Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Movies Media

More on "Good Omens" the Movie and Coraline 131

In a recent e-mail exchange I had with Neil Gaiman he confirmed that Terry Gilliam is the director for the adapation of Good Omens to the screen. On a side note, Gaiman has been working on Coraline and will be doing a signing of the book in the Barnes and Noble in Union Square, NYC on Thursday the 11th. That's today. Update: 07/11 13:15 GMT by CT : I just wanted to say 'Curse Your Terry Gilliam'! Ever since I read Good Omens, I wished I was a film director just so I could direct that book. I guess Terry will do a good job too ;)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More on "Good Omens" the Movie and Coraline

Comments Filter:
  • by ObviousGuy ( 578567 ) <> on Thursday July 11, 2002 @07:03AM (#3863258) Homepage Journal
    That's not a good omen...
  • New news? (Score:1, Informative)

    by koshi ( 98864 )
    Is this new news its been on [] for a while now.
    I also heard that the two of them were thinking of working on Philip K Dick's "A Scanner Darkly" but someone else got the rights first.
    • I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that there will be another movie based on a P.K. Dick novel, but I wasn't suspecting "A Scanner Darkly". It's one of my favorites and I hope they get a director talented enough to translate it to film. Of course, since P.K. Dick is so hot in Hollywood I wouldn't be suprised if some studio bought all the rights to his works and is just holding onto them, without definite plans for films.

      • According to Ain't It Cool News [], Richard Linklater is set to direct A Scanner Darkly. Disappointing, since Steven Soderbergh and George Clooney had optioned it and I was assuming that Soderbergh would be directing (instead, he and Clooney are producing). But hey, they're doing Solaris, so all is forgiven...

        I'd doubt that a studio would spend the money to option all of Dick's works considering that they're going for truly astounding amounts of money. A Scanner Darkly cost $2,000,000. Remember Impostor? That went for about $1,000,000.

  • Good Omens link (Score:4, Informative)

    by MartinB ( 51897 ) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @07:07AM (#3863266) Homepage
    Perhaps you meant here [], or perhaps here [].
  • HHG (Score:2, Interesting)

    by zebs ( 105927 )
    Hmm, according to amazon [] Good Omens [] is a direct desendant of Hitchhikers guide... now when is that movie ever gonna get finished?!

    Either way its good to see a Terry Pratchett book being made into a film, hopefully it'll get some Discworld books made into films too.
    I imagine that'd be pretty cool if you combined it with LoTR style effects and cinematography.
    • Re:HHG (Score:4, Interesting)

      by MartinB ( 51897 ) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @07:23AM (#3863297) Homepage

      Clearly whoever wrote that hasn't read one or either of those books.

      ISTR PTerry saying that Mort [] had been optioned, and certainly Soul Music [] and Wyrd Sisters [] have already been turned into (reasonably good) animated films.

      • by zebs ( 105927 )
        Clearly whoever wrote that hasn't read one or either of those books.

        Um, not read Good Omens yet but have read HHG.

        I wasn't aware that Soul Music and Wyrd Sisters had been made into films. I was kind of hoping for a live action film however!

        Ah I've found a quote I was looking for:

        "Mort isn't fashionable UK movie material--there's no part in it for Hugh or Emma, it's not set in Sheffield, and no-one shoves drugs up their bum...." (Terry Pratchett)

        • Re:HHG (Score:2, Informative)

          by BabyDave ( 575083 )
          Interesting - his usual story is that Mort would have been made years ago, but some Hollywood exec person said that
          "the American public aren't ready for Death as a sympathetic character."
          [This was said about 18 months before "Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey" was released. Now, who was the best character in that ...?]
        • Re:HHG (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward
          "Mort isn't fashionable UK movie material--there's no part in it for Hugh or Emma"

          Nonsense. Hugh would play Death and Emma would play Albert.
      • by Triv ( 181010 )
        Well...I've read both and there is a connection to me - both books employ a certain style of Humor: irreverant, tangential and, well blatantly british. I think what the above poster is referring to is a certain edition of "Good Omens" that has "A Direct Descendant of the Hitchhiker's Guide!" plastered on the cover as a marketing ploy. I believe there is a profound connection of some kind, but the abovementioned tagline kinda explodes this for the sake of sales. "Like the Guide? Try this!"

