Promo bookmark from the University of Chicago press. The line is from Firebreak, the last reprint to date. There’s not much to say about a bookmark beyond “Hey! Pretty cool bookmark!” (which it is), so I’ll use it as an excuse to ramble on about other things.
I relearned a lesson in the past couple of weeks. Don’t believe the press. Now, I don’t mean that in some Alex Jones conspiracy sort of way, but what I mean is be highly skeptical, especially when stories are just breaking.
This goes double for the entertainment press, which seems to employ the laziest bastards on the planet (any entertainment rag that wants to hire a non-lazy bastard can contact me with a job offer any ol’ time). When the news of the Parker flick broke, Variety reported this:
Pic, based on the book series by Donald Westlake, revolves around a thief who, though at times is forced to be a killer, still lives by a code of honor that includes never stealing money from people who need it.
Of course, that’s not true at all. But Variety has a variety of reporters who copy and paste this bit into every single piece about this movie. And there are a hundred other outlets who do nothing but copy Variety‘s lazy reporting, so this description pops up over and over again. Trust me–I get the Google and Yahoo alerts.
So I felt like a sucker at a certain point after I sent this from the Twitter account I use as a news feed:
Parker film release set for 10/12. Nick Nolte as Parker’s mentor? Could still be a good movie, but so much for faithful.
Why did I believe that? I should have learned by now. I felt devastatingly dumb when I got this from someone in the know:
Nick Nolte is HURLEY. He introduces PARKER to MELANDER (Michael Chiklis). The script is faithful yet works on its own.
Dumb dumb dumb. Why did I believe the entertainment press?
* * *
I try hard not to be Comic Book Guy from “The Simpsons” on Parker matters. I understand that liberties are going to be taken when a movie is made out of a book. I aspire to the James Bond fan approach where fans of the books are generally OK with the fact that the character is somewhat different in the movies, but close some of the time. They’ve separated the two media in their heads and take each for what they’re worth.
So I’ve praised the film version of The Outfit, even though Parker has a brother (killed before the movie starts), when I don’t think of Parker as having a family of any sort. I even liked the theatrical cut of Payback more than anyone likely reading these words. A lot of you reading this are way more Comic Book Guy than I am, surprisingly. That’s not an insult, and I’m first to admit that I was thrilled, thrilled, THRILLED, when we did get a Parker comic book and it was faithful to the spirit of the character.
Commenter ella, who I can safely guess has an inside track on the film project, tells us that Jason Statham won’t be speaking American in this adaptation. I can live with that. I can’t live with Parker being somewhat like what the lazy entertainment media told me Robin Hood was (no, he didn’t rob from the rich and give to the poor). Possible other changes? Well, Parker had a brother in The Outfit and that was a pretty good movie. I’ll try to take it in stride and hope that this one’s good, too, even if it isn’t to-the-letter faithful.
So they’re making a movie, with hearts in the right place from everything I’ve heard, and I wish them the best. And I apologize for believing the lazy bastards in the entertainment media. If I get more stuff like “Nolte is Parker’s mentor!” or “This is another version of The Hunter!”, I’ll still send it across the transom because that’s my job, but I won’t assume it’s accurate. Nor should you.
Warning: Declaration of Social_Walker_Comment::start_lvl(&$output, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker_Comment::start_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /home/violentw/www/www/wp-content/plugins/social/lib/social/walker/comment.php on line 18
Warning: Declaration of Social_Walker_Comment::end_lvl(&$output, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker_Comment::end_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /home/violentw/www/www/wp-content/plugins/social/lib/social/walker/comment.php on line 42
I think ‘The Outfit’ worked so well because of both Robert Duvall and Joe Don Baker who were entirely believable, the locations which also worked well and looked completely realistic – when they went to pick up the cars the scene was pretty much how I pictured it when I first read the novel – and the direction of course.
So We think/know this is an adaptation of Firebreak mostly? I’m glad they went for one of the ‘modern’ novels if they are setting things in modern times. I think the best of the books worked in their time and as such should be shot in the time they were written so thats a blessing I suppose.
I think its a shame that the original idea, touted before, of a mini series based on one of the novels would be one of the most ideal adaptations, its the nuances and details that put these books above a lot of standard crime thrillers and its hard to think those kind of things will remain in the way modern mainstream films are made today. Still, will be nice too see it all the same.
