Jack Ryan film will be original screenplay

[Jeri]

I don't follow Jack Ryan or Tom Clancy, so I'm curious what fans will think of this. (My apologies if this has been posted before; I searched but found nothing.) The screenplay will not be based on a Clancy novel.

------------
Details on the next Jack Ryan film

Source:Silas Lesnick
December 4, 2009


Producer Mace Neufeld spoke this morning at the Invictus press conference where he also updated the status of the next Jack Ryan film, set to star Chris Pine.

Neufeld confirmed that the new as-of-yet-untitled project will not be based on a Tom Clancy novel but will, instead, be an original screenplay.

The character of Jack Ryan has previously appeared in the Clancy adaptations The Hunt for Red October, Patriot Games, Clear and Present Danger and The Sum of All Fears, the latter of which represented a previous attempt to reboot the franchise with a younger actor in the lead. Neufeld says that, while the plan is still to skew young with the casting of Pine, the story will not be an "origin story."

"We pick him up when he's on Wall Street," says Neufeld, "...[but] the Jack Ryan movies have never been action films. They're kind of 'thinking man's thrillers.' Jack is referred to as a 'water-walker' because of his ability to jump ahead to conclusions. That's very big in all the Jack Ryan films and that's how we want to portray him. He's a teacher. He's a historian. He's a linguist. And he's really smart."

The first draft has been completed by Hossein Amini and a rewrite by Adam Cozad is set to start soon.

 

[David cgc]

Will they put a "Tom Clancy's" in front of the title, so we know he had nothing to do with it?

 

[Marc]

This will be another Jack Ryan flop. I don't think Hollywood has a grip on the character - Jack Ryan isn't Jason Bourne - he's a reluctant hero.

Hunt for Red October and Patriot Games were close enough to the books to past muster, Clear and Present Danger must of been written by some-one who scan read an abridged version and the less said about Sum of All Fears the better.

Before he let his politics in the books to much, Clancy had some fairly good techno thrillers but there's too much in there to translate well to film - you either have the action angle or the thriller/intrigue angle.

There was talk of doing Cardinal Of The Kremlin as the next film (some say it's his best) but it just wouldn't work on the big screen.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Actually after Sum of all Fears premired there was talk that Red Rabbit would be adapted as Affleck's second stint in the role. I'm all for an original story as long as the story doesn't suck.

 

[LutherSloan]

One question that I haven't had answered is Clancy's current situation. He hasn't written a book since 2002, and from what I understand he had a major heart attack in 2004 or 2005. At the time of the attack he was working on his next novel, but that was years ago. I haven't seen any reports that a new novel is even close to release, so I don't know what's going on.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I keep hoping that one day someone will say screw the way history actually worked out and just make a full-scale version of 'Red Storm Rising' with NATO vs. Warsaw Pact using modern day vehicles and weapons but in an alternate universe setting where the Cold War never ended.

We finally have the FX technology to fully-realize a modern global conventional war with massive amounts of aircraft, ships, tanks, and soldiers in the shots, and the damn Cold War had to go and end. Stupid peace.

Seriously though, a couple of trailers in the style of the 'World in Conflict' game establishing the alternate universe setting would be all you need:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLnAz-igsNU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZU10b8C9orc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOK7r1pa74M&feature=related

Alternatively you could set it in the near future with a resurgent hardline Russia (unlikely) or the Chinese (already being done by the Red Dawn remake, though on a much smaller scale), but that's not really the same.

 

[Captain Craig]

I've only ever read Hunt for Red October, even though I loved the first three movies. Even Sum of All Fears with Affleck was a passable action flick.
So, I'm fine with an original screen play movie. These literary characters to movie transition have that happen if they survive long enough. I'll judge it as a movie on its own merit.

This will be another Jack Ryan flop. I don't think Hollywood has a grip on the character - Jack Ryan isn't Jason Bourne - he's a reluctant hero.

None of them have been flops.
Baldwins didn't bomb, they just didn't reuse him.
Hunt- $30m budget, $200m box office take
Afflecks didn't bomb, he just wasn't eager to return.
Sum- $68m budget, $193 box office take

If you don't know the hits when Harrison Ford did it you just need to research before posting such an absurd thing as 'another Jack Ryan flop'

 

[Marc]

Actually after Sum of all Fears premired there was talk that Red Rabbit would be adapted as Affleck's second stint in the role. I'm all for an original story as long as the story doesn't suck.

Except Red Rabbitt a) isn't that good and b) Ryan is a peripheral character.

 

[Tom Servo]

I never got the Sum of All Fears hate. I always found it an enjoyable film with a solid performance from Affleck. This from someone who doesn't really like his acting at all.


That said, The Hunt for Red October still rules all.

"If we can only find some, bacaroo..."

 

[Marc]

I never got the Sum of All Fears hate. I always found it an enjoyable film with a solid performance from Affleck. This from someone who doesn't really like his acting at all.

The hate actually doesn't have much to do with Ben Afleck of his acting but more about the travesty of a story line.

For starters in the book, the nuke is detonated by Muslim terrorists (yet it doesn't ascribe any blame to Muslims in general so it's not anti-Islamic a point that could of been spelt out in the film), Ryan's not some newb - by the time it takes place he's Deputy Director - Intelligence of the CIA.

The president is some wise Morgan Freeman type - he's a out of his depth more under the thumb of a harpy from hell and I'm sure there are many other reasons.

