Cannes Film Festival 2013

Blake Lively passes on 'Pride and Prejudice and Zombies,' so will it ever happen?

We look at the troubled history of the film so far

<p>Blake Lively, seen here at the CinemaCon Awards in March, has passed on 'Pride and Prejudice and Zombies,' raising serious questions about the film's fate</p>

Blake Lively, seen here at the CinemaCon Awards in March, has passed on 'Pride and Prejudice and Zombies,' raising serious questions about the film's fate

Credit: AP Photo/Chris Pizzello

Serious question.  By a quick show of hands, how many of you are seriously excited about or interested in a film version of "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies"?

I ask because I'm a little confused by the way this one's coming together.  Or not coming together, as the case may be.  According to Variety's Justin Kroll and Jeff Sneider, Blake Lively has now officially passed on playing Elizabeth Bennett in the film adaptation of Seth Grahame-Smith's novel.  I actually had to go look up who the current director of the film is, and I'm wondering if Craig Gillespie is going to stay on the film for much longer.  This thing's been through a lot of hands in the last few years, and it's no closer to making it to the screen now than it was at the start of the process.

As a book, I guess I can acknowledge the joke, but I made it through about four chapters of the novel when it came out before I set it aside.  I'm all for post-modernism and mash-up culture, but it has to add something beyond a gimmick, and I'm still not convinced that "P&P&Z" does.

When you're aiming high in the initial stages of casting, of course you face some disappointments.  Natalie Portman may have been connected to the project as a producer, but I still think it was a long shot for them to ever expect her to star in a film as potentially silly as this one.

And let's face it… there is a huge potential for this film to be a disaster.  I'm guessing the producers of the film look at this summer's disappointing results of "Cowboys and Aliens," a project that had so many big names involved and which just couldn't seem to get past the perception from audiences that it was an inherently silly mash-up concept, and they wonder if they're going to fare any better in the marketplace.  This is going to be an exercise in getting tone exactly right, and I don't think there's anything easy about the challenge.

So while they've been playing round-robin on directors (so far David O. Russell, Mike White, and Gillespie have all been attached), they've also been struggling to find an actress wiling to risk the ridiculous.  Portman was first up, and they've also made very public bids for Anne Hathaway, Mia Wasikowska, Scarlett Johansson, and Emma Stone.  None of them were up for it, and word broke last week that Blake Lively was the newest choice for Gillespie, and that he had offered her the role officially.

At what point do you accept that your material might be uncastable?  I'd say they've worked their way completely off the A-list at this point and they're dealing with the low end of the B-list.  I saw "Green Lantern" this summer, and I'm not sure I buy the hype around Lively in general after that.  Yes, the film was a mess in many regards, but she was flat-out awful in it.  There are certain actors who simply don't work in period films because of how completely modern they are, and Blake Lively onscreen feels like someone who is absolutely a product of 21st-Century pop culture.  If she's the name that the producers were chasing at this point, then maybe it's time for them to give up the chase.

I might be wrong.  Craig Gillespie might find the exact right cast and he might be the exact right guy and they may have figured out the script and they might, somehow, someday make a great version of the film.  But the odds of that seem to be getting increasingly thin, and there has to be a point where people finally just decide they can't push the rock up the hill any longer.  If I were a betting man, I don't think I'd put money down on the notion of eventually sitting in a dark theater and seeing this come to life.  I guess we'll see how some of the other Grahame-Smith projects do, like next year's "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter," and if one of them becomes a huge hit, then I would expect this heats back up.  But if that tanks, it might be the excuse the producers need to pack up, dignity intact, and quit chasing the impossible.

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    briguyx

    I've always thought this movie would never be a hit because there's no crossover between the two audiences. Horror fans want a straight exciting horror movie and romance fans have no interest in gore.

    And check out Blake Lively in "The Private Lives Of Pippa Lee." Terrible movie, but she was pretty great in it.

    October 4, 2011 at 2:24AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Matthew

    I could not finish the book. It felt like they copied and pasted from to different books and just hoped it would somehow connect.

    October 4, 2011 at 2:42AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Matthew

    I couldn't get through the book. felt like they just copied and pasted from two different books and hoped to would make since. Then again, most people in Hollywood don't know how to write a story, I'm sure it made since to them.

    October 4, 2011 at 2:46AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Lorraine Carlson

    They will probably cast one of the below rising young actresses as Elizabeth Bennet:

    Mischa Barton, Rachel Bilson, Sophia Bush, Miley Cyrus, Kat Dennings, Hilary Duff, Leighton Meester, Ellen Page, Emma Roberts, Jessica Szohr, Evan Rachel Wood

    October 4, 2011 at 6:29AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      jcpdiesel21 Mischa Barton, rising young actress? You're being generous with that label. She's pretty much dropped off the scene since The O.C. wrapped.

      October 4, 2011 at 12:38PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    formamswaterfly

    I've never been at all interested in this one. I bought the book as a joke for someone because of how ridiculous it looked but never had any expectation that they would read it.

    October 4, 2011 at 8:05AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    jcpdiesel21

    The book was a huge disappointment for me. There were a few humorous moments and touches here and there, but it was largely the exact same story with zombies added. Nothing really that merits all of the hype or a movie version.

    Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter by the same author is a much better book and a pleasant surprise, and I think the material should make for a fun albeit very gory movie.

    October 4, 2011 at 12:37PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Absolutely agree! AL:VK is a terrific thriller with a fascinating take on American history.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:31PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    dustin

    We have the book on our shelf, but it's window dressing. Neither me or my wife have read it. I'm not interested. Lively is a sexy little minx... but she's not a a real presence on screen, and she can be downright awful.

    If I can be frank, I don't give a flying fuck about P&P&Z as a film. The novel caught on for 15 minutes because of the gimmick, and the moment for that gimmick has passed.

    October 4, 2011 at 2:01PM EST Reply to Comment

Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web