1996's "The Phantom" is getting a Sequel.

[Old Guy]

Why don't they just reboot the franchise? :confused:



SYDNEY, Australia – Fans of the skintight purple suit rejoice: the Phantom is back. An Australian production company on Monday announced it had secured the rights to "The Phantom Legacy," a follow-up to the 1996 film, "The Phantom," which starred Billy Zane as the masked hero who fights evil from his jungle headquarters.

The latest adaptation, which is expected to cost $87 million, will focus on "the Father/Son relationship, and what it means to be The Phantom," scriptwriter Tim Boyle said in a statement. "The film will be set in the present day and will deal with the concept of destiny."

Producer Bruce Sherlock, who also served as executive producer of the first Phantom movie, said the new film will be a marked improvement over its predecessor, which received mixed reviews.

"It has the makings of a blockbuster," Sherlock told The Associated Press. "There's some surprises that will thrill the Phantom fans worldwide." Sherlock's Sydney-based Sherlock Symington Productions won the rights to the film.

The movie will likely be shot entirely in Australia, with production set to begin within six to nine months, Sherlock said. Producers are in talks with several "top talent" Australian and American actors, Sherlock said. He declined to provide names.

The Phantom began as a daily newspaper comic strip by Lee Falk in 1936. The protagonist — alter ego Kit Walker — is the 21st in a family of men who have passed the task of fighting injustice onto their sons. The first Phantom took the job to avenge his father's death at the hands of pirates.

[ShadowGUN]

So "The Ghost Who Walks" walks again.

Why don't they just reboot the franchise? :confused:

Well the article says the movie will take place in present day. That mean it is a different Phantom. So in a way it is a reboot.

[mr.happy]

Ah, good, a "follow-up" dealing with a father-son relationship. I wonder if they'll get Bryan Singer to direct it? ;)

Official prediction: cinematic turkey.

[Old Guy]

I don't think The Phantom has enough fanbase to make money, but I won't call the movie crap without getting more details and seeing some footage first.

[Baltofan]

Interesting, I haven't heard about The Phantom for years.

[Michael24]

Well, if the character is a descendant of Kit Walker, it could function as a quasi-sequel to the first while still "rebooting" the series with a present day setting. Billy Zane could even appear in ghostly form as the current Phantom's father.

However, I'm not crazy about the idea of a modern day Phantom. I like the first movie because of its period flavor. The Phantom (like The Shadow) just feels like a character who's best left fighting crime in the past. The futuristic Phantom 2040 animated series I didn't care for at all.

[DisneyBoy]

There was a futuristic Phantom series? Strange.

Anyways, the second I read this, it seemed like a move intended to resurrect Billy Zane's dead career. It's a shame - he's a good actor, but after the 90s I can't think of one thing he was in.

I remember seeing the original film, and forgetting most of it/not caring. If Baldwin's The Shadow made more of an impact on my memory, Phantom clearly wasn't much of a film. I'd say a reboot would be wise...but there are already so few things working in this films' favor (small fan base, long time since the film film, which flopped), so maybe getting Zane back is the one thing that will make people take notice.

But from the way that release reads, they aren't knocking on Zane's door. This is probably just an attempt to cash in on the superhero genre, and they could be in for a big surprise if it tanks again.

[Michael24]

There was a futuristic Phantom series? Strange.

Phantom 2040 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_2040) premiered in 1994 and only ran for 35 episodes. I think I never saw it until the film came out, so I thought it was new then, and I remember just not liking the Phantom in a futuristic setting.


Anyways, the second I read this, it seemed like a move intended to resurrect Billy Zane's dead career. It's a shame - he's a good actor, but after the 90s I can't think of one thing he was in.

I remember reading this story (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09042008/gossip/liz/phantom_of_cinema_returns_127382.htm) from September this year that said Paramount was supposedly developing a sequel with Zane set to return due to the first film's success on home video, but I guess it's been trumped by this new news Old Guy posted. :(

[TheVileOne]

Where the heck did these guys get funding for a $90 million Phantom movie?

[Master Moron]

There was a futuristic Phantom series? Strange.


The series had character designs by Peter Chung and it actually premiered more than a year prior to the Phantom movie coming out. The series spawned an SNES game, and the game was actually pretty cool. It kind of reminded me of the X-Men platformer on the SNES. But, there were actually multiple paths in the story that you could take and you could get different endings as a result. I would definitely check it out if you ever get a chance. I've actually only rented it once when I was a kid. Talking about it makes me want to play it again.

[Wonderwall]

Where the heck did these guys get funding for a $90 million Phantom movie?

I've seen comedy movies with bigger budgets and no effects or expensive locations. Films in general are just becoming grossly expensive, even for lesser known properties like the Phantom.

[Lonestarr]

A sequel to The Phantom?

As long as they get David Newman back to write the score, I'm cool with this.