    • Hmm, according to amazon [] Good Omens [] is a direct desendant of Hitchhikers guide...

      IIRC, the paperback book says something to that effect right on the front cover. Since I'm at work I can't check it out, but I remember reading it on the book and then thinking "what does this have to do with HHG?"

    • Pratchett's Bromelaid Trilogy about the gnomes is being made into a movie by Dreamworks!!


      Bromeliad Still Blossoms

      DreamWorks honcho Jeffrey Katzenberg told SCI FI Wire that work progresses on the much-anticipated animated- film adaptation of Terry Pratchett's Bromeliad Trilogy of novels, despite reports that the project had been put on the back burner. Joe Stillman (Shrek) is writing the script for the film, which is slated for release in 2005 or later, Katzenberg said in an interview while promoting DreamWorks' upcoming animated movie Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron.

      "Andrew Adamson, who directed Shrek 1 and is supervising Shrek 2, that's his next project," Katzenberg said. The Bromeliad Trilogy tells the story of a group of four-inch-tall gnomes, who venture into the real world, which thinks they no longer exist. The first book, Trucks, deals with the gnomes as they leave their department-store home when it is threatened with demolition.

      Katzenberg added that DreamWorks has a heavy slate of animation projects destined for release in 2004. "We have Shrek 2 in May, Sharkslayer in July and Wallace & Gromit at Thanksgiving." When asked about Shrek 2, Katzenberg declined to reveal anything about the plot, adding simply, "Really funny. Really, really, really funny."
  • by Saint Fnordius ( 456567 ) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @07:21AM (#3863292) Homepage Journal
    Choosing Terry Gilliam to do Good Omens is perfect. His style and dark humour complement Pratchett and Gaiman's wierd little epic. Although Terry Gilliam is American, he is one of the few directors I'd trust to do this with the right British touch (not too much, but not too little as well).

    Now we can hope for an intelligent comedy that doesn't resort to butt (fart) jokes.
    • by Angry Toad ( 314562 ) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @07:27AM (#3863307)

      There's a great deal of information on the Good Omens movie at a Terry Gilliam fansite called Dreams []. Apparently they're actually playing down the comedic aspects of the book. This seems like kind of a smart idea to me - the book done as a faux-serious metaphysical drama, combined with Gilliam's warped worldmaking talents, could really work. A straight-up adaption of the book's (mostly conceptual, descriptive) jokes might fall flat...

      • I pushed the Good Omens on my son last year, and in conversations realized something...

        Much of the humor is rooted in the 70's. He enjoyed the book, and much of the humor is not rooted in the 70's. But he wasn't culturally equipped to enjoy it as much as I did.

        OTOH, he did get into Bohemian Rhapsody after that.
      • Apparently they're actually playing down the comedic aspects of the book.
        Good! I always thought that the first half (Gaiman) was superior to the second half (Pratchett). Did you notice how the plot came grinding to a halt half way through, and it just meandered from there?
        • That's not how it was written. Pratchett did the majority of the writing for the whole book, primarily because he was the more experienced novelist. Conceptually the whole work is a very cool mix of both of their styles.
          • That's the way Pratchett tells it.
            • Well, yeah. From the horse's mouth and all that. I've never heard Gaiman say anything to dispute that.
      • As long as we have guys dressed as women I'll be happy! Its not a warped world without 'em!
    • "...Terry Gilliam is American..."

      He was born in Minneapolis but is now a British citizen.,+Terry
  • Alright! Shot in the dark time. The way I see it, if you click the words Omens [] and end up in the same place you started; then recursive references show some good today. So (with apologies to someone if I miss: Are links to your own post also a good omen? []

    In all seriousness; here [] is a marginally relevant link for the lazy.

