128 replies to this topic

[David Meadows]

Do you want to see that on a big screen?

No, I think it would be epic but totally lacking in fun

[steveuk]

No, I think it would be epic but totally lacking in fun

I'll be more awake after my mid-afternoon coffee.

[Christian U]

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.

Big and pointless action set pieces is something Nolan does, though. Think of the bloody James-Bond-like fight with the snowmobiles. That took forever, and it was mindblowingly boring. I feel similarly about a lot of the action in the Batman movies.

Nolan works best when he's doing somewhat intimate ensemble pieces with complex plots. Stuff like The Prestige, or Insomnia. Note how both of those movies are basically a duel, the story of two enemies trying to destroy each other (somewhat homoerotically, in the case of The Prestige). Inception is basically about one man's guilt trip. I just don't see anything in those movie that'd make me think "This is the director I want for Neuromancer!"

Edited by Christian U, 17 February 2012 - 03:11 PM.

[steveuk]

Big and pointless action set pieces is something Nolan does, though. Think of the bloody James-Bond-like fight with the snowmobiles. That took forever, and it was mindblowingly boring. I feel similarly about a lot of the action in the Batman movies.

Nolan works best when he's doing somewhat intimate ensemble pieces with complex plots. Stuff like The Prestige, or Insomnia. Note how both of those movies are basically a duel, the story of two enemies trying to destroy each other (somewhat homoerotically, in the case of The Prestige). Inception is basically about one man's guilt trip. I just don't see anything in those movie that'd make me think "This is the director I want for Neuromancer!"

"Intimate ensemble and complex plot"?

That's NOT 'Neuromancer'?

[Christian U]

Neuromancer is not exactly an intimate ensemble piece, no. It's as much about the future it depicts as it is about the characters - probably more so.

Where Natali is concerned, by the way... I've only seen his Cypher, which I liked well enough for the low-budget Philip K. Dick-style movie that it was. Still, I like that - and this is pure coincidence, I've just looked at this article now because I wanted to see if there's any news on this- he sees this the way I do

And the key to preserving that singular identity? "The success or failure ofNeuromancer will have everything to do with getting the right tone," Natali believes. "There's definitely a potentially bland and uninteresting version of that story [hackers take on behemoth corporation in cyberspace] but what's important is not just what happens in the story, but how it's told and the texture that exists in the world we have to recreate."

[steveuk]

Neuromancer is not exactly an intimate ensemble piece, no. It's as much about the future it depicts as it is about the characters - probably more so.

It's about Case and how he fits into the world. The reason the book stuck with since I read it is that it really is about the man and his problems.

The world around him is fascinating but its the other characters (who all have their own, really rich, lives) that illuminate that world. Without them and and without Case's broken life the book would just be a travelogue of an imagined future.

That's what Gibson got right and so many other cyberpunk writers got wrong. They wrote worlds, not the people in those worlds.

[Christian U]

It's about Case and how he fits into the world. The reason the book stuck with since I read it is that it really is about the man and his problems.

The world around him is fascinating but its the other characters (who all have their own, really rich, lives) that illuminate that world. Without them and and without Case's broken life the book would just be a travelogue of an imagined future.

That's what Gibson got right and so many other cyberpunk writers got wrong. They wrote worlds, not the people in those worlds.

That's true for any story, though (although I do agree that some other cyberpunk writers got that wrong - well, I say writers, but the only one I can think of is Bruce Sterling, really). In the same way, any good director will be able to handle that aspect of it well, or at least Nolan is far from alone in this. Whereas creating a convincing, texture-rich, original future world for this kind of project is a rather difficult undertaking.

[steveuk]

That's true for any story, though (although I do agree that some other cyberpunk writers got that wrong - well, I say writers, but the only one I can think of is Bruce Sterling, really). In the same way, any good director will be able to handle that aspect of it well, or at least Nolan is far from alone in this. Whereas creating a convincing, texture-rich, original future world for this kind of project is a rather difficult undertaking.

It's true of any story that works. Which was my point.

'Neuromancer' works because of the characters, they are how we see the world. It's not just vistas or even tiny details for their own sake. Everything is to do with the people; who they are and how they live.

