The Weinstein Company has bought the rights to adapt Truman Capote's "non-fiction" novel In Cold Blood for television as an "event series."
This news has inspired one question:
In case you spent the last 60 years in a cave I'll do some explaining.
In 1959 two recent parolees Dick Hickock and Perry Smith slaughtered four members of the Clutter family in rural Kansas because they heard a nonsensical rumour that the family had a mythical stash of money in their house.
Truman Capote, already a successful author, and his childhood friend turned personal secretary Harper Lee, travelled to Kansas to write about the case, and Capote got to know the killers very well as they waited for their execution in 1966.
The book was a monster best-seller and opened the door to a flood of "True Crime" books that sell well even to this day. Ironically it was the last substantial work Capote ever wrote, producing only short pieces, one unfinished novel, while transforming himself from an author who became a celebrity into a celebrity who was once an author.
Despite some disputes over its accuracy In Cold Blood became his most famous and enduring work.
Which brings us back to the question: Why do it again?
The first adaptation was in 1967 and is considered a classic due to the powerful performances and Conrad Hall's vivid black and white cinematography.
Then it was done again in 1996 as a TV miniseries.
Then two other movies, Capote and Infamous, were made and released almost on top of each other and they were about Truman Capote's writing of the book.
So, it's not exactly as if the story's never been told on screen.
In fact, it's been told FOUR TIMES.
Even by remake-crazy Hollywood standards that's a little extreme. Even reboot nutty superhero movies they at least try to change things up with different villains and situations.
This is not that kind of story.
It's a story that's been told, repeatedly, and often pretty well, so why try again?