Spielberg to produce Koepp adaptation of posthumous Crichton novel

[Hlao-roo 388]

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2009-08-26-spielberg-crichton_N.htm

[Nick Parker 3,017]

Another one? The concept sounds very promising, though...if this does come to fruition, I can imagine it being very good...if Koepp's involvement is kept to a minimum.

[Bowie 45]

Koepp this away from me.

[Pieter Boelen 633]

Steven Spielberg pirate film? Possibly with a John Williams pirate score? COUNT ME IN!

[Luke Skywalker 1,284]

yay..another anti-spanish film from spielberg...

What the heck, a possible classic pirate score from williams???

KILL THE SPANISH DOGS ALREADY!

[Greg1138 2]

Great news all round....though I cannot halp but have a tinge of frustration that Spielberg has not yet optioned Crichton's "Prey" - the best Spielberg movie never made.

A Williams Pirate Score?? Can I get a "Hell Yeah"?????

[Muad'Dib 1,514]

Amen! I mean... Hell yeah!

[indy4 152]

Yes!

[Datameister 1,394]

Yeah...Spielberg + Crichton + pirates + Williams = awesomeness. Potentially.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,765]

Oh no, not David Ko-ko-eeppyy again.

[Red 73]

Koepp this away from me.

I see what you did there.

Spielberg seems to be overloading himself with potential projects, but out of all of them this one is the most exciting.

[Quintus 5,391]

I couldn't give a rats ass about this project. Koepp is friggin' useless.

Why can't Spielberg try something original for once? His handful of self conceived or even self written projects were all very good, back in the day, and it would surely do him some good to get back to the drawing board, creatively speaking. It seems like his imagination is spent, which is depressing.

Another adaptation from Spielberg is tiresome.

[Marian Schedenig 5,520]

Could we perhaps from now one post only about movies Spielberg is *not* going to direct? That should simplify things immensely.

[Wojo 2,442]

Another adaptation from Spielberg is tiresome.

Perhaps, but at least film adaptations of Crichton novels have the potential to be good.

[AC1 3,565]

Another adaptation from Spielberg is tiresome.

Perhaps, but at least film adaptations of Crichton novels have the potential to be good.

And yet, you Wojo, I can do without films like Looker, Runaway, Jurassic Park (!), Twister and Sphere.

Alex

[Henry B 49]

Wow, a screenplay by David Koepp? A tentative consideration by Spielberg to direct? A movie with the word "pirate" in the title, which automatically assures excellence in both film and score? How could this possibly go wrong?

[Charlie Brigden 5]

I can't do without RUNAWAY. Tom Selleck is my hero.

[AC1 3,565]

A movie with the word "pirate" in the title, which automatically assures excellence in both film and score? How could this possibly go wrong?

[Koray Savas 2,095]

Another adaptation from Spielberg is tiresome.

A majority of films are adaptations, what's the problem? As long as the film is good I couldn't care less.

[John Crichton 4]

A Williams Pirate Score?? Can I get a "Hell Yeah"?????

Hell yeah!!

For the score at least, that's an exciting prospect. The film...we'll see.

[Muad'Dib 1,514]

Another adaptation from Spielberg is tiresome.

A majority of films are adaptations, what's the problem? As long as the film is good I couldn't care less.

Agreed. Besides, Koepp is a preety decent screenwriter. Carlito's Way and Jurassic Park are some of his best in my opinion.

Also, if you compare his script for Indy 4 with Darabont's one, you'll realise that Koepp's one is far better, and sadly some of the best stuff of his script wasn't used in the movie.

All we are saying... Is give Koepp a chance

[Elmo Lewis 6]

Also, if you compare his script for Indy 4 with Darabont's one, you'll realise that Koepp's one is far better, and sadly some of the best stuff of his script wasn't used in the movie.

Like what?

[Marian Schedenig 5,520]

Besides, Koepp is a preety decent screenwriter. Carlito's Way and Jurassic Park are some of his best in my opinion.

Carlito is excellent. JP... has a script?

[Jacob 0]

Hell yeah!!