  • I can understand why, as B&N [] is a little obfuscated in their language, but Neil's site [] seems to imply that while there will be a coraline release in Union Square at 6pm, he himself will be in San Fran at 6:30... which strongly conflicts with a personal appearance in New York...
  • Old News (Score:5, Informative)

    by h4mmer5tein ( 589994 ) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @07:44AM (#3863348)
    Dont mean to put a damper on things but this is old news. Good Omens has been in pre-production for 3 years now and Terry Gilliam was always going to direct it. The Hold ups have been with money and financing, not the production team or cast list. Last I saw Terry was waiting to see if the finance would be tied up in time to shoot Good Omens or wether it would get moved down the list a way while he shot Tideland.
    • Re:Old News (Score:5, Informative)

      by filth grinder ( 577043 ) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @08:10AM (#3863413)
      You are right, this is old news. In fact, here is an excerpt from a Neil Gaim interview a couple of months ago where he talks about the hold up:

      Dan Epstein: Good Omens will never happen right?
      Neil Gaiman: Oh, Good Omens may happen. The whole thing about movies is that you never say it might or might not happen until the first day of shooting, and then it's happening. And even then you've got your fingers crossed. There is a great script by him and Tony Grisoni. They got the budget down to $65 million and they raised about 50 million dollars from abroad. All the investors wanted was for an American entity to go in on the final $15 million and guarantee an American distribution deal. There is the problem?they can't find one. There's no American with the balls enough to agree to fund it and have a Terry Gilliam movie. They are scared of him but he's funny, wise and brilliant. Not only that, but he made Twelve Monkeys and The Fisher King which demonstrated that he could easily bring in a movie on time and under budget. Currently the last e-mail that I heard from Gilliam is that Tony Grisoni is doing a rewrite to try and get the budget down to $45 million.

      Dan Epstein: I wish I had $15 million to give to Terry Gilliam to make the movie.

      Neil Gaiman: You know what? So do I. That's the single most frustrating thing. You want to walk around Hollywood asking everyone where are their balls. So it's not dead until the option is not renewed and the option just came up and it was renewed again. I got the check. You never know what happens with a picture until you're sitting there eating popcorn at the premiere.

      The rest of the interview can be seen here []

      To answer something else, Gilliam is a writer, he wrote Brazil and his other movies (except 12 Monkeys, he co-wrote the script for Fear and Loathing). He was also a writer for Month Python. So, he does know how to adapt novels to film.
      • If you want to see an example of why investors might be afraid of Terry Gilliam, obtain the Criterion Collection 3-DVD edition of "Brazil" (one of his best films) which shows how studios wanted to modify the film to suit a bigger audience and Terry Gilliam faced up to them and refused to budge. A quality film is far more important to Gilliam than large profits.
        • Which is why I say hooray! As long as the film actually gets made, it will probably be good. Whereas if it was someone like James Cameron or Spielberg it would be far more of a crapshoot.
      • "They are scared of him ***but*** he's funny, wise and brilliant."

        Not sure thats the best word in that context!
      • I'd read once that sitting on a shelf somewhere is a feature length adaptation of Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy that the studio never released.

        It would be very fun to see Good Omens on the big screen, but I guess as Gaiman said, you just don't know until you're sitting in the theatre.

        • There may very well be a feature length adaptation of HHGTTG sitting on a shelf somewhere. In fact, I bet there's dozens. In script form.

          Once shooting begins, it's unlikely to stop. And you're going to have something to put out, even if only on direct-to-video.

          A feature length adaptation already shot and sitting on a shelf? Not bloody likely.
      • There's also an interview [] with Gilliam dated Sept. 2001 that says (on the second page []) that "Terry Gilliam is currently working on an adaptation of 'Good Omens' by Terry Pratchett."

