well, I have to say this

A Scanner Darkly
based on a great SF novel by PKD
animation... sort of, anyway
cast includes both Keanu and Winona (I have to position myself at the 'we-love-love-both-although-we-know-they're-not-that-good-at-what-they-do' side)

Ahh, Keanu AND Winona in Scanner? Crud. Well, most of the cast is supposed to be addicted to some weird narcotic, so their flat, misdirected inflections will work fine.
The guy from Requiem is Jared Leto, a good choice, but...

Anyway:

Case: Guy Pierce
Molly: Angelina Jolie
Finn: Harry Dean Stanton
Armitage: Bruce Willis
Riviera: Jonathyn Rhys Davies
Dixie Flatline: Kris Kristofferson, of course
Linda Lee: Rachel Leigh Cook

quote:

Originally posted by Suilebhain:
Ahh, Keanu AND Winona in Scanner? Crud. Well, most of the cast is supposed to be addicted to some weird narcotic, so their flat, misdirected inflections will work fine.
The guy from Requiem is Jared Leto, a good choice, but...

Anyway:

Case: Guy Pierce
Molly: Angelina Jolie
Finn: Harry Dean Stanton
Armitage: Bruce Willis
Riviera: Jonathyn Rhys Davies
Dixie Flatline: Kris Kristofferson, of course
Linda Lee: Rachel Leigh Cook

Oh boy

Neuromancer the Movie deserves its own website.
All those discussion threads about a movie, then casting, then location....

it's alive...

btw, good list but I would exclude Angelina Jolie.
Someone new and fresh would be a good change.

I say give it 2 more years, maybe that 'it' girl might change it all since Molly would probably be the hardest to cast besides Case.

I think Angelina Jolie would make a good 3Jane.

quote:

Originally posted by supercide:
I think Angelina Jolie would make a good 3Jane.

i would support that. besides, jolie has had her share of the spotlight, i say give it to another

Jodie Foster as 3Jane, or if you're feeling campy, Megan Mullally.

What? I've always imagined her more as a tall willowy creature--like an Uma Thurman or something. Or there's always Jennifer Jason Leigh. She's not tall and willowy, but doomed white chicks are definitely her speed.

And while we're casting ex-Gattaca members, might I submit Jude Law as a Riviera candidate? Slick evil-boy is one he does quite well.

I think we know there's only one person who can play Ratz...



Worth it alone just to hear him say, "Herr Artiste."

quote:

Originally posted by heavyboots:
What? I've always imagined her more as a tall willowy creature--like an Uma Thurman or something. Or there's always Jennifer Jason Leigh. She's not tall and willowy, but doomed white chicks are definitely her speed.

And while we're casting ex-Gattaca members, might I submit Jude Law as a Riviera candidate? Slick evil-boy is one he does quite well.

Just saw Jodie Foster in "A very Long Engagement", she'd be good. But then so would Megan Mullally, especially in the final scene with her and case (it would be funny).

PKD is dead indeed. Just rewatched Bladerunner. I will be thrilled when Neuromancer hits the screen. I am cinephile..., of the sf variety.
Whoever is cast as long as WG has final say will be great. So lets not wait too long. For no man Knows what tomorrow may bring. Was thrilled with Pattern Recognition by the way. Goose bumps and tears at the ending.

I see Sarah Polley as 3jane, blonde and the ability to look frail. She is a younger Jodie Foster without the big paycheck.

The reason I picked Jolie as Molly (which I did a long time before she ever got big, by the way) is I think she would look great with silver eyes. The implants, I always pictured, covered up her natural eyes, so it would have to be someone with enough face once the eyes are gone to look sultry and scary at the same time.

Please, god, no Jessica Alba. I think I would slit my own throat.

Oh, Jude Law for Riviera? Yes! Years ago I picked James Spader, and Christopher Walken for Armitage, but they are aged past the parts.

Just as Matt Dillon should have been Bobby Newmark if the film was done ten years ago...

