Ridley Scott Remaking UK's Red Riding Trilogy for Columbia
by Alex Billington
October 15, 2009
Columbia Pictures announced earlier today via Variety that they've acquired remake rights to the UK TV mini-series known as Red Riding, a trilogy of feature films that have been playing the festival circuit this year. The studio is "negotiating" with Steve Zaillian (Gangs of New York, American Gangster) to write the script and Ridley Scott (Gladiator, American Gangster, Body of Lies) to direct. Zaillian has already been working with Columbia, as he was hired to rewrite the Steven Soderbergh Moneyball script. Both Scott and Zaillian will produce the remake along with Andrew Eaton of Revolutionary Films, who produced the mini.
Alright, so I saw part one of the Red Riding trilogy at the Telluride Film Festival back in September. It's titled 1974 and stars the very talented Andrew Garfield, however, I hated it. I disliked it so much that I walked out of it after the first film and didn't even stick around for the last two, which I later heard weren't much better. The story was very bland, the dialogue was atrocious, it was just an over-hyped made-for-TV boring British feature that I didn't like one bit. Why they're remaking it, I have no clue? I can't see this story being entertaining at all, even if they Americanize it and change some of it. What did Columbia see in this?!
The Red Riding trilogy, which spans 1974, 1980, and 1983, is a study of power and police corruption framed around the investigation of the disappearance of several young girls in West Yorkshire, England. The events in the film are based on real life occurrences as documented in David Peace's novels. Zaillian and Scott will not only be moving the setting from England to the US, but will be condensing the storyline (that spans five hours and three films in the original) into one film for Hollywood. That's definitely going to make an already bad story even worse. IFC Films is releasing Red Riding in theaters this fall, check it out if you're interested.
Reader Feedback - 15 Comments
"an over-hyped made-for-TV boring British feature" They are obviously remaking it for idiots like you....tons of mega explosions and machine guns
loci on Oct 15, 2009
sounds like there could be something hidden in the stroy worthy enough for Scot to to direct and flesh out, I'm in.
Xerxex on Oct 15, 2009
First person I've heard that doens't like them. They just got released on DVD in Australia and the reviews in the papers and magazines have been incredible. A few have given it 5/5.
Ben on Oct 15, 2009
Wow #1 O.o I hate when people assume that just because you didn't like something, it's because you missed out on some sort of intelligence from it. -No, sometimes movies just suck.- These people must see something in this for them to do a remake. At least that's what I hope.
Sabes on Oct 15, 2009
boring and snoring !..ZZZZzzzzz
heN.rY. on Oct 15, 2009
I am planning to buy the box set later in the year, I didn't like '1974' that much either but not to the same degree as you Alex, '1980' & '1983' I liked better the latter being the best.
D1r3t on Oct 15, 2009
how can you say these were terrible?! honestly, they were fantastically written, dark, thought-provoking drama. they weren't glamorous or full of explosions (or computer animated as you seem to love Alex), but they were honest and a hell of a lot more true to life than most drama that makes it to the screen. and i really don't know what your problem with the dialogue is; maybe you should have watched it with subtitles as unfortunately (for you) not all British people are cockney (like Guy Ritchie pretends to be) or posh (like Guy Ritchie pretends he's not). as the remake is American, you'll probably end up liking it.
oi on Oct 16, 2009
i'm actually not bothered their remaking it, it's an amazing collection of films, the acting is excellent, scripting brilliant, directing brilliant and from what i have heard the source material is brilliant. the reason i'm not bothered about the remake is because from what i gather by changing the location to the US it'll be completely different, what the press release should have said: Ridley Scott to make gritty paedo/serial killer/cop movie set in 70's america. what gets me is how alex totally slates it, but thats opinion for you, we are all entitled to it no matter how wrong he is, anyone seen alex's top ten movies, some wouldn't even be in my top 1000. i totally agree with "oi" with regard to the guy ritchie comment, i'd be interested to know why american's love that cockney shite, it's like people think Danny Dyer is Peter O'Toole or something, i've totally had enough of this mockney film market its a shame that my fellow londoners love it. ah well. Rule Britannia and all that bollocks (bollocks for my american friends means testicles)
ross on Oct 16, 2009
The films were based around the Yorkshire Ripper, a serial killer who mudered 13 prostitutes. I'm not surprised you found it boring etc, as it was set in Yorkshire and I doubt anyone in USA would have had a clue about the area or understood the accents.
John J on Oct 16, 2009
I didn't like any of them either,a waste of talent like Sean Bean/paddy considine,maybe Scott will improve them.
TIR NA NOG on Oct 16, 2009
They were local films for local people! There's nothing for you here! 😉
Digital Metaphor on Oct 16, 2009
As #10 says. These stories are loosely based around the 'Yorkshire Ripper' murders. Those familiar with those events would have found 'Red Riding' a riveting watch. Yes, the trilogy was slow paced, but it was meant to be slow placed. It was more realistic that way. What I don't understand is Alex condeming it, without actually watching the whole thing. Especially saying 'it was just an over-hyped made-for-TV boring British feature that I didn't like one bit'!!!!. What about all the American drivel we have to watch ?. Even worse is the American remakes of British tv series. As for Scott making it into a Hollywood movie, Bad Idea !!!! Leave it alone...........
Marty on Oct 16, 2009
This series was awesome it doesnt need some yank invasion all over it!
kee on Oct 18, 2009
What did Columbia see in this?! Something that you did not see, I guess.
Jack on Oct 20, 2009
Sorry, no commenting is allowed at this time.