Eli Roth To Direct Russell Crowe In ‘Harker’

Published 3 years ago by , Updated February 15th, 2014 at 4:30 pm,

Eli Roth (Hostel) is set to direct Harker, a retelling of Bram Stoker’s Dracula. The film is a new interpretation of the classic vampire tale, which will see Russell Crowe play the legendary blood sucking Count.

Lee Shipman & Brian McGreevy penned the script for the film, which sees Dracula tracked by a Scotland Yard detective named Jonathan Harker. The plan is to kick-start a new franchise, although the role of Harker is currently uncast.

The plot for Harker is a radical departure from Stoker’s original novel (which sees Harker employed as a solicitor/lawyer enthralled by Dracula), and Crowe doesn’t have the stereotypical physical appearance which is associated with Dracula. Here’s a description of the character from the book:

“His face was a strong, a very strong, aquiline, with high bridge of the thin nose and peculiarly arched nostrils, with lofty domed forehead, and hair growing scantily round the temples but profusely elsewhere. His eyebrows were very massive, almost meeting over the nose, and with bushy hair that seemed to curl in its own profusion. The mouth, so far as I could see it under the heavy moustache, was fixed and rather cruel-looking, with peculiarly sharp white teeth. These protruded over the lips, whose remarkable ruddiness showed astonishing vitality in a man of his years. For the rest, his ears were pale, and at the tops extremely pointed. The chin was broad and strong, and the cheeks firm though thin. The general effect was one of extraordinary pallor.”

Director Jaume Collet-Serra was attached to Harker when it was first announced in 2011, but he left the project to work on the aborted Akira; he is now busy helming the Liam Neeson starrer Non-Stop. Warner Bros. wants Harker fast-tracked, which is why Roth is now in negotiations to direct. On paper the combination of Russell Crowe and Eli Roth looks like an odd one, but it should be noted that Crowe’s next film, Kung Fu epic The Man With the Iron Fists, was co-written and produced by Roth.

Warner Bros. re imagining Dracula with Harker Eli Roth To Direct Russell Crowe In Harker

Keanu Reeves as Harker and Gary Oldman as Dracula in ‘Bram Stoker’s Dracula’

Harker is yet another change of pace for the Gladiator star, who appears to be tackling an eclectic mix of projects in recent times. He has the aforementioned Iron Fists ready for release, a big screen adaptation of the stage musical Les Miserables wrapped, is currently shooting Darren Aronofsky’s Biblical tale  Noah and he has the Superman reboot  Man of Steel on the way next summer.

Harker will be a difficult movie to get right. Recent films which have tinkered with classic source material have left audiences cold. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Van Helsing and even this summer’s Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter have all met with muted critical response and an underwhelming box office.

Roth’s involvement in Harker means that it’s probably safe to assume that a fair amount of blood will be spilled. As for Crowe, his interpretation of Dracula is sure to be ferocious – and that just might make this special. As you can see from the above picture of Dark Knight Rises star Gary Oldman playing the Count, even the most famous face can vanish into Dracula’s monstrous visage.

Keep reading Screen Rant for more details on Harker.

Source: Deadline


TAGS: Harker
Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. No thank you.

    • Also no thank you. Although Crowe is a good actor, he appears a little too old and heavy to play a vampire. I loved Gary Oldman’s portrayal, but the movie he was in could have been better.

  2. Will it have “Good robot Us’s?”

  3. Sounds very interesting ,and like a Cool Movie !

    The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Van Helsing and Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter were all really good movies ! Especially The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is a under appreciated Film,i liked it more then the Avengers ! But yeah…the masses never fail to surprise me with having no good taste ! Best recent example John Carter ! Excellent Movie,not that good with the Audiences !

    • The League of Extrodinary Gentleman, better than The Avengers? Abe Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, all the movies you named? Good Movies? The masses have their tastes, but all those movies (with the exception of Van Helsing being the better of the group) are terrible. The Avengers was far from a perfect experience, but it was a masterpiece in terms of how the characters were handled. The rest of those films are offensively crude compared to their source material. If you like them, say you do, but please dont spit on the masses for turning their nose up at the latter films. John Carter I have yet to see, but it doesnt even look great.

