Luca Guadagnino will be directing the ‘American Psycho’ remake!

I could see Corenswet landing this.

No r1. I doubt he’s on Luca’s radar.

Why.

Well, The Shining is a masterpiece and the remade it several times (each one shit).

So….

The 2000 movie is pretty close to the book, and better than it should have been. I don’t understand why this needs revisiting.

Yeah this is a completely pointless remake. The movie still holds up well. But that's Hollywood, they think it will make money to release it again. And they are probably right.

r5 Script is good, but it looks dated, still has some of the '90s vibes in many ways. So I don't mind a remake.

Since the book was published in 1991, '90s vibes and looking dated are sort of part of the whole fucking point.

R7 I understand what you’re saying, but when it was made they were doing a period movie that was only 13 years in the past at the time. I thought Mary Harron pulled it off.

I think Bale is perfect as Patrick Bateman. I didn’t know until I did some reading that Ewan McGregor was asked and Bale left him voicemail asking him to pass on it. He knew he was always the studios second, sometimes third choice.

Bale was excellent and the entire cast doesn't have a single false note in it.

[quote]He knew he was always the studios second, sometimes third choice.

I'm presuming the first "he" in this sentence refers to Bale, but what about the second "he," R9?

R11. Sorry I was a bit sloppy there. Yes, Bale.

R10. I agree. I do think Oliver Stone had a better idea with the casting of Cameron Diaz as Evelyn. Of course he left the project. Witherspoon was effective but not a standout to me in the final product.

Stone also wanted DiCaprio as Bateman, who didn’t want to do it.

Diaz would have been too sexy. Witherspoon's slightly childlike appearance and voice made her overall immaturity completely convincing and in some way less abrasive. It also helped her seem genuinely oblivious. Diaz seems too sharp not to have seen Bateman for what he was.

DiCaprio might not have been bad, but he would have lacked Bale's vulpine jollity.

Armie would have been perfect for this.

This will be a complete disaster. They'll take out everything that made the original successful.

Why does this need a remake?

On the plus side, this makes it less likely that this ever gets made.

His Suspiria remake was underwhelming

The 2000 film is perfection, fuck of Hollywood

Norma Bates

R5 I mean, sorta, but no. A lot is changed but they got Patrick mostly right.

R4 because his being cast as Superman will automatically make Luca not wanna cast him. Luca hates the superhero movies and if you look at the movies he’s made so far, not a single man he’s cast in a good role has been from MCU or DC.

R6 mind you the 2000 film flopped. People speak of it as a hit. It was polarizing with critics upon release and flopped at the box office. That films history has been revised a lot.

R7 none of it is dated.

A. It’s set in the 80s. Not 90s.

B. It’s a period piece. That isn’t “dated”. It’s set in the 80s. It’s not supposed to feel like it’s 2000 or 2025 (in the remakes case). It’s supposed to feel like mid 80s NYC. If it feels modern, it failed as a period piece.

R22 it's a cult classic, and for good reason.

Is it that old a movie to be remade?! I guess so.

A) Luca Guadagnino announces a new project every couple of months and most of them never materialize

B) Lionsgate is in really bad shape and doing this out of desperation

C) No bankable name (if such a thing exists anymore) will touch this with a 10 foot pole because the Bale performance is considered iconic.

D) The only possible way this goes anywhere is as a limited series. However limited series based on legacy IP is floundering; see that “who cares?” response to Apartment 7A, the Paramount Plus prequel to Rosemary’s Baby, or American Gigolo with John Bernthal or Fatal Attraction with Joshua Jackson.

E) Any new adaptation would have to reorient the story because people don’t really care about 80s satires anymore. The Broadway musical of American Psycho flopped, and the similar vibed The Apprentice is flopping in theaters now. The material would have to be completely recontextualized for contemporary audiences.

Which brings me to

F) Luca Guadagnino has the opportunity to do the funniest thing.

Is it going to be woke and gay? I’d enjoy the gay

R24 yes. It’s a cult classic that gained that status over time but that wasn’t the case in the 00s. When the film came out it was polarizing with critics and it flopped at the box office. People were harsh on it about its violence toward women etc. even a few years later people mostly ignored it. When the Broadway show happened is when you started seeing and hearing more positive things about the movie and it gained more of a fanbase and Millenials and Gen Z movie fans and critics who are now in their 20s and 30s speak of it in high regards and like it was some smash hit but that isn’t the case. It flopped massively in 2000.

R27 Gay = Woke. Why would you be ok with them making Patrick Bateman, who wasn’t gay or bi in the book nor movie or any publication of the story gay? It’s set in the 80s too. No.

" but that wasn’t the case in the 00s. When the film came out it was polarizing with critics and it flopped at the box office."

I mean, yeah, that's what makes it a cult classic. Flopped in the box office but eventually grew a sizeable if obscure fan base and has been revisioned by (some) critics.

Reminds me of Friedkin's Cruising.

R26 is mostly right on, except Apartment 7A is a straight-to-streaming movie, not a limited series.

