Screenwriter Sues to Stop ‘Death Race’
For a minute I thought someone in Hollywood had come to their senses by mounting an effort to save audiences from the inevitable pain and suffering to be wrought by Paul W.S. Anderson’s pointless remake Death Race.
It turns out that screenwriter Adam Jones isn’t just being nice, he actually thinks the movie was his idea and he wants a piece of the pie. According to Stone, the new film isn’t a rip-off of Paul Bartel’s cult classic Death Race 2000, but a rip-off of his own script called Joust.
Citing 39 similarities between Anderson’s film and the Joust script (one wonders if #24 is “epic lameness”), the disgruntled writer is seeking unspecified damages and a court order to stop the film’s Friday release.
We’re rooting for you, Adam!
Source: THR
Filed under: Business, News
Tags: Adam Stone, Death Race, Death Race 2000, Paul Bartel, Paul W.S. Anderson
Related Posts: - Review: Adam Resurrected (2008) **
- Paul W.S. Anderson’s Long Bad Friday
- Whedon Takes MGM Out to a ‘Cabin in the Woods’
- LiC Gets the Friday Screen Test Treatment
- Because Summer Needed One More Crappy Remake
Funny how these come out, not when the movie is announced or trailers start showing up, but right before release for purposes of maximum publicity.
Which scum to root for?
For some reason I feel a profound kinship with the “disgruntled writer.”
I saw a screening of Death Race last night and let me go out on a limb and say…it wasn’t that bad. I realize this isn’t saying much, but apart from Event Horizon (which I have a special place in my heart for), this is his best film yet. I went in expecting to hate it, and he certainly is having a sweaty, disgusting love affair with shaky cam, and the entire thing is COMPLETELY predictable (if you’ve seen the trailer you know exactly what will happen), but goshdarnit I enjoyed it. It’s the same feeling I get when I spend my Saturday afternoon watching The Running Man or Tremors on cable. This is a solid B movie that has fun with it’s high concept and delivers everything you would expect. In addition, Jason Statham is perfectly watchable (but I always love him), some of the supporting performances are surprisingly exceptional (Ian McShane and Jacob Vargas as the grease monkeys), and really, who doesn’t want to see souped up armored cars with gatling guns blowing stuff up?
Wow, I didn’t expect to write so much about this. I guess I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought.
“who doesn’t want to see souped up armored cars with gatling guns blowing stuff up? ”
Between that and your appreciation of Tremors (and the fact that I haven’t seen the trailer), maybe this be worth a sneak-in. I still have others to catch up on this week so it’s unlikely…
I can get behind a solid b-movie effort up to a point, but certain other elements need to be in place and they do not include remakes. This one appears to be an “in name only” remake, but it still annoys me.
For the record: Loved Tremors, hated Running Man.
“hated Running Man.”
You are dead to me, Craig Kennedy.
hahaha…that’s harsh.
RUNNING MAN is a wretched piece of cine-offal saved by only one thing: Richard Dawson’s amazing game-show host, a perf I say deserved a best supporting actor nod.
And TREMORS rules us all. Graboids!
Ok, maybe not dead. But certainly not on my “favorite people of all time” list.
OK, maybe at the bottom of the list, but at the VERY bottom. You have some catching up to do, mister.
I’m sure I have a guilty pleasure or two that would be like fingernails on a chalkboard to you.
Understand that Running Man was one those movies I saw late in high school and early in college when I was a budding film snob. I’ve since calmed down, but certain movies left permanent scars.
I hate Predator too for the same reasons which is another one I get dirty looks over.
I agree with Christian though that Richard Dawson is terrific.
I hate Running Man but you leave Predator alone, ya hear?
hahah…see?
Yeah, I was going to defend you but I know you dislike Predator and I just didn’t want to open the Ahnold’s Box up. I think Running Man is like Demolition Man: It pretty much rides on the star’s penchant for one liners, gets lucky off some decent supporting performances, but doesn’t hold up much on repeat viewings because the “social commentary” at its core is fairly simplistic.
Granted, Running Man did spawn American Gladiator, kind of a cruel riff on the joke, but then again Demolition Man presaged the rise of Taco Bell. You tell me what’s worse, talking chihuahuas not withstanding.
I’ve learned that there is no movie that exists that I can mock that won’t piss someone off eventually.
My guilty Arnold pleasure is Total Recall.
Terminator is of course a guilt free Arnold pleasure.
Total Recall is definitely a good choice of guilty pleasure, Craig. I suppose that means I have two Arnold guilty pleasure flicks, between the Verhoevan and Predator.
TOTAL RECALL is a great premise ruined by Verhoven’s need to fill the screen with as much needless gore as possible. The script was written for Richard Dreyfuss, in other words, a rather mild mannered dude who finds out he’s a bad-ass agent.
I still love Running Man. And Commando. Ah, those were the days.
In Ahnold’s case, I can no longer watch his films with any pleasure. I just look at the lug gleefully killing people onscreen and think, “That’s our fucking governor and now he’s killing the state.”
But I did once love COMMANDO.
It’s true, Commando is one of those movies that truly fits in that category of “so bad, it’s good.”
Christian, gore is never ‘needless’ unless it’s in a Saw movie. The movie’s flaw is that it doesn’t take full advantage of the potentially brain-twisting premise, but I agree that casting Arnold gives away the punchline way too early.
Likewise, Executive Decision was clearly designed to have someone a little more milquetoast cast in the Kurt Russell part.
I like Total Recall in spite of Arnold, honestly.
The best part of Executive Decision was Steven Seagal dying early.
To Verhoven, gore is just a big joke onscreen because he saw the real thing growing up. But it’s no excuse for his glib lust for showing bodies exploding. TOTAL RECALL is just an ugly looking film with a great premise.