      • I agree with you here. But do see John Carter. It is a excellent film that was just marketed wrong. I didn’t think it would be good either.

    • I loved LOEG! Great movie and I did enjoy it more than Avengers. I wish it got a sequel.

      • I too enjoyed LOEG. I even liked the addition of Tom Sawyer, though the film (just as the original graphic series) would have been fine without him.

  4. Hahaha The League of Gentlemen good?! It made Sean Connery retire!! All of those movies mentioned are completely retarded!

    All of these modern takes on old horror movie icons just don’t work, they are always lacking or have too much studio interference, we definitely don’t need another Dracula movie, especially directed by Eli Roth, that guy is so overated, just because his movies have grossed millions of dollars doesn’t make them any good, he just bums off Tarrantino and ‘presents’ things, which means he has seen it and thought it was good!

    The last epic vampire movie was Interview with the Vampire and that was nearly 20 years ago!

  5. Hahaha The League of Gentlemen good?! It made Sean Connery retire!! All of those movies mentioned are awful!!

    All of these modern takes on old horror movie icons just don’t work, they are always lacking or have too much studio interference, we definitely don’t need another Dracula movie, especially directed by Eli Roth, that guy is so overated, just because his movies have grossed millions of dollars doesn’t make them any good, he just bumbs off Tarrantino and ‘presents’ things, which means he has seen it and thought it was good!

    The last epic vampire movie was Interview with the Vampire and that was nearly 20 years ago!

  6. Dracula is the only vampire I have time for
    and I always have time for Russell Crowe.
    Russell was attached to this before Roth
    and I question whether Russell will stay.

  7. Russel Crowe as Dracula? This will either be very good, or very bad. I’m leaning towards the latter.

    After the unmentionable blasphemy Crowe inflicted on Robin Hood, you’d think he would be more careful about being miscast.

    I was watching an old Christopher Le movie recently, and realised how perfectly cast he was as Dracula. Hard to imagine who would be a good fit today,but somehow Ashton Kutcher comes to mind.

  8. The 1931 Dracula is the best version of the tale to date. Why do they keep on remaking it at B movie pace? Even the Oldman-Coppola-Hopkins one was very mediocre. Sure, the 1931 Dracula had a few flaws here and there (the only 2 flaws of that movie was the casting of Mina and John Harker’s stale performers and the hurried finale). If I was to do a Dracula movie, it would be a remake of the 1931 version, without the hurried ending and a pace and a tone that stays consistent with that phenomenal 10 opening minutes that brings us into the movie. I’d cast Gary Oldman or Jeremy Irons as Dracula (and try my best to make it look like Lugosi). I’d cast Anthony Hopkins again as Van Helsing (without the ridiculous accent, Anthony Hopkins’ regular voice is fine enough). I’d have to suggest that John Harker’s role be beefed up and would probably sign Christian Bale in that role. Then I’d bring in Keira Knightley for Mina Harker. I’d also bring on Andy Serkis for Renfield and probably Robert Redford as Dr. Seward. Christopher Nolan should direct

  9. Maybe they can have Jack the Ripper serve as a profiler while in prison, like Hannibal Lecter.

  10. The best Dracula was in Blade Trinity, the actor nailed it!

    • Ashton Kutcher?!?! ASHTON KUTCHER?!?!

      …ummm, no.

      For my part, I thought Crowe did great as Robin Hood.

      • The above was supposed to be in response to Etrigan.


        I actually found Oldman’s portrayal to be excellent…much closer to the source material than the one in “Blade:Trinity” (although I do love that actor…he was great in the “John Doe” t.v. series).

        • We find ourselves in agreement, Archaeon! I believe Gary Oldman’s performance has been the best to date, although the movie he was in could have been a better, first and foremost by recasting Keanu Reeve’s part.