Patrick being a young, straignt handsome “All-American” white man is important to the role. It’s part of the characters importance. Changing him to a POC or Gay wouldn’t work.

R30 and the aforementioned “The Shining”

American Psycho’s reputation grew only a couple of years after the original was released due to Christian Bale becoming Christopher Nolan’s Batman. Many more people watched the film because it was such a high profile casting.

R26 only Luca didn’t announce this project. Lionsgate did. They hired Luca to direct. This isn’t a Luca original film like Challengers, this is a small studio film. They didn’t even hire him to adapt it. Someone else will adapt and he will direct.

R34 I was there for it. No one was talking about American Psycho when Batman came out and Bale/Nolan etc. made sure to not even bring that film up while promoting Batman.

[Quote] I could see Corenswet landing this.

R1 isn't he doing Superman? That would make him a very unlikely choice.

[quote]Nicholas Alexander Chavez is right there.

If they made it gay, I'd love to see Cooper and his cock star as Bateman.

[quote] Bale's vulpine jollity.

🙄

R37, see R21.

R21. *spoilers for those who want to read the book* I understand the changes though. Many scenes from the book just couldn’t be filmed. The child killing and the gruesome things done to the women’s bodies for example. The “save the soiled panties for later” chapter is one of the roughest things I’ve read.

I do wish they had gotten into the things like the bone Patrick finds in his dove bar. He knows he’s slipping mentally. Although the confession near the end of the movie makes this clear.

I think one of the things they got right was the creepy exchange with the realtor. Great scene.

I’m going to go find my copy of this to read (skipping the gore) and compare. What were you disappointed about being left out of the movie?

[quote] No bankable name (if such a thing exists anymore) will touch this with a 10 foot pole because the Bale performance is considered iconic.

Every Joker performance has been considered iconic and people still want to put their mark on it.

R32 I think Batemans extreme homophobia has been forgotten by some here. That was even tomed down for audiences 24 years ago

*toned down

Everything you're saying about the 2000 adaptation is common knowledge, r28. I don't want to piss on your parade but you're talking to site full of movie buffs. I also think you're vastly overestimating the role the musical played in reeling in Millennial and Gen Z fans. I doubt that blink-and-you'll-miss-it musical is the reason people under 35 know about American Psycho. People like the adaptation because it's GOOD, not because they're under the false assumption that it made a lot of money at the box office.

I wonder why anyone would want to remake that grotesque piece of shit of a book? It is just a morbid collection of increasingly horrifying acts, interspersed with a vapid narcissist's inane internal monologues and painstakingly long descriptions of irrelevant things, on which he fixates obsessively. Like all of Brett Easton-Ellis' books, it is only appealing because of the shock factor and how he represents the upper classes as decadent, immoral, stupid and superficial. Stripped of its morbid tabloid elements, BEE's entire oeuvre is dismally juvenile and badly written.

However, if Guadagnino wants to rely on an actor who will fully understand how a deranged psychopath's mind works, he can always cast Armie Hammer as Patrick Bateman - he won't even have to make an effort to play a creepy, depraved, overprivileged and completely delusional rich son of a bitch. He's it!

I'm sure that Mister Cannibal is rushing to visit mia cara madonna Guadagnino and her husband, to suggest and extended audition on the casting couch.

There's no way they will make it as violent as the book.

The violence in the book became tedious after a while. I don't think that would be possible with a movie.

R34 I snuck onto the set of Batman Begins and watched Christopher Nolan direct a scene on the Orleans Street Bridge over the Chicago River.

I remember better than you.

People were talking about American Psycho once Bale was cast as Batman. It was his most significant role since Empire of the Sun.

Why doesn't he remake Bonfire of the Vanities, or something else that was a disappointment?

Verificatia of Bateman size meat

[quote] Every Joker performance has been considered iconic

Cesar Romero? Jack Nicholson? Jack Nicholson’s Joker performance was best known for the amount of money Warner Bros. paid him.

R52 Bales brief full-frontal from the movie

[quote]Since the book was published in 1991, '90s vibes and looking dated are sort of part of the whole fucking point.

Not to mention the film was shot in February 1999.

It premiered at Sundance in January 2000 and was released three months later, in April.

As much as I loved the original, it could’ve included a lot more homoeroticism! Luca won’t disappoint in that area.

R43 it’s set in the 80s… I assume you weren’t alive? Because the world was VERY homophobic

Armie Hammer is terrible casting. Bateman is 27. Armie Hammer is almost 40. It’s time to move on from wanting to see Hammer cast in parts he’s far too old (and untalented) for.

R50 only none of that happened. None of it. And no one was talking about American Psycho.

R54 THAT is what you care about in regards to this book/movie? That wasn’t even released until years later in a Directors cut.

R60. I actually don’t care. I’m a fan of both. I was just trying to answer someone’s question.

R55 the book came out in 1991. The 90s just started. You think the entire landscape of everything changed from the late 80s by 1991? Jesus. You certainly weren’t there based on that comment alone.