As goofy as it is, Executive Decision is one of those movies I usually can’t walk away from if I come across it on cable. I love all those talented people just showing up for the paycheck and Seagal dying unexpectedly.
Commando is truly awful though. Next time any of you see it, watch for the scene where the Porsche magically transforms from being destroyed to mint condition to destroyed again. Awesome continuity.
Christian, I bet you don’t like Starship Troopers (masterpiece!) either.
Christian, I hate to dig up an old dead horse just so I can beat it again but: Rambo 2008. All I’m saying.
I wonder if one day some hack screenwriter will remake Executive Decision….
Jeff, your apparently deep and abiding love of Starship Troopers ensures that we could never be enemies for long. I haven’t run into many other fans of that movie.
I can like one stupid gorefilled movie like anybody, but Verhoven has a hella lot more skill and pretensions than Stallone. Verhoven thinks he’s making a point with his gore, Stallone isn’t thinking at all. Dan O’Bannon, TR screenwriter, has a more thorough going over of what happened to the film and why he thinks it doesn’t work. And I agree.
And while I see the half-hearted satire of ST, Verhoven is full of shit again. He made a 100 million dollar sci-fi action movie that invites the audience to get a boner off the violence while he thinks he’s subtly critiquing a fascist society. Even the audience sensed the schizophrenia and reacted accordingly.
It’s very much in line with the thinking behind FUNNY GAMES.
The difference is that Haneke was directly attacking american movies and american audiences. Verhoeven was tackling a political and social system, showing how easy it is to fall into. I don’t feel he was playing a dirty trick on the audience.
I have to tread carefully here though. I haven’t seen the movie for several years.
Also, Stallone’s gaping incompetence in no way forgives the wretched, ugly horror that is the most recent Rambo.
“Verhoeven was tackling a political and social system, showing how easy it is to fall into. I don’t feel he was playing a dirty trick on the audience.”
You don’t make a 100 million bug action film to show how easy it is for fascism to spread. The characters are cut from vanilla. He wanted his box office cake too. It’s a very smug approach and if you hear Verhoven talk about the film, he is indeed playing a trick on the audience. So much so that even Michael Ironside denies the film is in anyway about fascism. You really think Verhoven wasn’t attacking American audiences making them complicit? That’s the whole point and why some think the film is brilliant.
I never shoulda told Craig I liked RAMBO. Damn me.
hahaha…I swear to god that’s the LAST time I ever bring it up. Seriously. It says a lot about you in a good way that you can embrace that movie. No sense of smell for one thing… (I kid)
I guess I feel like I’m in on Verhoeven’s joke so it doesn’t bother me. I think it’s aweseome he made 100 million and most people didn’t know what they were paying for.
Why Haneke so rubbed me the wrong way is another question entirely….
And I find Verthoven’s attitude kind of smug and odious. The 15 year olds in the theater were not at all aware of the very limited satire. They wanted to see bugs get blowed up and they did. The film is so half-assed tho.
But I don’t see how Handke’s take is that different. It’s somebody smiling while they take your cash and lead you into the theater, then whisper to their friend, “Fuck ‘em if they can’t take my joke. Barbaric Yanks.”
I just saw Starship Troopers again and I’d have to agree that Verhoven is treading a very thin line in his social criticism. I think his glorification of gore and pointless violence tends to work against the political satire he’s attempting to get at, but the movie also does a very decent job of mocking the rah-rah attitude of the audience itself.
If the plot made any damn sense whatsoever, I’d be more fully behind it. One could argue that the ridiculously convoluted setup is more an excuse to spill copious amounts of blood and the social commentary is just tacked on to that.
Just about all of Verhoven’s movies seem to be an excuse for him to have his cake and eat it too.
Yeah, as I said, I dont have an easy answer to that line of attack. I’m on record as hating Funny Games.
I guess for anyone even moderately engaged, the contradictions in Starship Troopers are clear and kind of fascinating. Not so much in Funny Games.
I enjoyed the killing of bugs (like a 15 year old would), as you enjoyed the killing of ‘others’ in Rambo, but I also liked the satire. Am I just a chickenshit who needs intellectual cover for a movie that gets my rocks off? Perhaps. I’ll get back to you on that one.
On a side note, I’m still intrigued how you can stomach the killing of human beings but be repulsed by the killing of monsters in ST and Aliens. Is it just that layer of phoniness you consider a cop out?
“If the plot made any damn sense whatsoever, I’d be more fully behind it. ” ahahaha. You might have a point there Joel. (damnit, where’s jeff when I need him?)
I actually found the killings of the marines in ST to be wallowing.
And I can only say that as somebody very aware of what the populace of Burma is going through, I feel that a Burmese citizen would feel somewhat more justified in watching their brutal rapist military get comeuppance in a fantasy more fulfilling than watching bugs and people slaughtered in ST. I would fully expect RAMBO to be a hit with the downtrodden of the country in the same way CHINESE CONNECTION made the Chinese tear up their seats when Bruce Lee kicked Japanese ass. Or somethin’…
Like I said, Verhoven is an artist, Stallone not so much.
Well, I love Starship Troopers and I loathe Funny Games, but I also think they function in very different ways. For the record, I don’t think there’s anything wrong in having your cake and eating it too, if you can pull it off, and I think Verhoeven pulls it off terrifically. It’s a brutal, savage satire and the characters being vanilla morons is part of that - and it’s prescient of our current times, too (which I would have thought Christian would appreciate, que sera sera). Ditto Black Book from a year and a half ago.
I think the difference is that, even though they’re doing similar things, Verhoeven’s movies still celebrate cinema and Haneke’s bemoans it.
“I think the difference is that, even though they’re doing similar things, Verhoeven’s movies still celebrate cinema and Haneke’s bemoans it.”
Yes!