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

 

[SJD]

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 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.

I think you might’ve misread me a bit. I never said Wright lacks thematic depth - just that his style and tone are as integral to his storytelling DNA as his themes. You know... the stuff that makes a Wright film feel like a Wright film.

And as for King and Kubrick - King absolutely understood what Kubrick did; he just didn’t agree with it. And honestly, he wasn’t wrong. The Shining film may be iconic, but it barely scratches the surface of what King’s novel explored. I’ll take the book over Kubrick’s version any day - even if the movie works on its own terms.

And sure, maybe it’s not “certified fresh,” but let’s not pretend Metacritic is holy writ. Half of cinema history would be condemned as “mixed” if we treated aggregator scores as gospel.

As for being “predisposed” - fair enough, if you want to see it that way. I like Wright, I like King, and I’m genuinely curious to see what happens when those two worlds collide. I go into every film hoping to like it. If I do, great. If not, so be it. I hope Edgar Wright's adaption of The Running Man works for me.

 

[Drizzle]

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

The Lonely Island podcast introduced me to an outstanding one I'd never heard before from Raw Deal, which I haven't seen. I can't repost it here but if you go on YouTube, look up "Joseph P Brenner - What's the P stand for?"

The music cue that follows is *chef's kiss*

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I think you might’ve misread me a bit. I never said Wright lacks thematic depth - just that his style and tone are as integral to his storytelling DNA as his themes. You know... the stuff that makes a Wright film feel like a Wright film.

That's not what you wrote.

And as for King and Kubrick - King absolutely understood what Kubrick did; he just didn’t agree with it. And honestly, he wasn’t wrong. The Shining film may be iconic, but it barely scratches the surface of what King’s novel explored. I’ll take the book over Kubrick’s version any day - even if the movie works on its own terms.

But here is the rub about this statement. If you want to argue on behave of consensus, then there is no disputing which is "The Shining" to the general public. It's Kubrick's film. Which I find vastly superior. Kubrick understood the story better then the author imo.

And sure, maybe it’s not “certified fresh,” but let’s not pretend Metacritic is holy writ. Half of cinema history would be condemned as “mixed” if we treated aggregator scores as gospel.

Most cinema is. Are you suggesting it isn't?

As for being “predisposed” - fair enough, if you want to see it that way. I like Wright, I like King, and I’m genuinely curious to see what happens when those two worlds collide. I go into every film hoping to like it. If I do, great. If not, so be it. I hope Edgar Wright's adaption of The Running Man works for me.

Why?

 

[SJD]

That's not what you wrote.

But here is the rub about this statement. If you want to argue on behave of consensus, then there is no disputing which is "The Shining" to the general public. It's Kubrick's film. Which I find vastly superior. Kubrick understood the story better then the author imo.

Most cinema is. Are you suggesting it isn't?

Why?

Nope, reread what I wrote, bud - you might catch what I was actually getting at.

The 1980 film is Kubrick’s. The 1977 novel is King’s. I prefer the novel; you prefer the film. Great. But let’s be real - without King’s book, Kubrick wouldn’t have had a film to make for you to like. Facts are facts.

Personally, I like having a mix of films with different tones and flavours. Variety keeps cinema interesting. But it’s funny how quick people are to dismiss something the second it doesn’t have glowing scores.

And I go into every film hoping to like it because I like film. I like enjoying movies. It’s really not that complicated.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Nope, reread what I wrote, bud - you might catch what I was actually getting at.

The 1980 film is Kubrick’s. The 1977 novel is King’s. I prefer the novel; you prefer the film. Great. But let’s be real - without King’s book, Kubrick wouldn’t have had a film to make for you to like. Facts are facts.

Personally, I like having a mix of films with different tones and flavours. Variety keeps cinema interesting. But it’s funny how quick people are to dismiss something the second it doesn’t have glowing scores.

And I go into every film hoping to like it because I like film. I like enjoying movies. It’s really not that complicated.

But simply existing first doesn't inherently make it better. In the case of The Shining, King did his own more accurate version of the book as a TV Movie, and that version was abysmal. Film is a different art form than a novel. So I don't feel like I have to choose Kubrick or King here, but I do think Kubrick understood what The Shining needed to be as a movie better than King did.

I also hope this movie is good, but I do think that if Wright muted his own voice just to make it closer to King's vision then it was a flawed mindset. What people wanted here was Edgar Wright's filmmaking sensibilities. That's why people were hyping this up. A true auteur adapting King's work. If he approached this like any other director would have approached it, then that does disappoint me greatly.

I also go into every movie hoping to like it as I don't like feeling like I wasted my time. But the common criticism amongst critics does make me worried I won't love this like I wanted to when it was announced

 

[SJD]

But simply existing first doesn't inherently make it better. In the case of The Shining, King did his own more accurate version of the book as a TV Movie, and that version was abysmal. Film is a different art form than a novel. So I don't feel like I have to choose Kubrick or King here, but I do think Kubrick understood what The Shining needed to be as a movie better than King did.

I also hope this movie is good, but I do think that if Wright muted his own voice just to make it closer to King's vision then it was a flawed mindset. What people wanted here was Edgar Wright's filmmaking sensibilities. That's why people were hyping this up. A true auteur adapting King's work. If he approached this like any other director would have approached it, then that does disappoint me greatly.

I also go into every movie hoping to like it as I don't like feeling like I wasted my time. But the common criticism amongst critics does make me worried I won't love this like I wanted to when it was announced

That’s fair - I agree that being “first” doesn’t automatically make something better. The Shining miniseries definitely proved that being more faithful to the book doesn’t always make for a stronger film. I’ve always just found King’s version more emotionally resonant, while Kubrick’s take works better as cold, psychological horror - two different interpretations that each succeed in their own lane.

As for The Running Man, I get what you mean about wanting Wright’s full auteur touch. That was definitely part of the excitement around this project. But I don’t think trying to find a balance between his voice and King’s vision automatically means he “muted” himself - it might just mean he aimed for something more measured. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn’t.

And yeah, the mixed reviews are a bit concerning, but I’ve seen enough cases where divisive films aged well after audiences had time to sit with them. So I’m keeping cautious optimism - hoping for something entertaining and interesting, even if it’s imperfect.