The Intriguing Superhero Movie That ‘Hancock’ Failed to Be

The peculiar case of a blockbuster that made $600+ million, pissed off everyone, and became a cautionary tale for bad twists.

Peter Berg’s 2008 superhero flick, Hancock, turned 15 earlier this month. But I doubt anyone would want to remember (let alone celebrate) this anniversary. If you google the movie, chances are you’ll quickly learn how viciously viewers hated it for promising an unconventional superhero tale (interestingly, the film wasn’t based on a comic) and delivering a dumpster fire. Yet, despite its terrible reputation, Hancock isn’t as awful as most of its haters (I doubt it has any fans) recall. If you’re brave enough to take a second look without the rage it caused back then, you’ll realize that Berg’s feature was made by a competent cast and crew and had a solid foundation. Only if it wasn’t built on a shaky twist and a poor ending.

I’ll talk about the curveball that shattered a great idea in less than 30 minutes, but let’s start with the people responsible for its highlights before pointing at the ones who killed it. The most curious aspect of Hancock is its screenwriters. Vy Vincent Ngo wrote the original script in 1996 with a clear vision for deconstructing the traditional superhero trope. Initially titled Tonight, He Comes, his screenplay aimed to tell a tragic tale of an antihero struggling with self-identity, loneliness, PTSD, and alcoholism. In the eye of the Los Angeles locals (where he resided), Hancock was a despised jerk rather than a heroic figure.

Although Ngo's script received attention from big studios and accomplished producers, it sat on the shelf for over a decade before it got to Columbia Pictures and producer Akiva Goldsman. As it went from director to director (first Tony Scott, then Michael Mann and Jonathan Mostow), at one point, John August and Vince Gilligan were brought in to revise it — Gilligan did several rewrites before the story acquired its final version. Given that he did this after penning 30 banger episodes of The X-Files in the 90s and early 00s, it’d be easy to assume what parts of the story he was responsible for. But the case of Hancock was more complicated than that.

Surprisingly, Gilligan introduced the backstory we see in the movie's infamously cursed second half. But due to studio pressure, there were a lot of details that didn't make it from paper to screen. Columbia Pictures wanted a summer blockbuster starring Will Smith with a PG-13 rating and a light-hearted approach. They didn’t care that Ngo’s intention was never to make this story into a child-friendly, silly-funny action flick (he aimed for an R rating) targeted at a young audience and their parents. Considering that Hollywood essentially castrated his script, it’s not all that surprising that Ngo refused to give interviews and had no writing credits to his name until 2022.

Regarding the film’s director, the final choice came down to Peter Berg, who had three decent directorial features to his name by then (Friday Night Lights, Welcome to the Jungle, The Kingdom). Although none of those blew up the box office, they were good enough to grant him trust as a competent filmmaker. But with Berg’s arrival, it became apparent that he’s been told by studio execs about what kind of movie they wanted him to deliver — and he also had a creative dispute with Gilligan, who just wanted to leave this project and start making his first original TV show, Breaking Bad.

After all that development hell, it’s a miracle how much of Ngo’s initial idea (and Gilligan’s revisions) made it to the actual screen. Even though toned and watered down heavily, Hancock’s first hour (the uncut version) still conveys most of the character's core, and the struggles he faces as a barely tolerated superhero in the streets of Los Angeles.

Played by an unaffable yet relatable Will Smith, John Hancock lives the lifestyle of the recluse he truly is. Residing in a banged-up trailer on the outskirts of the city — accustomed to a lonesome and dire existence — he’s definitely not someone you’d call a hero of the people. He doesn’t really “fight” crime but accepts it as an obligation due to his unworldly powers. Picture the likes of Superman, minus the charm, cape, laser eyes, and white skin. His supernatural skills are the least intriguing aspect as opposed to the enigma of who or what he actually is. Due to his lack of identity, the closest he comes to defining himself is a depressed alcoholic with no real prospects or goals. Hancock doesn't want to save the world or protect innocent people. He just desires to be accepted and loved by someone (anyone, really) who's willing to give him a shot to understand him — someone who can relate to his personal problems.

That's where Ray (Jason Bateman long before he started laundering money in the Ozarks) and his family comes into the picture. In return for saving him, Ray offers his PR skills to reshape Hancock’s bum public image and make him a beloved and respected LA vigilante. But Ray’s wife, Mary (a bombshell Charlize Theron), doesn’t like his idea one bit. She has her reasons, but let’s get to that later. It takes some convincing, but Hancock eventually accepts Ray’s proposal and begins his rehabilitation. He cleans up, lays off the booze, and even goes to prison to prove that he’s willing to change and ready to accept the consequences of his wrongful actions.

Of course, Ray’s thinking is that with Hancock’s incarceration, crime will significantly increase, and he'll be asked to come back in no time to help battle it. Although it takes longer than he anticipated, his plan works, and Hancock returns to the streets as a changed man. Jail and group therapy shaped his social skills and opened him up for mutual and respectable collaboration with law enforcement. He even rocks a latex outfit with cool shades that give him a trademark look. This part of the movie continues to work smoothly today.

It's what Ngo initially envisioned for a more realistic superhero with a relatable personal trauma. Because it doesn’t matter how powerful Hancock is, if he has to deal with being lonely, ostracized, and misunderstood — not knowing his past and using alcohol as a coping mechanism — he can be just as lost and hopeless as any ordinary human being. Undoubtedly, being such a layered, complex, and non-black-and-white protagonist, Hancock was clearly ahead of its time, which essentially doomed the movie's true potential. In 2008 (pre-Deadpool, pre-Watchmen, pre-Venom), Hollywood wanted nothing to do with a self-loathing and problematic antihero, and the result of that refusal is evident in Hancock’s terribly misguided and messed up second half.

After the first hour’s competent and character-driven build-up, the script introduces an out-of-place twist (with no real exposition) that virtually negates everything we saw previously. As Mary finds herself in an intimate situation with Hancock in their kitchen, she literally throws him through the wall. Demanding an explanation the next day, Mary comes out to Hancock as a superhero (much like him but stronger) and tells him they used to be together for thousands of years. They’re the last two of their kind in the universe — who make each other physically vulnerable — and the more time they spend together, the higher the chance they both end up dead.

This unexpected turn is the equivalent of watching Sin City and then putting on a soap opera midway through. It’s like watching an absorbing personal drama that turns into a Greek teleplay without warning. The last 25 minutes lean into this senseless plot point hard, regardless of how much sense it makes in the story. And although it rapidly increases the CGI-filled action for its finale, the movie has no chance to recover, and it ends with a blatant (and supposedly "happy") conclusion that feels like it was borrowed from an entirely separate film. Not to mention wasting Smith, Theron, and Bateman's dynamic on-screen chemistry.

But despite the irrevocable failure that Hancock’s second half is, the film blew up the box office (making nearly $630 million) and became the fourth-highest-grossing feature of 2008. Still, no amount of money can compensate for murdering a unique story and its great potential that could've turned into a classic before the superhero boom of the 2010s began. And more importantly, there’s no consolation for Vy Vincent Ngo, who had to see his “baby” being destroyed, panned by both critics and viewers, and the evaporating promise of a career he could’ve had if Hancock became the serious action-drama he always wanted to make.

---

Last week, I reviewed Max’s new thriller, Full Circle, for Paste Magazine, which was disappointingly dull and messy. I suggest avoiding it unless you’re a devoted fan of Ed Solomon and Steven Soderbergh’s work.

If you want to support The Screen, the best way to recommend it to someone who’s into pop culture is by sharing essays like this one above: