How perfect that the news would break about Strangers on a Plane the same morning the DGA chose not to nominate David Fincher’s film of the year, Gone Girl. Strangers on a Plane will be a humorous spin on the Hitchcock flick, but instead of a train, it’s a plane. Affleck will play an actor in the midst of Oscar season headed for the Big Show, not unlike how he was in 2012 when he took Argo to a win because voters liked Argo but they also felt like he’d been slighted by the directors branch who did not nominate him, nor Kathryn Bigelow. The sentiment around the whole thing was bizarre. I suspect much of that experience will be channeled into this film, as well as the icky way the industry has treated Fincher over the years – and the icky way they punish success while rewarding only films that fit inside the Oscar box.
Fincher will once again reteam with Gillian Flynn, and remains, currently, the only major director in Hollywood to invest in women. He clearly trusts Flynn. This will be their third collaboration. I can’t think of a single other director who trusts any female writer to that degree. Mike Nichols and Elaine May, Rob Reiner and Nora Ephron.
I expect the entire circus that is the awards race to be lampooned, as well it should be.
![2025 Oscars: Can a Late-Breaker Still Win Best Picture? [POLL]](https://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/gladiator-350x250.jpg)
there’s no need to check WGA rules to know what a remake is…and The amazing spiderman is not a remake…it’s a reboot….as the last Superman is not a remake of the 70s film nor Nolan’s Batman is a remake of Burton’s one…nor the dozen of Dracula or remakes of the first Dracula’s film….
a remake is a new version of a pre-existing movie. If Fincher and Flynn will take a new look on Highsmith’s book…then it will be a new adaptation of that one….
and what’s the fuss of not being “original” because someone adapts books? do you dislike Kubrick? do you dislike, oh the irony, Hitchcock?
Fincher and Flynn on that one will be their 3rd collaboration because they’re actually working on a tv series. and some criticizes Stone because Fincher is working with only one woman? really?
and the point she’s making, since forever, it’s not that there are not filmakers working with women, there are not enough doing it, especially top filmakers….imo
@ Alan and @ Andy
You are both profoundly wrong. A remake is a remake when and only when it cites a previous adaptation in its credits.
If you want to dispute that, I politely point you in the direction of the WGA. And if you really want to, the studio that owns the rights.
Which is what Michael Mann did when he adapted The Last of the Mohicans.
The Coens did not remake True Grit. They wrote and filmed their own adaptation.
Ryan nails it by saying the forthcoming Macbeth is not a remake of Polanski’s version. And that was no more a remake of Orson Welles’ version. Which was no more a remake of Thomas A. Blair’s 1946 adaptation. And if you want, we can go back to further to 1916 when John Emerson directed an 80 minute adaptation. The original was written by Shakespeare.
It was always my understanding that a “remake” is a re-adaptation of an original source material. The Coen Brothers True Grit is a remake because it was a re-adaptation of the original novel.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with a remake so long as you bring something new to the table.
Remake is remake. You’re filming the same story that has been filmed before. If you’re going to be splitting hair about the “remake” definition, then Gus Van Sant’s “Psycho” is the only remake in the history of cinema.
Fincher’s fans would say anything to defend him.
When you make a movie from a source that’s already been exploited to make a movie you’re making a remake. No matter if your screenplay is a new “adaptation”. Otherwise not even The Amazing Spider Man would be a remake.
Years from now (no matter how much of a career turn this is for Rosamund Pike) this stretch of three ‘remakes’ (or whatever we choose to call them to gloss over the fundamental lack of boldness about Fincher’s career choices) will be known as a great directors’ aimless ‘wasted years’. Just you all wait.
I agree with Ryan re: defining remakes.
Regardless, what does it matter if this is a remake or an adaptation–I think one of the questions some of us are now asking is whether or not Fincher is capable of making good ORIGINAL material. Whether you want to believe that his reliance on pre-existing material is problematic can be argued from both sides, and neither side would be wrong. Fincher makes solid, slick and stylish films, yes, but from my perspective it’s slighted by an impression of translating material to film rather than offering a fresh or original perspective on it. I don’t think Gone Girl the film brought anything new to Flynn’s novel, it just put what was on the page on the screen. That’s BORING and is not representative of the work or effort of a director I’ll personally ever call great.
That being said, from the small bit of info we have Strangers DOES sound like a fresh take on pre-existing material so maybe he’ll finally change my mind. In 2016.
If Fincher’s The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo doesn’t count as a remake then the word remake is used incorrectly 99.9% of the time.
Whether anyone wants to use the term “remake” incorrectly is entirely up to anyone and everyone. It’s not complicated. It’s simple.
It’s easy to get this right:
Baz Luhrmann’s Gatsby is not a remake of the Robert Redford/ Mia Farrow Gatsby. They are both adaptations of the same novel.
When we see Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard in Macbeth this year, that will not be a remake of Polankski’s Macbeth. It will be another version of the same play.
Fincher and Zallian gave us their own adaptation of the Stieg Larsson novel, they gave us a new adaptation of the novel that has an entirely different ending than the first Swedish adaptation.
It’s not hard to get use the word “remake” correctly. Anyone can do it. Anyone who tries, anyone who cares to get it right.
If Fincher’s The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo doesn’t count as a remake then the word remake is used incorrectly 99.9% of the time.
Remaking is not adapting. Kubrick didn’t remake anything.