          • very true…unfortunately, as I LOVE the story of good ol’ Vlad Dracula…

        • Maybe if you are envisioning a “Twilight” version of Dracula…ugh!

          • I would take Etrigan’s suggestion a tad bit more seriously if this were going to be a silent film…and maybe blacked-out in the parts with Dracula onscreen. 😉

            • Ha. Agreed. Comparing Kutcher to Oldman is completely laughable. It is a shame that Oldman did not play the part in a better film, as I felt his was the definitive performance.

              • What is laughable is people who comment without reading. Where did anybody compare Kutcher with Gary Oldman? Show me.

        • …but he needs to be able to ACT the part.

          Speaking of no hope…

          Crowe played Robin A LOT better than Kutcher would be able to play Dracula.

          • You clearly don’t know much about novies. How are you here? Ashton Kutcher cannot act? Have you seen The Guardian? Or The Butterfly Effect? Kutcher is an excellent dramatic actor. Making silly jokes about Punk’d hows how much you know abou tmovies. When his new movie in which he plays Steve Jobs comes out, you’ll see why he was selected for the role.

            Once again, Kutcher has the perfect physical appearance to play Dracula. Just like a young Christopher Lee.

            • Etrigan…

              You are correct: I know nothing about novies. I DO, however, know something about movies.

              First, let me just say that I LIKE Kutcher in “The Butterfly Effect”. In “The Guardian”, he holds his own, but the film is still clearly Costner’s. I think he might even be able to play a passable Steve Jobs, but he’ll have to work mighty hard to impress most people since Noah Wylie already did an excellent job (ahem) in the telefilm years ago. In short, he CAN act; he’s just not a particularly interesting actor. There IS a very definite reason Kutcher is more known for his humor than any dramatic turn: He’s BETTER at it. Oh, and as for his looks, he looks BOYISH, not a bad thing for the roles he gets, but horrible for a role with such dramatic meat as Dracula is.

              Crowe has proven in a number of different roles previously that he can play powerful, dangerous, commanding characters…the essence of the literary Dracula, ESPECIALLY in his homeland. The seductive, sinisterly romantic aspect doesn’t even come into play until he hits the streets of London…and Crowe certainly has the acting chops to play that too. You are right (as is the writer of the article) that he currently does not look like what most people visualize Dracula to be OR like the novel’s wonderful description envisions. Good thing those costumers and make-up artists are going to be paid promptly, don’t you agree? Other than the aquiline shape of the face and thinness of the nose, he will easily be able to appear as he should. As for those two aspects, you should know by now (being the movie expert you claim you are) that cosmetics, lighting, and camera tricks can take of any further concerns. He will be able to ACT the part…more importantly, he will be able to command attention.

              I’m sticking with Crowe…or, if he does not do it, A LOT of other actors who CAN play the part. You’re welcome to keep hoping, against the constricting confines of reality, that Kutcher will be cast.

              • Oh, how smart you are- mocking typos. The refuge of little minds on the losing end of an argument.

                And secondly, my hope that Kutcher would be cast? What alternative reality are you living in where you imagine things nobody said. Just in case you didn’t read the article before commenting, the role has already been cast. Where did I say I hoped they would cast Kutcher?

                And did you read the description of Dracula in the article? Probably not, from what I can see of you. If you really think that description looks anything like the burly, craggy, ageing Russel Crowe, rather than the tall, chiselled Ashton Kutcher, there’s clearly little hope for you.

                • Etrigan…

                  Heh-heh…Clearly, you’ve never read my posts on other threads. I make about 1 mistake per post (occasionally, more). Often, I’ll try to correct them, though not always. I wasn’t mocking your typo (I make more than enough of them on my own). In fact, I made one in the post above: “…can take CARE of any further concerns.” It didn’t take away from my meaning (and I had other things to do), so I did not worry about it.