For the score at least, that's an exciting prospect. The film...we'll see.

[QMM 4]

Still don't really understand all the blind hatred for Koepp here.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

so is this going to be done before Harvey, or Lincoln, or anything that the fallen director wants to do.

[Wojo 2,442]

Another adaptation from Spielberg is tiresome.

Perhaps, but at least film adaptations of Crichton novels have the potential to be good.

And yet, you Wojo, I can do without films like Looker, Runaway, Jurassic Park (!), Twister and Sphere.

Alex

When I wrote that response several hours ago, I was unsure how to justify a dissection of the Crichton films I liked and which ones I didn't. I enjoyed Jurassic Park, even though I never saw it in the theater, and I read the book first so I was always slightly disappointed from the get-go. But it is still a very good movie. Dated, flawed, but good. JP2, not so much because it's as if the version that Spielberg read was missing many, many pages. Certain scenes work (J Moore on the glass) but other scenes, while fun, are frivolous (San Diego).

I enjoyed The Great Train Robbery, not only because it remained coherent but it also had a wonderful trio of leading actors. The ending and overall premise of the novel of Sphere always disappointed me, so the movie, while faithful, also disappoints me. Congo was a tremendous book, but its movie missed the point, especially with how they reinvented the motive of the woman. I surmise the screenwriters just wanted to rewrite it to give Tim Curry such a delicious part.

I also enjoyed The 13th Warrior for what it was: a cross cultural buddy movie with plausible antagonists, and a loud brooding Goldsmith score. It wasn't spectacular, but it was fun, and made more sense than its book.

I never read Disclosure, or got more than 20 pages into Rising Sun, so those movies are moot. Airframe was a good read, but probably wouldn't make a good movie. Neither would Next. I enjoyed reading The Andromeda Strain, but never got around to watching the Bob Wise movie.

The last Crichton that I read was Prey, which would probably make a good movie, except the book has no ending. It starts with the final scene of the book as a cliffhanging prelude, then tells the entire story as a long flashback, brings you back to the cliffhanger...and stops. Great as a book, because it sets up the sequel that ultimately isn't needed, but as a movie, it would be so unsatisfying.

All of those books had the potential to be good -- or the filmmakers just wanted to cash in on the Crichton name -- but for various reasons, they made changes that turned the movies into stinkers.

[Nick Parker 3,017]

I used to think Michael Crichton was an amazing writer, but now I am not so sure.

[indy4 152]

I think he's was at coming up with exciting stories. His writing style can be a tad bit tiresome after a while (He likes short sentences. Often it works. But not always.), and I don't always agree with some of the messages he is advocating through some of his books (and by some I mean State of Fear), but almost all of his work that I've read has been terrific entertainment. Next was the one exception. I thought it was absolutely awful, one of the worst books I've ever read. I'm really glad these two other books are being published, it would be a shame if Crichton had such an underwhelming swan song.

[Koray Savas 2,095]

Airframe was a good read, but probably wouldn't make a good movie. Neither would Next.

Not would, didn't.

[AC1 3,565]

Koepp will write the script, Spielberg will look at it and say, "Great!"

Kaminsky will say that wants to shoot it Lost World style, and Spielberg will say, "By all means, man!"

Williams wants to score it in his new adventure style he developed during the Prequels and Spielberg will say, "I trust you, John!"

Another Spielberg movie is created! Next!

Alex

[Koray Savas 2,095]

Is everyone finally realizing how overrated Spielberg is? He's a blockbuster director who occasionally directs a mind-boggingly brilliant film. Subtract that last part and then he's no different than Michael Bay.

[Nick Parker 3,017]

...I do not know what to say....

[AC1 3,565]

Is everyone finally realizing how overrated Spielberg is? He's a blockbuster director who occasionally directs a mind-boggingly brilliant film. Subtract that last part and then he's no different than Michael Bay.

Are you telling us that Michael Bay doesn't put his entire heart and soul into his pictures?!

Wow, a screenplay by David Koepp? A tentative consideration by Spielberg to direct? A movie with the word "pirate" in the title, which automatically assures excellence in both film and score? How could this possibly go wrong?

