|Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 05:02 am: |
Something light, as I'm in a great mood today. Warner Brothers just renewed their option on Altered Carbon for another 18 months - the project is on-going and there's a new screenwriter on board, apparently.
So - fantasy casting for Altered Carbon characters. Any ideas?
|Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 01:43 pm: |
Altered Carbon to a movie ... now that is great. I really enjoyed reading the book over February. Although, is that what you mean? How does the 'option' work? Does it mean they definitely will be producing a movie? Also, screenwriter? Do you have any control over the finished product?
Who? What? How? WHEN?
Have to think on the fantasy casting however. Not Jackie Chan for lead though (or one of lead renditions)
|Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 02:15 pm: |
In the computercrowsnest interview you said: Robert de Niro, Willem Dafoe, Harvey Keitel... m'dear, those guys are all sooo ooold!
I reckon you need a whole new set, actors that will put effort in (OK the above choices do but I figured younger & still worn). Some new actors are needed to replace the cool old ones who really knew how to be tough and are now unfortunately a bit aged, rather than the current fad for boyishness that's replacing them.
How about an offbeat choice like Tim Roth.
|Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 04:25 pm: |
Hmm - well, I like Roth a lot, and he's certainly got the grit, but he's a bit *little* for Kovacs (yeah, I know de Niro and Keitel are too, but they rarely seem it). I'd always had in mind somebody big and blunt, but they tend not to make movie stars like that these days - where are the likes of Lee Marvin and Burt Lancaster when we need them? Maybe Michael Madsen? Ray Liotta?
|Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 06:00 pm: |
Bruce Willis? Although he's getting up there too. Russell Crowe? Maybe David Boreanez (Argh, the guy who played Angel) if he was less goofy - although maybe he's too young? The Rock, if he took some acting lessons? Mickey Rourke?
Any idea who's slated to direct? Would be interesting to see what Christopher Nolan, Robert Rodriguez, or David Fincher would do with it.
|Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 08:24 am: |
Joacquin Phoenix, maybe. Oh, Ed Norton! Though he's kind of small, see american history X.
|Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 11:03 am: |
Wouldn't it be a treat to see David Fincher do it? As for actors, are we thinking rationally (Eric Bana has the girth but not the grit, and seems to be popular with the studios right now) or are we just outright spitballing? (Robert Patrick, though not A-list, could be bigger and exercise his magnificent bluntness.)
Let's open it up a bit with Benicio del Toro for Kovac's body; his turn in Way of the Gun seems like a pretty good match. Plus, being decanted into his face seems like it'd come with a lot of associated history and background. I believe that del Toro could hint at the body's past while playing up the personality's present.
For the SFPD detective (who's name escapes me here at the office), I vote for Connie Nielsen (Gladiator, Devil's Advocate), or someone like her. She's tough, she's beautiful, she can wear short hear just fine. Even better, she's a solid actress and she's not Ashley Judd.
What about the heavy? What about the Bancrofts? What about the Patchwork Man?
|Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 11:33 am: |
Will - outstanding suggestion - Benicio del T. He's got it, exactly - blunt, broken looking, beautiful eyes...yep, I think we found our Kovacs.
John Joseph Adams
|Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 07:58 pm: |
I second the nomination of Benicio.
I was watching 21 GRAMS the other day, and I had the same thought. When you initially made the original casting call post, I started thinking about it, but I couldn't come up with an actor who was in the right age range, with the right body type, with sufficient acting skills to pull off a complex role like Kovacs. But when I watched Benicio, I did think he was capable of it.
I wasn't sure he'd do a movie like ALTERED CARBON, as he seems to be more interested in indie fare lately, but who knows? But I do see that he's going to star in the upcoming SIN CITY movie, so perhaps he could be convinced to do something like AC. He's certainly the best option I've heard on this thread so far. (I mean...The Rock? <shudder>)
I also like the idea of Fincher directing, though I'm not sold on him completely. FIGHT CLUB was absolutely brilliant, just outstanding directing there, but what else has he done? He's responsible for the atrocity known as ALIEN 3. He also did PANIC ROOM which, while not quite an atrocity, was a rather bland ho-hum "thriller." Especially disappointing was that PANIC ROOM came on the heels of FIGHT CLUB (so that's what he came up with when he knew everyone would be highly-anticipating his next film).
Delighted to see that the option's been renewed though. Highly increases the chances we might see this get made someday.