                  No, what I WAS pointing out was that one of the two ideas you were ranting about, knowing MOVIES (the other being that Kutcher is a good actor), was misspelled. It took a bit of the impact out of your argument, right from the start.

                  As for Kutcher, deep in the darkest recesses of your immature psyche, you DO wish he had been cast; otherwise you would not be harping so fervently on his behalf. You KNOW he was not cast, but you would have PREFERRED it.

                  As for Crowe, you apparently read NONE of my reasoning; thus, you completely failed to keep up even the merest pretense of being reasonable. THAT, more than anything else you spouted invalidates most (if not all) of the bile you’ve been spouting.

                  I lost nothing, because we weren’t competing.


        • I can see Kutcher “punking” his victims before killing them. That’s about it.

          • Very funny. A so-called movie fan who doesn’t understand that actors are different from the roles they play. I bet you think Sylvester Stallone can really take out an entire platoon with a machine gun, right?

            • Well, with Arnold and Bruce flanking him, sure!

              In all seriousness, I just don’t believe Kutcher is a credible actor, and I brought up the absurd comparison with Oldman, a true thespian, to demonstrate how bad Kutcher really is. Sorry. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

              • If you don’t believe Kutcher is a credible actor, then you are either biased or you simply don’t know much about movies. Here are direct quotes from Roger Ebert on Kutcher in The Butterfly Effect:

                Can he act? He can certainly do everything that’s required in “The Butterfly Effect.” He plays a convincing kid in his early 20s, treating each new reality with a straightforward realism when most actors would be tempted to hyperventilate under the circumstances.

                When I saw him in “The Butterfly Effect” (2004), I registered that he could act

                If you’re still thinking of Punkd, you are far behind the curve. They wouldn’t have selected Kutcher to play Steve Jobs if he couldn’t act.

                • “Can he act? He can certainly do everything that’s required,” is f-a-r from a ringing endorsement. I otherwise echo Archaeon’s comments above. At least until he gets a little older and a lot more talented, he should stick to boyish, humorous roles.

                • And by the way, my feeling is he got the Steve Jobs part first and foremost, perhaps only, because he looks the part, not because his acting ability came to anyone’s mind. It’s not like they were going to cast Russell Crowe, Robert DeNiro, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, or Anthony Hopkins as Steve Jobs, as no amount of prosthetics would transform them into the image of the man that we know.

            • Yeah, mate. You’ve totally gone off the deepend with the Ashton Kutcher thing. He’s HORRIBLE.

              • Yup, I’ll just take the uninformed opinion of some random guy on the Internet over that of respected critics. You have no clue what you’re talking about. Watch some movies and then comment.

                • I have watched many movies over the years, a few of them being: Dude, Where’s My Car; Just Married; My Boss’s Daughter; Guess Who; A Lot Like Love; What Happens in Vegas; Valentine’s Day; Killers; and No Strings Attached. All lame movies with lame performances by Ashton Kutcher. Just because notable critics think he did okay in a part (the Butterfly Effect), doesnt make him a well rounded actor. If you judge the actor by his career, which has been incredibly dull, then I can understand why all these other commenters think you “have gone off the deep end.”

                  • Other commenters? Oh- you mean that one guy who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

                    And you apparently don’t either, because you can^t seem to differentiate the quality of a film from the actor^s performance.

                    And why would you deliberately pretend that good acting performances like The Butterfly Effect or The Guardian didn’t happen? Because it inconveniently disproves what you want to believe?

                    When you start ignoring facts, you lose all credibility. Good actors have starred in bad films. Ashton Kutcher is a good actor. Period.

