I'm nae convinced this is his rant. It's posted on the comments thread at videos.antville.org by some guy called mrtoppy who claims without linkage that it's from Kahn's site. If it's on Kahn's site I'm damned if I can find it, but maybe that's me.

I remain leery of Kahn's obsession with editing but otherwise, he seems competent enough. A better known director would have an established style of their own that might clash with the original work.

I wish there were directors who recognised that auteur theory is tripe (if it was up to me the most important person involved in film-making would be the script writer, with the director on a par with the cinematographer and other technicians - i.e. just as important, but not more important. Still people do have this obsession with leadership; though power follows money so the only real auteur would be the producer); I don't get the impression Kahn is one of them.

They won't be doing it as "the 80s turned up to 11" so it wouldn't be my version. Good.

The movie will be for us (and please forgive me for the term ‘us’ as I am still very new to the forum) what “Lord of the Rings” was to my Sister-in-law and what the “Harry Potter” series is to my wife: a delightful disappointment.

There is no way any director will be able to put on the screen an image that matches what we have all played in our minds as we have read the book itself.

To the fans of the genre (and I’m not sure if you can really be a fan of the genre without being a fan to some degree of Neuromancer) it will be a good, slick film. To those that are unfamiliar with the cyberpunk works t may even inspire more people to take a closer look.
Whatever Joseph Kahn eventually sends out into the mass media will be a film I will watch, and complain about, and bitch about, and point out the mistakes, and where they took too many liberties and where they got Case’s hair just ‘so wrong’. You know what? WHO CARES!

I say give him a shot. If it’s a bomb, we can all climb back into out literary corner and continue on without the mainstream. If it is a hit, great. He can do Count Zero next!

Sartemius would like to admit that he is a moron.

I may have got the Riviera/Molly Image Stage scene mixed up in my head on that last one. That inverse symmetry thing always gets me. On the edition I have in front of me it is on pages 138 - 142, “The Doll”. Riviera builds up Molly who tears down Riviera. I hate it when I confuse things, which I do too much.

I want to see a proper ‘R’ Neuromancer that follows the book as closely as possible. I just don’t believe it will happen.

I meant what I said as general rules. There are exceptions, but those exceptions aren’t easy.

As a general rule, the larger the possible audience, the more possible money that can be made, the easier it is to justify one’s budget. Sure, you could try and sell the film to a smaller niche audience (with money to spend), but I think Neuromancer tends to be more deserving than that. In general (in a little more general of a general way) the higher the rating, the less money that can be made from the film. This can be beat, but it is not easy. On average I mean. G and PG being close.

I’ve never seen any of the Matrix trilogy (long story), but if WB got that kind of hit off a ‘R’, that is impressive. I would bet against it most times, but it is so nice to see it work once and a while.

Also if you want to get ‘love’ from theater operators it is easier to do that with a wider audience rating. While the price of movie tickets is always going up, what a lot of people don’t realize is what the theater owners pay to show studio films also raises every year. So they tend to ‘love’ snack sales which, as they would, also go up every year in price. You sell more pop and pop corn at G films (families) then PG then PG13 then R. On average.

I just can’t see trying to be a salesperson for Neuromancer as a specific audience type of film. I want a lot of people to see it. That’s not to say it can’t or won’t be done the other way. I want it done right, as a screen adaptation, or not, which may be for the better. I’m skeptical but hopeful.

Yep. As cheap as possible. Wide audience. Sell the thing. Get it made. Opinion.

I really liked Sin City ‘R’, which probably did well but not staggering well. Grindhouse ‘R’ was very interesting, but didn’t have a big take, at least not yet, and I don’t know how much it cost to make.

Miramax would be far too much to hope for. Regency would be nice. Someone truly independent would be absolutely fantastic, if there was someone out there willing to risk that kind of money. But then a power house might just beat it down if it ever did get released.

Big names or big companies I’m sure would help the rating process and the film, but they haven’t been around much lately for Neuromancer. I haven’t researched who this new director is yet, although I may check some of the links. I wonder if he has spoken to any actors.

quote:

I've done plenty of "cred" videos: Moby, Chemical Brothers, Korn, U2, Muse to name a few.

