Slashdot Mirror
Neuromancer Movie In Your Future?
An anonymous reader pointed out a link talking about how Vincenzo Natali, writer/director of Splice, has written a screenplay for Neuromancer. The article says he even ran it by Gibson. No studio is attached to the project, but at least Natali promised "No Keanu."
...from every year that Slashdot has been in existence.
*STHNRABITEL...
* Someone that have not read a book in their entire life.
The first thing I thought was "Damn, someone really resented having a kid."
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Good for you, pal. I've been writing Phillip K. Dick screenplay adaptations for years, and that sonofabitch has YET to approve even ONE of them!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
at least Natali promised 'No Keanu'.
EXCELLENT!!! *Air Guitar plays in the background*
My first thought was "I guess all the good names for phone companies were already taken."
If they switched the second and third letters around their logo could be a rabbit sitting down and reading a newspaper.
Instead, the role of Case will be played by Ben Affleck. Whoah!
That's what hating on Keanu gets you.
Edith Keeler Must Die
The problem is, "Neuromancer" was cutting edge in 1984. If they had made it into a movie within 10 years, they might have had a shot at succeeding, but now cyberpunk is mainstream and all the ideas that were new and different in Neuromancer have become cliché thanks to other films and TV shows introducing it in piecemeal fashion.
"Durr" has it right farther down the thread - "Neuromancer: The Movie" will look like it's just following in the footsteps of dated crappy cyberpunkish movies.
The article says he even ran it by Gibson.
It does not, however, say that Gibson approved it.
Misleading titles? Inflammatory blurbs? Keep in mind that Slashdot is a tabloid.
Found this using google search: http://www.cinematical.com/2010/05/25/interview-vincenzo-natali-explains-how-to-crack-neuromancer/
Cinematical: What do you think is the key to cracking it for the big screen?
Natali: I think it always comes down to character. I think it's about understanding who Case is and getting his story down. I've read other drafts of the script and they've had good things in them, but they never seem to hold together. And I think part of the problem, and I believe William Gibson would agree with this, but the ending is, shall we say... somewhat ambiguous and not that well defined. In thinking about how I wanted to make the movie version of that book work, I had to start with the end, figure that out first and work backwards from there.
My take on it really is a story of redemption. Case, as a classic noir hero in a sense, is someone who at first appears to be completely in it for himself. He plumbs the depths of the cybernetic underworld and then comes out and reveals that there is more to him than we first thought. It all starts with him.
But I also think you can be quite faithful to the book. I think the movie can and should have a kind of literary structure to it, it shouldn't be a traditional film structure. I think we can have moments where we go into the past and digress. I'm sure one of the issues other writers have faced in writing the adaptation is that there's so much detail that you can get lost in it. I think you have to hone it down a little bit but also allow yourself to flashback to the Screaming Fist or tell Molly's story; just have a chapter in the movie that goes into the past. I think audiences are more than sophisticated enough to handle that.
That actually excites me, I like the idea of having it being a science fiction film but also having more of a highbrow structure to it.
The problem with Neuromancer is that a lot of the scenery and the backdrop itself is based on a pre-Tokyo exchange crash economy, in which everyone just assumed Japan would rule the world soon(ish). The whole feel of the story would be lost, I think now that the parts that could, have already come true, and the parts that haven't come true never will.
Snowcrash has a much better shot, since it pretty much assumed corporations (masquerading around as governments, churches, and media companies) will eventually take over everything. The backdrop still works.
Stephenson's Metaverse is a candied playground populated by everyone, ruled by the technological elite and the corporations who hire them, a safe place to which we see the very first danger unleashed. Gibson's cyberspace is a wild frontier rife with danger, populated exclusively by the technological elite cowboys, who risk life and sanity every day. In the modern real life, Internet access is pervasive and a wide audience will accept "OMG this thing we all do IS dangerous, people could get a computer virus!!!" but you will find a hard sell on "you know that cool web-surfing thing, well these guys nearly die doing it, and that is why they are badass, and Case, well, he almost dies a lot." huh???
According to cannon...
Personally, I only trust howitzer for original source material.
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
I know people love to hate Keanu. But who else could have played Neo? The Matrix was amazing, and he played a big part in that and he can make as many november rains as he wants and i'll still love him.
Also: point break. bill and ted's. my own private idaho.
1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 377 610 987 1597 2584 4181 6765