Alex

[Pieter Boelen 633]

Nothing wrong with a good 'ol pirate movie.

And I actually do like that (^) one a lot.

[Luke Skywalker 1,284]

Another Spielberg movie is created! Next!

Alex

Pun intended?

[crumbs 11,754]

Just hurry up and make SOMETHING Steven! We might not have all that much time left for another Williams masterpiece! The man has earned his retirement!!!

I was thinking today about Spielberg's greatest films, and obviously Jaws sprung to mind. And the more I thought about how far Spielberg has come since those brilliant filmmaking days saddened me a lot. To think of his awful Indy 4 and ROTS ideas, they are just so cheesy and stupid. Then it occurred to me, most of the brilliance of Jaws happened by accident that the making of that film was so nightmarish. If Spielberg had made that film entirely as he intended, it wouldn't have worked anywhere near as well as it did. He wanted to show the shark from scene one...

*sigh*

How saddening to think that most of the suspense in Jaws happened entirely unintentionally. Fortunately he has proven since he is indeed a brilliant filmmaker, but nonetheless, he has lost his magic touch I feel.

[Richard Penna 2,083]

I've never had a real problem with Koepp; it's more isolated films where I feel he's messed up.

TLW - waaayyy too much dialogue and not enough dinosaurs. And there's too much stuff going on. Bit like Two Towers actually in terms of structure.

KotCS - just some really bad lines here and there.

But this pirates thing... could be good, but for me, Spielberg's name no longer means that it's going to be good, and it appears he can be won over by irritating friends (i.e. Lucas).

[TownerFan 4,548]

Is everyone finally realizing how overrated Spielberg is? He's a blockbuster director who occasionally directs a mind-boggingly brilliant film. Subtract that last part and then he's no different than Michael Bay.

If you're serious, well, that's a very bold statement and I can't disagree more. Michael Bay will never have the talent even of a Spielberg's toe.

Spielberg doesn't get much love from his then-fans because he basically stopped doing those kind of huge popular entertainment movies like Raiders or Jurassic Park. But remember a lot of people slagged him off during his "glory days" of E.T. and Jaws because he didn't seem able to make "mature" or "adult" films. He has been almost single-handedly accused of infantilize movie audiences and pointed out as the main guilty.

Spielberg gained the luxury of doing whatever films he wants to do (a very rare privilege in Hollywood). But he still wants to do films for audiences of millions, if not billions, of people: if he's making a Holocaust drama or an alien-invasion sci-fi action, his attitude is the same. He's a populist artist, much like Aaron Copland or even John Ford were. These kinds of artists are constantly slagged because they try the almost impossible task of uniting their popular side with a more artistic, intellectual sensibility. It's a very thin and edgy line to walk on. Does Spielberg succeed in this? I don't know, in my opinion he succeeded more than many people here seem to think.

[Wojo 2,442]

Airframe was a good read, but probably wouldn't make a good movie. Neither would Next.

Not would, didn't.

I knew somebody would try to make that connection. The 2007 film Next starring Nicholas Cage, about a man who can see the future, is very loosely based on the science fiction short story The Golden Man by Philip K. Dick. It has nothing to do with the 2006 techno-thriller novel called Next by Michael Crichton about genetic research.

[AC1 3,565]

Spielberg doesn't get much love from his then-fans because he basically stopped doing those kind of huge popular entertainment movies like Raiders or Jurassic Park

Eh, The Crystal skull? War Of The Worlds?

[Marian Schedenig 5,520]

I enjoyed The Great Train Robbery, not only because it remained coherent but it also had a wonderful trio of leading actors.

A favourite. Even more enjoyable than the book.

The ending and overall premise of the novel of Sphere always disappointed me, so the movie, while faithful, also disappoints me.

I liked the movie a lot. Then I read the book and liked it a lot. And I realised that the movie is seriously flawed in that it completely misses the logic of the book and changes it so that in the end it doesn't make sense anymore. I couldn't therefore call it faithful. Aside from that it's still well-made, and it has my favourite Goldenthal score.