Mind you, Ellis started writing the book in the late 80s. It was PUBLISHED in 1991. That doesn’t mean it was written in 1991. And the story is set in 1980s. His era. He was in college when his first book came out in the 80s.

Is it the musical?

They want you to know this isn’t a remake of the 2000 film but its own direct adaptation of the 1991 novel.

I assume this version will have more Substance.

Why do we need a remake of this? Nobody can do it better than Christian Bale

This isn’t a remake. It’s a new adaptation of the novel.

LENS

What’s a Goo Dog Nino? It sounds like a Korean frankfurter.

Calling it "an adaptation of the novel not a remake" is sheer desperation - so it will be a movie about a Wall Street asshole named Patrick Bateman who rambles on about shitty music and violently murders prostitutes? Wow how incredibly different!

No, it will be a new adaptation of the novel American Psycho, and nothing to do with the 2000 film. As stated upthread, the 2000 film changed a shit ton.

Well, maybe this will get more people to watch the original, which is a masterpiece.

[quote]Armie Hammer is terrible casting. Bateman is 27. Armie Hammer is almost 40. It’s time to move on from wanting to see Hammer cast in parts he’s far too old (and untalented) for.

I wasn’t suggesting Guadagnino cast him, you freaking dumbass (and Hammer is not insurable.) I was suggesting Guadagnino could reconcieve Bateman as a Armie Hammer-like Hollywood actor.

Title: American Psycho: Hollywood Edition

Synopsis: Patrick Bateman is no longer a Wall Street investment banker—he’s a rising A-list Hollywood actor. Handsome, charming, and adored by millions, Patrick has mastered the art of projecting the perfect public image. Beneath the veneer of his celebrity persona, however, lies a hollow, sociopathic soul consumed by vanity, obsession, and rage. Trapped within the suffocating world of fame, Bateman’s reality unravels as he balances the demands of maintaining his stardom with his darkest impulses.

As Bateman’s career soars, his addiction to perfection escalates. Behind the scenes, he indulges in extreme cosmetic treatments, dangerous diets, and clandestine drug binges, desperate to maintain the flawless image that Hollywood demands. But when his obsessive need for control begins spilling over, Bateman becomes unhinged, seeing other actors, influencers, and industry executives as competitors to be destroyed—either symbolically through sabotage or literally, in acts of shocking violence.

The lines between performance and reality blur as Bateman records staged “confessions” and self-obsessed monologues on his phone, mixing his fantasies with the real lives he destroys. At high-profile industry galas and exclusive parties, Bateman can no longer tell if his encounters with fellow celebrities are real or delusions fueled by envy and psychosis. With his mental state deteriorating, the people around him—co-stars, agents, lovers—begin to vanish, their disappearances hidden beneath the transient chaos of Hollywood scandals and media spin.

American Psycho: Hollywood Edition is a disturbing exploration of the intersection between fame, vanity, and identity in the age of social media. A satire of the entertainment industry’s obsession with beauty, status, and power, the film follows Bateman’s spiraling descent into madness, exposing the dark side of celebrity life, where narcissism thrives and the pursuit of image can mask the most horrifying truths.

In the final act, the film forces the audience to confront a terrifying ambiguity: Was Bateman ever truly acting, or was Hollywood just another stage for his most monstrous self?

[quote] and nothing to do with the 2000 film.

They're based on the same book. I'm not sure you know what the word "nothing" means.

I thought he was making a movie with Julia Roberts--which sounds REALLY terrible.

[quote]Luca hates the superhero movies and if you look at the movies he’s made so far, not a single man he’s cast in a good role has been from MCU or DC.

A man? I see what you did there, bitch.

Hammer has been sober for years and was never charged with a crime. Why couldn’t he be insured at this point? Seems like type casting.

R78 That isn't what type casting means, you idiot.

Possibly unpopular take, but I'm curious to see what Luca has in mind for it. We know he can do Oscar-level work, but also utter garbage (ahem, "Bones and All"), so who knows what he could do here?

Given how wildly popular the Dahmer miniseries was, I wouldn't be surprised if he bypassed the satirical aspects of the first movie and made it a straight-up horror movie with a Wall Street banker as serial killer. I actually hope it *isn't* directly based on the book; I think I'm still scarred from the part about the rat in the Habitrail. Also, how long have they been stripmining the '80s for IP now? Even "Stranger Things" is nearly a decade old at this point!

Wall Street is a trove of awesome drama, and instead of doing yet another '80s flick, maybe update it to the '08 crash or something?

Why a remake? Christian Bale was perfect in the original.

Bateman was truly iconic. One of the most memorable roles in the last 25 years. I think others could do well with it, though. They need to not try to imitate Bale though. The Dahmer series was good, but Dahmer was portrayed to be such an intense weirdo creep when cruising that it was difficult to understand why anyone would go home with him. I think that was the a flaw of the directing. Bateman needs to have duplicity.

Like most here, I don’t see the need for this remake. Saying it’s a ’new adaption of the novel’ is just bullshit semantics IMO. Hasn’t the last 30 years produced any other novel worth making into a movie instead?

And I just realized why this is getting made.