                    • Ashton Kutcher is the King of Mediocre Actors, mate. He make

                    • Ugh, no edit button. Anyways, he makes the worst kind of films imaginable. The “funny” comedic movies that are about as funny as the latest Madea romp. Honestly, Kutchers careers is similar to Eddie Murphy’s. Both have been in mediocre, if not occasionally enjoyable films. However, both have completely committed career suicide by consistently appearing in horrible “comedies” that damage their credibility as serious actors. He’s horrible, period. There’s no discussion or arguement you could make that can convince me he’s talented. I’ve seen more accomplished acting in pornography, compared to Kutchers sad, sad filmography. AND I would be very interesting in you explaining why you have a raging and throbbing erection for him. Is it his “piercing eyes” and “chiseled body”? Or is it his “aquiline nose” and “tall” and “thin” body? Please. Keep going. I need more intimate details, you naughty boy. You know so much about him. Keep going.

        • Kuther’s appearance not enough for the role.

      • Agree, agree,agree…I completely agree with you.

  11. Jesus somebody loves Mr Demi Moore! Just because he made two movies where he was serious i.e he frowned a lot, doesn’t make him a credible actor, The Guardian is decent but only for Costner being in it, other than that it’s a typical gung ho god bless America movie and Kutchers role could have easily been played by anyone, I may change my opinion with the Steve Jobs movie, but Kutcher still has a movie career that matches Jim Varney at best, he’s a poor mans Ryan Reynolds and that isn’t saying much!

  12. Ashton Kutcher?

    Why not go further with the concept and round out the cast with more exemplary talent. More is better right? Im sure the writers could figure out how to sandwich in Sam Worthington, Paul Walker, Taylor Lautner, and omg – a Keanu Reeves cameo!

  13. Haha ^^ genius!! They should make their own ‘Expendables’ movie, although I’m not sure they would be able to find the meeting point! All of the above have the ‘puzzled’ look down to a t!

    • Hahaha…coming to a theater near you…”THE MEDIOCRES”! Watch them attempt to act their way out of a bag!

  14. Haha ‘The Mediocres’ your mission should you choose to accept it……. change a light bulb!

    The Mediocres 2 – ‘Which one is my left hand?’

    The Mediocres 3 – ‘Oh there is it is’

    The Mediocres 4 – ‘Tying Shoes laces with a Vengence’

  15. I am now thoroughly convinced that Etrigan is messing with all of us.

    • Yea, I figured that, or Etrigan could simply be a 14-year-old girl with a blind crush on Kutcher…

  16. Or Etrigan is Ashton Kutcher, his name spelt backwards is Nagirte which is obviously the German word for Whales Vagina, which Ashton Kutcher is massively, mystery solved! We’ve all been Punk’d

    • ^ lmao :]

  17. Why argue which actor looks like Dracula? From the description above it’s obvious only one movie has made (even a passing) note of his correct appearance, and if the screenwriters think they need to change one of the greatest horror novels of all time to make the lead a badass cop then they’ll change anything. They don’t even put “Dracula” in the title to cash-in on the name recognition. It’s like another remake where they change everything so much they might as well have made a new movie entirely. Unlike most of the remakes this film might have some new story that needs to be told with existing characters, etc but it’s too early to say. It could be another “The Raven”.

  18. Ok, Etrigan, we all get the point that you think Ashton Kutcher is a good actor (from what I’ve taken in from these comments, you’re trying to say he’s good not great). However, all of us don’t get why you’re going to such lengths to prove this: is it because you want to prove you’re right or because you’re infatuated with Kutcher (no, seriously). Otherwise, you had kinks in some of your other reasonings. You once tried to dog now Russell Crowe. Now let me get this right here, Russell Crowe is one of the best actors living, along with Denzel Washington, Matt Damon, Christian Bale, and a few others…and you are trying to say something against this guy but backing up Ashton Kutcher, who only has a few, if any, good roles on his mantel. As I said in my comment above that apparently no one is reading because they’re too busy trying to find out why you are making these comments, I’d remake the 1931 Dracula and beef up Harker’s role while also giving it the same tone from beginning to end that the masterful 1931 version only started off with in those brilliant 10 minutes opening the film. I’d cast Gary Oldman or Jeremy Irons in the role of Count Dracula, looking like Bela Lugosi did; Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing with the regular Hopkins’ voice not an accent; Christian Bale as Jon Harker; Keira Knightley as Mina Harker; Andy Serkis as Renfield; and have Chris Nolan direct it. Boom, there you have it. Also, this might be interesting for some to note, but I have a strange feeling Charles Boyer would’ve done just as good as Lugosi did.