I want to see The Sprawl, I want to see The Finn's shop, but that's only because of The Finn himself.

[Christian U]

It's true of any story that works. Which was my point.

'Neuromancer' works because of the characters, they are how we see the world. It's not just vistas or even tiny details for their own sake. Everything is to do with the people; who they are and how they live.

I want to see The Sprawl, I want to see The Finn's shop, but that's only because of The Finn himself.

I'm not disagreeing, Steve, quite the opposite. I'm just saying that I'm not worried about that aspect of the movie in the hands of any good director. What I think will be the hard part of the job will be creating that future world, and I wouldn't pick Nolan for that.

[steveuk]

I'm not disagreeing, Steve, quite the opposite. I'm just saying that I'm not worried about that aspect of the movie in the hands of any good director. What I think will be the hard part of the job will be creating that future world, and I wouldn't pick Nolan for that.

I don't think the world is the problem, that's the debate here?

Any director who spends too much time on 'The World' really risks creating something souless. The 'Ridley Scott' problem.

[David Meadows]

I don't think the world is the problem, that's the debate here?

Any director who spends too much time on 'The World' really risks creating something souless. The 'Ridley Scott' problem.

Dammit I was just about to suggest Ridley Scott could do it

[steveuk]

Dammit I was just about to suggest Ridley Scott could do it

Its a little redundant for him, after 'Blade Runner'.

He optioned 'The Difference Engine' back when it was first published, which would've been a change of pace for him, but it's definitely a book that suffers from the problem I've been banging on about here; it really is a travelogue. The characters are incidental.

[Johnny Henning]

Yet, somehow, Steampunk is about as ubiquitous as zombies on the Horror, SF and Fantasy shelves/categories. You even have Steampunk Zombie novels.

I think Nolan doing Neuromancer would be as redundant as Scott, since Inception is already very close. Cobb is about as lost a soul as Case.

Greengrass, again, would be interesting since he really hasn't done a science fiction film, yet. Michael Winterbottom's CODE 46 makes me think he could do it, but it too would probably be something like what Linklater did with A SCANNER DARKLY.

At one point, the innovative video & commercial director and now musician Chris Cunningham was interested, but he never really wanted to direct a film in the Hollywood system and apparently felt that at this point post-MATRIX too much of the movie has been seen in other films.

That's a good point for me. What would be the reason to see a Neuromancer at this point? It's sorta the same problem John Carter has.

[steveuk]

Yet, somehow, Steampunk is about as ubiquitous as zombies on the Horror, SF and Fantasy shelves/categories. You even have Steampunk Zombie novels.

Its still a cult phenomenon though. It's far more about dressing up at cons than about selling books, TV shows or movies to the masses.

It's comics before 'Batman' (the Burton one) broke through.

I think Nolan doing Neuromancer would be as redundant as Scott, since Inception is already very close. Cobb is about as lost a soul as Case.

Lost in different ways though. Scorsese's made a lot of different films about gangsters with different issues.

I think the final section of 'Inception' in Cobb and Mal's architectural dream has some similarities to the time Case spends flatlined in the bunker on the beach.

Greengrass, again, would be interesting since he really hasn't done a science fiction film, yet. Michael Winterbottom's CODE 46 makes me think he could do it, but it too would probably be something like what Linklater did with A SCANNER DARKLY.

I think 'A Scanner Darkly' is a pretty unique example. That kind of rotoscoped, graphic overlay was interesting but not entirely successful. I felt a distance from it.

'Code 46' was a clever attempt to do a Dogme (sort of) scifi movie. Or something like 'Alphaville'? Is it possible to just tell the audience its scifi without loading up a lot of gizmos and gadgets to back up the statement?

I though it could've used a little more help there.

'Children of Men' had that help and it paid off. For me anyway.

At one point, the innovative video & commercial director and now musician Chris Cunningham was interested, but he never really wanted to direct a film in the Hollywood system and apparently felt that at this point post-MATRIX too much of the movie has been seen in other films.

Cunningham is... complex. From what I've heard he's got plenty of stuff going on in his life and I can't imagine him finding two years for one, single project.

