Friday, August 10, 2007

Because Neil Gaiman novels are less utile than Neil Gaiman movies?

by Ken Houghton

Without this:

This would not be in theaters today.

So what are John Scalzi and Brad DeLong thinking when they tell us to go TODAY, so that Neil will write more film scripts and—because "lump of labour" discussions are legitimate regarding the Gaiman singularity—fewer books?

Don't get me wrong; we're going tonight. And it seems unlikely that Gaiman—whose novel Coraline has been filmed (is in post-production) and was a screenwriter the upcoming Beowulf film—is going to get thrown out of Hollywood any time soon.

But do we really want Gaiman to have less time to write novels?

Labels: , , ,

But do we really want Gaiman to have less time to write novels?

Not me. But if Hollywood is reading this blog, let me say, "Hollywood, Stardust and Coraline are all very nice, but where's my adaptation of American Gods starring Gene Hackman as Odin?"

Let us know how Stardust is. The presence of the swashbuckling character on the right side holding the sword on the right side of the poster makes me think that it's not going to be a particularly faithful adaptation, unless I'm not remembering the book right.

Actually, the fact that Tristran's also holding a sword has me scratching my head too.
Nothing faithful is not the half of it. Watching paint dry, with editing to make the directoral pace seem hyperkinetic.

Someone nicer than me will have to do it for newcritics. Suffice to say, Gaiman got the best of both worlds: sold the book and didn't do anything on the script.

The chance that I'm going to see Thor is virtually nil.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?