I read this news and my first thought was that I REALLY want Steve Carell in this. Have no idea why.
Director James Ivory did many films with screenwriter Ruth Prawer Jhabvala…..The Europeans, Quartet, Heat And Dust (adapted from her own novel), The Bostonians, A Room With A View, Mr & Mrs Bridge, Howards End, The Remains Of The Day, Surviving Picasso, The Golden Bowl……now thats a hell of a lot more times than David Fincher has worked with a female screenwriter, but I don’t recall Sasha ever championing James Ivory
For a comedic spin on the awards season, there’s ”For Your Consideration” (2006), directed and co-written by Christopher Guest (”This Is Spinal Tap”). The delirious Catherine O’Hara plays an actress called ”Marilyn Hack,” and actors from a movie called ”Home for Purim” get caught up in the Oscar-campaign insanity. O’Hara actually won Best Supporting Actress from the National Board of Review and the New York Film Critics Online, plus she was nominated by the Broadcast Film Critics and the Independent Spirits. Alas, the Academy voters did not see the humor and didn’t nominate her as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90b8pVBIWkY
Forty years earlier, there’s ”The Oscar” (1966), starring Stephen Boyd. I’ve never caught it, but IMDB describes it thusly: ”Snotty Hollywood actor becomes even more full of himself after being nominated for Best Actor.” Co-written by Harlan Ellison (!), the picture includes Elke Sommer, Milton Berle, Eleanor Parker, Jill St. John and Tony Bennett (!), as well as actual Oscar winners Ernest Borgnine, Walter Brennan and Broderick Crawford. Plus, this drama was actually Oscar-nominated for its art direction and Edith Head’s costumes. Anyone seen it? These clips make it look like a camp classic!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWfSM_m40jo
@Alan
Exactly. Sasha, I understand this is your site (inb4 “no one is forcing you to visit”), but sometimes your opinions concerning women in Hollywood are overbearing and often ill-conceived.
Fincher working with Flynn 3 times in a row proves that he found a good/fruitful creative partner, not necessarily because he supports “women”. Had he collaborated with a variety of female writers, then Sasha would have a point. It’s rather presumptuous and not to mention “sexist” to think that Fincher working with Flynn means that he’s supportive of women.
@ Filipe
Hit the nail on the head.
This is disappointing, but predictable news. Once again Fincher takes the easy way out. If his next project after this one is yet another adapted screenplay I will officially stop counting him as one of the must-see directors out there.
“This will be their [Fincher and Flynn] third collaboration.”
Apart from Gone Girl, what was the other one?
Matthew Vaughn works with a female screenwriter
I wish Fincher would lend his vision for original work for once, but still, very excited.
Also, Thelma Schoonmaker has been working side-by-side with Martin Scorcese for over 40 years, and she has a important voice on his films. That should be pointed out too instead of Fincher working with a female screenwriter only for the second time (following a film that wasn’t his most critically acclaimed).
After watching Keaton on Charlie Rose last night, on a hunch I looked up all the past male winners. As I expected, if Keaton wins he will become the second oldest winner in the male category at 63. Henry Fonda was in his late seventies when he won for On Golden Whatever It Was Called. Given the age of the voters and their propensity to occasionally reward for career achievement—he’s a shoe-in. Game. Set. Match.
They must be insane. You cannot improve on (or come anywhere close to) the perfection that is Strangers on a Train.
There are plenty of Highsmith novels that have never been filmed (even some that were only filmed in French or German).
How about Edith’s Diary? Now THAT is a fabulous role for a 40plus actress.
and don’t forget my Keaton prediction and my reasoning.
you should please go on record here with your very prescient and pertinent reasoning about why you think Keaton is in a good position.
It has to do with his age and the Academy’s past respect for veteran actors of the same age, yes?
You can explain better, because my hearts not in it, because I don’t think much of Birdman or Keaton’s performance — they both annoy me with all the thick wankery layers of contrivance slathered on like a tub of lube.
(Not so sure about Kansas, because what about the inevitable Kansas Dustbowl 2.0 looming?)
I’m pretty sure it’s Motherfucking Strangers on a Motherfucking Plane
Josh, I hope it’s called Strangers. Better.
Facebook; not The Facebook.
@Ryan – I also predict: Kansas will become the most important state in the United States, due to the moving of the Federal capital from Washington, D.C., to Wichita. The broad plains and prairies will be a roof above multi-story government buildings, constructed wholly underground. The largest airports in the world will be constructed in Kansas to serve the needs of the new capital of the United States. – oh, hang on: that was Criswell predicting. Never mind.
and don’t forget my Keaton prediction and my reasoning.
Isn’t it only called ‘Strangers’ not Strangers on a Plane?
KBacon, I just want to say, several weeks ago you told us that you and your fellow box-office experts expected Gone Girl to top out at around $165M domestic. I scoffed at that and gave my own estimate of closer to $180M
Just want to say, you were right. The Gone Girl DVD/Blu hits shelves today, effectively ending its amazing theatrical run, and its domestic total stands at $167M. You and your professional associates were right.
I was thinking/hoping that Gone Girl might have another 4-5 weeks run on the big screen after Oscar nominations, and that could have maybe added another $10 or $12 million. But I can understand that the studio decided to follow the release pattern of The Social Network instead of, say, Argo, as I was expecting.
So, KBacon, Just want to give you my tip of the hat for nailing the number.