        Sep 2001 - July 2002 = 10 months.... old news I say...
      • Maybe he can get the money from Adidas. He directed that wildly successful World Cup video where the top players play 3 on 3 in an abandoned oil tanker. The butchered Elvis song he picked for it is even the "Top of the Pops" FWIW.

        You can see it here in RM format /Media/video/2002/04/04/nike.rm []
      • Indeed, it is quite old; at a book signing/reading in Hicksville, NY over a year ago (For _American Gods_), I distinctly remember Neil discussing plans for the movie to be directed by Terry GIlliam.
    • He was officially confirmed in 1997.
      Then again in 1999.
      Twice in 2000.
      Four times in 2001.
      And this is the second time this year.

      Believe it when the trailer appears and no sooner.
  • by reddfoxx ( 534534 ) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @07:48AM (#3863355) Homepage

    If you have actually read this book you would know that the footnotes are often the best and funniest parts of a all around good tale about the biblical apocalypse. How will any director mention the different misprint versions of the bible that the angel and sonetimes bookstore owner has collected?

    I'm actually very interested to see if this thing pans out. I just hope that the history of the british monetary system actually makes it into the movie

    • by Anonymous Coward
      The BBC films of the Hitchhiker had an very nice

      idea to include the funny but longish

      descriptions by adding short animated sequences

      in the form of an animated description.

      (Remember the human proving there is no god?)

      I think this could perhaps done here, too.
  • Eat Fud (Score:2, Insightful)

    by invid ( 163714 )

    Terry Gilliam is one of the most brilliant directors out there (and he is definitely "out there"). I consider Brazil to be one of the best films of all time. Terry is very willing to be dark. In fact, over the past 2 decades it seems that he's been trying to distance himself from his Monty Python past. None of his recent films can be considered comedies. The last film with any substantial comedic element was The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, which was his last pythonesque film.

    It will be great to see Terry doing a dark comedy again.

    PS, is anyone else out there upset that his plan to do The Watchmen fell through? That would have been a fantastic film!

    • Well, if Good Omens is a 'big hit' with a Gillam/Gaiman partnership in the credits, I'm sure the Watchmen movie will be a much stronger possibility
    • Re:Eat Fud (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      PS, is anyone else out there upset that his plan to do The Watchmen fell through? That would have been a fantastic film!

      Not me. I love Watchmen, but doing it as anything but a comic book (excuse me, "graphic novel") misses large chunks of the point.
      • I would tend to agree.

        There are very slim chances it would be a good movie. Very, very good chances that it would suck.

        Kind of like what they did to Dune.

      • Most directors couldn't do justice to The Watchmen, but Terry Gilliam might be up to the task.
    • Re:Eat Fud (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mberman ( 93546 )
      over the past 2 decades it seems that he's been trying to distance himself from his Monty Python past. None of his recent films can be considered comedies.

      Umm, what? Two decades ago would be 1982. In that year, he wrote some of the sketches Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl and the year after, he directed Monty Python's The Meaning of Life. Doesn't sound too distant to me. But, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant "18 years" when you said "two decades". In the last 18 years, he's done Brazil, Baron Munchausen, The Fisher King, Twelve Monkeys, and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. You mentioned Munchausen already, but, really, if you didn't think all the rest (with the exception of Fisher King) where comedies, well, then, you didn't understand them. They may not be as outright silly as Python, but they're still comedies, and with Twelve Monkeys, it even approaches Pythonesque silliness in some places. Saying Brazil isn't a comedy is like saying Fight Club isn't a comedy. If you didn't think it was funny, you didn't get it...

      • Certainly, there were funny parts in all of Terry's films. When I say they weren't comedies, I'm saying that they are not primarily comedies. There are some very funny scenes in Hamlet (particularly after he kills Polonius), but I wouldn't call Hamlet a comedy. Similarly, while Brazil has some funny scenes, and could well be considered one large joke, with the protagonist being the butt of it, I still wouldn't call it a comedy. There are too many other aspects of the film to place it stricly in the comedy category.