Directing music videos is just a step up from directing commercials, and directing a video for some with cred does not give you cred. By the way I not normally say Korn or U2 have a lot except from scorer moms and suburban goth kids.

quote:

And hard core Michael Bay with his rumbling guns and explosions made…Meatloaf videos, as well as…The Divinyls "I Touch Myself." Those of you in the music video business know the score and understand why this is.

I would not say Michael Bay is hard core, maybe soft core if you count that Playboy video he did. Michael bay is best known for directing forgettable horror movies and some equally forgettable action movies.

quote:

Yes, Chris Cunningham was attached to this years ago and you may think him as a far cooler director than me, but he quit. HE QUIT. Understand? Sorry. He abandoned the baby on the doorstep, and it will never come to daddy again.

Did Khan ever think the reason Cunningham quit is because Cunningham thought it is not possible to do good adaptation and did not want to make a bad movie. Yes, I got Khan's pun and it was not funny.

Khan should do himself a favor and not compare himself to people who are legends. I am willing to give Khan a chance to make a good film, but remember that "Fight Club" got its producers fired from Fox the higher ups in Fox did not think it would be commercially success even thou Fight Club did pretty well in the box office and won awards and nominates.

quote:

Did Khan ever think the reason Cunningham quit is because Cunningham thought it is not possible to do good adaptation and did not want to make a bad movie.

You'd probably be right.

quote:

He abandoned the baby on the doorstep, and it will never come to daddy again.

Looks like someone has issues with his father Poor Baby :P

The new title for his film:


Enjoy.

Great title!

If the rant is from Mr Kahn, he sounds okay to me. No matter who makes it, the movie won't be the book. And it can't be the book that's in my head AND the book that's in your head AND the book that's in the head of everyone else who loves Neuromancer.

But given that he's working within that stricture, Kahn comes across as wanting to make a flick that does justice to the book.

And the best thing about his rant? He sounds like a passionate guy that's rather pissed off. Not some by-the-numbers beancounter.

That's good.

I'd say that, if that is truly Mr. Kahn's rant, well, he must have/will read this board sometime... you want to make a good Neuromancer? Here's your focus group; the WGB will give you al the feedback and criticism you need.

True. Courting the fans can actually work in a moviemaker's favor. See theonering.net and the role they played in keeping an eye on the production.

I don't know, I think I'd rather have a director confident enough in his own vision than someone who needs to rant on the internet and use focus groups to make a film.

Now let's all sing:
"Transformers! Robots in disguise!"
Looking forward for the marked down action figures at KB toys...

One of the reasons I don't believe that's his rant (apart from the fact that though it is described as appearing on his site it appears nowhere in google except on that thread and on this one) is because whatever one might think good or bad of Mr Kahn's skills he is obviously a professional and I don't think professionals feel the need to rant to the fanbase about how they're up to the job. They show, not tell.

I have no opinion one way or the other as to whether Kahn's career so far demonstrates whether he is or is not competent to take this on. It is the case that I am wary of the ads and videos path to the director's chair because it appears to lead to a lot of directors who know a great deal about visuals and editing and not necessarily much about narrative. And narrative is important. If the narrative's already there (as in an adapatation) - that may not prove a problem. And, on the other hand, the flawed approaches of advertising-schooled directors, like an obsession with lush visuals, can in some cases be exactly what the film needed, rather than just leaving you with yet another overly pretty chocolate box lid. (Yes, I am talking about Ridley Scott.)

Incidentally, I'm amused by this idea people should be disappointed if the film doesn't match their own vision. Why the fuck would I want to pay to see a film I've already watched in my own head?

Yeah I'll admit Blade Runner did get a bit boring as a film narrative, it was the visual element that really stood out about the film however (could also be argued the same about Metropolis for that matter despite both stories are still quite good)

quote:

Why the fuck would I want to pay to see a film I've already watched in my own head?

