This week's pointless remake: American Psycho

[Captaindemotion]

Well, it had... actually, it didn't have to happen.

http://www.deadline.com/2011/12/lionsgate-going-microbudget-on-american-psycho/#comments

In one of the stranger remakes/ reboots/ reimaginings of recent times, Lionsgate have engaged music video director Nolan Jones, who did second unit duties on the Social Network to helm a low budget remake of American Psycho; or, perhaps more accurately, a second movie adaptation of Bret Easton Ellis' controversial book.

The book was set in the 1980s, with yuppie Patrick Bateman writing earnest appraisals of the likes of Huey Lewis and the news, eating the latest fashionable meals, wearing the trendiest of clothes and, er, killing hookers. The movie was made by Mary Harron, with Christian Bale as Patrick Batman, er, Bateman and spawned a low-budget sequel with non other than William Shatner. But this is possibly the strangest bit about Jones' proposed sequel:

His take was to tap the Bret Easton Ellis novel and turn it into a down and dirty new version that imagines how yuppie serial killer Patrick Bateman would fare in New York today, factoring in how the world has changed since the 2000 film that starred Christian Bale.

Yup, Ellis quintessential 80s story is to be re-vamped for the teens. And not just the decade, I suspect.

Thoughts, anyone?

 

[Harvey]

I just don't see the value of telling this story in a decade other than the 1980s. The story is fundamentally tied to that decade in a variety of ways; I can't imagine a film entitled American Psycho that’s set in the 2010s being anything other than a lame cash-in on the title.

Though, having unfortunately seen the 2002 “sequel,” this wouldn’t be the first time that’s happened to American Psycho (a short prologue with Patrick Bateman has obviously been added to an otherwise unrelated movie to connect it to the Ellis novel and the movie starring Christian Bale).

 

[Saga]

I just don't see the value of telling this story in a decade other than the 1980s. The story is fundamentally tied to that decade in a variety of ways; I can't imagine a film entitled American Psycho that’s set in the 2010s being anything other than a lame cash-in on the title.

agreed.

 

[Harvey]

And, I should add, this time the lame cash in won't even have William Shatner cashing a nice pay-check in it.

 

[bullethead]

I just don't see the value of telling this story in a decade other than the 1980s. The story is fundamentally tied to that decade in a variety of ways; I can't imagine a film entitled American Psycho that’s set in the 2010s being anything other than a lame cash-in on the title.

I totally agree, especially after reading the novel. While there's similarities between 80s culture and modern culture, things have progressed to the point that the culture of excess the 80s propagated is frowned upon and cause for criticism of the rich. It is in no way promoted as a good thing, as it was in the 80s, so Bateman's problem loses a lot of depth since it's less a result of his cultural upbringing and now more a result of some undiagnosed problem.

 

[the G-man]

Ellis quintessential 80s story is to be re-vamped for the teens...

Didn't someone already do that with the direct to DVD sequel starring Mila Kunis? I haven't seen it but I thought she was a modern day student in that.

 

[sidious618]

They probably gave the go ahead on this after screwing up a reservation at Dorsia.

 

[Harvey]

Ellis quintessential 80s story is to be re-vamped for the teens...

Didn't someone already do that with the direct to DVD sequel starring Mila Kunis? I haven't seen it but I thought she was a modern day student in that.

That would be the 2002 "sequel" I mentioned up the thread (co-starring William Shatner!). It only has the loosest of relations to the first movie, and judging from the working title of the movie, I suspect the prologue was hastily added near the end of production to tie it in to a better movie.

It does take place in the present day, though (at least, the present day of 2002).