    • I like your casting choices, but I personally think Mark Strong would be terrific as Dracula. Wonderful character actor and really scary when he wants to be. Hopkins is too old to play Helsing too. I would actually cast Gary Oldman for that part. I would cast Ashton Kutcher as Dracula’s first victim.

      • Mark Stong would INDEED be an excellent choice…

      • I know this will result in Etrigan’s wrath but I just don’t think Kutcher altogether belongs in a big movie like this. Let projects like this, the high profile ones, belong to A list leading stars and great character actors. For example, Adam Sandler is a good actor but he just doesn’t belong in projects like this. He’s not an actor to the level of Denzel, Damon, Bale, or Crowe or a few others but he is a good actor that does very well in the roles he has played even though his films themselves need a little bit more work (I personally, and I know plenty of others, love Happy Gilmore and Grown Ups, among other films). Strong may be a great Dracula, phenomenal idea, an inspired bit of casting good job. I don’t think Hopkins is too old for the part, I mean look at Edward Van Sloan from the 1931 version.

    • The televised will not be revolution…

      I too loved the 1931 “Dracula”, though it was not actually THAT loyal to the source material (close enough to be enjoyable, but…). This upcoming film seems to be moving into some alternate universe where Harker is more proactive from the outset. While I do not think it will be AS interesting as the original story, I DO believe it will give new insight into the character of Dracula…if done well.

      THAT is my reason for paying so much attention to both this article and, in particular, to who is playing the vampire. THAT is also my hope…

      jsthedarkknight…this is also to you.

      • The reason that it wasn’t too close to the book was because it was mostly based on the play, and that’s why it had a certain air of theatricality in the film. I loved the first 10 minutes. It’s a great film but if it continued with the pacing and the tone of the first 10 minutes, I’d honestly have to say that it would be more influential than King Kong and Frankenstein (being that it was the first Universal horror film ever but it was those 2 that created the big bang). I didn’t like how Mina and Jon’s roles were casted and even though I got a few laughs from that cockney accented doctor at the institution, he was in the wrong film. Honestly, don’t make an alternate universe tale of this great story. Stick to what works and that is the book and the 1931 version. And yes personally, the 90s version was mediocre at best. The story just wasn’t the same even though Oldman and Hopkins, as usual, were great. I just liked the story the 1931 version told and I didn’t like all those strange costumes Oldman was wearing and the accent Hopkins was wearing. Add this to the fact that apart from them, the cast was terrible, starting with Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder. I do, however, think that Christian Bale and Keira Knightley would benefit in this role. Francis Ford Coppolla is a great director to be sure, the Godfathers Part I and II and Apocalypse Now show us this. However, this is a film he just didn’t belong in. Yes, I would take Nolan because I think he would do something with this.

