Tom Six Warns World: Human Centipede Will 'Look Like a Disney Film' Compared to 12-Headed 'Pede Sequel

TomSixCentipede300.jpgIt's all our fault. Dutch film director Tom Six made the golden star of gross-out films with The Human Centipede, and instead of respecting our eyes (and stomachs), we watched the mouth-to-anus binding spectacle, live-blogged it, bought our cats Human Centipede teaser toys and generated enough interest for a porn parody, a college musical and a tribute episode of South Park.

Which brings us to this: Six tells EW that the second and third Human Centipede installments will allegedly make the first film look like My Little Pony.

"[The sequel] is going out after the summer. Part 2, not many people have seen it. Only the distributor and the people who worked in post production. They think it's really crazy. I made this joke about Part 1 being My Little Pony compared to Part 2. People at the distribution company (IFC), at the first screening they had, some people walked away because they couldn't handle the things they are seeing. But they absolutely love it. [...] I can say it has a centipede of 12 people. I want to keep it a surprise. Dieter [Laser, who plays Dr Heiter] or one of the people of the centipede comes back.

Hopefully those IFC employees didn't have lunch before that screening. As for part three?

"Three films makes a Human Centipede for me. Three can be the combination. What I want to do is make Human Centipede III: Final Sequence. And then I don't want to make any Human Centipedes again. I've a terrific idea for it that's completely different than 1 and 2 again. I think Part 3 will make Part 2 look like a Disney film."

Fantastic! Six also tells EW that he's talking to "people" about doing official Human Centipede merchandising, so keep an eye out for that.

· 'Human Centipede': Director Tom Six talks about the sequel, his plan for a threequel, and all those 'Centipede' parodies [EW]


  • The Winchester says:

    The Human Centipede isn't a good movie.
    It's also not bad enough to be viewed from that stance of the Room or Birdemic, it's not funny or clever enough to be in on the joke, not balls to wall insane in it's disgustingness, and it's not scary at all, unless if you place yourself in the middle link's shoes. (knee pads).
    It's just a mediocre gross movie with nothing redeeming. It's like Uwe Boll after Bloodrayne, when he started to believe his own press and stopped being incompetent and started being boring. I digress.
    And we now have 2 more of these to look forward to.

  • jimdevo says:

    I thought the first was brilliant but not gross enough! Very tame actually considering its premise. Look forward to parts 2 & 3!! Great idea and great execution.

  • Strawberry Pain says:

    With no guile, I am curious to hear how any film with this concept is a "great idea." Even more so when someone posits that it just wasn't gross enough.

  • ILDC says:

    1. I think it's a "great idea" in a "what f'ed-up mind came up with that" sense.
    2. Well for starters, without having actually seen the movie, it was only rated R.
    I'm sorry, but these sequels are already sounding like typical "the same movie, but BIGGER!" follow-ups.

  • Hwat? says:

    The Romans, whom we still so much admire today, and who also had plain idiotic ideas about entertainment, had a proverb: Pecunia non olet." Which translates as "money doesn't stink." Seem not to stink for the people involved in making this movie. Scariest or most horrific? Probably one of the most stupid ever made, sorry to say that.
    I for sure will not pay money to be involved in some mediocre director's coprophilliac fantasy as a spectator. Sorry, but is has marks of coprophilia, in my opinion, none will feed this s... to me. What else new can it be there? Probably we will have a longer centipede, more torture, more blood, and shit. How creative it is?
    I still think creativity is about redeeming some value. And I don't buy all those pretence to depth: metaphor about Nazis, etc. This doesn't sound intelligent enough. Six read about Nazi doctors? And all he come up is torture porn? Why?
    Can anyone tell me honestly and intelligently:
    1) Why such movie was made?
    2) What is the real premise behind it?
    3) Why we are supposed to watch it? (It is movie, so, people are supposed to watch it)
    4) Why this is supposed to be entertaining?
    5) Why the director had so much stamina to make such movie, why this idea was so gripping and enduring? (Obviously was enough to do it).
    6) Why this is supposed to be important
    7) what we really get from it
    I think our Western culture needs its soul examined.

  • Hwat? says:

    Oops! Culture needs its head examined, I meant.

  • Wandering Menstrual says:

    You could ask the same questions of any movie. What's your point?