John Joseph Adams
|Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 08:09 pm: |
BTW, might you divulge the name of the new screenwriter? When I saw that "John Pogue, the guy responsible for The Fast and the Furious, Ghost Ship and the re-make of Rollerball" was writing the screenplay, I felt a sensation a lot like three sharp jabs to the ribs, each worse than the next.
Actually, when I was reading MARKET FORCES (if you haven't read it, it's absolutely fucking brilliant, btw), and I was thinking that it could conceivably be adapted into the Best Movie Ever, I had the frightening thought that typical Hollywood thinking would go something like:
Suit 1: Who should we get to write the script for this? Let's see, it's got cars battles in it...
Suit 2: Get that guy from THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS! That was about cars, and it raked in a boatload of money at the box office!
But I suppose it could be worse. They could get the director of THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS, Rob Cohen to direct it.
|Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 11:05 am: |
Fincher also directed a little film called Seven :-)
And The Game. Which I really liked even if it is extremely silly.
|Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 04:31 pm: |
Don't know who the new screenwriter is, sorry. Fincher to direct would be a (one of a variety of) dream(s) come true - but somehow I don't see it. I think the noir element of AC is likely to be swallowed by the big budget SFness fairly early on - if we're lucky, it'll survive in the look (as in Matrix 1)
Yeah, I liked the Game as well. (Though I can't help suspecting they re-wrote the ending somewhat)
|Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 02:53 pm: |
We want Bancroft to be Christopher Walken. Big budget SFness good as long as the run-down look remains, like Bladerunner rather than Matrix
|Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 07:11 am: |
Alex Proyas (The Crow, Dark City) would be ace to direct - he can do action and achieve/maintain a real dark, gritty feel to his movies.
He did I, Robot too, which I haven't seen yet - is it any good?!??
|Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 01:27 pm: |
I was wondering the same. I really liked both THE CROW and DARK CITY, and enjoyed GARAGE DAYS okay for what it was, but have been hesitant to watch I, ROBOT because it looks too dumb hollywood blockbuster and I'm afraid it'll suck more than I expect it to.
|Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 06:29 am: |
I, Robot is slick and disappointing. I'd much rather have Fincher, or ideally Ridley Scott. He creates the most amazing images despite his mixed CV, and respects science fiction.
As for actors - Tom Sizemore is perfect for Kovacs/Ryker. Stocky, moody, the right age... If not, Jason Isaacs would be good if he beefed up.
Walken as Bancroft sounds great, but perhaps he should look younger in his sleeve - I thought Jeremy Northam, but think he'd be better as Matthius Hand in Broken Angels ;)
|Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 06:55 am: |
Fincher makes pretty, atmospheric movies, but very mixed in terms of substance. Seven was creepy, Fight Club I really liked despite myself, and I didn't mind Alien3 so much, but I haven't seen The Game and Panic Room sucked kinda a lot.
Ridley Scott -- I don't understand his appeal at all. He's amazing when it comes to visuals and atmosphere, but most of his movies are great examples of style over substance. His actors always LOOK the part, but are often completely inappropriate for their roles. Alien and Blade Runner I like, and the Duellists too as long as the TV's muted, but Legend sucked, and he continued alternating between mediocrity and suckage up until Thelma and Louise, when he became popular again for some reason. Then he reverted to suckage again with 1492, GI Jane, etc. Gladiator too sucked except for Crowe's amazingly charismatic performance, Black Hawk Down I loved one time I saw it and hated the other, Hannibal sucked, and Matchstick Men was okay fluff but nothing to get exceited about. I can't for the life of me understand why he's so popular.
And I second Jason Isaacs. He deserves more recognition.
|Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 07:35 am: |
I guess I am primarily thinking of Scott's 'Blade Runner' and 'Alien' double knock-out punch with regards to directing Altered Carbon, although I think Gladiator is a great film too.
What about Brian Singer? Wait! Before you chastise me and mention the X-Men movies, had Singer still been waiting to direct his follow-up to The Usual Suspects, he would be an exciting prospect. Incidentally, I loved X2 as pure and exciting escapism with intelligence - a cut above most modern action films, and a worthy science fiction film.
Another piece of casting might be that of Daniel Dae Kim as Kovacs' Khumalo sleeve during the finale. He has very striking asian features and is very athletic: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0196654/
However...would they even retain this element of the book? I can see a studio worrying over changing the main character's entire appearance - even though it's integral to the novel. Any thoughts?
|Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 03:04 pm: |
Got to admit, Scott would be my first choice as well. You're right, Mastadge, that he's helmed some real turkeys, but the corollary to this is that said turkeys still *look* beautiful. The turkeyness lies in the screenplays he chooses - it's rather like Michelangelo's Sistine chapel - I mean, sure the artwork is beautiful, but thematically? Big yawn.