  19. I would cast Kutcher as the first victims body double

  20. Ok guys, you all know a thing or two about movies that’s for sure. Maybe you can help me out with something. You see, a few friends and I got together earlier this summer and said that we wanted to write the script for a war movie and we threw around ideas and we got the basic concept and know who we want for each character, but it is extremely ambitious. The film is about how an infamous extremist (Gary Oldman) kidnaps a top CIA operative (Harrison Ford), which causes an Admiral (Denzel Washington) to be selected to lead a team of top military personnel to rescue the operative and find out why he was captured. Basically, here is the cast: we’re planning for Washington’s role to be a sort of unquestioned leader that has the respect of everyone; Matt Damon as a young, naive soldier who Washington becomes the mentor of (we’re also sort of planning that maybe Washington’s character dies later on in the movie as a sort of push for Damon’s character); Christian Bale as a soldier that has a few personal issues and when it is discovered that there may be a double agent on the team, everyone believes it’s him even though it isn’t; Will Smith as a street-smart soldier; Gerard Butler as the tough guy/enforcer soldier; Sean Bean as the mysterious soldier who turns out to be the double agent; Natalie Portman as a doctor in the CIA in a sort of role like Diane Kruger’s in National Treasure or Rachel Weisz’s upcoming role in The Bourne Legacy (we also had a thought that she might eventually be a love interest for one of the soldiers); Anthony Hopkins as a top CIA agent who is later revealed to be calling the shots for the extremists; Ford has a supporting role, but rest assured it wouldn’t be a Harrison Ford movie without a few escape attempts; Oldman has a brief role, sort of like his role in Air Force One and no the extremists he’s playing aren’t the Taliban or Russians, they’re just extremists in cahoots with Hopkins’ character (not from outside of the country); Brooklyn Decker as Damon’s character’s girlfriend; and Adam Sandler as a sort of comic relief character as the team’s CIA contact (sort of like Justin Bartha’s Riley Poole in National Treasure). If this doesn’t sound AMBITIOUS enough, we also have a short list of who we want directing, which is Christopher Nolan, Martin Scorsese, or Steven Spielberg and our back up options are Paul Greengrass, JJ Abrams, Tony Gilroy, or Michael Mann. To top it off also, we know we want Hans Zimmer doing the score as a sort of Inception or John Powell’s Bourne movies score style. Plus, we want U2 (their old songs and some new ones), Bon Jovi (their old songs and some new ones), Journey (their old ones that they sang with Steve Perry), Survivor (their old ones from the 80s), OneRepublic (Apologize, Secrets, Good Life, and some new ones), Coldplay (only Viva La Vida and Violet Hill), Kevin Rudolf (a few of his songs from a few years ago such as You Make the Rain Fall, Let it Rock, Welcome to the World), Eminem (Lose Yourself), Jay Z (Heart of the City), PitBull (a few of his songs from last year and this year). Ambitious to say the least. Any suggestions will be granted, hence the reason I’m writing all this. Oh, and I almost forgot, Etrigan, Ashton Kutcher wasn’t mentioned any where. Watch out guy’s-he’s about to freak out.

    • No offense, but only an amateur picks his cast when writing on spec. If you are not writing on spec, which is highly doubtful considering your convulated plot details and abundance of characters, I apologize. Why would you hamstring yourself and the producer who may look at this one day by picking out your cast ahead of time? Just write a good story with compelling characters and the rest will fall into place.

      • Actually, plenty of filmmakers pick out who they want for each role just to envision the movie in our heads. I may have made it sound a little convoluted (sorry), because there was so much to explain. Basically, it’s the team up of Washington, Damon, Bale, Smith, Butler, and Bean (who are the lead characters). Portman’s character is a key supporting role and so is Hopkins’. Brooklyn Decker, Gary Oldman, Harrison Ford, and Adam Sandler have bit roles. That’s all there really is to it. And as a matter of fact, Casablanca, Gone with the Wind, and The Godfather have several characters in their respective stories and uses them all very well. No, I’m not saying this screenplay will even be able to comprehend mounting up to those aforementioned (as a matter of fact, no other film has). The point is that plenty of stories have plenty of characters and still have a great story to tell without it being convoluted. Just think of this group of 6 basically coming together to rescue this operative and, as with all teams, trying to find out how to work together. Then you have Portman’s role, which we haven’t exactly figured out yet, and Hopkins’ role as the villain. And Decker, Oldman, Ford, and Sandler are side characters. Does that clear some things up? And yes, we are halfway through the script we just have a few kinks. My friends and I do find it best to envision things, so when we picked the cast it was just merely writing a character that we envisioned them playing. When we thought of the music, we were picking music that would make this even more of a dramatic or adrenaline pounding movie. I have plenty ideas right now, since I’m an aspiring screenwriter. It’s just a matter of figuring things out.