Because this will be Patrick Bateman.

He accompanied Guadagnino without Craig to Queer screenings at Toronto and yesterday at London Film Festival. To an Italian, the wholesome blond American boy is a fantasy object (Guadagnino has made two films about it.)

Starkey worships Guadagnino as a mentor, but he probably wouldn’t let Guadagnino have his way with him. But, a role like Bateman for a relative ingenue like Starkey would require Starkey to subliminate himself as a performer to Guadagnino’s direction, which to Guadagnino may be good enough. He can’t enter him, but he can enter his head.

Plus he would get to film Starkey naked running around with a chainsaw.

Bingo.

R4, are you a fan of the novel (The Shining)?

Interesting…Starkey’s reviews for Queer have been, uh, muted to say the least.

The unique set of circumstances - mainly, Lionsgate being absolutely desperate - would allow Guadagnino to cast Starkey. One of the bigger studios would demand a name. Guadagnino can also probably deliver the film cheaply, having worked on many shoestring productions like Call Me By Your Name.

Just my luck the old finocchio is a size kween.

[quote] Oh, I wonder who he will cast.

Aubrey Plaza

Why not just re-release the original? Christian Bale was perfect.

…because the show business economy is reliant on releasing new things.

Not some people giving Cooper false hopes 😂

How many recent remakes have been successful? Certainly not The Crow, Charlie’s Angels or Roadhouse. Why is Hollywood so insistent on remakes?

Every film in the Top 10 this year has been a remake or sequel.

So, at least 10 within the past ten months.

Do you even think before you ask questions?

Are you autistic or something?

Starkey at the Academy Gala in LA tonight

Big announcement probably coming in the next few days

Ummm you say that because??? Him showing up to an event with tons of other celebs means an announcement is coming?

[QUOTE] Every film in the Top 10 this year has been a remake or sequel.

Where the hell are the remakes on that list, R96? Everything I see is either a sequel or prequel. No garbage remakes, just like R95 said.

[quote] Well, The Shining is a masterpiece and the remade it several times

I only recall it being remade for tv once.

This just seems like a waste of Luca's talents.

Poor, dear Armand - always the bridesmaid and never the bride. Even after going full method to prove he could play psycho, he's pipped at the post by Luca's twink of the month.

He's rapidly losing his art house cred and all the good will he built up with his early films. Challengers was fun but slight. I thought he loved and really understood actors- his earlier work suggests this. But dangle f*cking Zendaya in front of him and he folds like a cheap suit. As several have said up thread, Mary Harron's film was very strong and feels more relevant than ever. It does not need to be remade.

The Shining was never remade. There was a tv movie made adapted from the book that was truer to the book than the Kubrick film. The Kubrick film was nothing like the book, the way the 2000 American Psycho film was not like the book. They want to make a truer adaptation.

Although I can see Luca straying away and adding tons of unnecessary shit that will only piss off fans of the book.

The film is not going to be a remake of Mary Harron’s film, like Villeneuve’s Dune is not a remake of David Lynch’s film. It is a new adaptation of existing material.

[quote]Where the hell are the remakes on that list, [R96]? Everything I see is either a sequel or prequel. No garbage remakes, just like [R95] said.

How autistic are you? I want to know.

Luca better not fuck this up. There are a lot of us Gen X’ers who loved that novel. This is a case where Patrick Bateman being extremely handsome with the perfect physique from head to toe, charming, charismatic, young, straight and white is important to the character. I’ve seen some people online saying they want Jacob Elordi, hell no. I like him and find him attractive overall but he’s tall and lanky. Look at Christian Bale in the 2000 film. That’s literally what Bateman is described as. And the character is too hyper-obsessed with perfection to ever be anything but physically perfect. His whiteness (and features) matter. You can’t cast someone who has darker skin or who has ethnic features. Cooper Koch is cute but he’s delusional to think he would be a good Patrick Bateman.

I even feel Nick Chavez is a little too “ethnic” for the role, otherwise he would be perfect all around.

The idiot at R95 did not even properly identify remakes. Charlie’s Angels was a new adaptation of the Aaron Spelling tv series. The Crow was a new adaptation of James O’Barr’s comic book. Only Roadhouse was an actual remake, and that was successful.

A true remake is a film whose only source material is a previous film which was based on an original concept, and essentially has the same plot. Twisters is a perfect example, and it was extremely successful.

Twisters is a sequel.

I’ll expand on that further because the term “reboot” has replaced “remake”

The film Jurassic World was a self-acknowledged reboot, but it would qualify as a remake because its source material is the universe established in the Steven Spielberg film, but does not include any of the major characters of the previous film or continue their stories, and IIRC even acknowledged the plot of the first three films. If someone were to go back and readapt Michael Chricton’s novel Jurassic Park, he would not be remaking the 1993 movie of Jurassic Park, which contained many differences from Steven Spielberg’s movie (Lex and Tim are transposed, Hammond dies, etc.). But because Jurassic World does contain many references to Steven Spielberg’s film but not continue their stories story of its characters. It would be considered a remake.