        When I think of a film being called a comedy I think it's primary purpose is to make you laugh. I think of Monty Python and the Holy Grail and Memento.

    • The last film with any substantial comedic element was The Adventures of Baron Munchausen

      What about Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas? It has a different kind of comedic style than Baron Munchausen and Flying Circus, but none the less it was definitely a comedy.
    • Re:Eat Fud (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dswensen ( 252552 )
      PS, is anyone else out there upset that his plan to do The Watchmen fell through? That would have been a fantastic film!

      No, because I feel the great strength of Watchmen is in how perfectly suited it is to its medium. I think Watchmen is a damn near perfect example of what a graphic novel ought to be. And I know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that most of what I love about Watchmen would not survive the transition to film. Hollywood has never hesitated to take a chainsaw to a good story.

      I seriously hope Watchmen never becomes a movie.

  • This will sound like needless whining, but Hemos, can you please give the audience who isn't "in" on what's going on in your head a little clue as to what the heck you're talking about? It took other posters to correct your links and try to describe what it is you were talking about.

    What is this, why should we care, and why is it on Slashdot?

    • There are several important referential threads here:

      • Terry Gilliam links to Monty Python
      • Terry Pratchet links to the Discworld
      • Neil Gaimen links to The Sandman

      All three work in the same genre are Douglas Adams.

      Having all three in one project could only have been bettered by having Douglas Adams involved as well!

      • All three work in the same genre are Douglas Adams

        I must say I disagree with you on the point of Sandman being in the same genre as Douglas Adams.
        While the Hichhikers' series was openly satirical of the Sci-Fi genre, Sandman has always been planted
        firmly in the Fantasy genre; albeit with a postmodern leaning.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      What i wish is that slashdot would go back to doing the little [?] links to everything2 []. That way they could just use terms without caring who read it, because everyone could click the little question marks and find out what those things are.

      Since they seemed to have abandoned that practice, though, here's a suggestion: when they reference something you don't recognize, look it up on everything2 yourself. It's a good reference. Here are the entries for:
      Good Omens []
      Terry Gilliam []
      Neil Gaiman []
      Terry Pratchett []

      Those links should cover just about anything you could concievably want to know about the backstory of this /. article.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        Oh, crud. I just noticed that slashdot edited out the spaces in those links, meaning none of them work. Let's try that again with %20s this time.

        Good Omens []
        Terry Gilliam []
        Neil Gaiman []
        Terry Pratchett []

        THOSE links will work.. I'm really sorry about that. Figures, the one time i forget to hit "preview", this happens.. blah.

        If an echo filter adds echo, then what does a lameness filter do?

        -- super ugly ultraman
  • Problem is... (Score:2, Insightful)

    ...the unread masses will poo-poo it as a Dogma ripoff, and it will unfortunately tank.
  • Make an adaptation of this? It's a superb novel, but reduce it to what can be conveyed via a screenplay, and you have something with a simplistic plot, thin characters, flat dialogue, a few sparse pieces of visual humour, and over reliant on FX to fill the holes. I mean, what kind of idiot would pay to see... oh, hang on...

    • So, Citizen Kane is a thin character? And the movie that bears that name is simplistic and relies on FX to fill holes? Truly, you do a disservice to all of the great screenplays that have been written.
        • So, Citizen Kane is a thin character?

        Oooh, nice strawman.

        The subject under discussion is Good Omens, which, in case you haven't read it, relies very heavily on "tell, don't show" asides to flesh out the characters. It could, I suppose, be done with a voiceover, but simply taking the dialogue and direction from the novel and putting it in a screenplay would leave a very thin story, and if you change it, well, then you're not filming Good Omens, are you?

    • Many books don't make good movies. I'm not analytical enough in that area to say why, but it seems that a Novella is about the right length to turn into a good movie.

