'Weapons': Why no one needs a prequel to the box office hit of 2025
Not only did the American filmmaker's sophomore horror film top the box office during its debut weekend and has raked in a reported $92 million internationally at the time of writing (on a budget of $38 million), it's also become one of the most critically acclaimed films of 2025.
For those who haven't yet had the pleasure, Weapons is a mystery horror gem that takes place in the aftermath of the disappearance of 17 children, who all leave their homes one night at precisely 2:17am. They run into the night and are never seen or heard from again.
In our (glowing) review for Weapons, we wrote: 'Cregger skilfully employs a Rashomon-style narrative construction to craft a distressing fairytale that starts off as a small-town mystery thriller with shades of Twin Peaks and Denis Villeneuve's Prisoners. And his novelistic approach pays off, as it only furthers quite how much Stephen King must be green with envy that this suburban US nightmare isn't his baby.'
We added: 'Weapons has become the tense and deliriously entertaining horror film to beat this year. Considering 2025 has already been good to the genre, with Presence, Sinners, The Ugly Stepsister, 28 Years Later and Bring Her Back – to name but a few highlights – that should tell you plenty.'
But because we can't have nice, self-contained things, there's trouble afoot...
There are only three certainties in life: death, taxes and Hollywood greed. The slightest whiff of buzz and box office glory and opportunistic studios start getting ideas, seeking to milk creative properties dry. And because Weapons is a hit, a prequel has apparently been tabled, with Cregger reportedly in early talks for a time-reversing follow-up.
Per an exclusive report from The Hollywood Reporter, Cregger is in early discussions with Warner Bros. Pictures and New Line Cinema for an origin film set in the Weapons universe – with the prequel focusing on the film's mysterious antagonist.
Warning: mild spoilers ahead.
The prequel would focus on Amy Madigan's character Gladys – this demented fairytale's witch, who cast a spell on the kiddies and ends up meeting a particularly gruesome end.
On a surface level, a prequel could make some artistic sense. Weapons is a non-linear story that explores multiple viewpoints, and the film never gets Gladys' perception. There's no doubt that Madigan would ace it if she were to return to the role, and Cregger has proven that he's not to be underestimated.
However, one of the many reasons why Weapons works so well is a lack of backstory for the evil character. We don't need answer dumps or to be clued up on the 'why' behind her nefarious motivations; it's a lot creepier when these elements remain unknown.
Prequels not only run the risk of botching continuity, canon and tension, but dish out unnecessary explanations. Recent examples like The Hobbit trilogy, Furiosa and Wonka prove it. Moreover, they are always poison when it comes to the most interesting characters: villains.
A villain origin story that reveals motive ruins mythology, quashes audience imagination, and tanks the scare potential of a truly excellent antagonist.
Norman Bates is far more scary without a motive. Darth Vader definitely lost his threatening edge when George Lucas decided to go back and unveil his entire backstory. Hannibal Lecter is much less frightening once you've been force fed the origins of his cannibalistic ways. And the nightmares triggered by aunt Gladys will be more underwear soiling if audiences are purposefully kept in the dark about why she's parasitically invading families' spaces and terrorising small towns.
'It's a lot scarier when there's no motive, Sid.'
Wise words from Billy Loomis in the first (and best) Scream film.
So, Mr. Cregger, if you're reading... First of all, congrats and enjoy your moment – it's merited. Secondly, please don't bend to studio pressure and fight for Weapons to be a standalone. We understand you're already busy with the upcoming Resident Evil film, as well as an original film you're reportedly working on titled Flood. Do those.
And if you won't listen to Euronews Culture, please listen to Billy. Murderous tendencies aside, he had a point.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
LeMonde
a day ago
- LeMonde
Who's going to lie down on the couch? 'The Sopranos,' the first TV series to tackle mental health
A man suffers a panic attack. On the advice of his general practitioner, he consults a psychiatrist. She diagnoses him with clinical depression, and he begins therapy. Over the course of their sessions, he talks (a lot) about his mother, with whom he has a complicated relationship. He discusses his wife, his son and daughter, his own childhood, the memory of his deceased father and his work. Nothing particularly remarkable. Except that the protagonist of The Sopranos – whose first episode aired on January 10, 1999, on the American network HBO – is not an ordinary patient. Tony Soprano (James Gandolfini) is a mafia boss, head of a New Jersey "family." This man, who has a string of misdeeds to his name, falls apart when the wild ducks he loved to watch paddling in his pool fly away. From today's perspective, following an individual's mental health struggles seems unremarkable. Mental health is now everywhere in TV series, with a wide range of patient profiles. En thérapie (In Therapy), created by Eric Toledano and Olivier Nakache and adapted from the Israeli series BeTipul, with two seasons broadcast on Arte in 2021 and 2022, put a surgeon, a police officer from the search and intervention brigade, a business executive and a student on the couch. 13 Reasons Why (2017) unfolds as an investigation into the suicide of a teenage girl. Atypical (2017) follows a young man on the autism spectrum, while the animated series BoJack Horseman (2014) centers on a washed-up actor dependent on sex, alcohol and drugs.
