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.