Variety reports that no less than Joseph Kahn will direct an adaptation of Neuromancer. But William Gibson has his doubts. (via BBoing)
         

If it happens (the article says it's being "fast-tracked"), it won't be your typical sci-fi adaptation. But it would definitely be something I look forward to, especially given Cydonia.

         

I say good, you will never ever please anyone with a big adaptation but I'm sure Joseph will have respect for the material hopefully the studio will too. Please no Hellblazer / Constantine butchery.

         

not sure anyone could do it justice but lets hope its better than his "work" for jamiroquai

         

The director of "Torque" and a staple director for the likes of Ashlee Simpson and Britney Speares is making Neuromancer... How can anyone be surprised that William Gibson has doubts?

         

What happened to Chris directing it?

         

Chris' adapation got 86'd 2 1/2 years ago - link. Wish it had happened too, but I agree with the commish (and Cory at BB) - there's no perfect way to adapt sci-fi novels. Best adaptation I've seen in a long while was Hammer & Tongs' Hitchhiker's Guide.

         

"Best adaptation I've seen in a long while was Hammer & Tongs' Hitchhiker's Guide."

and that was a bag of shite an' all.

         

jeez oysters, my wife is going to come home, by chance might check back on the history and what will she see?

thanks for that. . .

         

neuromancer is a great book and all, but is there really any point to making this movie now that its ideas, content and style have been pillaged by hollywood for the last 23 years?

         

true dat. I also thought Neuromancer was pretty blatantly inspired by Blade Runner (the movie).

I smell Johnny Mnemonic 2.

         

romanek should be on the list!

         

I think it is possible he could make something fun, but probably not the harrowing immersive drug movie I'd prefer to see it as (the sort that that does not get "fast-tracked").

I vote Alison Maclean.

         

Here is JK's response from his website... sums it all up really...shame that most people on here can't see beyond the headlines...

---

Variety blew my cover over the weekend. This is the screenplay I've been working on for the last two years.

As to the backlash.

There's going to be a backlash. You have to be nuts or stupid to take on a monster like this. I knew what I was getting myself into. Stanley Kubrick could take this on and he'd have a 14 year old in Iowa blogging on how wack the cgi effects were in 2001, and then on the otherhand a 45 year old child molestor completely insistant nothing will ever look as good as the visuals in his own head.

And they'd both hate Torque.

I could see how the combination of the Britney Spears director with William Gibson is a controversial choice. But the problem is, the summation of my career is not Britney Spears. I've done plenty of "cred" videos: Moby, Chemical Brothers, Korn, U2, Muse to name a few. The headlines sound attractively pessimistic to slap the successful pop example of my work to a supposedly nihilistic work like Neuromancer. It really just demonstrates how little most people know of the music video world and how it pertains to filmmaking.

For instance, before David Fincher became the dark auteur that fanboys salivate over, he made his name doing…Paula Abdul videos. 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 guess this is turning into a defense of myself, so I will defend myself.

The other complaint lodged at me is that my movie Torque basically sucked. It's either a sell out piece of commercial crap, or an incompetant long form music video, or both, and it's a sure sign I'm clueless as a filmmaker. And to all of this, I'll say: they're wrong.

Making your first movie under the Hollywood studio system is hard. It's the hardest thing I've ever done. I'm telling you honestly with no exaggeration: you have no clue what it's like to be put through that studio grinder and retain any sort of authorship. The politics, the pressure, the scapegoating, the interference, the pure physicality of an intense 70 day shoot, the budget hysterics, the permeating sense of fear and negativity from everyone. Torque is not 100% of what I wanted, but I'm proud of what it is, because at the end of the day, after going through this studio machine that blends movies together into mediocrity, it split people. Some hated it, others loved it. Some actually had both reactions at the same time. Whatever it was, it wasn't safe. The ice cream on the cone couldn't be digested without a strong opinion. That's a tall order for an Ice Cube biker flick. Your welcome.

