Amanda Knox-Inspired 'Wild Things' Sequel Surprisingly Writes Itself

As if four years in an Italian prison weren’t awful enough, poor Amanda Knox now has to suffer yet another indignity — John McNaughton, the director behind Wild Things, has announced plans for a sequel to the 1998 teen-pool fuck noir that will be based on Knox’s murder trial.

For a quick second, let’s put aside how disrespectful this is to both Knox and the family of victim Meredith Kercher. (But just for one second! Because it is insanely disrespectful and we should probably talk about that, too.) Let’s instead focus our energies on the less important, but still very big question that’s looming over all of our heads: WHAT?

Seriously, what will this movie be about. The original Wild Things followed two teenage girls (played by Neve Campbell and Denise Richards) who falsely accuse their teacher (Matt Dillon) of sexual assault except they’re actually all in cahoots and planned the whole thing to make a bunch of money only — DOUBLE CROSS — everyone is lying to each other, both the ladies tops fall off and they tongue kiss in a pool. Sorry, I could have saved a bunch of time by instead summarizing it as “the best movie,” but I didn’t. What can I say? It’s the storyteller in me.

But onto the sequel, which, if made, will technically be the fourth of the Wild Things series, not that I have to tell you that — you’ve alternated between having Wild Things 2 and Wild Things: Diamonds in the Rough playing on repeat since you fished them both out of the straight-to-DVD bin at your local dollar store that probably smells like a bunch of wet old rugs.

McNaughton, who is working on the new version with original screenwriter Stephen Peters (who also wrote the other sequels so relax about the integrity of the series already), says that the Knox-ified version will follow Neve Campbell’s character’s daughter as she…I don’t know — studies abroad to Perugia? Unless they set the film in the future, the kid could be, at most, 15-years-old so — oh, God, let’s hope that they set it in the future and leave it at that. Anyway, we assume that it’s about the daughter as she goes abroad to Italy, but then what? She gets bunked with a sexy female roommate? Has a threesome with a local chocolatier? (Perugia is famous for it’s chocolate, a fact you should know because CULTURE.) Maybe she makes love to a portrait of Italian Renaissance painter Pietro Perugino in a bathtub only — fuuuuuck —it turns out that you’re not supposed to get that kind of art wet and she’s accidentally destroyed a priceless work of art and must now stand trial for destruction of historic property. Or how about this? Go full Bill and Ted with it and give her the ability to travel through time!

I was wrong. The movie writes itself.

Then there’s the original issue — the fact that maybe the Kercher family doesn’t want the events of their daughter’s violent and terrible death turned into a sexy thriller. Maybe Amanda Knox (a.k.a “Foxy Knoxy”) doesn’t want what was probably the worst event of her entire life sensationalized any farther. Then again, Wild Things has always been camp and what does camp do besides blur/cross the line between taste and the tasteless?

EXCLUSIVE: BONKERS ‘WILD THINGS’ SEQUEL BASED ON AMANDA KNOX STORY IN THE WORKS [Hollywood]