128 replies to this topic

[steveuk]

So it is weird that we haven't seen those myths adapted to film especially from Europe.

They get made, in Europe, from time to time; http://en.wikipedia....The_Dragon_King
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jul_i_Valhal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf_%26_Grendel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valhalla_Rising_(film)

Not to mention turning up overseas. http://en.wikipedia....mighty_johnsons

[Johnny Henning]

THE ALMIGHTY JOHNSONS is a hilarious title --- especially when you think of what "Johnson" refers to in US slang.

I wonder if someone could do a Thor movie based on the actual myths? I suppose so, since Asylum made The Almighty Thor, set it present day and he pretty looked just like Marvel's:



At least the one from the Hulk tv show

[steveuk]

THE ALMIGHTY JOHNSONS is a hilarious title --- especially when you think of what "Johnson" refers to in US slang.

I wonder if someone could do a Thor movie based on the actual myths?

<SNIP>

I could see someone doing a 'Thor' film in a similar way to 'Valhalla Rising', but I don't think I'd be any more interested in it than I was in 'VH'?

The biggest problem I can see with adapting the myths faithfully is that a lot of these old "heroes" were actually total @ssholes in their original stories.

[Johnny Henning]

Hey, a**holes are totally in style in the 21st century.

[David Meadows]

Hey, a**holes are totally in style in the 21st century.

Yes, it describes about 80% of Marvel's characters

[Christian U]

Fincher would be the closest to Kubrick.

If it was a commercial venture, then Matthew Vaughn would be the best choice, I think. He'd capture the comic book but wouldn't exceed it.

Still, Greengrass is my choice because the way his development work on Watchmen was aiming for something that wouldn't look like a comic book. He'd find a way to make it look like an original film which essentially was the innovation of Miracleman #1 in the first place. It was a superhero title drawn like a drama or science fiction story. Not like superhero comics. If Greengrass directed, I'd like to see Tony Gilroy write the script.

Yeah, that's sort of why I'd like to see Fincher doing it, too.

Also, possibly, newcomer Josh Trank (CHRONICLE) with a script by Max Landis (also CHRONICLE)

Neill Blomkamp, of course, or Jonathan Liebesmann even though I've only liked his indy film KILLING ROOM.

Finally, for an outside choice with a big budget - David Yates directing with Steve Kloves writing.

On the way outside - André Øvredal (TROLLHUNTER), Gareth Edwards (MONSTERS) or Richard Kelly (DONNIE DARKO, THE BOX)

All interesting choices! I don't know where Richard Kelly is right now, I wonder if and when he'll have his comeback...

And yeah, I thought of the David Yates/Steve Kloves combo, as well. But I am unsure if they wouldn't make it a tad more conventional than it needs to be.

On Neuromancer, I'm with Steve, I'd like to see it done as a big budget film. But I have no idea who would have the kind of pull and the ability to make it... and I don't think Chris Nolan would make a good Neuromancer film, either.

David Lynch's film wasn't really an adaptation, it was a "I want to use these concepts and then do my own thing" film. Someone taking the "Peter Jackson" approach could make a very good trilogy out of the first book.

It was actually pretty faithful, I thought, apart from the whole Sonic Boom weapon thing and some minor things like Lord Harkonnen's weird disease stuff. In some ways, it was even too faithful; one of the reasons the film didn't work was that Lynch tried to follow Herbert's technique of having the characters analyse the dialogue all the time. He tried to do this as voice-over character narration, which just doesn't work. Of course, the manipulative, double-edged dialogue is part of what makes the book so great.

I haven't seen the mini-series but I thought it was generally well regarded?

From what I saw of it, it was very faithful but also completely crap.

[steveuk]

On Neuromancer, I'm with Steve, I'd like to see it done as a big budget film. But I have no idea who would have the kind of pull and the ability to make it... and I don't think Chris Nolan would make a good Neuromancer film, either.

Why is that?

[David Meadows]

It was actually pretty faithful, I thought, apart from the whole Sonic Boom weapon thing and some minor things like Lord Harkonnen's weird disease stuff. In some ways, it was even too faithful; one of the reasons the film didn't work was that Lynch tried to follow Herbert's technique of having the characters analyse the dialogue all the time. He tried to do this as voice-over character narration, which just doesn't work. Of course, the manipulative, double-edged dialogue is part of what makes the book so great.

Hmm, ok. It's so long since I watched it that I guess only the changes have stuck with me. Maybe I should try to see it again.

[Christian U]

Why is that?

Nolan makes very intelligent, but also very abstract and constructed movies. And I don't find him very exciting, visually. Even Inception was rather pedestrian where that is concerned, given its theme. I would want Neuromancer to be more visceral, more anarchistic than that.

[steveuk]

Nolan makes very intelligent, but also very abstract and constructed movies. And I don't find him very exciting, visually. Even Inception was rather pedestrian where that is concerned, given its theme. I would want Neuromancer to be more visceral, more anarchistic than that.

I don't find the book to be visceral or anarchic though. It's a very measured and evenly paced piece of writing. That's Gibson's way with all his novels.

What I really don't want from 'Neuromancer' (the movie) is 'Johnny Mnemonic' (the movie). Where the story was jazzed up with "exciting" and "edgy" ideas that killed it stone dead.

I think Nolan would be a great fit for the story, whereas (to pick someone who I think would be a terrible choice) a director like Sam Raimi would totally ruin the mood.

And 'Inception' was pedestrian for you. Some of us were happy with Nolan's use of dreams in that movie.

