Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

..err.. spoilers if you haven't seen part 2 ..



https://www.bleedingcool.com/2018/09/21/kingsman-3-confirmed-for-2019-and-matthew-vaughn-set-to-write-direct/

Well it looks like we’re getting a third Kingsman movie after all. After a not so great critical reception, but doing about as well as the first one commercially, 20th Century Fox has confirmed to IGN that a third entry into the series is in the works. At the moment the movie has a confirmed release date of November 8, 2019. That puts it as the same release date as the Sonic the Hedgehog movie with Wonder Woman 1984 the week before and Terminator 6 the week after. IGN has also confirmed that Matthew Vaughn is set to return to write and direct the third movie.

At the moment there aren’t any concrete details about what characters could be returning. Characters like Roxy (Sophie Cookson) and Merlin (Mark Strong) were both presumed dead by the end of the movie but Strong went on the record to Metro last year that Vaughn told him that no one really dies in these movies.

All Matt [Vaughn] said to me was “no one dies in the Kingsman universe”, so you never know,’ Mark said. ‘Truth is, it’s a wonderful world he’s created so maybe, maybe not. I don’t know.’

There are also the Statesman which were introduced in the second movie and includes characters played by Halle Berry, Channing Tatum, and Jeff Bridges that could return as well. Right now it’s all very unclear but if they are really shooting for that November 2019 release date then they’ll have to start shooting sooner rather than later. We can likely expect some cast confirmations by the end of the year.

Loved the first one, let down by the 2nd one in a way I haven't been since... Kick Ass 2 I guess.

.. which is a wee bit worrying maybe.

I'm up for this. The first remains a genuine masterpiece and while the second wasn't so good (and largely let down by one scene/'joke' that was trying waaaay to hard to be edgy and controversial) it still had moments of brilliance.

If they can just avoid that pitfall there's plenty of hope for the third one to get back on track, and to be honest the interplay between Edgerton and Firth (assuming they're both back) is enough to make it watchable as in both the others they bounce off each other incredibly well. Channing Tatum was underused in the second, so maybe a bit more of him as well.

Loved the first, disappointed by the second. I wish there had been King+State fighting together, to get some weird cool combo moves off, instead of one just standing around watching the other and taking turns.

What was the one joke you didn’t like?

The whole resolution of the Glastonbury scene. Crude to the point of being unpleasant, and wholly unnecessary. Seemed to just be there to bait controversy and a few dozen articles about how they 'went there'.

I enjoyed Golden Circle for the most part - the acting was mostly solid (particularly Julianne Moore and Colin Firth) and the action scenes were great but there was also a lot to be desired


I'm looking forward to the third though because Matthew Vaughn is a fantastic director and is someone who seems to learn from his mistakes

I grew up reading the X-Men so I'm OK with the "no one really dies" thing.

I enjoyed the second movie, generally. Julianne Moore was terrific.

 Ouze wrote:
I grew up reading the X-Men so I'm OK with the "no one really dies" thing.

It's also quite in keeping with the old school James Bond films the series kind of jokingly emulates.

I enjpyed both very much though no.2 had the disadvantage of being no.2 in a series of 1.

I think it overcame that limitation, and I have high hopes for no.3.

Only got around to watching 2 last week. The first was one of those rare pieces where you start off expecting very little and come out acknowledging that, while it wasn't a masterpiece, you couldn't stop grinning the whole way through it. It was bloody good fun.

Two had too many flaws. A few I could overcome, but when the bad stuff outweighs the good, it's hard to like the whole.

Why was she able to locate and kill the Kingsmen but knew nothing about the Statesmen?

I recall a number of excellent fighting scenes in the first - the original bar fight, the church and the finalé. The fight scenes in the second were a bit meh. The rehash of the bar fight using the statesman was very "been there, done it" and the final fight was over done. The CGI looked awkward when I watched it. I can't imagine it will live up to a repeat viewing in five years.

The whole section set on the ski slope didn't work for me. I know we're supposed to suspend our disbelief to a large extent for these films, but the bit with the parachute slowing down the gondola was too great a stretch.

The bad guy can create robot dogs and bionic arms, but instead she wants to make a living selling pot?

The people who took the drugs were stacked multiple levels high in cages. Where did all the poop and piss go?

Elton John kungfu kicking?

The double cross was obvious (spotted it before it was even hinted at) and didn't feel like it fitted. Even when it was explained it felt too contrived rather than being effective story telling.

I really didn't like two, so unless something spectacular happens I think for me Kingsmen will become another one of those franchises where "I don't care what IMDB says, there was only ever a single film!".

