By MCN Editor editor@moviecitynews.com

PETER CRAIG TO ADAPT FRENCH-CANADIAN MOTION PICTURE PHENOMENON “FATHERS AND GUNS”

Posted Tuesday, November 30th, 2010 - Comments Off on PETER CRAIG TO ADAPT FRENCH-CANADIAN MOTION PICTURE PHENOMENON “FATHERS AND GUNS”
Be Sociable, Share!

CULVER CITY, Calif., November 30, 2010 – Peter Craig has been tapped to adapt the French-Canadian blockbuster Fathers and Guns for Sony Pictures, it was announced today by Doug Belgrad, president of Columbia Pictures. The film is being developed and produced by Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall along with Denise Robert and Emile Gaudreault, producer and writer-director, respectively, of the original film.

Released in Quebec in summer 2009 as De Père en flic, the film opened to #1 at the box office in the province beating out such high-profile titles as Bruno. It stayed popular throughout the summer, not only capturing two-thirds of this summer’s ticket sales for local films in Quebec, but out-grossing by at least 50% such Hollywood hits as Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. With more than 1 in 5 Qubecers seeing the film, it is now the highest-grossing French-language film ever released in Quebec and Canada. Fathers and Guns is an action-comedy about two cops, father and son, who can’t stand each other. They are assigned to an investigation to infiltrate an outdoor adventure group-therapy camp for fathers and sons.

PETER CRAIG’s screenwriting debut, The Town, was released by Warner Bros. earlier this year. The film opened to #1 and has taken in almost $90 million domestically to date. He is currently working on a screenplay for Bad Boys 3. Craig is also the author of several books, including Hot Plastic and Blood Father.  CAA represents Craig along with his team at Management 360. Rachel O’Connor is overseeing for Sony Pictures and Adam Yoelin is overseeing for Kennedy/Marshall.

Be Sociable, Share!

Posted in Movie City News, Press Releases | Comments Off on PETER CRAIG TO ADAPT FRENCH-CANADIAN MOTION PICTURE PHENOMENON “FATHERS AND GUNS”

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon