William Gibson's milestone SF book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromancer

Has anybody ready it? It's still (if not forever) one of my most favourite books, used by many for a lot of inspiration. Many of his readers say that his books cannot be made into film; I tend to agree (remember Johnny Mnemonic?). But it turns out they are going to release a movie in 2009: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1037220/

So I have mixed feelings about it, on the one hand I was hoping for a movie, on the other hand I was hoping it would be done by an experienced director, not somebody like Joseph Kahn: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0994538/ (who's only done music video's so far). So I think this may be one of the movies I'll have to skip in order to keep my mental images of the book in tact.

BloodRayne wrote:

So I have mixed feelings about it, on the one hand I was hoping for a movie, on the other hand I was hoping it would be done by an experienced director, not somebody like Joseph Kahn: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0994538/ (who's only done music video's so far).

David Fincher, started out as a music video director. Then made Alien 3, Se7en, The Game and Fight Club.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000399/

It can go either way; the story of Necromancer is very strong, but cinematically it's a nightmare to produce I think. That's why I think you'd need an experienced director to pull this off. I'd rather have a director who knows and developed his style than one trying to figure out what his style is; while making an important title such as this one. It's like a new singer that hasn't had any hit titles trying to re-imagine Queen's 'Bohemian Rapsody', to me it's not done as a matter of honour.

It just feels like a guy saying 'Ok.. I'm making music vids and I want to be a real producer so let's take this huge book title with a huge following then at least I'll have this huge fan base already for my movie'..

Something that could go horribly wrong and could ruin any kind of future project for Neuromancer. (E.g. Uwe Boll / Doom / BloodRayne etc..).

something could go horribly wrong with ANY director, doesn't need to be a new guy.

Besides, all people started somewhere.

I know, I know... it's 'wahhh don't touch my baby!!!' sort of thing.

One of my favorite books as well!

Such a film could be worthwhile with a real bold visionary director or team. I'm not saying it could have been fully achieved by specific directors such as Kubrick and / or Lynch, for example, but I would have preferred that to either a primarily mainstream or unproven director. Might work with a few directors collaborating, each with a focus on certain primary characters, locales, or events.

My main thought on this for now: either do it mostly right, or leave it alone.

William Gibson's milestone SF book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromancer

Has anybody ready it? It's still (if not forever) one of my most favourite books, used by many for a lot of inspiration. Many of his readers say that his books cannot be made into film; I tend to agree (remember Johnny Mnemonic?). But it turns out they are going to release a movie in 2009: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1037220/

So I have mixed feelings about it, on the one hand I was hoping for a movie, on the other hand I was hoping it would be done by an experienced director, not somebody like Joseph Kahn: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0994538/ (who's only done music video's so far). So I think this may be one of the movies I'll have to skip in order to keep my mental images of the book in tact.

BloodRayne wrote:

So I have mixed feelings about it, on the one hand I was hoping for a movie, on the other hand I was hoping it would be done by an experienced director, not somebody like Joseph Kahn: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0994538/ (who's only done music video's so far).

David Fincher, started out as a music video director. Then made Alien 3, Se7en, The Game and Fight Club.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000399/

It can go either way; the story of Necromancer is very strong, but cinematically it's a nightmare to produce I think. That's why I think you'd need an experienced director to pull this off. I'd rather have a director who knows and developed his style than one trying to figure out what his style is; while making an important title such as this one. It's like a new singer that hasn't had any hit titles trying to re-imagine Queen's 'Bohemian Rapsody', to me it's not done as a matter of honour.

It just feels like a guy saying 'Ok.. I'm making music vids and I want to be a real producer so let's take this huge book title with a huge following then at least I'll have this huge fan base already for my movie'..

Something that could go horribly wrong and could ruin any kind of future project for Neuromancer. (E.g. Uwe Boll / Doom / BloodRayne etc..).

something could go horribly wrong with ANY director, doesn't need to be a new guy.

Besides, all people started somewhere.

I know, I know... it's 'wahhh don't touch my baby!!!' sort of thing.

One of my favorite books as well!

Such a film could be worthwhile with a real bold visionary director or team. I'm not saying it could have been fully achieved by specific directors such as Kubrick and / or Lynch, for example, but I would have preferred that to either a primarily mainstream or unproven director. Might work with a few directors collaborating, each with a focus on certain primary characters, locales, or events.

My main thought on this for now: either do it mostly right, or leave it alone.