 Paradigm wrote:
The whole resolution of the Glastonbury scene. Crude to the point of being unpleasant, and wholly unnecessary. Seemed to just be there to bait controversy and a few dozen articles about how they 'went there'.

I didn't really care for the similar joke in the first. Ended up being the one thing that stuck with me as disappointing in the original. Sadly, the second one does a really good job of making up for it and then..... yeah.

Overall, the second one is a really fun movie with several really fun moments that made the whole thing enjoyable. It's just absolutely loaded with problems, mostly centered around killing off characters for no good reason and undoing important deaths without proper justification. Reminded me a lot of MiB2. It's a movie with a ton of cool toys that fails to make good use out of pretty much all of them (Julianne Moore seems to be the exception), but has enough raw charm to be entertaining anyway. Still, in terms of "did or do I want more of these?" it definitely did not result in a great addition to a franchise.

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2018/11/07/taron-egerton-confirms-hes-not-appearing-in-kingsman-3/

 reds8n wrote:
https://www.bleedingcool.com/2018/11/07/taron-egerton-confirms-hes-not-appearing-in-kingsman-3/

Not the best sign for a franchise when the lead hangs it up.

Hopefully he's working on a sequel to 2018's Robin Hood, probably the most historically accurate Robin Hood movie to date.

Clearly what we need is to see him face off against Charlie Hunnam in a Robin v Arthur: Dawn of Britain.

Kingsman 2 was very poorly written, although it went pretty well right up to the introduction of Statesmen. After that, the whole thing was nonsense garbage with terrible writing. It's clear that the writer really liked the idea of Statesmen as a counterpoint to Kingsmen, but had no idea what to do with them, nor how to even string a decent story together.

I have low expectations for Kingsmen 3, as it's probably another cash grab. OTOH, it'd be hard for it to be worse than Kingsmen 2, so it might be worth checking out from the library in a couple years.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Kingsman 2 was very poorly written, although it went pretty well right up to the introduction of Statesmen. After that, the whole thing was nonsense garbage with terrible writing. It's clear that the writer really liked the idea of Statesmen as a counterpoint to Kingsmen, but had no idea what to do with them, nor how to even string a decent story together.

I have low expectations for Kingsmen 3, as it's probably another cash grab. OTOH, it'd be hard for it to be worse than Kingsmen 2, so it might be worth checking out from the library in a couple years.

I don't agree with JohnHwangDD very often. But I agree here. Channing Tatum and the rest of the Statesmen were talked up sooooo much before the movie and in the trailers he was doing some awesome moves.

Then the movie hit and where the feth did his character go again?

My complaint will continue to be you never really get to see them fight together with their difference styles meshing. If they’re on the same side, they taking turns fighting alone, or they’re fighting against each other.

Well, that's going to make it hard for me to toon in. If either of Roxy or Strong stay dead and no Eggsy then I have no interest.

That said he does state in the article they are talking about him in another adventure just not this one. So the only real hope is that this doesn't bomb out the series and cause no new movies to be made.

Maybe Kingsman has run its course.

The original comic it was built on had one core idea -- the conversion of a street kid into a slightly camp Bond-esque superspy.

The logic of Kingsman is that you can lose Eggsy and he will be replaced, but to do that conflicts with the core concept. There's no point finding another Eggsy because that story has been told.

I say that while acknowledging that I enjoyed both films and would be happy to see a third one if they can pull it off.

Not every film has to become a major franchise operation.

The premise is not unlike Wanted

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Maybe Kingsman has run its course.

The original comic it was built on had one core idea -- the conversion of a street kid into a slightly camp Bond-esque superspy.

The logic of Kingsman is that you can lose Eggsy and he will be replaced, but to do that conflicts with the core concept. There's no point finding another Eggsy because that story has been told.

It's funny, I was certain at the end of the second that the third would be the conclusion to Eggsy's story with him acting as a tutor/mentor to whatever Channing Tatum's character ended up being called. That'd have been a really sound resolution to it all and set up some good comedy along the way.

It almost seems like this next one will be more of a spin-off, but that worries me; I don't really see the Kingsman brand of humour translating well outside of 21st century Britain, so this talk of an early 20th century setting is... odd, to say the least.

 reds8n wrote:
https://www.bleedingcool.com/2018/11/07/taron-egerton-confirms-hes-not-appearing-in-kingsman-3/

That’s because the next one is set in the 1900s, so a hundred years before Eggsy is born. He’s still interested in doing one more.