Hmm, ok. It's so long since I watched it that I guess only the changes have stuck with me. Maybe I should try to see it again.

There's no need to punish yourself, we all have lapses of memory.

[David Meadows]

Nolan makes very intelligent, but also very abstract and constructed movies. And I don't find him very exciting, visually.

"Exciting" isn't a word I think of in connection with Gibson. Even his action scenes seem more cerebral than exciting.

Which isn't a criticism -- I am a fan of his work. But it's not exciting.

[garjones]

THE ALMIGHTY JOHNSONS is a hilarious title --- especially when you think of what "Johnson" refers to in US slang.

You can only begin to imagine the hilarity the American film "Shag' provided for late 80s schoolboys in the UK.

[Paul F]

You can only begin to imagine the hilarity the American film "Shag' provided for late 80s schoolboys in the UK.

There's also an upcoming US TV series called "Bent."

[Christian U]

I don't find the book to be visceral or anarchic though. It's a very measured and evenly paced piece of writing. That's Gibson's way with all his novels.

The world it describes is both, though. And I can't see Nolan depicting that well.

What I really don't want from 'Neuromancer' (the movie) is 'Johnny Mnemonic' (the movie). Where the story was jazzed up with "exciting" and "edgy" ideas that killed it stone dead.

I think Nolan would be a great fit for the story, whereas (to pick someone who I think would be a terrible choice) a director like Sam Raimi would totally ruin the mood.

Raimi would be a terrible choice for a number of reasons. But yeah, I wouldn't want it to be Matrix or something, either. I just don't see what would make Nolan a good fit for this when his strength is more in doing intricate little puzzles. But then, I'm simply not a big fan of Nolan, so I suppose that's reason enough for me not to want him to do Neuromancer

[steveuk]

The world it describes is both, though. And I can't see Nolan depicting that well.

There's different ways to read those words, for me Gibson's world is more like 'Tinker Tailor' than 'Jason Bourne', albeit with a lot of scifi over the top of it.

Case is not someone you would want backing you up in a fight. That's why Molly is there, but even she doesn't get to tussle very much. The violence is nasty, brutish and short, to pick a well worn phrase.

I'd pay good money to see a David Fincher version of the book, but Riviera would probably be his favourite character unfortunately.

[Christian U]

There's different ways to read those words, for me Gibson's world is more like 'Tinker Tailor' than 'Jason Bourne', albeit with a lot of scifi over the top of it.

Case is not someone you would want backing you up in a fight. That's why Molly is there, but even she doesn't get to tussle very much. The violence is nasty, brutish and short, to pick a well worn phrase.

Funnily enough, considering that you mention Bourne, that's pretty much how I would describe Greengrass' approach to filming fights (as opposed to people like Snyder or the Wachowskis). Whereas Nolan's action is drawn-out, pointless, and boring

I'd pay good money to see a David Fincher version of the book, but Riviera would probably be his favourite character unfortunately.

Hah! Yeah, I would love a Fincher version, as well. But I can't put Fincher on every movie adaptation I would like to see, damnit!

[steveuk]

Funnily enough, considering that you mention Bourne, that's pretty much how I would describe Greengrass' approach to filming fights (as opposed to people like Snyder or the Wachowskis). Whereas Nolan's action is drawn-out, pointless, and boring

I'm fed up with shakeycam though. It went from being something that invoked realism to an affectation applied by people who had forgotten what "real" actually looks like. Greengrass made documentaries, in the past, but he's as bad as anyone.

Also, after 'Green Zone', I don't have as much faith in his story choices as I used to.

I will agree that Nolan still isn't a great action director, with the exception of the hallway fight in 'Inception', which i felt worked perfectly.

Hah! Yeah, I would love a Fincher version, as well. But I can't put Fincher on every movie adaptation I would like to see, damnit!

I'm not sure I'd want to see him tackle a lot of mainstream superhero stories (to drag this back to the forum). The serious stuff yes, but can you imagine his version of 'The Fantastic Four'?

Epic, but totally lacking in fun.

[David Meadows]

I'm not sure I'd want to see him tackle a lot of mainstream superhero stories (to drag this back to the forum). The serious stuff yes, but can you imagine his version of 'The Fantastic Four'?

Epic, but totally lacking in fun.

So he'd be a good match for hickman's Fantastic Four then...

[Christian U]

I'm not sure I'd want to see him tackle a lot of mainstream superhero stories (to drag this back to the forum). The serious stuff yes, but can you imagine his version of 'The Fantastic Four'?

Epic, but totally lacking in fun.

Yeah. I do think he would be perfect for Miracleman, but that's about the one superhero film I'd like to see him do.


...well, come to think of it, a Fincher Batman movie would also be interesting.

Edited by Christian U, 17 February 2012 - 02:37 PM.

[steveuk]

Yeah. I do think he would be perfect for Miracleman, but that's about the one superhero film I'd like to see him do.


...well, come to think of it, a Fincher Batman movie would also be interesting.

If you thought the villains got all the best moments in Nolan's movies then you might not like a Fincher version.

And returning to 'Neuromancer' briefly, I should've added that Nolan's realtive weakness when it comes to action really isn't a problem in my eyes, because it's not a story that needs a lot of action.

I'd hate to see the killing of a character (no spoilers) at the knife fighting venue become a big action set piece for example. It works best with Case being confused and useless.

So he'd be a good match for hickman's Fantastic Four then...

Do you want to see that on a big screen?