Patrick Ness is not an author I’m familiar with, but he’s been blessed by having his novel made into a movie — and at an estimated $125 million, a large budget sci-fi, they are going all in on what sounds like a curious story idea.
Chaos Walking, based on the Patrick Ness book, is set in a world where all the woman have died, and all the men project their thoughts into the ether (you can see how the movie will visualize that, known as “the noise,” in these clips). Ridley plays Viola, a traveler who crash-lands on the planet and instantly becomes the most fish out of water that ever fished.
Starsky AKA Paul Michael Glaser will not be in the director’s chair for another adaptation of The Running Man. This time Edgar Wright is getting the call and he plans to make the story more faithful to Stephen King’s novel.
Seems doubtful that we’ll see Arnold Schwarzenegger or the now deceased Richard Dawson in the film either.
Paramount Pictures is making a deal with Edgar Wright to develop to direct a new adaptation of The Running Man, the futuristic novel by Stephen King that the author first published under the pseudonym Richard Bachman. This won’t be a remake of the 1987 film that starred Arnold Schwarzenegger; the Baby Driver writer-director will co-write the story with Michael Bacall, and they will be much more faithful to King’s bestselling novel. Bacall will write the script.
Wright is behind Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Baby Driver and more.
If this project is actually completed, I’ll have much more to say, but the book does have substantial differences to the movie, particularly the ending. Stephen King went full dark, no stars on the original story and the movie wrapped things up more positively. There were many memorable casting choices like Maria Conchita Alonso, the “Christmas tree” operatic stalker, Jesse Ventura, Dweezil Zappa and the drummer of Fleetwood Mac and the list goes on. They need to at least include a hologram of Richard Dawson shouting, “We don’t lie!”
Lump of coal in stocking for this one, but too bad that Mike Flanagan could not see his adaptation of the Stephen King novel Revival to completion.
Discussing his own time trying to adapt the book, Josh Boone mentioned that he had stars interested in being a part of the production, but while figuring out the logistics he discovered that the project would require too big a budget to be made properly in modern Hollywood. As it turns out, this was the exact same issue that Mike Flanagan discovered during his own behind-the-scenes journey with the material.
The article doesn’t say, but I’m kind of curious how much Flanagan needed total if the budget he asked for required “$25 million more” … was it going to cost more than $100 million? That probably is too much unless the word “It” is in the title. Also, it’s stupid, anyway (see: $100+ Million Movie Budgets Are Stupid).
Filmmakers, listen up: if you can’t make your movies on a lower budget, especially in these times, maybe it’s time to rethink what viewers are most concerned about: not flashy CGI, exotic locations, de-aging tech and blowing up a zillion things.
(OK, maybe for a tentpole action film, maybe)
Instead, focus on the story, characters, heck, you don’t even need a lot of flashy sets if the story is great.
Speaking of King’s It, I’ve read rumors that King might be at least toying with the idea of an It sequel? I read lots of rumors and most of them don’t come true, so wouldn’t put much stock into this unless we hear it from an official source or perhaps King himself.
The bright side is there are a ton of King’s adaptations available to watch and more coming. Maybe someday Revival will be made. — perhaps on a reasonable budget too. $25 million more seems like a silly request to me in these times, despite how much I like and respect Mike Flanagan’s work.
Apple has plenty of money to throw around, which has puzzled me a bit why their AppleTV+ service doesn’t include more content.
We shouldn’t worry, they are working on it.
They seem to be going the path of current day Netflix: focus on originals and exclusives. This could mean Apple will be active at film festivals and perusing the bestseller lists for books to option for films.
Recently they nabbed Tom Hanks’ film, Greyhound, originally planned for theater release and ultimately becoming an AppleTV+ exclusive (see: )
One of their newest successful acquisitions pitted them in a bidding war for the graphic novel “Snow Blind” by Ollie Masters from BOOM! studios — and they came out on top.
The acquisition of the film by Apple Studios is based on a graphic novel by Ollie Masters and Tyler Jenkins. “Snow Blind” tells the story of a boy in Alaska who discovers their family is in the Witness Protection Program, who then must contend with a person seeking revenge and an influx of FBI agents into their lives.
No idea how much was paid, but the article mentions Apple did pay $100 million for the Will Smith film, Emancipation, which set a record in the industry for the highest purchase from a film festival.
Say that again, $100 million. Joining the $100+ million budget club (see: $100+ Million Movie Budgets Are Stupid) just to purchase the film for distribution. That’s the kind of dough Apple can pull out of its change purse. Amazon has that kind of loose change as well, but they presumably are going it a little more fiscally responsible. Just a guess here, because the article doesn’t state the other five bidders.
If we are to guess who those bidders might have been: Netflix, Amazon, Disney/Hulu, HBO Max, Peacock or CBS. Don’t think I’m missing anybody with a streaming channel at the table with a hunger for new and/or exclusive content.
Apple has also recently licensed some some children’s content.
Apple TV+ has partnered with The Maurice Sendak Foundation for rights to create children’s shows based on Sendak’s children’s stories and illustrations like Where The Wild Things Are. With this multi-year deal, Apple TV+ will be able to reimagine the author’s works into new children’s content exclusively for the streaming service.