The thing about Scott is that he gets the texture right, and he knows how to wring out every last drop of human pain in a scene. I mean, look at GI Jane. It's crass dross, but I've still managed to sit through it three times quite happily. That's basically down to Scott's direction. Oh and also a superb performance by Demi Moore, who I reckon, despite everything, is a much underrated actress.
|Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 05:12 pm: |
Is anybody familiar with the work of Brad Anderson? He directed Session 9, and more recently, The Machinist. While The Machinist was a pretty weak script I thought Anderson's direction made the most of something that would otherwise be forgettable.
I'd run out like a shot to see Brad Anderson's vision of Kovacs.
|Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 05:46 pm: |
How about Brad Bird's vision of Kovacs?
|Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 07:21 am: |
Hi Jeremy - Session 9 was certainly a phenomenal movie - fine acting, fine direction and genuinely chilling in a way that US horror rarely approaches these days (unless it's re-making Japanese stuff, that is). But it's hard to tell if Anderson would make a good AC movie. Session 9 was very stripped down and harshly lit, which obviously suited the material perfectly, not sure if you'd get a good noir sensibility out of the same guy.
Haven't seen the Machinist, tho - maybe that answers my question.
Incidentally, I thought S9 also showcased David Caruso pretty well. Another of Hollywood's great forgotten talents - he got sideswiped into crap like "Jade" and then because it didn't fly, he seems to have been relegated to the back row.
John Joseph Adams
|Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 01:02 pm: |
I used to think that Caruso was a forgotten talent... I remembered liking him in a few things, and especially in NYPD Blue. However, I find him completely unwatchable in his current role on CSI: Miami. In fact, he's the reason I gave up on the show when I did. Maybe he's being directed to act that way (and perhaps he has no choice because of the scripts), but his character just comes off as so creepy. But the wierd thing is that no one in CSI: Miami-world ever seems to pick up on this. They all act normal around him and treat him as if he were a normal person. I mean, you'd think people would be looking at him strangely the way he acts on that show.
|Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 04:29 am: |
Hmm - got to say I find CSI completely unwatchable, period. (though that's based on very limited exposure - couple of shows I caught on cable at other people's houses and in hotels) Don't remember seeing Caruso in it, but that might just have been my eyes glazing over. Too many beautiful people in suits they could never finance on their police salaries. Could be Caruso's just supposed to be the imported movie star cachet, and they're not doing anything with him (which I'd guess must in itself be frustrating for an actor and hardly guaranteed to stimulate your best work)
|Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 12:45 pm: |
I think Lucy Liu would be perfect as Kawahara, though the hopes of the films budget supporting her pay are slim.
Also, Carrie-Anne Moss would make a decent Ortega.
For the role of Miriam Bancroft, Cameron Diaz springs to mind, though i have trouble visualizing her doing any other impressions than her impish grin or manic laughter.
I think my recent viewings of "vanilla sky" and "Something about Mary" are to blame.
|Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 05:03 pm: |
Hmm - pretty good suggestions all round. Cameron Diaz is actually a surprisingly good actress - try Feeling Minnesota for confirmation of this (as well as superb performance from Keanu Reeves), but I don't know if she's got the gravitas for someone like Miriam - though it does occur to me that Carrie Anne Moss might. She did a pretty cracking evil turn in Memento. That would leave you looking for a new Ortega - no-one comes immediately to mind, at least not out of the Hollywood stable - hispanic actresses there tend to be required to do sultry and sexy, but not hard-nosed. Marisa Tomei or Rosie Perez might carry it if they were given the chance...but would they be?
|Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 06:29 am: |
Hey Nicolai - have you seen Lucy Liu in 'Cypher'? That's a relatively small budget science fiction film, and she's very good in that.
|Posted on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 02:05 pm: |
Ortega -- Salma Hayek
|Posted on Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 12:37 pm: |
Wow - *that's* a side of her I've never seen before (though she was superb in Frida, I'll admit) Yeah, on the strength of that photo, she could certainly be Ortega. Outstanding!
|Posted on Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 12:43 pm: |
btw Steph, speaking of beautiful people - I was at the Imaginales festival in Epinal last week and saw some Bragelonne copies of Year of Our War - gorgeous image of strung out, angel-winged Jant, too shagged to lift the sword in his hands. I guess you've already seen it, but man, it. is. Cool.
|Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 02:05 pm: |
Hayek -- yes, f'sure. She was in 'Once upon a time in Mexico'. I liked that film and not just because it had Johnny Depp in it. ...And Willem Dafoe.