A wonderful, much-underrated movie.

[Wojo 2,442]

Marian, I might not have paid that much attention to Sphere the book or movie, then, to call it faithful. I never paid attention to the score, but I did like the banter between Jackson and Hoffman, who can often make bad movies enjoyable.

I think Crystal Skull and War of the Worlds are the exception in the modern-day Spielberg, not the norm. Instead, we get films like The Terminal, Munich, AI, and Minority Report, which aren't as big of crowd pleasers.

[Ollie 859]

I really don't care anymore what Spielberg directs.

Just give a good score from Williams.

[Wojo 2,442]

Truthfully, I don't either. The only Spielberg films I ever saw in the theater were Crystal Skull and The Lost World. Everything else was on DVD, TV, VHS, or "other."

[TownerFan 4,548]

Spielberg doesn't get much love from his then-fans because he basically stopped doing those kind of huge popular entertainment movies like Raiders or Jurassic Park

Eh, The Crystal skull? War Of The Worlds?

Yes, Crystal Skull falls into that category, but it's an exception. WOTW is kind of different imho, it's pop entertainment filtered through a lens of social commentary (even though it still remains a summer blockbuster at its core). Several people in fact didn't like this approach and would have preferred a more straight-forward, lighter take for this material.

Other than that, after Schindler's List Spielberg went through a path that, with the exception of The Lost World and Crystal Skull (probably his two weakest outings so far, imho), showed a different set of filmmaking/storytelling interests. While his cinematic style remained identifiable and consistent, it's the nature of the stories he chose to tell that changed. Amistad, Saving Private Ryan, A.I. Minority Report, Catch Me If You Can, The Terminal and Munich are all films that the Spielberg of the late 70s/early 80s probably wouldn't have choose to tell. However, they're not "artsy" movies, they're still aimed at the huge crowd of the multiplexes around the globe. Spielberg isn't the kind of director that forgets his audience while making his films. But it's obviously much harder to get huge crowds to see and love a story about Mossad agents in search of vengeance than, say, a story about a lovely alien creature lost on planet Earth.

[Quintus 5,391]

Another adaptation from Spielberg is tiresome.

A majority of films are adaptations, what's the problem?

I love a good adaptation, just not the current spat of Spielberg ones. He's knocking 'em out like production line workers package teabags.

[Wojo 2,442]

How's that make him different from any other big-budget Hollywood filmmaker?

[AC1 3,565]

Spielberg doesn't get much love from his then-fans because he basically stopped doing those kind of huge popular entertainment movies like Raiders or Jurassic Park

Eh, The Crystal skull? War Of The Worlds?

Yes, Crystal Skull falls into that category, but it's an exception. WOTW is kind of different imho, it's pop entertainment filtered through a lens of social commentary (even though it still remains a summer blockbuster at its core). Several people in fact didn't like this approach and would have preferred a more straight-forward, lighter take for this material.

Other than that, after Schindler's List Spielberg went through a path that, with the exception of The Lost World and Crystal Skull (probably his two weakest outings so far, imho), showed a different set of filmmaking/storytelling interests. While his cinematic style remained identifiable and consistent, it's the nature of the stories he chose to tell that changed. Amistad, Saving Private Ryan, A.I. Minority Report, Catch Me If You Can, The Terminal and Munich are all films that the Spielberg of the late 70s/early 80s probably wouldn't have choose to tell. However, they're not "artsy" movies, they're still aimed at the huge crowd of the multiplexes around the globe. Spielberg isn't the kind of director that forgets his audience while making his films. But it's obviously much harder to get huge crowds to see and love a story about Mossad agents in search of vengeance than, say, a story about a lovely alien creature lost on planet Earth.

The Color Purple, Empire Of The Sun? Spielberg's serious side is nothing new, nor the reaction of the public towards it. And is there no social commentary in The Sugarland Express?

Alex

[Quintus 5,391]

How's that make him different from any other big-budget Hollywood filmmaker?

Nail on head, my friend.