Neuromancer Movie In Your Future? 239
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."
This story is a repeat... (Score:5, Informative)
...from every year that Slashdot has been in existence.
Splice? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This story is a repeat... (Score:5, Informative)
I'd like to point out (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Splice? (Score:3, Informative)
I have seen some of Vincenzo Natali's previous movies; Cube (very original), Cypher (cool SF thriller) and Nothing (funny and absurd fantasy). He is definitely an interesting director. But I have never heard of Splice. Is it worth tracking down a DVD of Splice?
1- It's coming out in theaters soon, so I wouldn't try to find the DVD yet.
2- It seems to be EXACTLY the same movie as "Species". I can only hope they have as much T&A.
Re:Keanu (Score:3, Informative)
According to cannon, Johnny was assassinated before Case came along, so Keanu shouldn't be in it anyway. But that leaves us with an unpalatable Dina Meyer as Molly (or Jane as she was known in the movie). I think I'll lie down now.
Natali's interview (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:So who owns Molly? (Score:3, Informative)
The reason JM character was named "Jane" was because they were still shopping Neuromancer and didn't want to block the bigger deal if the buyer wanted an exclusivity contract.
Not because Gibson didn't have the rights.