Then ask yourself why anyone who watches the movie would rather read the book? The reason why making a movie is important is because the novel has never been accurately visualised in realtime before. If it is visualised properly it seems even more real. Why dream about such a reality when you can have it in front of you. But yeah I can understand why you wouldn't want the film adaptation because they can do a really crap job that gives the mainstream the wrong idea about the novel and whilst you shouldn't say the "mainstream" probably wouldn't understand the themes in Neuromancer what is the point in excluding them from learning about such a great novel? I mean even today people are curious about it as a lot of mainstream media references from it.

The reason for focusing on the visuals alone is important too because William Gibson has already done a great job and providing all the narrative we like, making it come alive is more important and should be the directors priority. Kahn hasn't even said what he wants to acheive so to me he doesn't sound like he can do a good job if he can't prove it and we can't go by his previous work because they aren't even the same as Neuromancer.

I think the best outcome is a film that will keep everyone interested in the story and that the visualisations will make it more realistic. Which would have been cool 20 years ago.. I don't know what effect it can have on today's society however. We'll have to see I guess.

Meanwhile I think Neuromancer is better as a Game because like Stalker it can adapt pretty well. Games do focus on narrative quite better than films too (assuming they aren't action based). (example would be every Adventure game ever made)

So my hope is that I can get you guys some results before this film even goes ahead.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr_Cyberpunk:
Yeah I'll admit Blade Runner did get a bit boring as a film narrative...

Actually, I was implying BR was one occasion where Ridley Scott's approach really helped, unlike, say, The Duellists where eventually you found yourself yelling at the screen "Enough with the fucking mist!"

Not everything should be pretty.

quote:

Then ask yourself why anyone who watches the movie would rather read the book?

If someone else's adapatation is different from your own conception, you just get two for the price of one. I'd want a movie adaptation to match my conception if I had made it myself. Otherwise, let's see what someone else came up with.

quote:

I was implying BR was one occasion where Ridley Scott's approach really helped

Riddely did a nice job, I'm a big fan of BR but when I first watched it I did almost fall to sleep though this was the original cut and I was much younger at the time. The directors cut made the film hell better in my opinion.

quote:

I'd want a movie adaptation to match my conception if I had made it myself.

Would you be prepared to do that though.. Most people wouldn't rather would make demands towards another person

quote:

Otherwise, let's see what someone else came up with.

I wish more critics could be like this.. I hate the whole "You should have done it like this" rant people do with popular culture such as this.

I still laugh at Interplay's vision for Neuromancer.. it plays like a comic book Who could have thought dystopia could be so funny lol!

quote:

One of the reasons I don't believe that's his rant (apart from the fact that though it is described as appearing on his site it appears nowhere in google except on that thread and on this one) is because whatever one might think good or bad of Mr Kahn's skills he is obviously a professional and I don't think professionals feel the need to rant to the fanbase about how they're up to the job. They show, not tell.

I was thinking that myself. The rant, if real, shows a certain amount of passion about the topic, but would be a bit unprofessional, maybe. Given that there are no other sources except that comment thread, it seems pretty suspicious.

That said, it also looks like something was edited out around the time the comment was posted. Something that started with "Two years in development..."

imdb only lists that he has an "in-development" credit that is only available to pro subscribers, so that fast track has still a long way to go.

I am not surprised, considering his backgound and age, that he ranted on his site. And then, of course, someone more "sensible" convinced him to take it out. Of course the internet has a memory of its own...

quote:

Originally posted by colin:
I was thinking that myself. The rant, if real, shows a certain amount of passion about the topic, but would be a bit unprofessional, maybe. Given that there are no other sources except that comment thread, it seems pretty suspicious.

Who'd write such a thing if not Kahn, though? It was ultimately neither flattering nor damning - anyone with an agenda either way would likely have tipped their hand. It read like it was written by a guy stung by all the negativity surrounding word leaking out about his new project. End of story. Obviously the professional thing to do if one succumbs to the temptation of publishing such a rant is to pull it off your site when you sober up and disavow it. So it's "disappearance" is no mystery at all.

Face it, if he makes a good film he's really on the map as a director - this is the most important project of his career. It's gotta hurt like hell to be hooted and derided when you've got so many hopes wrapped up in the thing. I just can't see someone faking a post like that.

True.

i'm scared.

#http://augmentology.com
#http://netwurker.livejournal.com
#http://twitter.com/netwurker