Euronews
a day ago
- Euronews
'Weapons': Why no one needs a prequel to the box office hit of 2025
While it was highly anticipated, Zach Cregger's Weapons has become the breakout hit of the summer no one expected. Not only did the American filmmaker's sophomore horror film top the box office during its debut weekend and has raked in a reported $92 million internationally at the time of writing (on a budget of $38 million), it's also become one of the most critically acclaimed films of 2025. For those who haven't yet had the pleasure, Weapons is a mystery horror gem that takes place in the aftermath of the disappearance of 17 children, who all leave their homes one night at precisely 2:17am. They run into the night and are never seen or heard from again. In our (glowing) review for Weapons, we wrote: 'Cregger skilfully employs a Rashomon-style narrative construction to craft a distressing fairytale that starts off as a small-town mystery thriller with shades of Twin Peaks and Denis Villeneuve's Prisoners. And his novelistic approach pays off, as it only furthers quite how much Stephen King must be green with envy that this suburban US nightmare isn't his baby.' We added: 'Weapons has become the tense and deliriously entertaining horror film to beat this year. Considering 2025 has already been good to the genre, with Presence, Sinners, The Ugly Stepsister, 28 Years Later and Bring Her Back – to name but a few highlights – that should tell you plenty.' But because we can't have nice, self-contained things, there's trouble afoot... There are only three certainties in life: death, taxes and Hollywood greed. The slightest whiff of buzz and box office glory and opportunistic studios start getting ideas, seeking to milk creative properties dry. And because Weapons is a hit, a prequel has apparently been tabled, with Cregger reportedly in early talks for a time-reversing follow-up. Per an exclusive report from The Hollywood Reporter, Cregger is in early discussions with Warner Bros. Pictures and New Line Cinema for an origin film set in the Weapons universe – with the prequel focusing on the film's mysterious antagonist. Warning: mild spoilers ahead. The prequel would focus on Amy Madigan's character Gladys – this demented fairytale's witch, who cast a spell on the kiddies and ends up meeting a particularly gruesome end. On a surface level, a prequel could make some artistic sense. Weapons is a non-linear story that explores multiple viewpoints, and the film never gets Gladys' perception. There's no doubt that Madigan would ace it if she were to return to the role, and Cregger has proven that he's not to be underestimated. However, one of the many reasons why Weapons works so well is a lack of backstory for the evil character. We don't need answer dumps or to be clued up on the 'why' behind her nefarious motivations; it's a lot creepier when these elements remain unknown. Prequels not only run the risk of botching continuity, canon and tension, but dish out unnecessary explanations. Recent examples like The Hobbit trilogy, Furiosa and Wonka prove it. Moreover, they are always poison when it comes to the most interesting characters: villains. A villain origin story that reveals motive ruins mythology, quashes audience imagination, and tanks the scare potential of a truly excellent antagonist. Norman Bates is far more scary without a motive. Darth Vader definitely lost his threatening edge when George Lucas decided to go back and unveil his entire backstory. Hannibal Lecter is much less frightening once you've been force fed the origins of his cannibalistic ways. And the nightmares triggered by aunt Gladys will be more underwear soiling if audiences are purposefully kept in the dark about why she's parasitically invading families' spaces and terrorising small towns. 'It's a lot scarier when there's no motive, Sid.' Wise words from Billy Loomis in the first (and best) Scream film. So, Mr. Cregger, if you're reading... First of all, congrats and enjoy your moment – it's merited. Secondly, please don't bend to studio pressure and fight for Weapons to be a standalone. We understand you're already busy with the upcoming Resident Evil film, as well as an original film you're reportedly working on titled Flood. Do those. And if you won't listen to Euronews Culture, please listen to Billy. Murderous tendencies aside, he had a point.
Euronews
2 days ago
- Euronews
The next James Bond? Unknown British actor reportedly screentests
Speculation continues over the new James Bond adventure, which will be directed by Dune director Denis Villeneuve and written by Peaky Blinders creator Steven Knight. Now that key filmmaking positions have been announced, all the new era of the 007 saga needs is a fresh secret agent. From Aaron Taylor-Johnson to three reported studio favourites, all bets are (still) off. Or are they? Reports of a relatively unknown actor have surfaced, with The Hollywood Reporter confirming that Scott Rose-Marsh has screen tested for the role of the new 007. The 37-year-old British actor was brought in sometime in late June to read sides from 1995 Bond film GoldenEye. It is suggested he may have performed pages from Knight's in-progress script for Bond 26. Reports claims the London BRIT School graduate 'was given just one piece of direction before the test cameras rolled: Don't impersonate a previous Bond.' Rose-Marsh has a handful of film and TV credits, including the 2021 independent movie Krays: Code Of Silence (2021), as well as the UK TV shows Chloe (2021) and The Outlaws (2021-22). This news goes against reports that Amazon, which bought the 007 franchise for a reported $1 billion this year and are now in creative control, are looking for a younger actor in his 20s for the next Bond. It also confirms that the race to become the next James Bond is an unpredictable one, as there has never been a redheaded 007. Should Rose-March make it through the audition process and become the new Bond, he'll doubtlessly have UK tabloid headlines to deal with – especially considering the ridiculous fuss made over Daniel Craig's blond hair when he was cast in 2005. Still, it's early in the process and no official statements have been released regarding casting. Elsewhere, Succession star Brian Cox, who also hosts the Prime Video reality competition show spin-off 007: Road to a Million, recently said Peaky Blinders star Cillian Murphy would be an "interesting" choice to play James Bond. In an interview with Radio Times, Cox asked: "Is Cillian Murphy being recommended? I think that would be interesting. I like Cillian. He's very real, he's got no crap about him." In the interview, Cox went on to describe Valdimir Putin as a 'definite villain' and criticised Donald Trump's administration. 'There's certainly a lot of people around who I feel are villainous,' said the 79-year-old Scottish actor, adding: 'With what's happening in Ukraine, Putin is a definite villain, for my money.' 'I think some of the American behaviour has definitely been unthinking," said Cox. "What's tragic is that America was built on the notion of egalitarianism, and the present administration don't want us to be equal.' There is still no official release date or title for the 26th 007 movie.