Sure you have to sacrifice some of the content to make a book into a film (unless it's from a Crichton novel) but when you cut two very important plot elments and serve garbage you're gonna get canned.

In case you haven't read the book - do so.

 

[Kirkman1987]

^

Yes, Hunt For Red October is a great, great movie.

As for this issue of an original story, I don't mind. Half the stuff with Clancy's name on it isn't him anyway, and it generally seems to be alright. As long as it's done in the spirit of the thing, with some brains as well.

 

[Tom Servo]

I never got the Sum of All Fears hate. I always found it an enjoyable film with a solid performance from Affleck. This from someone who doesn't really like his acting at all.

The hate actually doesn't have much to do with Ben Afleck of his acting but more about the travesty of a story line.

For starters in the book, the nuke is detonated by Muslim terrorists (yet it doesn't ascribe any blame to Muslims in general so it's not anti-Islamic a point that could of been spelt out in the film), Ryan's not some newb - by the time it takes place he's Deputy Director - Intelligence of the CIA.

The president is some wise Morgan Freeman type - he's a out of his depth more under the thumb of a harpy from hell and I'm sure there are many other reasons.

Sure you have to sacrifice some of the content to make a book into a film (unless it's from a Crichton novel) but when you cut two very important plot elments and serve garbage you're gonna get canned.

In case you haven't read the book - do so.

I've read the novel, and enjoyed it, and I do agree that yes, they changed a lot from the novel to the film.

None the less, as a separate entity from the novel, I thought the film was good in its own right.

 

[Lonemagpie]

I liked the Sum Of All Fears movie - it's a lot better balanced than the book in terms of pacing for starters. IMO it's his weakest, as basically it's 500 pages of textbook on "how a nuke works" followed by 150 pages of actual bloody story. At least the movie ditches the former 500 pages.

TBH, though, if they really want a cinematic Clancy, they should adapt Without Remorse. (that ties with Clear And Present Danger as my favourite of the books)

 

[Caliburn24]

The problem with any non-Clancy based Jack Ryan movie is that it will almost have to be about the War on Terror in some regard. I mean what else is the CIA up to right now?

And while that would be fine, it would really just be another thriller. They're obviously trying to turn Jack Ryan into a franchise similar to James Bond, but I just can't see it having the same broad appeal.

 

[Kira's Mom]

I never got the Sum of All Fears hate. I always found it an enjoyable film with a solid performance from Affleck. This from someone who doesn't really like his acting at all.

The hate actually doesn't have much to do with Ben Afleck of his acting but more about the travesty of a story line.

For starters in the book, the nuke is detonated by Muslim terrorists (yet it doesn't ascribe any blame to Muslims in general so it's not anti-Islamic a point that could of been spelt out in the film), Ryan's not some newb - by the time it takes place he's Deputy Director - Intelligence of the CIA.

The president is some wise Morgan Freeman type - he's a out of his depth more under the thumb of a harpy from hell and I'm sure there are many other reasons.

Plus it's Denver that gets nuked, not Baltimore.

I enjoyed Sum as a movie, but the book was better- and the switch from Muslim extremists to neo-Nazis was very lame.

 

[Captaindemotion]

I'm not a fan of the books, but I've enjoyed all of the movies, save the dreadful Patriot Games. But I don't really understand the point in doing a Ryan movie not based, however loosely, on the novels. They still have plenty left to film and as the Bourne movies have shown, you don't have to be overly faithful to the original novel to make a decent movie (indeed, I'd say that .... All Fears was my fave of the Ryan movies and I note the departures from the novel that other posters have referred to).

For all the sales of the novels, I don't think Ryan is such an iconic movie character for them to base an original series of movies on. He hardly has the name recognition of James Bond, Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes or the likes (mind you, he's been played by nearly as many actors in 20 years or so!). Why not just invent their own character and give him a different name, avoiding the need to pay Clancy any royalties? Or, having paid for the character's name, why not base movies on the hugely successful novels?! Once you run out of them, then start to make original stories, like they've done with Bond (or the proposed fourth Bourne movie).

 

[Jeri]

Are many Bond movies original screenplays?

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ Most of them from about the early 1980s on. Apart from Casino Royale, which they'd never had the rights to do as an 'official Bond', they've all been originals since at least A View to A Kill. Some, like The Living Daylights and Octopussy took their names from short Fleming stories but had little if anything to do with the original plots.

IIRC, Moonraker was the last Bond movie to be based on a Fleming novel but it had virtually nothing to do with the original story either.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Some, like The Living Daylights and Octopussy took their names from short Fleming stories but had little if anything to do with the original plots.

Actually, they used quite a bit of Fleming's "The Living Daylights" in The Living Daylights, right down to the dialogue. The setting was moved from Berlin to Prague, but otherwise Fleming's story is recognizable in the first act of TLD.

And Octopussy draws on "The Property of a Lady."

 

[Star Wolf]

Clancy was the draw, not Ryan. I guess Ryan is Clancy's alter ego. Even in Red Storm Rising the Naval Intellegience guy and the USAF weatherman were two parts of Ryan.its what he write best. Mr. Clark can work as a B movie action character. I just don't see him headlining a major picture, even with William Dafoe who is aging out of the star role.

The hate of Sums is because of political correctness. They didn't change the Soviet, Irish or Colombian/Chief of Staff enemy but when Muslims turn came up they blinked.