Twisters is a “standalone sequel” which like “reboot” is a polite word for “remake”

Wiki: A standalone sequel is a work set in the same universe, yet has little or no narrative connection to its predecessor, and can stand on its own without a thorough understanding of the series.

A sequel isn’t a remake. It’s a sequel.

A remake is taking a film or series and using that as the source for your new film/series.

American Psycho isn’t a remake.

If it is a sequel r111 then where are Helen Hunt and Bill Paxton?

R105 this is literally one of the first lines on the movie’s Wikipedia page you linked:

[QUOTE] Serving as a standalone sequel to Twister (1996)

READ what you post, dipshit.

[quote] The Kubrick film was nothing like the book, the way the 2000 American Psycho film was not like the book. They want to make a truer adaptation.

Which will bomb. Certain books don’t translate to the screen thus why the directors change them.

Standalone sequel. Yes. Still a sequel. Quit arguing.

R112, whatever you wish to call it it will bomb like “The Crow”, “The Witches”, etc. Certain things don’t need to be made/remade.

A standalone sequel that tells the same story and doesn’t include any of the original characters is a remake.

[quote] Certain things don’t need to be made/remade.

Agreed. Chinatown, The Godfather or 2001: A Space Odyssey don’t need to be remade.

American Psycho is so far from that threshold it’s laughable. The film has an iconic performance from Bale, but it is not a classic or even very good film.

West Side Story is on that list too but got a remake anyway

West Side Story was already a remake of Romeo & Juliet.

The Broadway show was a modernized (at the time) version. With many changes. The film is an adaption of that Broadway show and became a classic and is a beloved film that should have never been touched.

[QUOTE] If it is a sequel then where are Helen Hunt and Bill Paxton?

Yes, Bill Paxton should’ve made an appearance FROM THE AFTERLIFE. He’s in the ground, doofus! As to why Helen Hunt wasn’t in the movie, maybe she didn’t WANT to be in it. You can’t force actors to appear in things. But they clearly wanted her. The director himself talks about her character here in this article and describes the movie as a sequel.

[quote] Bill Paxton should’ve made an appearance FROM THE AFTERLIFE.

That’s a thing now, you know?

This thread turned staggeringly stupid, even for DL

[quote]He accompanied Guadagnino without Craig to Queer screenings at Toronto and yesterday at London Film Festival.

R85, how is this in any way whatsoever a sign of anything? Starkey's one of the two main stars. Of *course* he's going to be promoting the film. (And yes, I think it's safe to assume that Daniel Craig's schedule is a tad more full.)

[quote]The unique set of circumstances - mainly, Lionsgate being absolutely desperate - would allow Guadagnino to cast Starkey.

R89, this is actually the opposite of how the industry works. Lionsgate is desperate, but it's desperate for a *hit*. Starkey isn't the one getting buzz for the movie, and what Lionsgate *really* needs is a star who can actually draw cinemagoers AND display Christian Bale-level acting ability (otherwise this will end up as yet another "Bale was sooooo much better in ... because ..." ceaseless argument). Color me skeptical that a dude with little prior work history aside from a supporting role on a shitfest teen show has THAT much talent.

[quote]Why not just re-release the original? Christian Bale was perfect.

Um, because literally no movies are re-released in cinemas these days unless they're iconic in some capacity? The OG movie was excellent, but it's also completely niche, and most Christian Bale fans definitely haven't seen it and most don't even know it exists. (Safe to say flyover frauen are 100% in the dark.)

Of COURSE you bitches are arguing about what constitutes a "remake" or "revamp." How about we just cut to the chase and describe anything based on earlier filmed IP as either one? Nitpicking over "Charlie's Angels" and the like is silly. It isn't about whether it's a remake or reboot or whatever; it's about whether the remake is a wise idea. That is entirely impossible to know without any level of detail about the script – particularly whether it's based mainly on the book, mainly on the movie, or mainly on neither – along with at least some of its stars.

[quote]How many recent remakes have been successful? Certainly not The Crow, Charlie’s Angels or Roadhouse.

The "Road House" reboot was one of Amazon's most watched movies EVER, and it had a sequel almost immediately greenlit. The most recent "Charlie's Angels" reboot was a shitfest, but the first one with Cameron, Drew & Lucy was also a remake, and it was more than successful enough to warrant a sequel (and btw a third one is in development that would retcon the Elizabeth Banks version out entirely).

Regardless, you're reading way too much into "remakes" generally. The sixth through eighth Spider-Man movies starring Tom Holland should've been by far the worst, but they were the best. The Nolan Batman remakes will always be iconic. A remake of a highly niche, extraordinarily violent movie may be making waves since Luca just had the huge "Queer" premiere in Venice – though it did *not* win the Golden Lion, not a great sign – but it could be a complete bomb, and we all know Luca's had quite a few of those.

[quote]There are a lot of us Gen X’ers who loved that novel. This is a case where Patrick Bateman being extremely handsome with the perfect physique from head to toe, charming, charismatic, young, straight and white is important to the character.