The French edition of YOOW is brilliant. I read it last night. Melanie Fazi has done a great job of the translation, all the bird names and the puns she's translated brilliantly. The only hitch was my fault -- Tornado's nickname is 'Tawny', it's not his real name; he's not Awian. So I shouldn't have used 'Tawny' but 'Torny' I suppose. So in French he's 'Harfang' which is good because it's also the name of the giant's city in 'Silver Chair' remember? A lot of it sounds better in French; I thought the Awian language would sound something like French.
The cover art is great too - 'pathetic but willing to fight' is how the editor summed it up. It's still a fantasy cover, a bit 'graphic novel', but it's the best picture of Jant yet... and that includes my archive from the year dot. Strung out, all right; he looks like he's going to keel over. Lucky for Jant that his work mostly involves the pen not the sword, it might not be mightier but it is lighter. He's mean with an ice axe but he should really leave all that sword stuff to Wrenn -- who is, let's face it, the Wayne Rooney of fencing.
How was Imaginales? Oh - that reminds me - how about a bottle of whisky to make the Glasgow whisky talk more interesting?
|Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 04:25 pm: |
Yeah, alright. How about a nearly complete bottle of 10 year Ardbeg chill filtered (and maybe another of Knob Creek so Jeff Ford doesn't feel left out) Conveniently enough, we have to go directly to the Gollancz party afterwards.
Imaginales was fantastic - naked painted women with horns and wings wandering about the place, whisky coffee for breakfast over signings, and lots of great food, much of it paid for by the mayor. Only in France, eh........
Jant, yeah, I like that ice axe touch - very efficient and unpleasant, neatly shorn of all the romantic associations that go with swords. Chunk, chunk -yuurgghgh
|Posted on Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 03:34 am: |
*laughs* What are you like? With an ice axe you have to get up close to Insects. Lightning has a much better idea.
Do we get naked painted women at worldcon? I'll do it for half a good reason. And anyway, why are there never any naked painted _men_ with wings and *grin* horns.
Mmm: Ardbeg's my favourite of all those southern Islays. To contrast I might bring something lighter and not peaty: Speyside or Caol Ila. I just think it would be boring as hell for the audience to watch a panel sitting talking about whisky & where it is in literature -- rather self-indulgent of the panel -- shouldn't the audience be able to taste some? This needs a little planning: via email or a new thread because I'm taking up space on your casting couch.
|Posted on Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 07:47 am: |
why no naked men? this very same question was posed at the time, and answered by my translator thus: "because there isn't a single man at this convention with the body to make it worthwhile" A quick crowd scan revealed him to be largely correct, something I suspect will be doubly the case at Worldcon. But if you do manage to find that half good reason, Steph, bear in mind that the painting took something like three hours each time and the weather in Epinal was distinctly unGlaswegian....
re ice axes - yes, it's a fair point, up close and personal with an Insect might be worth avoiding - except perhaps for one of the more psychotically male members of your cast - brings to mind that phenomenal publicity poster for Verhoeven's Starship Troopers - human soldier, face distorted with hate and fury, running directly at what from the visible feelers in the foreground must be a terrifyingly huge Bug
right - whisky panel thread coming right up - I think I'll nip over to Jeff's thread and ask him to join us
|Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 04:13 am: |
Starship Troopers - _That_was_totally_wicked_.
Three hours of nude bodypainting, the girls must have looked like Mystique in the X-men film.
My days of doing such things are over. No good came of them either for myself or other women. Point of honour. I'll recant only when Germaine Greer is seen in the buff, taking a shower in the Big Brother transparent outdoor khazi. Then I will know that feminism, although still nascent, has been aborted.
|Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 08:10 am: |
yes - Mystique with black leather knee high stiletto boots. In fact she (there was only one, but she changed costume on different days) looked exactly as if she'd just walked out of a Boris Vallejo illustration.
Raises some interesting issues with feminism, true, though the big contrast with Vallejo's work was that this was a real woman, with real in-proportion body parts (and no silicone). Was she denigrated or empowered - hard to say, but since she appeared to be doing it for fun, not money, I'm tending towards the latter view. Then again I'm a bloke and therefore perhaps not to be trusted when it comes to making arguments in favour of/against attractive women putting their bodies on display. Which leads to the vexed question of whether a man can ever really be a feminist or not.
