Hocus Pocus has become something of a Disney classic, telling the story of three evil witches (Bette Midler, Carrie Bradshaw, and Peggy Hill) who are resurrected on Halloween night thanks to a teen boy's sexual inexperience. There's a lot of weird stuff going on, and not just that a minor is continually shamed for his virginity by virtually everyone. It also retroactively makes the perpetrators of the Salem Witch Trials into heroes.
When it came out in 1993, Hocus Pocus bombed at the box office, probably because Disney decided to release it in the decidedly non-Halloweeny month of July. It wasn't until TV stations began airing it around (duh) October that it became the cult phenomenon it is today. While there have been rumors about a potential remake for the Disney Channel, now comes word that we are likely getting a straight-up sequel, hopefully featuring the original cast. The new Hocus Pocus is set to be written by Workaholics' Jen D'Angelo and go straight to the Disney+ streaming service, alongside Star Wars and hundreds of half-remembered nightmares from your childhood.
Oddly, though, we just got a Hocus Pocus sequel last year in book form. In Hocus Pocus & The All-New Sequel, the original movie's heroes, Max and Allison, are now married with a 17-year-old daughter, who is forced to battle the Sanderson sisters on Halloween. The book was actually praised for its handling of queer subject matter, but as far as we know, it won't form the basis for this new movie. Maybe because the title is so weird. It's like if J.K. Rowling wrote Harry Potter And Another Goddamn Harry Potter Book.
So what is the canonicity of this book? Is it still part of the Hocus Pocus-verse, or is it considered Hocus Pocus: Legends now?
You (yes, you) should follow JM on Twitter!
Also, we'd love to know more about you and your interesting lives, dear readers. If you spend your days doing cool stuff, drop us a line at iDoCoolStuff at Cracked dot com, and maybe we can share your story with the entire internet.
Follow us on Facebook. Because we said so.