R106, you wrote this as if the point was to illustrate how hot Bateman was. The actual point was to illustrate how FUCKING BATSHIT PSYCHOTIC he is, and how stupid people are for assuming that pretty people are also nice people. Further, as a fellow Gen Xer, I will 100% call bullshit on "American Psycho" being "iconic." It was totally savaged at the time as repulsive, and while you may think Bret Easton Ellis is smart enough to have intentionally written it as an '80s satire, I am not. I think he embraced the *arguments* a decade later that it constituted satire, but he just wanted to write the most vulgar misogynistic novel ever.

But I know how much some DLers also hate women, so of course they're drawn to this project as well.

The Holland movies weren’t remakes

[quote] Um, because literally no movies are re-released in cinemas these days unless they're iconic in some capacity?

They are re-released non-stop and American Psycho already has.

[quote] The "Road House" reboot was one of Amazon's most watched movies EVER

There’s no proof of that and no one watches Amazon Prime, which is free.

Amazon Prime is not free you freaking dumbass.

In what world is Amazon Prime free?

I’m not R130 but it’s free in a sense that many people subscribe to Amazon Prime for the product shipping benefits. In that case, the video and music services are free bonuses which are often ignored. That’s what I did for many years—I barely used the video service (they had one good show I liked, The Boys) and never even opened their music service app (I had Spotify and now Apple Music). Yet they kept jacking up the annual price to cover the billions they spend on video content that I never watch, so last year I let my subscription lapse. Maybe that’s what he meant.

R133 no. It isn’t free. You paying for the shipping includes Prime. Everyone knows this. You’re paying for it regardless. Aka not free.

[QUOTE] no. It isn’t free. You paying for the shipping includes Prime. Everyone knows this. You’re paying for it regardless. Aka not free.

I don’t like the tone of your voice right now.

[quote]this is actually the opposite of how the industry works. Lionsgate is desperate, but it's desperate for a *hit*. Starkey isn't the one getting buzz for the movie, and what Lionsgate *really* needs is a star who can actually draw cinemagoers AND display Christian Bale-level acting ability (otherwise this will end up as yet another "Bale was sooooo much better in ... because ..." ceaseless argument). Color me skeptical that a dude with little prior work history aside from a supporting role on a shitfest teen show has THAT much talent.

My God you know nothing about show business.

A) The original American Psycho was not a hit. It made a mere $15 million domestically. It was the 121st most successful film of 2000. It made less money than the Bette Midler flop Drowning Mona.

B) Its reputation grew because of Bale’s subsequent career success due to his casting as Batman, which encouraged more people to see the film.

C) Lionsgate would never be able to attach A-list talent to this because no established actor would want the role because it is so closely identified with Bale. They would never be able to make a commercial hit of it because the subject matter is still violent and grotesque and the film has no hero. But they do own the IP and IP is king. What to do with it.

D) They give it to Luca Guadagnino. Luca Guadagnino DOES NOT DELIVER BOX OFFICE. Challengers made a mere $50 million domestic and it starred one of the most famous women in the world. I saw Bones and All in a completely empty theater on opening weekend and Timothée Chalamet was already crowned the star of his generation. It made a mere $15 million domestic. So what does Guadagnino deliver?

E) Guadagnino delivers the Venice Film Festival. The movie gets a fuckton of publicity and it gets cred. It will not be a hit but it does not need to be a hit because the goal of association with Luca Guadagnino is column inches, not grosses. He brings glamour and confers legitimacy onto something that would otherwise be ignored. How many fucking people will go see Queer? It will do less than $10 million domestic for A24, maybe even less than $5 million. But it goes to Venice, then it goes to Toronto, then it goes the New York FF and then to London FF. And then maybe if it’s lucky it gets Craig shortlisted, and then it gets an award season campaign. All because Luca Guadagnino chose to do it. And because Luca Guadagnino is in fact doing them a favor by agreeing to readapt a film no one else in Hollywood would want to touch, he gets to cast whoever the fuck he wants. And it will almost certainly be Drew Starkey. And Guadagnino who is not an idiot, makes it palatable by getting his famous alumni in supporting roles and cameos.

R136 I am not the person that you responded to, and I agree with some of what you said. However, they are not going to cast someone like Drew in this part. They need someone who is going to be able to shut up the naysayers. Drew looks nothing like Patrick Bateman. Casting him would be a huge mistake.

Whatever the case, the lead as Patrick Bateman has huge shoes to fill. It will be tough to match or top Bale.

No one will shut up the naysayers. The movie will probably not even be good. But by God those Lionsgate executives are going to the Venice Film Festival one way or another before the studio goes belly up.

Drew? The guy who looks like a stick figure? That kid? Please be for real.

Some stick figure.

R141 yeah. He’s skinny. That isn’t Patrick Bateman. What a joke of a post.

Anyone wanting Drew Starkey or Jacob Elordi or fucking Timothee Chalamet in the part never read the book and it shows.

Maybe get off Datalounge and go buy the book.

Anyone who thinks Bret Easton Ellis’s American Psycho is literature instead of readable schlock should perhaps try reading an actual good book.

