of superhero shlockfests of cartoonish morons in tights with swarthy henchmen chasing after them with big neon guns... no need for Night to make a franchise out of it when his film spoke more clearly, intelligently and respectfully to the X-men generation than thirteen installments of the horribly washed-out Batman franchise ever could.

He has no sympathy for people who don't make the effort or can't make the effort to think... yes, think... during a movie... but at the same time, he's being very respectful of the many moviegoers who are tired of having their intelligence constantly underestimated by Hollywood's marketing goons.

"Unbreakable" is how you make a superhero story... at least for now. Now that it's been done there's no point in imitating or regurgitating what was already done so brilliantly. Unless of course you're George Lucas.

 

Too many sequels are done by someone other then the people who did the first movie, which is why so many sequles are just re-hashes. They're done by people who didn't work on the first one and aren't nearly as creative as the people who did.

99% of the time I would agree with you. The main exception that I can think of to this statement is obviously the Alien movies. What makes them so great is that every one is different because every one has a different director. Each director is given free reign to modify the story and the "rules" as he/she sees fit.

That being said, I think that IF an Unbreakable trilogy were to be done, THEN M Night would have to write and direct it. However, I think that it works better as a stand alone film.

 

If Night can think of a REALLY powerful story for two sequels, I say he should definetely make them.