Sci-Fi The Running Man Remake with Edgar Wright!

[Shinobi Shaw]

Me every time I kick Sub-Zero's ass with Scorpion

Sub-Zero still better.

 

[Kane52630]

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I still think Last Night in Soho feels the least Edgar Wright-like film that he's done, and I don't mean as a negative. If you didn't know going into it that he directed it, I'm sure many would not even know that he did.

I think this is confusing the difference between Wright the director and Pegg the writer. Because Soho is very similar to Wright's non-Pegg work. Just more horror based.

 

[Kane52630]

Sub-Zero still better.

 

[Dave McFly]

nobody does one liners like Ahnold nobody!

 

[DarkKnight88]

Even his bad movies

 

[SJD]

My question isn't what he attempted to do. My question is about whether it led to a good movie.

Directors try different things all the time. Scorsese, GDT, Spielberg, and Nolan are famous for doing it. What makes their change ups work so well is they do not become different directors. What makes them special is still there. It's still very clear it's their movie. Their voice.

If Wright was hired to make a generic action flick, I don't see the point. That sounds like hired gun work. There are better directors for such things and even then, it would get killed for being generic. Generic is a derogatory term in this regard.

I understood your question. In short, it seems most people agree that The Running Man turned out to be a good film - though for some, an uneven one. And some were expecting a masterpiece.

I’m not suggesting Edgar Wright tried to be a different director here. Rather, it sounds like he aimed to strike a balance between his signature storytelling style - his visual flair, energy, and tonal precision - and Stephen King’s writing and thematic depth. Sure, Paramount could have hired someone more conventional like McG, Jaume Collet-Serra, or Len Wiseman, but the combination of King and Wright is far more intriguing.

As a film fan, someone who enjoyed the 1982 novel, and a long-time admirer of Wright’s work, I’m optimistic this will land well for me. Still, it’s clear that some viewers went in expecting something closer to a Baby Driver companion piece, rather than a darker, more complex film. I'm looking forward to seeing The Running Man tomorrow to judge for myself.

 

[Dave McFly]

Even his bad movies

that movie is such a guilty pleasure you get 2x the Ahnold

 

[Spider-Fan]

The OG movie might not be book accurate, but it's no less a quality action movie and a lot of fun.

 

[squeekness]

The OG movie might not be book accurate, but it's no less a quality action movie and a lot of fun.

The only thing good about it that I recall was them casting Richard Dawson who I adored, lol.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I understood your question. In short, it seems most people agree that The Running Man turned out to be a good film - though for some, an uneven one. And some were expecting a masterpiece.

I’m not suggesting Edgar Wright tried to be a different director here. Rather, it sounds like he aimed to strike a balance between his signature storytelling style - his visual flair, energy, and tonal precision - and Stephen King’s writing and thematic depth. Sure, Paramount could have hired someone more conventional like McG, Jaume Collet-Serra, or Len Wiseman, but the combination of King and Wright is far more intriguing.

As a film fan, someone who enjoyed the 1982 novel, and a long-time admirer of Wright’s work, I’m optimistic this will land well for me. Still, it’s clear that some viewers went in expecting something closer to a Baby Driver companion piece, rather than a darker, more complex film. I'm looking forward to seeing The Running Man tomorrow to judge for myself.

Most people have not seen the movie. Of reviews, it has a mixed to average score on Metacritic. 1 point ahead of Now You See Me 3. On RT, it's not certified fresh. This is is in no way a consensus that the movie is "good". This is more a consensus of a blah film.

Your description of Wright is strange. Are you arguing he doesn't have thematic depth? Wright has more thematic depth then King. The man who could not understand Kubrick. Whose adaptation of King's work far exceeds the source material. Boiling down Wright to visual flair, energy, and tonal precision misses why his films have left their mark. It's how those emphasize and blend with the themes and characters that make them beloved. Even the Cornetto trilogy which belonged just as much to Pegg, there is no incongruence. The material matters to Wright and thus there is no clash. Two artists who understand each other so well they could create films of true depth.

Adaptation needs to belong to the creative who are making them. Not the previous author. Now does that always work out? No. But serving multiple masters never does. Dune works because it's Denis' Dune. Not Herbert's. It's the same for the multiple successful adaptation of Batman or Jackson's LotR.

I think your last paragraph emphasizes why I asked the original question. You feel confidence because you'rr predisposed yourself to like it while arguing others are predisposed not to. When your argument is, "well others just don't get it", without even seeing it, that's just showing a bias towards the film. Not a basis for while it'll be an unearthed gem in the future. Which is a crazy thing to even suggest about a 100m+ blockbuster film starring one of the bigger movie stars of the era. Of a book that has already been adapted and that adaptation is even more relevant now then it was when it came out, no matter how much it's like the novel.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The OG movie might not be book accurate, but it's no less a quality action movie and a lot of fun.

I think it's kind of fantastic and much like Robocop, super predictive. It's a film where pro wrestling is the political landscape. How you control the masses. Sound like anyone you know?

 

[Spider-Fan]

The only thing good about it that I recall was them casting Richard Dawson who I adored, lol.

That's a good thing, but the movie is the best kind of 80s cheese that still uses a lot of the higher concepts about the media and such. It's a good movie and the Governator has so many wonderful cheesy puns, and I love it

 

[DarthSkywalker]

That's a good thing, but the movie is the best kind of 80s cheese that still uses a lot of the higher concepts about the media and such. It's a good movie and the Governator has so many wonderful cheesy puns, and I love it

Honestly, might be his best film for puns. It's right up there with Commando and Total Recall at least imo.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I think it's kind of fantastic and much like Robocop, super predictive. It's a film where pro wrestling is the political landscape. How you control the masses. Sound like anyone you know?

I dont have an actual top 10 or 20 or whatever favorite movies list as there would be just too many competing for me to commit to one, but I can safely say if I ever attempted it that Robocop would be very high on it. Perfect movie

 

[Spider-Fan]

Honestly, might be his best film for puns. It's right up there with Commando and Total Recall at least imo.

I think T2, Terminator, and Conan the Barbarian are my top 3 Arnold movies. But once you get past those 3, Total Recall enters the chat!

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I dont have an actual top 10 or 20 or whatever favorite movies list as there would be just too many competing for me to commit to one, but I can safely say if I ever attempted it that Robocop would be very high on it. Perfect movie

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I think T2, Terminator, and Conan the Barbarian are my top 3 Arnold movies. But once you get past those 3, Total Recall enters the chat!

I was just talking straight puns. When it comes to his best I'd go T2, Predator, and Terminator. Overall, Arnold's top 10 is incredibly stacked.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I was just talking straight puns. When it comes to his best I'd go T2, Predator, and Terminator. Overall, Arnold's top 10 is incredibly stacked.

I am gonna have to apologize to Predator later, cause yeah that should be 4 lol! Arnold really has a stacked filmography