That first line is my favourite of the whole series.
To do these novels properly, you need to go to some place like HBO and let them do a limited series based on the novels. Cable movie networks like HBO and Showtime know how to treat literary material and keep it faithful. Look at Game of Thrones, as just one great example. Even biographical/historical pieces like Band of Brothers, The Pacific, or Boardwalk Empire are given the right amount of care. Some people may argue that Parker needs to be seen on the big screen, but I disagree. Parker is dark, tight, close. You don’t need a 30-foot screen to see some brute whack a guy, or get to the underpinnings of a robbery. You need the same things as in any kind of theatrical story-telling: a good script, a good director, and some good actors.
Any idea when this will be available in the US? (I know we can order it from Amazon.uk – paper only – but that’s a raehtr expensive option.) I’m left hanging after the last installment of the excerpt – it’s not fair!Also, annoying that this happens over and over again, what’s wrong with the publishing industry?
Well said, Collin. HBO could really make a quality series from these novels. Or perhaps even AMC.
I’ve been thinking the same thing for the past two years. Two of the most popular and critically acclaimed cable dramas on TV right now are crime oriented (Breaking Bad) and 60’s-70’s nostalgia pieces (Mad Men). With the Parker series, you get two in one.
The only problem is finding people committed to doing the thing right. At one point, FX was trying to bring Parker to the small screen. Their idea was to do one book per season, which would never work. Why? Well, if they take a 180-page novel and stretch it out over a 12-episode season at 60 minutes per episode, they’re looking to seriously water down the source material. And what would they do to compensate? We’ve seen it time and time again: They’d add plot lines and characters and other elements that have nothing to do with the Parker experience, and I’m willing to bet that, more times than not, those elements would be ridiculous.
Case in point, FX was proposing to use a script adaptation of “The Green Eagle Score” by Alexander Ignon as the basis for their pilot episodes of their Parker TV series project. I’ve read this script. There’s a quote given after the cover page. It reads, “You might as well run through the Pentagon with a stick of dynamite strapped to a hard on.” The quote is credited as being uttered by FRANK Parker. So right off the bat, even before the script has even begun, we have a MAJOR alteration to the Parker experience. They’re giving him a FIRST NAME. Maybe I’m overreacting, but I’d say – after 24 novels and 45 years of a nameless Parker – that’s a huge thing to change right off the bat. Make it through the first 10 pages and you learn Parker has a brother named Larry. It’s ridiculous.
Further, to do a book per season means the thing has to be on the air for 16-24 years if you want to do them all. It’d never happen. So what do you do to avoid these problems? Do 4 books a year for 4-6 years. Each book can easily be broken down into three 60-minute-long episodes. Multiply that by four books and you have your 12-episode season. That way you have 4 great stories per season with no lulls in the action. Just the same no-nonsense, no-filler prose in which Westlake wrote the Parker novels in the first place. And you make the adaptation as close to a literal translation as possible. Approach it in terms of what Robert Rodriguez did with Frank Miller’s Sin City graphic novels. THAT’S how you make a Parker television series, goddamnit.
I think that’s a fine idea. And you’re right that a book a season would be a disaster. You’d have love interests, illegitimate children popping up, and a canine companion within a matter of weeks.
Why does this have to be the ONLY rebialle source? Oh well, gj!
No doubt. The people in charge of adapting these books into other forms of media need to realize that one simple thing: IF IT’S NOT BROKEN, DON’T FIX IT.
Darwyn Cooke gets it.
More photos from the set http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2026469/Jason-Statham-makes-unlikely-doctor-set-Parker.html
All this ‘code of honour’ rubbish though, just goes to show how journalists just copy what was on the last press release.
I would say I have some hopes that something good could come out with this film.
Les Alexander gave promising indications on this blog a while ago (in particular he linked expected film style to Stark prose). What Trent said about the “Bank Job” is encouraging with regard to Jason Statham capabilities.
Taylor Hackford did some above average pictures in his career etc…
Of course we all have the perfect Parker movies playing in our head but this ones will never be made (mine would have Jack Palance and would be a period piece – I agree with JGA that crime + nostagia “à la Mad Men” would do great)