Comment Sigh... Will it be worth it? (Score 1) 210
So "Neuromancer: The Movie" has the potential to be great. With a faithful director who actually gets what the book is about, the right actors and at least some input from Gibson, if not an entire screenplay (so Gibson may have been less-than-impressive with his "Johnny Mnemonic" screenplay; however, having Keanu Reeves and Henry Rollins reading his lines didn't help anything), and we've got one hell of a movie on our hands. But what are the odds? I just don't think there is any way Hollywood (or any of its overseas brethren) can get this right. We're either going to see too much flash, or not enough of the technology, a screenplay that doesn't even begin to measure up to Gibson's prose or have a film that misses the point altogether. Personally, I would rather have Gibson's world go unrealized than risk having his universe as I currently imagine it become tainted with memories of an ill-conceived film.
I'm not saying that the movie world should avoid Gibson entirely; I just want to make sure that it is done right, and I'm not sure that "Neuromancer," in its current incarnation, will be what I want to see. A Gibson-based project that did intrigue me was an adaptation of Count Zero called "The Zen Differential." What excited me about that was the alleged director, Michael Mann. As a director, I trust Mann. He gave us one of the top crime films of the last few decades (and the most underrated movie of this one) in "Heat." At one point, I had even heard that this movie was nearing a premiere at a film festival, but since then, it's disappeared entirely from the IMDb.
Look. Gibson can write. If the Sprawl trilogy didn't convince you of that, check out "My Obsession," and article he wrote for Wired a few months back. Let the man produce a screenplay that he feels embodies the essence of his work. Then let him find a director that shares his vision. Please, please, don't sell out what could be a great movie to the Hollywood mainstream. They'll only screw it up.
I'm not saying that the movie world should avoid Gibson entirely; I just want to make sure that it is done right, and I'm not sure that "Neuromancer," in its current incarnation, will be what I want to see. A Gibson-based project that did intrigue me was an adaptation of Count Zero called "The Zen Differential." What excited me about that was the alleged director, Michael Mann. As a director, I trust Mann. He gave us one of the top crime films of the last few decades (and the most underrated movie of this one) in "Heat." At one point, I had even heard that this movie was nearing a premiere at a film festival, but since then, it's disappeared entirely from the IMDb.
Look. Gibson can write. If the Sprawl trilogy didn't convince you of that, check out "My Obsession," and article he wrote for Wired a few months back. Let the man produce a screenplay that he feels embodies the essence of his work. Then let him find a director that shares his vision. Please, please, don't sell out what could be a great movie to the Hollywood mainstream. They'll only screw it up.