[Crash]

....Is there no movie that's not worth revisiting? Are we going to going to get a follow-up to the Dick Tracy movie next?

I'm all for a pulp-action movie. But the mention of the old not-so-successful, and frankly, not-so-good movie has me shaking my head....

[Michael24]

....Is there no movie that's not worth revisiting? Are we going to going to get a follow-up to the Dick Tracy movie next?

If Warren Beatty had gotten his way we would have. He's tried making a sequel for a long time, but there were all sorts of legal issues the character has been wrapped up in. I've always wanted to see one, though.


I'm all for a pulp-action movie. But the mention of the old not-so-successful, and frankly, not-so-good movie has me shaking my head....

I thought it was a well-made popcorn flick that deserved a sequel. It was made by people who clearly had a love for the source material. Nowadays, though, I fear for just about any superhero movie that the filmmakers will make it "dark and serious" just because of the Batman movies, regardless of whether or not "dark and serious" fits with the character being adapted. :sad:

[Knightmare]

I've always thought that both The Shadow and the Phantom were horribly underrated movies, that both deserved much better fates than they were dealt.

I think that both characters have a certain charm to them like Dick Tracy,Zorro and Tarzan that are lost on today's audiences. You don't need a lot special effects to their story, just good writing and good casting.

I wish the creators of this new Phantom movie a lot of luck, and I look forward with great optimism towards their film.

[TheVileOne]

I've seen comedy movies with bigger budgets and no effects or expensive locations. Films in general are just becoming grossly expensive, even for lesser known properties like the Phantom.

OK, but Tropic Thunder for example, that movie cost $90 million. And that's a Dreamworks/Paramount movie starring Ben Stiller, Jack Black, and Robert Downey Jr. Movie stars that have been in big movies and big hits before with a solid comedy premise.

This movie doesn't even appear to have a studio behind it. What I'm wondering is where the heck they were able to swindle investors or financiers out of $90 million to make this thing? And where are these crazy investors that want to put a ton of money into a property like the Phantom whose live action movie was a big flop in the 1990's?

[AlgeaX]

I've seen comedy movies with bigger budgets and no effects or expensive locations. Films in general are just becoming grossly expensive, even for lesser known properties like the Phantom.

True that, I was frankly shocked when I first found out that The Godfather only had a budget of six mil; that wouldn't even cover the cost of catering on most modern movies.

[Michael24]

This movie doesn't even appear to have a studio behind it. What I'm wondering is where the heck they were able to swindle investors or financiers out of $90 million to make this thing? And where are these crazy investors that want to put a ton of money into a property like the Phantom whose live action movie was a big flop in the 1990's?

Perhaps they have a little thing called faith? I was just reading some other bits about it, and it sounds like a really big revamp of the material, even ditching the original suit in favor of a new "high tech suit." :ack:

[TheVileOne]

Perhaps they have a little thing called faith? I was just reading some other bits about it, and it sounds like a really big revamp of the material, even ditching the original suit in favor of a new "high tech suit." :ack:

It just seems highly unlikely for a property like this. It's like wanting to revamp Barb Wire or something.

Revamps don't guarantee gigantic BO. Look at the horrible revamp of The Day The Earth Stood still.

Just saying, I'm not sure what will make audiences care more about this character now than they did in 1996 besides putting it in present day and giving the new Kit Walker a "high tech suit".

[Michael24]

It just seems highly unlikely for a property like this.

While it wasn't really a revamp, I remember lots of people thinking Blade would be a huge bomb because of the same "who even knows about this character?" mentality. So there's always a possibility.


Revamps don't guarantee gigantic BO.

I'm not saying they do, I'm just saying that there must obviously be something there that attracted the investors and made them decide it was worth their time and money.

I'm not crazy about the "high tech" suit, though. I like The Phantom because of how he relies on his own physical strength and skills to fight evil, not superpowers or fancy gadgets.

[Old Guy]

I was frankly shocked when I first found out that The Godfather only had a budget of six mil;

um...that movie was in production in 1971. $6 million back then is like $30 or $40 million today.

[Wonderwall]

um...that movie was in production in 1971. $6 million back then is like $30 or $40 million today.

$30 to $40 million is cheap by today's standard, which is ridiculous.

[BonyT]

However, I'm not crazy about the idea of a modern day Phantom. I like the first movie because of its period flavor. The Phantom (like The Shadow) just feels like a character who's best left fighting crime in the past. The futuristic Phantom 2040 animated series I didn't care for at all.That was my thought as well when I read this. Characters like the Phantom and the Shadow just feel like they need to be presented in period pieces if they're to be presented at all.


This is probably just an attempt to cash in on the superhero genre, and they could be in for a big surprise if it tanks again.Bingo. The Dark Knight just made Warner Bros a BILLION bucks in the theaters alone, before DVD sales, for cryin' out loud --- Hollywood's response to something like that is pretty much on the Pavlov's dog level of both sophistication and predictability.