Will Timothy Be Snake Plissken in Escape from New York?

Director Breck Eisner succeeded in making a great little horror film with this past spring’s George A. Romero reimagining of The Crazies, which comes to DVD and Blu-ray on Tuesday, June 29th. Next up for Eisner is a remake of John Carpenter’s seminal action classic Escape from New York, a project that seems to be in quite capable hands. One of the key elements in making a new version of this 1981 film work is casting the perfect Snake Plissken, which was played to perfection the first time around by living icon and Hollywood legend Kurt Russell. We caught up with Eisner earlier in the day, and he stated that Timothy Olyphant is one of the very few people in the running who could play Snake. Especially as far as the performance being a collaborative effort between the actor and the director. Which Breck thinks is the key to making a truly great Escape from New York for a new generation. He also told us why he decided to remake the film, and what we can expect from it and a possible The Crazies sequel.

I know you are remaking Escape From New York next, as well as Blood of the Innocent. So who is Timothy Olyphant going to play? Jack the Ripper? Dracula? Or Snake Plissken?
Breck Eisner: (Laughs) All three if you ask me. I love working with Timothy Olyphant, and I will be working with him again. He is an amazing actor. A talented guy. And he’s incredibly funny. He needs to do a great comedy, because he is a funny guy. But I will work with him again. I can promise you that.

[…]

The idea of a sequel to the Crazies has been tossed around quite a bit, but you’ve never said that its something you’d truly enjoy doing. And you have quite a bit on your plate. Do you think that if a sequel does happen, it will be made by someone else? And do you have a seed of an idea about what the story will be, and who you would like to see do it?
Breck Eisner: I would love to pass this off to someone else. To see their interpretation of the movie. The way George A. Romero did with me, I would love to hand it off to the next guy. And see what he or she does. That would be kind of exciting. There have been no internal discussions about franchising this movie. The design of the film? The open ending of it has nothing to do with setting up a franchise. It’s what felt right to me in ending this particular movie. I didn’t want to tie it up in a big bow, I didn’t want everyone to be okay. This movie is a cautionary tale. The ending is ambiguous. That is on purpose. The fact that I love 70s horror had a lot to do with it. 70s horror hardly ever ended happy. Those films ended kind of bleak. I couldn’t help but be influenced by that.

Read the full interview here.