      OTOH, frequently bad books make good movies. Well, sometimes, anyway. If the book is full of too much padding, the movie can strip it away.

      I hope it's a real smash film. What I really hope, though, is that the studio it comes out of isn't covered by the MPAA. I'd like to be able to see it, and I *won't* see any films that they cover. (It's quite hard to cause this to have any effect, however, since I never did watch many films.)

  • I really hope they do justice to the book. That has to be one of the most original books I have read since 100 Years of Solitude.

    Especially the hellhound :-)
  • by night_flyer ( 453866 ) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @08:41AM (#3863539) Homepage
    I thought you were refering to a forth part to "The Omen" series...
  • Brazil (Score:3, Informative)

    by fishlet ( 93611 ) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @09:03AM (#3863625)
    I hope this isn't too far off topic... but if you want to see Terry Giliams flair for darkness & humor combined... go out and rent 'Brazil'. I think he's the man do to this movie right.

  • Good Omens (Score:3, Informative)

    by StrutterX ( 181607 ) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @09:42AM (#3863820)
    To get a lot of the jokes in Good Omens it helps if you have read any of Richmal Compton's Just William books.

    Read them to your kids; but do read a little bit. Your appreciation of the satire in Good Omens will increase.

  • come on, CT (Score:2, Interesting)

    by tps12 ( 105590 )
    Please use the comment system like everyone else. That is not an "update," it is a topical comment.

    It's no wonder nobody respects the editors when they consider themselves too good for the discussion system used by the unwashed masses.

    What are you afraid of, being modded down? Being flamed? If you don't have the peas for it, post it AC.
  • by AAAWalrus ( 586930 ) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @10:21AM (#3864064)
    Due to a lack of any posts on this article, and a few ignorant posts that are here, it would seem that Slashdotters don't really know or care about "Good Omens" or what it is. Here's a post to clue you all in. (If you've actually read the book, stop reading. No really! Go read something about Donald Knuth or some rant about Microsoft. Shoo!)

    Good Omens is a book co-written by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett in (I believe) the early 90's. Neil Gaiman is most famous for writing the Sandman comics (graphic novellas?). Terry Pratchett is most famous for writing the many books in the Discworld series. Basically, Gaiman writes dark and brooding stories, Pratchett writes intensely clever and funny stories. "Good Omens" is the brilliant collaboration of these two minds, producing a hilarious account of Armageddon. The book has been most compared to "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", and while they do share many common qualities, "Good Omens" is more readable and enjoyable to me.

    Why should you care? Because the book is THAT good, and Terry Gilliam is THAT good of a director, and the combination of the two could produce a movie that is THAT good. What's the last movie that came out in the theaters that is a genuine cult classic and will be for years to come? It's been a while. Several years. It's hard to come up with one, isn't it? Well, a movie based on "Good Omens" directed by Terry Gilliam has a lot of potential to be just that: a genuine quotable flick that we can watch dozens of times over and enjoy it each and every time.

    Again, what I'm saying is important here is that the *potential* is there for a really great movie that we could all love and enjoy, and we should all be pushing for it's release. Wouldn't it be much cooler if we built up hype about this potentially great movie rather than lamenting about how much George Lucas sucks and how he flushed Star Wars down the toilet?
    • I haven't read much Gaiman, but the book I did read, American Gods, was actually quite funny and certainly not weighty (broody) reading. Definitely my favorite book for this year (albeit somewhat disturbing). Prior to that, all I've read by him is Sandman, where I'd agree with you, his works are dark and brooding.

      As far as your cult classic question, The Fast and the Furious was a cult movie in theaters (low budget, bad reviews, and suddenly popular for no apparent reason) and may be one on video. Not my cup of tea, but it certainly had that cult sort of appeal. There really haven't been that many campy cult movies as of late, but that may be because audience expectations are too high. The few that have been made were pretty bad. The best one I remember is Saving Silverman, and that wasn't good.
  • by dbc001 ( 541033 )
    I was just looking at Terry Gilliam's filmography on IMDB [] and noticed that there are two Holy Grail movies. Can anyone explain the difference between "Monty Python & the Quest for the Holy Grail (1996) (VG)" [] and "Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)" []. Also, has anyone read any of the books on Gilliam []? Are they any good?

