ROTTEN TOMATOES: Wicker Man Sequel Scrapped

Wicker Man Sequel Scrapped

Cowboys for Christ not saddling up.

by Jeff Giles | April 08, 2008

Turns out there is a sequel that can't get made.

Moviehole (picking up on an STV.TV report) shares the news that a "long-planned sequel" to 1973's The Wicker Man has been put on ice because the filmmakers "just couldn't get the money together."

The setback, described by producer Gill Dykes as "bitterly disappointing," ends work on Cowboys for Christ, based on a screenplay written by Robin Hardy, director of the original Wicker Man. According to Moviehole, it would have gone a little something like this:

The film was set to star Christopher Lee, Joan Collins and Paul Wesley. In it, young Christians Beth and Steve, a gospel singer and her cowboy boyfriend, leave Texas to preach door-to-door in Scotland . When, after initial abuse, they are welcomed with joy and elation to Tressock, the border fiefdom of Sir Lachlan Morrison, they assume their hosts simply want to hear more about Jesus. Not so.

Source: Moviehole
Source: STV.TV

Related Items

Celeb:	Joan Collins
	Robin Hardy

	Paul Wesley

(1-13 of 13 posts) | Reply

Stathis Borans writes:
on Apr 08 2008 05:37 AM

Wait, they could get ample funding for that hideous remake, but not this? A damn shame. The original is fantastic, and I'd be interested to see what Hardy could cook up with this.

(Reply to this)

Shatter24 writes:
on Apr 08 2008 08:04 AM

So this is not the god-awful Nick Cage Wicker Man, but a prior version? Because no way should a sequel to the Cage Wicker Man be made.

(Reply to this)

JUDGE DREDD writes:
on Apr 08 2008 09:28 AM

Wish the ending to the remake wickerman was actually for real. Cage should stop being in movies now.

I hears this was getting a second remake. But news of a sequel to the original sounds waaaay better. Love the original movie. And i dont get why they cant get funding? The original as great as is looked like it was filmed in a village near where i live, and looks to have cost about �50. Which is a good thing, as such a low budget made a fantastic film.

(Reply to this)

DarthWonka writes:
on Apr 08 2008 09:33 AM

So would this have been the first time that a sequel to a movie that has been remade was going to be made? And in advertising such a sequel, how would they make sure that the audience knew that it was a sequel to the original film and not the remake? I mean, you have to first establish for the audience that a prior version existed. Hell, I didn't know about the first Wicker Man until the release of the remake. It's not like it was King Kong or The Wizard of Oz or something like that.

(Reply to this)

Cicatriz writes:
on Apr 08 2008 10:08 AM

NO NOT THE BEES!!! MY EYESSSS AHHAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! MY EYES!!!!!!! AAAAHAAHAAAAAA AAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

(Reply to this)

duckmanx88 writes:
on Apr 08 2008 10:18 AM

a sequeL? come on! hollywood stop making crap

(Reply to this)

Floor Man writes:
on Apr 08 2008 10:48 AM

I feel that the content of this article has come exactly one week later than it should have.... The synopsis is the most ridiculous thing ever. ..And I sincerely hope that Christopher Lee would never stoop so low.

(Reply to this)

tomwaitsjr writes:
on Apr 08 2008 11:35 AM

In reply to this comment (#1676527)
That's exactly what I was thinking. April Fools. The original Wickerman was so long ago, watching it now was mostly enjoyable for me because of the campiness of its' times.

Nude singing can't be wrong.

But, Cowboys for Christ? Enough with Alliteration for ***holes. . .

-Tom=

(Reply to this)

sliknik27 writes:
on Apr 08 2008 01:18 PM

This sounds like it could have been interesting, but the remake of Wicker Man probably sealed the fate for this one.

(Reply to this)

Ruckas356 writes:
on Apr 08 2008 01:59 PM

Wicker man is bad ***, well the ending is.

(Reply to this)

Brad 3000 writes:
on Apr 08 2008 02:40 PM

In reply to this comment (#1676487)
Did you even RTFA? This has nothing to do with Hollywood. This was to be an independent sequel to the original Wicker Man - not the crap Hollywood remake.

(Reply to this)

jmo2ski writes:
on Apr 08 2008 04:29 PM

Why in the hell would they want to make a sequel, after they have remade the movie. I would make people unlike us (movie goers) confused and puzzled, which a lot of movies don't make any sense now and days.

(Reply to this)

greg_dean_schmitz writes:
on Apr 08 2008 08:17 PM

First off, yes, you have to separate this from the Hollywood remake. The original "Wicker Man" was a British indie quasi-horror movie from the early 70s, and what we're talking about here would have been a sequel to that, made by THOSE people.

"The Wicker Man" starred Edward Woodward ("The Equalizer"), and had a pretty hot sex scene involving Britt Ekland and a wall. More to the point of this sequel, though, is that it showed us what a world where "heathens" still ruled today might have been like, and this sequel basically would have repeated that with new stars. I'm not a fan of the title, but if this sequel had been made back when Christopher Lee could pull off that character... it might have been cool. But I'm talking like pre-1990. The time for this sequel is WAY past due, so this announcement is sort of like finding out that Mickey Rooney has scrapped his plans for a new entry in the "Andy Hardy" series.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

The Wicker Man

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links