FYI the people who are worried about Luca Guadagnino messing up their book with his casting should abandon the project now because Luca Guadagnino is going to FUCK UP your book from stem to stern. He fundamentally changed Call Me By Your Name from André Aciman’s book by excluding the ending and that wasn’t even a difficult story to adapt.

And from what I understand he really changed up Queer as well.

Is the new Snow White a remake? Just kidding. Who cares. Y'all shut up.

Here, here, r144. My NYC roommate loved this book and suggested I read it and, well, there was a wee blizzard happening I read it and started looking for another roommate the following week. I appreciate a transgressive read every now and then but this book is highly overrated and fringes on juvenile to me.

[quote]Imagine Timmy?

I'm actually surprised by his range. At least as far as comedic timing is concerned.

Such an unpleasant story, and the original movie was fine. Why waste resources doing a redo? Out of ideas?

The back story is interesting for film fans. Apparently there was very little money, but with clever ingenuity they made it look big budget.

r142 It's almost like actors could work out and change their body for a role

[quote] no. It isn’t free. You paying for the shipping includes Prime. Everyone knows this. You’re paying for it regardless. Aka not free.

It’s free, hon. You get it free as a Prime member. Freevee is also free, owned by Amazon.

R152 let me ask you something

Be honest

No one here will judge you

You are among friends

…

Are you autistic or something?

Let's see Paul Allen's card.

[quote]My God you know nothing about show business.

I know plenty, thanks, but I'd definitely question your reading comprehension skills. I neither said or even inferred most of what you claim.

[quote]A) The original American Psycho was not a hit. It made a mere $15 million domestically. It was the 121st most successful film of 2000. It made less money than the Bette Midler flop Drowning Mona.

Completely agreed, nor did I say a single thing to suggest otherwise. If anything, this is yet another argument why the new movie is a dumb idea.

[quote]They would never be able to make a commercial hit of it because the subject matter is still violent and grotesque and the film has no hero. But they do own the IP and IP is king. What to do with it. They give it to Luca Guadagnino. Luca Guadagnino DOES NOT DELIVER BOX OFFICE.

Agreed, agreed, and agreed. I'm the one who pointed most of it OUT FFS! Anyone familiar with "Bones and All" should know full well how badly Luca can botch a movie in every thinkable way.

[quote]Lionsgate would never be able to attach A-list talent to this because no established actor would want the role because it is so closely identified with Bale.

You're contradicting yourself, cupcake. The original was a bomb. The fact that it's garnered some retrospective attention due to Bale's increased profile doesn't alter what *I* said originally: "The OG movie was excellent, but it's also completely niche, and most Christian Bale fans definitely haven't seen it and most don't even know it exists." It isn't *that* closely associated with Bale, plus Hollywood routinely recasts "iconic" roles all the fucking time. (Do you seriously think Ben Affleck considered turning down Batman because no one can top Bale's performance as him?)

[quote]And because Luca Guadagnino is in fact doing them a favor by agreeing to readapt a film no one else in Hollywood would want to touch, he gets to cast whoever the fuck he wants. And it will almost certainly be Drew Starkey.

Again, I'm amazed you're trying to argue *I'm* the one who doesn't get the industry here. You've omitted a rather pertinent part here: even for movies that end up bombing, Luca readily draws either A-list talent (e.g. his new flick with Julia Roberts) or massively up-and-coming talent (Timmy and, yes, Armie, at least when CMBYN debuted). While I agree Lionsgate will let him hire whomever out of desperation, I don't think he's THAT desperate. I've heard literally no one ever argue "oh, I bet Drew Starkey could be the next Timothée Chalamet!", and I know you haven't, either.

But, again, we agree on a lot of stuff – mainly that a remake of this movie is a spectacularly poor idea – and you either misread what I was saying or mistakenly responded to someone else's comments.

Remember when Hollywood had original ideas? That was nice.

Hell No.

[quote]Do you seriously think Ben Affleck considered turning down Batman because no one can top Bale's performance as him

Christian Bale’s performance as Batman was not seen as exceptional, and the character wears a mask throughout the film.

On the contrary, a revival of Superman did not happen for nearly 30 years because Christopher Reeve was so heavily identified with the character. Many A-list actors were approached to star in the early aughts adaptation Flyby, including Jude Law and Josh Hartnett. Everybody turned the role down. The three subsequent actors cast in the roles were not stars when they were cast.

The idea that a gratuitous and largely unnecessary remake needs a big name can be debunked with the below trailer for Wolf Man. This movie was supposed to star Ryan Gosling. Universal let him walk away and replaced him with Christopher Abbott, whom nobody knows (Starkey at least as a following from his Netflix YA series Outer Banks.) Universal replaced Gosling’s choice of director, Derek Cianfrance, with Australian director Leigh Whannell, who filmed the movie cheaply in New Zealand. Guadagnino like Whannell is an extremely economical filmmaker and will be allowed to cast whomever he wants.

I wonder if he'll bring Chloë Sevigny back for this. They seem to be quite chummy these days.