Holy Christ. Folks, I am a huge William Gibson fan, though a recent convert. Let me explain. I don't read schlock sci fi/fantasy. And yes, I DO mean to offend every one who reads them, but people like Robert Jordan, Terry Brooks, Merecedes Lackey, Weiss, Hickman - They are schlock. Christopher Pike is schlock. If you read these people, what in the hell are you doing here anyway, right? William Gibson transcends sci fi. He writes literature, much in the same way that Clarke and Aasimov write literature.

So why the rant? Because it sounds like these dream casts are being chosen by a bunch of teeny boppers who read the Dragons of Pern, without any real understanding of what Gibson was trying to do with Neuromancer.

I mean, good God, folks. Angelina Jolie as Molly? Matt Dillon? Someone actually suggesting DOLPH LUNDGREN as Armitage? Did you actually read the books?

I mean, come on, folks. Give Gibson some credit. The book, all three of the books, really, transcend any sort of movie making. They don't need to be movies to be fantastic. The idea that Spiderman and Mary Jane Watson would play Bobby Newmark and Angie Mitchell is freaking insulting (actually, after that piece of crap The Transporter, I think Jason Statham as Turner is more upsetting).

The point is, folks, don't let Hollywood sully something so wonderful. They can continue to make movies out of comic books and crappy 19th century novels. Leave Gibson's cyberpunk legacy to true fans. The readers. The intellectuals.

Seriously. Iggy Pop as Finn? Gimmie a BREAK.

Spookster: nice high horse. Personally, I thought Dolph was quite awesome as Street Preacher in the Johnny Mnemonic film (I'm still hoping that someone goes back and gives Longo and Gibson the money to do the longer cut with the right soundtrack, but that's beside the point).

All of this is fan-wanking anyway, so why get your self twisted about it. Most of us here are sick of the very SF you put down in your post, and if you *read* anything here you'd see that. Most of the actors that are discussed are "types" that we wouldn't mind seeing. Jolie would be good because she's a decent actress and could embody a sort of dissipated wealth and decadence that 3Jane epitomizes. At least that's the view from my fictional casting couch.

And besides: until you actually have the money to fund a project like this, just accept that anything you or I say is going to be wishful thinking. And considering your rant:

Do *you* have any ideas? or are you more interested in just pissing on this particular parade?

quote:

Originally posted by Justy:
Spookster: nice high horse.

Ok, before this thing gets way too out of hand: I'm sorry. There wasn't any real offense made. Maybe I just wanted to get on this thing with a big loud bang. Lemme take a step back here and explain myself - using your post.

quote:

All of this is fan-wanking anyway, so why get your self twisted about it.

You're right. A lot of it is just wishful thinking. And perhaps even I hope, just a little bit, that some visionary like Peter Jackson will come along and do the book(s) with the same sort of reverance for Gibson's artistry that Jackson did for Tolkien's. I guess what I get twisted up about, really, is the tendancy for us to latch on to the physicality of the thing. A lot of the dream casts pay no attention to talent or acting ability, and lets be honest with ourselves - if Neuromancer is to come off as a damn good movie, as good as the book, it's going to have to be done by some actors with some talent. Denise Richards and Jake Busey ain't going to cut it.

quote:

Most of the actors that are discussed are "types" that we wouldn't mind seeing.

Now that's not necessarily true, and being a professor, especially with today's students, you ought to know by now that just aboutevery single one of these suggestions is based in appearance. Your terminology "types" is just a nicer way to put it.

quote:

And besides: until you actually have the money to fund a project like this, just accept that anything you or I say is going to be wishful thinking.

But see, that's not my point. Ostensibly, we're all, you know, Gibson fans, right? And we all know, having tried hundreds of times to get our friends or family to read the books, looked into hundreds of "Uh." faces... it takes a true commitment. You gotta get the man in order to be his fan. We gotta be true to the man. Is Vince Vaughn true to Gibson? If Gibson were to cast this damn thing, would he actually use Heath Ledger or Paul Walker? I don't think so. I like to think of Gibson as a little bit more high brow. I dunno. Then again, maybe I'm just a pretentious asshole.

quote:

Do *you* have any ideas? or are you more interested in just pissing on this particular parade?

