I'm still trying really hard to like the first one.

I loved the first one and want a sequel. I enjoy thinking how Hancock drunk did more damage than The Incredible Hulk (which I also liked) and Wolverine (eh... HJ was cute) put together. I also enjoyed the romantic twists and turns and who the true hero turned out to be. More Hancock for me!

Hancock was bar none the best super-hero film yet, except maybe Iron Man, but the difference between a hardware hero and a powers hero makes them apples and oranges in comparison. As a life long Marvel comics reader, I was disappointed in marvel for letting themselves get beat out so completely by a latecomer.

I did like the original it had a few glaring shortcomings...

It would have been great if it weren't for Jason Bateman's character and if the film actually had a significant villain rather the very underwhelming one they shoe-horned in.

Like I said, I really liked it, but it DEFINITELY was not the best super hero movie yet. Not even close, unfortunately.

OK, Batman Begins and especially the Dark Knight broke the mold on making super-heroes realistic in the setting of the real world instead of a Tim Burton caricature stage set. But Hancock still surpasses most other efforts. I love the mythos and look forward to more hidden gods.

Nah, the best superhero movie so far was The Incredibles, which simultaneously deconstructed, demystified and celebrated the entire genre.

I concede to TheVok. I have wondered why they haven't taken better advantage of Pixar-type tech. The Saturday morning cartoon art of the Ultimate Avengers cartoon does not compare or satisfy.

Have you guys gone mad? The best superhero movie was Green Lantern. LOL!

i don't now about a sequel, largely cuz the mythos they had was rather confusing, and really didn't seem to make a lick of sense.

I liked Hancock I thought it was pretty funny. What I didn't like was Charlize Theron being like Hancock. This really dragged down the movie in my opinion. There was only room for 1 and this other person came in.

It made Hancock feel like a unique character and all alone. They could have just said he had like a birth defect that screwed up his genes or something.... or grow in a lab.... anything. But I quickly lost interest in the movie when Charlize Theron was revealed as this "goddess".

I do think if they make a sequel they should execute off Charlize Theron's character by normal citizens. Then have Hancock going into a mad dark rage for half the movie we can have evil Hancock and Jason Bateman's character's goal can be to bring peace back into Hancock's life.

If the sequel has a 3rd "God" in it I probably won't bother watching it, because if 2 is a crowd heck 3....

Where were the spoilers?

I really enjoyed hancock. I loved the whole immortal twist. it wasn't the usual biiten by (this) or exposed to (that) kind of thing.

I have a great idea for one, but printing it on the open net is a no, no. Actually, my idea is original, and Hancock sort of crossed into my idea which I wrote well before the movie.

I enjoyed the first film, even if i would like more action comedy and less melodrama. A third superhero/god in the sequel does not sound to me as a good idea...

You guys are cookoo. Hancock was a stupid movie. No villains, no suspense, lame humor. Berg should hang it up. You fooled us once with a "Will Smith Blockbuster" label but you can't fool us again.

I liked the first 3rd of the movie. I threw me after we got to the mythos. Also, I can't remember a big budget movie that had worse special effects than Hancock.

Yea Hancock is a great movie....for about 20-30 minutes after that its a total disaster.

actually, hancock wasn't good. fact. sorry, everyone.

Hancock?! Up there with IronMan!?!
Hancock was a terrible movie!! The first half hour was enjoyable (Will Smith, drunk superhero = awesome!) and the rest was trash! I will not be paying money to see a sequel, unless they go a completely different way witht the entire thing.

I wish people would stop assuming their opinions are facts as to whether Hancock is good or not. Its entirely subjective. You didn't like it? Fine. But don't assume that just because you hated it that it was a poor film. You are, after all, merely human.

In that respect I loved the first Hancock movie and I can't wait to see more.

No matter what we think the movie will be released, like it or not. I, personally, liked the first Hancock (though the last part of it was a little bit ... vague and strange and hard to follow and generally stupid but still I liked the whole movie 'cause it was funny and had some new ideas (at least new to me) and nice ironic approach to this super-hero stuff (very important to me as I normally don't really like super hero movie but this approach I admired immensely). Nevertheless, I think that sequel is such a ... BAAAAAD idea, I cannot imagine the way they will develop this story (though my imagination might be poor, who knows) and from so-called spoilers I can see that the ideas they have now are far from being genuine and more or less interesting. No sequel for me.

there is a lot of potential with Hancock but the two gods together make them mortal wasnt such a good idea to me. If that was the case they should havent been able to fight each other without sustaining injuries. The second movie should introduce Godslayers since they were apparently hunted throughout history. The third movie could bring in a third immortal that wants to die but cant find his mate and goes on a path of destruction trying to find her.

I can't wait to see the sequel..if it ever comes out. Hancock's ending was unclimactic and left me only wanting more. Also for all you writters out there, if the second one upholds its quality of the first one. Then the final step would be to do a prequel..maybe tell the mythology from the beginning... just an idea..