That's a good point for me. What would be the reason to see a Neuromancer at this point? It's sorta the same problem John Carter has.

'John Carter's problem is that he's an underwritten, cardboard cutout in the book and the trailers have done nothing to convince me that he's any different in the film.

'Neuromancer' has much better characters and a much better story.

It's also not 'The Matrix'. They have elements in common, but use them very, very differently.

[Lucian Von Dooom]

I would love to see a Neuromancer film.

[Johnny Henning]

Lost in different ways though. Scorsese's made a lot of different films about gangsters with different issues.

Okay, but then why say it's redundant for Scott after BLADE RUNNER? How is Blade Runner any closer to Neruomancer than Inception, especially when Blade Runner was made before Neuromancer was written?

Both INCEPTION and NEUROMANCER are heist movies where the main character uses technology to have out of body experiences.

Where Scott edges out Nolan, I think, is that he seems much more interested in the romances of his characters, while Nolan's movies concentrate rarely on the romantic relationships. Even PRESTIGE essentially sidelined the love affairs in favor of the conflict between the magicians. In Nolan movies, I never believe that the people who are supposed to be in love are actually in love. Nor do they exude much in the way of sexual heat - even including Scarlett Johansen.

I don't think Nolan could really deliver on the affair between Molly and Case, but we have sorta seen that relationship already, twice, in THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO.

'John Carter's problem is that he's an underwritten, cardboard cutout in the book and the trailers have done nothing to convince me that he's any different in the film.

'Neuromancer' has much better characters and a much better story.


It's also not 'The Matrix'. They have elements in common, but use them very, very differently.

That's true, but the fact it is not THE MATRIX also works against it as far as a big budget adaptation opposed to a low budget SF drama/thriller. As a novel, Neuromancer is very important to the literature of science fiction, but it's not a massive or recent hit like The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo or and Stephen King or Dean Koontz thriller.

If the book got a massive budget and serious studio support, it would probably lose a lot of the details in the novel and concentrate more on becoming something like INCEPTION or MINORITY REPORT any other big budget science fiction movie in recent years - and when that happens, it will start to look less original as a result.

[Christian U]

Okay, but then why say it's redundant for Scott after BLADE RUNNER? How is Blade Runner any closer to Neruomancer than Inception, especially when Blade Runner was made before Neuromancer was written?

Both INCEPTION and NEUROMANCER are heist movies where the main character uses technology to have out of body experiences.

Where Scott edges out Nolan, I think, is that he seems much more interested in the romances of his characters, while Nolan's movies concentrate rarely on the romantic relationships. Even PRESTIGE essentially sidelined the love affairs in favor of the conflict between the magicians. In Nolan movies, I never believe that the people who are supposed to be in love are actually in love. Nor do they exude much in the way of sexual heat - even including Scarlett Johansen.

Where he edges him out for me is that Blade Runner has a very unique vision of its world and a fantastically executed atmosphere. Steve may think that that is easy to do, but Nolan hasn't managed anything like it yet, to my eyes. And I don't think Blade Runner was soulless at all. Quite the opposite; it's got the detachment, the estrangement of the characters from their own emotions that would also work for Blade Runner.

That's true, but the fact it is not THE MATRIX also works against it as far as a big budget adaptation opposed to a low budget SF drama/thriller. As a novel, Neuromancer is very important to the literature of science fiction, but it's not a massive or recent hit like The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo or and Stephen King or Dean Koontz thriller.

If the book got a massive budget and serious studio support, it would probably lose a lot of the details in the novel and concentrate more on becoming something like INCEPTION or MINORITY REPORT any other big budget science fiction movie in recent years - and when that happens, it will start to look less original as a result.

As always with this kind of project, I can only see it as an adaptation by a director who really wants to adapt the novel, and has the pull to get the funding. In the latter, Nolan would be a realistic choice, at least. But I doubt he'd be interesting in adapting someone else's work faithfully.

Edited by Christian U, 17 February 2012 - 06:38 PM.

[steveuk]

Where he edges him out for me is that Blade Runner has a very unique vision of its world and a fantastically executed atmosphere. Steve may think that that is easy to do, but Nolan hasn't managed anything like it yet, to my eyes. And I don't think Blade Runner was soulless at all. Quite the opposite; it's got the detachment, the estrangement of the characters from their own emotions that would also work for Blade Runner.