Fuck I’d watch the hell out of this.

Here’s how the core characters from American Psycho can be adapted into the new Hollywood-centric setting, reflecting their roles and dynamics within the entertainment industry:

Patrick Bateman

• Role: A-list actor. • Adaptation: Bateman is a leading man with a carefully curated public image—charming on screen and at press junkets, but cold, calculating, and increasingly detached in private. His narcissism is fed by social media validation and his fixation on maintaining beauty. Instead of comparing business cards, he obsesses over who has the best box office numbers, magazine covers, or followers on Instagram.

Evelyn Williams

• Role: Patrick’s fiancée (in the novel). • Adaptation: Evelyn could be reimagined as a high-profile influencer or actress whose relationship with Patrick is for show—an arrangement to bolster both their careers. They attend red carpet events together, post couple pictures for their fans, and present themselves as Hollywood’s golden couple. Patrick finds her increasingly tedious, obsessed with her curated image, and their relationship crumbles behind the scenes.

Paul Allen

• Role: Patrick’s rival. • Adaptation: In this version, Paul Allen becomes an actor competing for the same roles as Patrick. He’s younger, more charismatic, and more successful, winning awards that Patrick believes he deserves. Patrick seethes with envy at Allen’s rising star and feels eclipsed by him. This rivalry builds until Bateman—believing Allen has stolen a major role from him—murders him in a delusional fit, either physically or metaphorically, by staging an elaborate social media smear campaign.

Timothy Price

• Role: Patrick’s closest friend. • Adaptation: Price becomes a reckless fellow actor or Hollywood bad boy who embodies the hedonism and excess of the industry. He drags Patrick to drug-fueled parties and exclusive after-hours events. Though they appear close, Price’s superficial charm only reinforces Bateman’s sense of isolation. His unrelenting need to party highlights Bateman’s underlying emotional numbness, emphasizing how lost and disconnected Patrick feels.

Jean (Bateman’s secretary)

• Role: Patrick’s PR agent. • Adaptation: Jean becomes Bateman’s publicist, managing his chaotic schedule and carefully curating his public image. Unlike the other characters, Jean genuinely cares for Patrick and believes in his potential as an artist, making her the closest thing to a moral anchor in his life. However, her kindness is wasted on Bateman, who views her with both indifference and contempt. In her quiet moments, Jean begins to suspect there’s something very wrong with him, but she’s too afraid to confront it.

Luis Carruthers

• Role: A closeted fashion executive infatuated with Patrick. • Adaptation: Luis becomes a Hollywood producer or director secretly in love with Bateman. Despite Bateman’s outright hostility, Luis remains drawn to him, mistaking Bateman’s aloofness for mystery. In this version, Luis’s obsession with Bateman manifests in desperate attempts to offer him roles and opportunities. Bateman, disgusted by Luis’s affection, considers him pathetic and fantasizes about eliminating him, though he ultimately spares him out of indifference.

Courtney Rawlinson

• Role: Patrick’s lover and Evelyn’s friend. • Adaptation: Courtney could be a troubled starlet whom Patrick strings along as a side affair. She’s trapped in a cycle of addiction and self-doubt, making her an easy target for Patrick’s manipulations. Bateman doesn’t love her; he merely uses her to satisfy his ego when Evelyn becomes too irritating. Their affair highlights the cruelty of Bateman’s detachment, as Courtney falls deeper into despair.

Detective Donald Kimball

• Role: celebrity journalist. • Adaptation: Kimball could be a tabloid reporter hired to look into Paul Allen’s disappearance. In public, Bateman handles Kimball’s inquiries with charm and poise, spinning the narrative to protect his reputation. The tension between them builds as Kimball’s questions become more invasive, threatening to unravel the carefully maintained illusion of Bateman’s life.

David Van Patten, Craig McDermott, and the Others

• Role: Patrick’s shallow social circle. • Adaptation: These characters become a clique of Hollywood elites—actors, agents, directors, and influencers—who surround Bateman at events, award shows, and parties. They compete over wealth, beauty, and status, gossiping about each other and measuring success through film premieres, endorsement deals, and streaming numbers. Like Bateman, they are trapped in the emptiness of Hollywood’s shallow pursuits, but none of them realize the depth of Bateman’s depravity.

Themes and Dynamics in the New Setting

• Consumerism to Celebrity: The novel’s critique of consumerism shifts to a critique of celebrity culture. Just as Bateman in the original is obsessed with status symbols, the Hollywood version of Bateman is obsessed with awards, social media presence, and cosmetic perfection. • Vanity and Social Media: The obsession with appearance takes on new relevance in the Instagram era. Patrick’s narcissism is fed by likes, retweets, and red carpet coverage. • Performative Identity: In the novel, Bateman’s life is an elaborate performance to fit into Wall Street culture. In Hollywood, Bateman’s performance is his entire life, making the line between his real self and his public persona impossible to distinguish.

This adaptation allows for the same themes of detachment, identity, and violence to play out in a new, contemporary setting, exposing the dark underbelly of Hollywood’s obsession with beauty and fame.