And we come to the penultimate conclusion. No. I have no ideas, but I thought I made that clear in the last post. I don't think this movie should be made, see. (And before I get flack for that statement, this forum is for discussion about a movie in general, not about dream casts). It's not worth seeing one of my favorite books turned into another Johnny Neumonic.

The Spookster.

I really empathize with everyone that gets the "uh" faces. My girlfriend won't finish a Gibson book, my dad won't start one. I think that even hoping for a movie, much less a good movie, is begging for disappointment. Neuromancer has come to inhabit a very nostalgic part of my mind. To have to share it with the type of public that goes to the local cineplex gives me a very queasy feeling. I know that sounds snobby, but I truly think that Gibson appeals to certain type of people. Otaku/obsessive types mostly. Mainstream introduction to a work like Neuromancer will be met by puzzled faces, especially if it stays true to the book.

Here's a "riskier" dream cast that might address the the rawness of the book a little bit better:
Armitage: Brion Jones (Bladerunner)
Case: Leo Fitzpatrick (Kids, The Wire)
3Jane: Chloe Sevigny (Kids)
Dixie Flatline: Billy Bob Thornton
Linda Lee: Alexis Bledel (Gilmore Girls, Sin City)
Julius Deane: Ian Holm (Naked Lunch, Lord of the Rings)
Molly Kolodny: Hilary Swank (Million Dollar Baby)
Peter Riviera:Ryan Phillipe (Cruel Intentions)
Voice of Wintermute: Leonard Nimoy or Morgan Freeman or Sigourney Weaver
Finn: Paul Giamatti or Steve Buscemi

The BBC radio play of Neuromancer, I felt, did it credit. Frankly, Hollywood couldn't resist turning Neuromancer into a crash-bang-wallop special effects vehicle for stars of the silver screen. It didn't work for Johnny Mnemonic, and it only worked for Bladerunner because the crash-bang-wallop special effects vehicle hadn't become popular yet.

Gil,

Interesting point, and, viewing it now, after all the other crash-bang-wallop SF stuff has come after it, Blade Runner isn't all that *big* really. It's a surprisingly small-feeling, intimate movie, very much a spectacular noir (in that you have this fairly simple noir plot enclosed in some amazing visuals), and I think that it's visual style is simply miraculous for it's time (1983!).

I think that's what I was hoping for from a Chris Cunningham Neuromancer, especially given his video for Bjork's "All Is Full of Love," (a better film in five minutes than A.I. is at two hours) which manages to be visually amazing and yet be intimate and tender. So a Neuromancer film needs to be willing to be boiled down to a simple noir heist plot (maybe the Kubrick that made "The Killing" would have been a good choice?), yet just have all this stuff going on in the background, the "visual kicks" that Sterling used to go on about.

We also need to remember that one of the *criticisms* (and it is a valid one) is that Gibson is obsessed with *surface*. Gibson's prose is obsessively filmic, down to the way he his style began to develop: imagistic, very similar to the way perception works in our overwhelmingly visual world. So it's almost unavoidable: we begin thinking in terms of what we want to *see* particularly since so many of Gibson's characters in his early work are emotionally dead or troubled. Case's range isn't very wide: he's basically got terminally depressed/surly/angry and there's a smidgen of tenderness in scenes with Molly and Linda Lee, but there's not a whole lot. Case's humanity is attenuated by his desire for *getting outside of his body*. Frankly, you either get an actor who understands that and turns in a flat performance, or you get an actor who turns in a flat performance to begin with and suits that type.

And as Spookster points out, this is all my interpretation.

If you really look at the book, the actors I picked, and when I picked them, it makes a lot of sense.

Yes, I know at first Dolph Lundgren seems like a weird choice, but look at the character of Armitage, an ex military special forces, kind of wooden at times and a little nuts.

For Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst I picked them because at the time they looked like could be 18 to 20 years old and in the next book look like they could be in their mid to late twenties.

The character of Turner is some who is weathered field veteran, some what good looking and could kick your ass. Besides my original choice for turner was Bruce Willis about twenty years ago.

Iggy Pop as the Finn does make sense too. Pull back his hair in to a greasy pony tail and put him in an old beat up suit and you have the Finn.

I do think that Angelina Jolie as Molly is a bad pick she would be better as 3Jane.

Justy has put it best

quote:

All of this is fan-wanking anyway...

We are not casting directors so what do we really know any ways. Besides I doubt Hollywood could make Neuromancer film half way descent. Japan has a far better track record with cyberpunk films.

quote:

Originally posted by Justy:
Gil,

Interesting point, and, viewing it now, after all the other crash-bang-wallop SF stuff has come after it, Blade Runner isn't all that *big* really. It's a surprisingly small-feeling, intimate movie, very much a spectacular noir (in that you have this fairly simple noir plot enclosed in some amazing visuals), and I think that it's visual style is simply miraculous for it's time (1983!).

I think that's what I was hoping for from a Chris Cunningham Neuromancer, especially given his video for Bjork's "All Is Full of Love," (a better film in five minutes than A.I. is at two hours) which manages to be visually amazing and yet be intimate and tender. So a Neuromancer film needs to be willing to be boiled down to a simple noir heist plot (maybe the Kubrick that made "The Killing" would have been a good choice?), yet just have all this stuff going on in the background, the "visual kicks" that Sterling used to go on about.

We also need to remember that one of the *criticisms* (and it is a valid one) is that Gibson is obsessed with *surface*. Gibson's prose is obsessively filmic, down to the way he his style began to develop: imagistic, very similar to the way perception works in our overwhelmingly visual world. So it's almost unavoidable: we begin thinking in terms of what we want to *see* particularly since so many of Gibson's characters in his early work are emotionally dead or troubled. Case's range isn't very wide: he's basically got terminally depressed/surly/angry and there's a smidgen of tenderness in scenes with Molly and Linda Lee, but there's not a whole lot. Case's humanity is attenuated by his desire for *getting outside of his body*. Frankly, you either get an actor who understands that and turns in a flat performance, or you get an actor who turns in a flat performance to begin with and suits that type.

And as Spookster points out, this is all my interpretation.

I enjoy reading. I enjoy reading science fiction. I really enjoy reading Gibson's science fiction and think he writes the best stuff out there. In fact, I agree with whats-his-noob that Gibson's work is literature and think it is the most socially important literature since 1984. I also enjoy watching films and find that good films are typically made out of good stories. Neuromancer is a great story, but so was Johnny Mneumonic. So, if someone decides to make a film out of the story found in Neuromancer they'd better not fuck it up the way Johnny Mneumonic was or they'll have to deal with my poignant and unread internet criticism. No human wants that. Luckily for them they can come to this board and see how to avoid the aforementioned undesirable situation by reading my thoughts on film adaptation. They may also pick up some useful tips from others who post here. But enough preamble, onto the advice.

Justy, GO COLONIALS!

...

I totally disagree with having Chris Cunningham direct simply because I believe the only person who could direct an adaptation would be Kathryn Bigelow. See why in this gem of a thread where wax and I discuss how Strange Days is the film that most closely resembles the sprawl trilogy:

http://williamgibsonboard.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/8606097...506007883#5506007883

Read it? Good, let me expound on what I meant. Bigelow's lighting was flawless in Strange Days and I believe lighting would be even more important in a Neuromancer adaptation (ie the Chiba sky). Blade Runner had some great lighting work but parts were a little overkill such as the cityscape seen from the flying police car, way too dark of a setting. But when Decker is getting sauced in his apartment I think Ridley Scott had some decent lighting work that would go well with some sprawl settings. Anyhow, enough for now, I hope this helps.