It's not easy, but it's a different set of priorities.

"Detachment" is not something I look for in a film with characters who should be sympathetic. It's counter-productive in that situation.

As always with this kind of project, I can only see it as an adaptation by a director who really wants to adapt the novel, and has the pull to get the funding. In the latter, Nolan would be a realistic choice, at least. But I doubt he'd be interesting in adapting someone else's work faithfully.

Nolan's never even mentioned it as far as I'm aware? If it ever happens it wont be him, but I still think he'd do a good job.

[steveuk]

Okay, but then why say it's redundant for Scott after BLADE RUNNER? How is Blade Runner any closer to Neruomancer than Inception, especially when Blade Runner was made before Neuromancer was written?

'Blade Runner' was made WHILE 'Neuromancer' was being written. Gibson stopped writing for a while after he saw the film.

Both were products of the same zeitgeist, but readers were more receptive than film audiences.

'Inception' came a lot later (even allowing for its long development in Nolan's head) and it inhabits a different world. 'Neuromancer' is much more "practical". Its "nuts and bolts" scifi. Case is defined by his choice to become a jockey and to exclude everything else. Cobb is defined by his wife's death, and his "profession" after that is just a reaction to that event.

Whatever he was before her death, in terms of a job, isn't actually addressed directly. The only thing he's trying to recover from before the event is his family, his children.

Both INCEPTION and NEUROMANCER are heist movies where the main character uses technology to have out of body experiences.

But different experience for different reasons. The similarity there is superficial.

Where Scott edges out Nolan, I think, is that he seems much more interested in the romances of his characters, while Nolan's movies concentrate rarely on the romantic relationships. Even PRESTIGE essentially sidelined the love affairs in favor of the conflict between the magicians. In Nolan movies, I never believe that the people who are supposed to be in love are actually in love. Nor do they exude much in the way of sexual heat - even including Scarlett Johansen.

I disagree about 'The Prestige'. I think the relationship between Christian Bale's character (avoiding spoilers) and his wife is central, and very well done. I give a lot of credit to Rebecca Hall for that, but a fair amount to Nolan too.

I don't think Nolan could really deliver on the affair between Molly and Case, but we have sorta seen that relationship already, twice, in THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO.

That's a similarity I can see, but the Swedish version more than the American one. The American character is much more, outwardly, broken and raw. Molly is closer to the Swedish Lisbeth. The cracks and fault lines are all inside for 99% of the book.

That's true, but the fact it is not THE MATRIX also works against it as far as a big budget adaptation opposed to a low budget SF drama/thriller. As a novel, Neuromancer is very important to the literature of science fiction, but it's not a massive or recent hit like The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo or and Stephen King or Dean Koontz thriller.

If the book got a massive budget and serious studio support, it would probably lose a lot of the details in the novel and concentrate more on becoming something like INCEPTION or MINORITY REPORT any other big budget science fiction movie in recent years - and when that happens, it will start to look less original as a result.

Again, I agree.

The lack of action has probably been the books single biggest hurdle regarding a film adaption.

Can anyone justify a huge budget on a drama with very few fights, car chases or explosions? Even Fincher's 'Dragon Tattoo' hasn't broken out like 'Inception' did.

[Christian U]

Hm. I don't know, if you consider the cyberspace stuff as some kind of action, there's probably more action in Neuromancer than there is in Inception. Not that Inception is all that action-heavy, anyway. But Nolan's success is a one-of-a-kind thing, really, so that's not an argument that could be made.

"Detachment" is not something I look for in a film with characters who should be sympathetic. It's counter-productive in that situation.

I don't know that the characters in Neuromancer are all that sympathetic, really. And part of what makes them sympathetic insofar as they are is their brokenness (which is a typical noir thing, really, as is emotional detachment).



When it comes down to it, I would far, far more like to see a "Blade Runner"-esque movie than an Inception-esque.

(That said, William Gibson apparently loved Inception.)

Edited by Christian U, 17 February 2012 - 07:30 PM.