Imagine pitting your life on the line for a chance at unimaginable wealth, all while the entire world watches and hunts you down – that's the heart-pounding scenario at the center of Edgar Wright's highly anticipated 'The Running Man.' But here's where it gets controversial: Is this new film merely a revamped version of Arnold Schwarzenegger's 1987 action blockbuster, or something entirely fresh? Let's dive in and unpack why Wright himself insists it's not a remake at all.
Produced by Tri-Star Pictures, 'The Running Man' tops our list of must-see fall movies at /Film. Directed by the visionary Edgar Wright, this adaptation draws from Stephen King's 1982 novel of the same name. Much like another major King-inspired release this year, 'The Long Walk' (read our review here: https://www.slashfilm.com/1953442/the-long-walk-review/), the story unfolds in a dystopian future where mere survival transforms into a brutal competition.
Glen Powell stars as Ben Richards, a father driven by desperation. His daughter is gravely ill, so he signs up for what appears to be a high-stakes reality TV contest offering a staggering $1 billion prize. But the real gamble? Staying alive for a full 30 days as global hunters relentlessly pursue him. Picture this: Every screen worldwide broadcasts his face, making evasion a near-impossible feat. It's a test of wits, stamina, and sheer luck – and just as Richards pushes his limits, the film will challenge whether Glen Powell has the chops to become a true action star icon (check out our deep dive here: https://www.slashfilm.com/1563558/edgar-wright-the-running-man-will-give-glen-powell-biggest-test-yet/).
Wright isn't pioneering this tale on screen; the novel already got a cinematic spin in 1987, with Schwarzenegger portraying Richards under Paul Michael Glaser's direction. Yet, Wright firmly rejects the 'remake' label. In an interview with Empire magazine (available at https://www.empireonline.com/), he explained, 'I felt that nobody needs, or wants, a straight remake of the 1987 film, but the source material had not been wholly adapted.' The 1987 version was a loose take, shifting King's satirical critique into a standard Schwarzenegger-style thrill ride – a move that didn't sit well with King himself (learn more about his reservations here: https://www.slashfilm.com/792481/the-reason-stephen-king-never-liked-the-running-man-adaptation/). Wright, collaborating with screenwriter Michael Bacall, aims to deliver King's authentic narrative faithfully. And the good news? King gave his stamp of approval to their script.
Now, you might wonder why quibble over terms like 'remake' versus 'new adaptation.' And this is the part most people miss: Understanding the difference can reveal a lot about how we view creative works, especially in Hollywood's world of retellings. If it feels nitpicky, think again – it's crucial for appreciating whether a film honors its roots or just recycles familiar beats.
To clarify, a handy way to differentiate between a remake and a fresh adaptation is by examining what exactly is being reworked. Let's break this down with some relatable examples to make it crystal clear, even for newcomers to film analysis.
Take the anime series 'Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood,' which some mistakenly call a redo of the 2003 'Fullmetal Alchemist' anime (explore why Studio Bones nailed it twice here: https://www.slashfilm.com/1590460/studio-bones-made-best-anime-shows-twice-fullmetal-alchemist/). The original 2003 show aired before creator Hiromu Arakawa finished her full manga, leading to a story that diverged significantly. 'Brotherhood,' much like Wright's 'The Running Man,' wasn't a remake but a brand-new take crafted to stick closely to the manga's complete vision – faithful and true to the source without copying the earlier series' deviations.
Or consider Guillermo del Toro's upcoming 'Frankenstein,' slated for release soon. Is it fair to label it a remake of James Whale's iconic 1931 film when it's primarily striving to embody Mary Shelley's original 1818 novel? Yet, the trailer (watch it here: https://www.slashfilm.com/1874549/frankenstein-guillermo-del-toro-netflix-trailer/) shows lightning as the spark that animates the Monster – a detail straight from Whale's movie, not Shelley's book. This illustrates a tricky reality: Film adaptations of classics often gain such fame that their inventions become 'canonical' in pop culture, blurring the line between original text and cinematic spin-off.
Then there's Schwarzenegger's other sci-fi adventure, 1990's 'Total Recall,' pulled from Philip K. Dick's short story 'We Can Remember It for You Wholesale.' A 2012 reboot with Colin Farrell at the helm tweaks the setting dramatically – ditching the Mars colony for an Earth-bound tale – but leans heavily on the 1990 film's characters and plot framework. So, is the 2012 version more of a remake or yet another Dick-inspired adaptation? The boundaries are fuzzy, and it often boils down to personal interpretation.
But here's where it gets controversial: Wright prefers we see his 'The Running Man' not as echoing the Schwarzenegger flick, but as a direct, unfiltered embodiment of King's dystopian cautionary tale. Does that mean the 1987 movie's legacy – with its explosive action and Schwarzenegger's charisma – should be sidelined? Some fans argue that remakes can honor predecessors by updating them for modern audiences, while others contend pure adaptations like Wright's offer a 'truer' experience. Is Wright splitting hairs, or is he rightfully reclaiming King's vision from a flawed first attempt? And what if del Toro's 'Frankenstein' borrows iconic elements – does that make it less of an original adaptation? These questions highlight the subjective nature of cinema's endless cycle of retellings.
Ultimately, classifying adaptations versus remakes involves those gray areas, making it a matter of taste. Wright's stance is clear: View his film as a bold new take on King's story, not a carbon copy of the '87 hit.
'The Running Man' hits theaters on November 14, 2025 – mark your calendars! What do you think? Will Wright's faithful approach finally capture the essence of King's novel that the Schwarzenegger film missed, or is debating 'remake' versus 'adaptation' just Hollywood semantics? Do you side with King and Wright, or do you cherish the 1987 version's campy action? Share your opinions in the comments below – we'd love to hear your takes!