Ahem. New thread, anybody?
|Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 09:06 am: |
attractive women putting their bodies on display
Once you've done something like that you can't undo it. You will always be that girl who went naked at Imaginales. You may want people to remember your career or qualifications, but they'll remember your thigh boots instead. From that day on, men will either be waiting for you to strip again, or your feat will become little more than a pub anecdote or a line on a discussion board.
If that's what the girl wants to be, fine. But she should bear in mind that her actions have an effect on all other women in the minds of all men -- cheapening them ever so slightly, bringing them down a notch. Because a man might think: if one woman goes naked, why shouldn't they all be available to show their bodies? So if our Imaginales women is objectified, other women can be too. They are one step closer to losing their hard-won equality. It's difficult enough for us women to operate in a man's world without us making it harder for ourselves.
So I think the issue is about the availablity of women's bodies, it's about dignity rather than money. The binary opposition you give above:
money=women denigrated : no money=women empowered
is a male way of thinking, as Helen Cixous would say.
|Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 01:44 am: |
hmm - not so much a binary opposition as a measure of individual freedom. If you're doing it for money, there is always the question of economic pressure to perform. If you've chosen to do it because you like it, then it comes (for me anyway) under the banner of personal self expression. There are of course the wider social implications of that expression, as you say, but that applies to pretty much anything a woman does - getting loudly drunk, taking drugs, carrying a gun, smoking.....anything perceived as socially negative. It's interesting that in the sudden crusade against binge drinking, it's hard drinking *girls* who are coming in for huge amounts of criticism By following the social implication argument to a logical conclusion, you can quite easily end up with a pseudo-Augustinian take on what women should and shouldn't do - fail to comply with this model of modesty and control and suddenly you're under attack from the Dworkin/McKinnon wing of feminism and/or shoved into purdah. One of the scary things about listening to women advocating the use of the veil in Muslim society is the dualistic approach they have to behaviour - men behave badly and that's, well, it's in their nature, nothing you can do about it, fox in the chicken house, boys will be boys, whereas women, well it's their job to behave properly, cover themselves, repress their appetites etc....
My principle problem with all of this is that I suspect the whole display thing is endemically human - people like to do the "look at me" thing. The woman at Epinal wasn't a writer or publisher, her raison d'etre seemed to be this act of display. Maybe that makes her a performance artist, maybe just a dizzy little airhead (and maybe a bit of both). But I worry when risque/edgy self-expression comes under social sanction for ideological purposes.
|Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 03:09 am: |
I have horns, fairy wings and no sense of shame. And evil ideas in my head now.
Sod the paint though; that's valuable drinking time being squandered.
|Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 02:59 pm: |
*Which leads to the vexed question of whether a man can ever really be a feminist or not. *
That to me is a valid question, in no small part because I consider myself a feminist. Then again, one of the ways I express my feminism is in the porn I select. So, perhaps, I've just invalidated my opinion.
|Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 04:41 am: |
Richard, it is experiential not ideological. I no longer do anything for ideological purposes.
I just wanted to go back on something I said above, the best picture of Jant was done by Steve Stone (http://www.nexus-dna.demon.co.uk/) commissioned by HarperEos. They didn't use it and it's not published although I thought it was perfect & brilliant. He was a very sound guy to work with.
|Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 06:27 am: |
Hiya Steph - didn't mean you with the ideological thing, I was rambling in general terms. I concur absolutely with your point: "if our Imaginales women is objectified, other women can be too. They are one step closer to losing their hard-won equality." I just think this kind of (self)-objectification is so deeply rooted in the human psyche (male AND female) that there's no way to beat it - it's like trying to repeal gravity. (I'm more in the Pinker/Dawkins than the Gould/Rose camp when it comes to evolutionary psychology - Helene Cixous and I would definitely fall out there.) You can take a fire engine approach to the problem - legal measures to prevent and punish discrimination, education to modify oppressive behaviour, all of which is a huge uphill struggle - but I don't think the essence can be changed.
However, there is this: equality seems to be coming, but as exactly the reverse of what we might have hoped - instead of women being liberated from the pressures of physical objectification, men are sliding down to join them in the crack as male bodies are increasingly commodified. Which may in turn create the necessary across-the-board social outrage to make the struggle less uphill (men's problems and worries being SO much more worthy of address than women's).
The Steve Stone stuff is great, like Geiger but not as brutally grim - no sign of Jant on the site though - have you got a JPEG?
|Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 08:09 am: |
It's Steve Stone's copyright so I don't think I should post it here without his permission. I'll email it to you soon.