What began as a high‑profile Grisham adaptation rapidly deteriorated into a public creative meltdown. In May 1994 William Goldman was paid roughly $1 million to pen the screenplay; Ron Howard was originally set to direct and even attached name talent (Brad Pitt was committed to play the young lawyer). Howard walked away in May 1995, saying only that he had "a hunch," and although he remained a producer his departure triggered a cascade: Pitt left the project, James Foley was hired to direct and proceeded to rewrite the script (with further touches from Phil Alden Robinson), and Grisham publicly disliked the changes. Goldman later blasted the whole enterprise as a "total wipeout disaster... a terrible experience," and claimed he never even saw the finished film. Foley, for his part, defended his creative control, but the fractured production delivered a film that both critics and its own author derided — Grisham ultimately called the finished movie a "train wreck." The public sparring among writer, director and author — and the high-dollar rewrites and departures — left a lasting stain on the picture’s legacy and is often cited as a cautionary tale about studio meddling and mismatched creative visions.
Preparing the daily feature…
AI concept artworkArchive Record · 1990s
Script Wars and Director Shakeups — William Goldman, Ron Howard, James Foley and a Production that Imploded
The Chamber (1996) / William Goldman / Ron Howard / James Foley / 1990s
What began as a high‑profile Grisham adaptation rapidly deteriorated into a public creative meltdown. In May 1994 William Goldman was paid roughly $1 million to pen the screenplay; Ron Howard was originally set to direct and even attached name talent (Brad Pitt was committed to play the young lawyer). Howard walked away in May 1995, saying only that he had "a hunch," and although he remained a producer his departure triggered a cascade: Pitt left the project, James Foley was hired to direct and proceeded to rewrite the script (with further touches from Phil Alden Robinson), and Grisham publicly disliked the changes. Goldman later blasted the whole enterprise as a "total wipeout disaster... a terrible experience," and claimed he never even saw the finished film. Foley, for his part, defended his creative control, but the fractured production delivered a film that both critics and its own author derided — Grisham ultimately called the finished movie a "train wreck." The public sparring among writer, director and author — and the high-dollar rewrites and departures — left a lasting stain on the picture’s legacy and is often cited as a cautionary tale about studio meddling and mismatched creative visions.
The daily feature is taking an intermission. There’s still an entire archive to explore.