ROTTEN TOMATOES: Wiseman Just Fine with an "Underworld 3"

Wiseman Just Fine with an "Underworld 3"

by Scott Weinberg | December 08, 2005

ComingSoon.net brings news from the Sci-Fi Wire that writer/director Len Wiseman would be perfectly content to continue down the were-vamp path, and deliver unto the world an "Underworld 3."

"Yeah, we have piles and piles of notes and everything," Wiseman said. "We sort of mapped out an entire history and story that we then went into and decided which ... one will embody the first film, second film, third film. ... What it is, more so than three scripts, it is a massive collection of ideas and stories that we're putting out at certain times."
-

Not tough to see why Mr. Wiseman would stick with this particular formula: it's slick, it's popular, and it focuses on a mega-sexy babe who is also his wife.

But before we get ahead of ourselves, "Underworld: Evolution" hits theaters on January 20th. Starring alongside slinky siren Kate Beckinsale are Scott Speedman, Derek Jacobi, Tony Curran, Michael Sheen, and Bill Nighy.

Related Items

Movie:	Underworld: Evolution
Celeb:	Derek Jacobi
	Bill Nighy
	Kate Beckinsale
	Scott Speedman
	Tony Curran
	Michael Sheen
	Len Wiseman

(1-20 of 30 posts) | Reply

speelbergo writes:
on Dec 08 2005 10:15 AM

[b]???[/b]
Since when do mediocre performing genre fests get franchises? You used to have to make money to get franchises.

(Reply to this)

notimpressed writes:
on Dec 08 2005 10:39 AM

[b]Honestly...[/b]
Agreed. Who wants this to get made? Did anyone really like the first one that much to have not just one but two sequels???

I think the money is coming from the same mattress stuffed with money Uwe Boll found..

(Reply to this)

elziard writes:
on Dec 08 2005 11:23 AM

i liked the first; i like how it established its (story arc) history while still being entertaining and the lycen were done amazingly well.
the concept of politics and compromising while betraying your race (either lycen or vamp) was executed well. it was more than one dimensional and the subsequent chapters make sense.
with that said however, i'm not quite feeling the second installment from the trailer. this franchise stands on firm ground ONLY IF these 'piles and piles of notes' amount to a coherent and compelling story.

(Reply to this)

Moviecollector17 writes:
on Dec 08 2005 11:38 AM

I missed most of the first one cause I fell asleep. So I guess the main point here is why would they even make a second movie, no less a third?

(Reply to this)

Paul_Is_Drunk writes:
on Dec 08 2005 01:16 PM

I thought this movie looked pretty dumb, but I rented it on a whim and because I just needed some B-action. Ya know what? It's not that bad of a movie, if you just take it as a pure sci-fi romp. It's not like every movie needs to be Oscar-worthy. I'm also pretty sure it made money, as it couldn't have cost that much to produce.

(Reply to this)

theCurse writes:
on Dec 08 2005 03:08 PM

"We sort of mapped out an entire history"

Let me guess: it starts with Cain the son of Adam and his curse to wander until he meets a woman named Lillith....

(Reply to this)

UweBoll writes:
on Dec 08 2005 03:24 PM

The first one was shite

(Reply to this)

haelohm writes:
on Dec 08 2005 03:36 PM

[b]okay[/b]
the first one was done well for a first time director and a low budget. And compared to its low budget of 22 million, its 51 million domestic take is great, and it made 93 million world wide. So dose that garner a sequel? of course it does...Terminator only mde 38 million on a 7 million dollar budget, but the second one (Judgment day) made 204 million. Why WOULDNT they make a sequel if the makers are passionate about it and it makes some good proft?...50 million plus returns on a movie sounds good to me!

Bottom line It wasnt a great movie, but it deffinitely was not bad...bad would be "alone in the dark." Give it a chance and WAIT TILL YOU SEE IT to pass judgement.

(Reply to this)

Todd S writes:
on Dec 08 2005 04:49 PM

[b]Standard Hollywood overkill[/b]
The sequel hasn't even been released and now we're supposed to get hyped about a third movie? I liked the first one in that it was a nice film I could put on while I web surfed or studied and didn't have to pay it all my attention. I could just watch the action scenes now and then and have it in the backround. I don't think a sequel is needed and I'm expecting it to be nothing but eye candy and weak plot. A third film? Just send it direct to home release, maybe I'll put it on my netflix queue, way at the bottom.

(Reply to this)

killamike316 writes:
on Dec 08 2005 08:11 PM

underworld sucks

(Reply to this)

cabezone writes:
on Dec 08 2005 08:41 PM

In reply to this comment (#828636)
I thought that the first one was ok. The action scenes were dreadfull though, hopefully the larger budget helped the sequels action.

(Reply to this)

southfrisco writes:
on Dec 08 2005 11:36 PM

In reply to this comment (#828636)
Uwe, no one cares about your opinions here but I have to say if anyone knows about sh!t it is you. Why can't you have that same outlook with your own cinematic loads?

(Reply to this)

Evimeleth writes:
on Dec 09 2005 04:13 AM

The first one wasn't bad, but when watching it, I remember myself thinking "this could've been a whole lot better" more than once. I guess it's a "poorly executed good premise", like critics like so much to say.

(Reply to this)

Infernal writes:
on Dec 09 2005 05:23 PM

The first film was alright. But not great. I, personally, believe this second sequel is a good thing. Because now, if it turns out to be better than the first film, they can continue. So stop bickering and wait for the second sequel to come out, then rant and rave about Underworld. But you never know, Wiseman could've learned from his mistakes on the first one.

Anyway, just wait 'til then, eh?

(Reply to this)

Infernal writes:
on Dec 09 2005 05:28 PM

[b]Oops.[/b]
Terribly sorry.

On my previous post, I made a small mistake.

'I, personally, believe this second sequel is a good thing. '

I did not mean second sequel. Then, I would be referring to the third movie. So, I meant to say the second installment. Anyway, terribly sorry.

(Reply to this)

Callpacas writes:
on Dec 10 2005 11:21 AM

can't u just edit your post?

(Reply to this)

lovelykeira writes:
on Dec 10 2005 02:09 PM

Tony Curran will be a nice addition.

(Reply to this)

TheBoutCommittee writes:
on Dec 10 2005 02:34 PM

[b]But how?[/b]
I wonder how they managed to come up with the money to make a 3rd movie, do producers even watch films or read scripts at all anymore? .. i'm gonna go watch some indie films now hahahaha :P

(Reply to this)

Steve Perry writes:
on Dec 12 2005 05:51 PM

[b]Sweet[/b]
underword was kick ass! ton of violence and gore but at the same time it had a very genuine plot that they can build off of to make a good franchise! most movies like this dont even try to make a good plot!

(Reply to this)

Symmetrical writes:
on Dec 12 2005 11:51 PM

In reply to this comment (#828637)
[b]wow[/b]
comparing the the first two termanator movies to frickin' underworld... wow that is... that is something...

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Underworld

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links