3 ms·

Best news of the day!

objclxt 14y ago
I wouldn't get too excited...it's been in development hell pretty much since the book was published. God knows how many writers have actually had a go at it, but I'm willing to bet a dozen or so (usually when a director gets attached they re-write the script with their preferred screenwriter). You end up with this situation where the studio has to release something, because they've spent so much money buying the options, paying for ump-teen rewrites, etc. Studios don't account this as a 'loss', since in theory they will make the money back when the film is released. There comes a point in development hell where you have to release something, because either a) your losses on the film are at a point where you can't keep rolling them over, or b) your options are going to expire - and if you're the studio executive who decides not to make the film and commit that loss to paper you can bet you won't be with the studio for much longer. The best case is you end up with something like Watchmen (which had been in development for about 20 years and had half a dozen big name directors attached, like Gilliam and Aronofsky). The final result is a reasonable film, although one that doesn't really compare to the source material and is fairly quickly forgotten. The worst case is the film doesn't get made (although if you're passionate about the source material you might argue this was the best case all along). This is a big simplification - in true Hollywood style, it's a lot more complex (Snow Crash actually bounced from Paramount to Disney and back again - the fact Disney was unable to do anything with it isn't really a good sign). What you can pretty much guarantee is that at the end of it you end up with a film that's average at best. It's a vicious cycle: say Joe Cornish writes a great script, but Paramount insist on some rewrites. Joe Cornish then has to drop out, because the rewrites cause the schedule to clash with another project. Another director comes on, and he insists on new rewrites to accomodate his style. Etc, etc etc.
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  Yeah, it's a tossup if this works out or not. I'm guessing this came about because Cornish had a movie that did quite well with the geek critics, if not the box office. So he probably got some meetings off that and they asked him what he wanted to do next. He said Snow Crash, they figured why not, it's just sitting there, and here we are. This is all conjecture on my part, but it seems likely. Still, it's good to see it's floating to the surface again. Now, if Neuromancer would ever actually happen... EDIT: Lorenzo Di Bonaventura signed on to produce Neuromancer last month. That's a big deal, it might really get made. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/seven-arts-and-prodigy-pictures-announce-lorenzo-di-bonaventura-to-join-production-team-of-neuromancer-2012-04-30 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/seven-arts-and-prodigy-pict...

I wouldn't get too excited...it's been in development hell pretty much since the book was published. God knows how many writers have actually had a go at it, but I'm willing to bet a dozen or so (usually when a director gets attached they re-write the script with their preferred screenwriter). You end up with this situation where the studio has to release something, because they've spent so much money buying the options, paying for ump-teen rewrites, etc. Studios don't account this as a 'loss', since in theory they will make the money back when the film is released. There comes a point in development hell where you have to release something, because either a) your losses on the film are at a point where you can't keep rolling them over, or b) your options are going to expire - and if you're the studio executive who decides not to make the film and commit that loss to paper you can bet you won't be with the studio for much longer. The best case is you end up with something like Watchmen (which had been in development for about 20 years and had half a dozen big name directors attached, like Gilliam and Aronofsky). The final result is a reasonable film, although one that doesn't really compare to the source material and is fairly quickly forgotten. The worst case is the film doesn't get made (although if you're passionate about the source material you might argue this was the best case all along). This is a big simplification - in true Hollywood style, it's a lot more complex (Snow Crash actually bounced from Paramount to Disney and back again - the fact Disney was unable to do anything with it isn't really a good sign). What you can pretty much guarantee is that at the end of it you end up with a film that's average at best. It's a vicious cycle: say Joe Cornish writes a great script, but Paramount insist on some rewrites. Joe Cornish then has to drop out, because the rewrites cause the schedule to clash with another project. Another director comes on, and he insists on new rewrites to accomodate his style. Etc, etc etc.

waterlesscloud 14y ago
Yeah, it's a tossup if this works out or not. I'm guessing this came about because Cornish had a movie that did quite well with the geek critics, if not the box office. So he probably got some meetings off that and they asked him what he wanted to do next. He said Snow Crash, they figured why not, it's just sitting there, and here we are. This is all conjecture on my part, but it seems likely. Still, it's good to see it's floating to the surface again. Now, if Neuromancer would ever actually happen... EDIT: Lorenzo Di Bonaventura signed on to produce Neuromancer last month. That's a big deal, it might really get made. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/seven-arts-and-prodigy-pictures-announce-lorenzo-di-bonaventura-to-join-production-team-of-neuromancer-2012-04-30 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/seven-arts-and-prodigy-pict...