    • the (VG) after the first one means it is a video game. The 1975 one is the movie.
    • (VG) at the end of an IMDB entry means it is a Video Game. I don't quite get why the "International Movie Database" [] lists video games as well, but I guess a number of actors have had voice roles in them, and there does seem to be some bleedover from Hollywood into games, as you noted.

      • IMDB has a lot of movie-related stuff, and this game surely belongs there, as it was actually created by the python team. It's almost as hilarious as the movie, even the manual and credits are hilarious (like on the old videotapes). The game has different subgames based on the movie, like 'bring-out-yer-dead-tetris'...

        I've seen it in various bargain-bins, if you see it, it's well worth picking up.

        btw, I'm really glad my favourite director gets to direct one of my favourite book. It will be interesting to see who will be the actors, Gilliam has had some great all-star casts before (Brazil, 12 Monkeys, Fear and Loathing...)

  • by Bogatyr ( 69476 ) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @10:52AM (#3864222) Homepage
    I suggest consulting Gaiman's weblog [] which he tends to update at least daily. That way you get his writing without having to wait for the next book, comments, opinions, essays, little short stori es he throws in just because, cool things he's found, etc. a
  • Coraline (Score:4, Insightful)

    by KFury ( 19522 ) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @11:11AM (#3864348) Homepage
    I had the good fortune to go to Gaiman's reading of Coraline last week in Berkeley (the day the book was released, he did a full 3-hour reading of the text to a packed cathedral of 800 people).

    Before he began, he confirmed that Henry Selick (Nightmare Before Christmas, James and the Giant Peach, Monkeybone), who was in attendance, would be directing the movie version of Coraline, and that Michelle Pfeiffer was signed on to play the Mother/Other Mother roles.

    It's a great story, and is sort of a shift for Gaiman, targeting a broader aged audience, while remaining dark but more polished (no footnotes, and a more constant narrative tone). The reading was fabulous, and I could totally visualize the movie version.

    A friend of mine did a more thorough write-up of the reading [] for those interseted.
  • Agnes Nutter, Witch. (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The full title of this book is Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch []

    There are quite a few jokes related to occultism or magic(k), like the literal demonization of (Aleister) Crowley.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    I was going to entitle this "why the movie will suck," but I didn't want it to get automatically tagged as Flamebait.

    "Good Omens" was a brilliant book, and Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett were the right people to write it. The problem is that the book has a religious theme, and while Gaiman and Pratchett pulled it off brilliantly, Hollywood just can't do religion. "The Last Temptation of Christ" was the last gasp of good, thoughtful religious movies (and I would put "The Omen" among these,too). Since then, we've had to put up with crap like "Stigmata" and "A Walk to Remember."

    The combination of subtlety and humor seen in "Good Omens" when dealing with the interactions between Aziraphale and Crowley, Crowley's communications with hell, Aziraphale's interactions with heaven, and Aziraphale's comments on the author of Revelations, etc. etc. What we're inevitably going to end up with is a dumbed down, simpflified version of the whole thing that's going to insult our collective intelligence.

    On the optimistic side, Terry Gilliam has a good track record, so I could give him the benefit of the doubt.
    • Bullshit. Good omens isn't any more religious than "dogma." And Terry Gilliam is NOT hollywood. Terry Gilliam is Brazil. Terry Gilliam is Monty Python. Curse you for doubting TERRY GILLIAM!!!!! Sorry, got carried away on the exclamation points. (As Terry Pratchett himself has been known to say, multiple exclamation points are the sign of a deranged mind)

When a fellow says, "It ain't the money but the principle of the thing," it's the money. -- Kim Hubbard