So that's one of the reasons why "they" hired me to do Neuromancer, and make no mistake, Gibson is one of "them." There's no way in hell I'm on this without atleast a half disinegnous grunt of approval from him. 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.

I'm on it because I am nuts, and I am stupid, and I will throw everything I have at making a book that's been ripped off left and right and considered impossible to adapt…work. I've spent my whole life making things. People who don't know me seem to dismiss me as some cliché blinged out music video director, and even if that jealous perception were true then remember this - I started with nothing. No contacts in Hollywood, no money, nothing. All I've ever had to survive is the dedication to my craft. All I know how to do is make things, and if Neuromancer is on my plate, I am going to make it. That's why this film finally has a chance at getting made.

Now here we are and all I know is this: the movie in my head rocks. I've already watched it, I just need to execute. Is it Gibson's vision? Not quite. There's no way this film can ever achieve what Gibson did. He practically changed the world and how we imagined ourselves growing up into it. The novel is always going to be the superior work of art. The book's a legitimate work of genius in a millenial way, not the Richard Roeper thumbs up way. I'm working on a two hour movie, so it's my distillation of his vision into a much shorter form. Compomises and interpretation will be required, and the personal issues I chose to focus on will be the things that turn me on about the book. So at the end of the day, there's wiggle room: the good shit is his, the bad shit is mine.

But when it gets made, maybe on some level, everyone will be ecstatic to see some version of it moving on a movie screen, like when a parent is happy to see their toddler draw a crayon of the sun. If I'm lucky, maybe even Gibson himself will dig it.

So there it is.

I only have one more thing to say.

When Variety broke the story, this is how they described me:

Joseph Kahn, a Korean-American commercials director who made "Torque" for Warren Bros., has inked to direct.

What the fuck does my race have to do with directing Neuromancer?

         

Was that removed? I couldn't find it on his site, just this.

         

By this statement we can see that Kahn's obviously a smart guy with some sharp wit: "He abandoned the baby on the doorstep, and it will never come to daddy again". Such class!

But he misses the point a little. Sure he's done some big "cred" work, but there's almost nothing in his work worth fighting for. I mean this in all honesty. Ask yourself, "What's he about?"

I seriously think some of his work is solid, but the reality of the above question is this: Kahn is strongest when working within a pop sensibility.

Now if he wants to negate that, then dude, what's your deal?

For he's had more than a single chance to display depth and interest but as a whole remains, for better or worse, a pop director. Why then cry when people say, "Oh I dont know if pop is the way to go with this"....?

He may make a great great great film. But from his track record, he remains questionable.

For instance, what in his portfolio tells me he can make a good Neuromancer? If you say George Micheal, I'll call you a liar.

Moreover, if he's such a 'filmmaker', why hasn't he made mv's and commercials for loot, and films for himself? The guy's a millionaire, so I dont even want to hear any of the "I can't afford it" bullshit.

         

maybe neuromancer is his film for himself? i don't see anything in kahn's statement that looks like he's negating his pop work. he's just pointing out he's done more varied work than britney spears, which is true. it's fashionable to bash on successful pop directors on antville, but i'm looking forward to his movie and wish him luck.

by the way, there's no message posted on his site. where did you find this?

         

jKahn is a smart director. for as many sugar pop videos he has done he has equally done interesting and unique videos...see muse...see joss stone...see blink 182. i have faith his adaptation will be solid. lets not get our panties in a bunch just yet.

         

Bear in mind, beginning directors do not choose their projects, projects choose them. Kahn probably took Torque because that's what he was offered. As a neophyte in the feature world, he may have had a say but no real control over the script, cast, editing or anything else, especially when he's being overseen by a powerhouse producer like Neil Moritz, an ego maniac in anyone's book. If Kahn had been charge, you would have seen a different movie. He's smarter than what ended up on the screen, that's clear, and if he's given room to be himself, if he has a modicum of control on Neuromancer, it will be a good movie.