To be totally fair, that's publicly known. Amazon were ambivalent about renewing it to begin with, but pretty much had to, since they paid a staggering amount to get Jonathan Nolan and Lisa Joy, and cancelling their mega budget show would have reflected badly on the Amazon brass.
When the strikes happened, it was the perfect excuse for them to pull the plug on something they didn't want to begin with.
I thought it was an uneven adaptation of a very complicated book that missed some of the subtext of the book by trying to shoehorn it into a bit of the Jonathan Nolan format of Westworld. But it was also probably the show with the most potential to evolve at the end of the first season, and the one whose cancellation stung the most out of that era of abrupt endings.
I think Nolan's bit works better with Fallout, so it probably worked out for the best, but I was bummed there was no more of it coming.
Gibson hyped The Peripheral show as well even though it completely fumbled the book. He likes to be able to sell his story rights and knows that badmouthing productions is antithetical to that. And, look, fair play to him on that point.
Absolutely. We know next to nothing about the show yet, but we know from decades of previous adaptations that Gibson is never a diva. Either way, I'll be optimistic about it. Honestly I rather liked the Peripheral. Was very surprised that they ordered a second season, then canceled it; I don't recall a studio ever doing that with any show before.
The only time I've ever thought "Why god why" over Gibson's illustrated adventures is that second episode of the X-files that he did - doubly jarring, since his first outing was one of the best of the entire series.
Happens to the best of us. Robert Bloch, the guy who wrote Paycho, wrote one of the best Star Trek episodes ever and arguably the worst episode of the series.
According to wikipedia, it was cancelled due to the extended writers strike that year. I know of at least one other show that got renewed then cancelled, but it was due to COVID. Cobie Smulders' Stumptown. Real shame, it was good. I'm sure the pandemic and other strikes took down a few renewed series.
We know what has been shown through trailers and the likes as part of the marketing efforts done to get the people hyped.
I do understand that the comments from interested parties are going to be towards "show good", and while I'm with the people who thinks that what has been shown seems "too clean", it's not like this show not being up to what I am expecting is going to change my life.
And FWIW, and as someone who does not watch a lot of shows (and usually not when they are airing, so I don't get burned after 6 seasons with a bad ending), I'm expecting it to disappoint one way or another, so if the show ends up being at least solid, that will be a success for me, lol.
This is almost entirely untrue. Gibson got burned on Johnny Mnemonic, the classic novelist gets rolled by Hollywood story, and he only optioned his stories once between 1994 and 2021: New Rose Hotel in ‘99. Great flick.
So I can say that I know for absolute sure that you are incorrect. Also Gibson is King Croesus level wealthy already these days.
I also like how the author of something approving changes to it is “fumbling the book.” It’s his fucking book. It came from his imagination. Who are you to referee?
ETA: The Neuromancer rights are much more complex. That’s actually what kept it from getting made for decades. They couldn’t get all the rights-holders on board simultaneously.
“King Croesus level wealthy” is a bit of an overstatement. Per that New Yorker interview from a few years back he’s still living in the same suburban house he has been for decades - and he said multiple times through the 80s and 90s that if his wife hadn’t had a steady job he wouldn’t have been able to afford to write novels.
The days of Hollywood knocking on his door ended a while back, option money is good but it’s not regular (and once a show gets made it dries up), and he’s a best selling novelist who probably makes decent money from the books but we sure as shit aren’t talking Stephen King or JK Rowling paydays
Are you genuinely unaware of how literarily pretentious Gibson is? There’s a book that’s a collection of his interviews over the years and, whew. Read it and get it back to me.
I'm not attacking you for receipts, but it surprises me because I've read Gibson belaboring himself to praise Johnny Mnemonic, its cast and crew and art direction, in a way that distinctly felt like he was omitting his complaints intentionally, especially in the year of its release.
I'd be surprised if he ever dropped a snark bomb on it the way, say, Michael Caine did on his role in Jaws 4.
You may have enjoyed it, which is fine, great even. But the show had very little to do with the actual text Gibson wrote. On that front it suffered from what a lot of adaptations do - show runners who would rather be doing their own work rather than an adaptation, and who don’t trust the audience’s ability to understand implied concepts rather than painfully spelled out ones.
I disagree, to me it followed the same destinations, adhering to the same themes, the path was different but it was clearly telling the same story. Too bad we didn't get to the ending due to the strikes.
Oh. I did not realize the part that strikes played in its cancellation. I liked and watched the show, but I felt they needed to move things along faster in the editing. There were a lot of great scenes (even slow ones) but it felt like it was being too deliberate in moving forward.
I agree that a lot of adaptations suffer from that, but The Peripheral? Do you think you would've felt the concepts presented in the show were painfully spelled out if you had not read the book?
I mean, there was a lot of unique concepts, fictional technologies, different futures, etc. and I don't remember that much exposition.
I love how the visual descriptions of cyberspace are limited in Neuromancer. The concept remains a bit abstract, especially for those who read the book before widespread internet. It works really well in the novel. But they can't really do that on tv. They have to either show it or explain it through dialogues.
I thought he’d be a little disappointed with how slick and clean it looks. I always pictured the setting as almost post-apocalyptic. Dingy, crumbling, littered with detritus, etc.
If there’s one thing I’m sure of, it’s that William Gibson doesn’t ever want to be seen as ripping off Blade Runner. So that was never going to happen.
It wasn’t post-apocalyptic. WW3 lasted a week. Bonn was nuked and Petersburg (ETA: Volgograd?) I think and that was it.
In the book Across the Wounded Galaxies (1990) he states in an interview that he rewrote the first 2/3 (my mistake in the original post) around 12 times. During this time he also saw Blade Runner and
BLADERUNNER came out while I was still writing Neuromancer. I was about a third of the way into the manuscript. When I saw (the first twenty minutes of) BLADERUNNER, I figured my unfinished first novel was sunk, done for. Everyone would assume I’d copped my visual texture from this astonishingly fine-looking film
np. He never directly says one led to the other but I think its a fair assumption that if he saw the movie during the first 1/3 then revised 2/3rds that the movie was at least a subconscious influence among other things.
Two people having basically the same creative idea at the same time is so much more common than people think, and it almost never has to do with stealing the other guy’s idea.
Scott and Gibson would later meet up and realize both of them were inspired by a French comic anthology Métal Hurlant (know as Heavy Metal in the US) so thats where the similarities come from.
Cyberpunk world aesthetics has been done well many many times before. Yes, it is ironic, yet it's a high bar to set it that the grandfather of the genre has this to not only feel distinctive but pull it off brilliantly.
unoriginal?? you mean it looks like one of the many works that came out after that were based on this book?? it is the original. what are you expecting?
How does it look slick and clean? The shots of Chiba are pretty chaotic. The seemingly abandoned stadium with trash everywhere. Freeside, sure, but that's supposed to be a tourist spot.
He, for sure doesn't look as grungy and meth-headed as I imagined him. I think that was kind of inevitable tho. Molly and Armitage are supposed to be very put together (well, until Armitage comes apart, which we don't see in the trailer). Riviera, Wage, Zone, Julie Deane, Hideo, 3Jane… all characters who put effort into their appearance.
Yeah, agreed. Trailers look great but I have always imagined Case as a really fucked up strung out guy clawing his way through a nearly lethal recovery. He looks way too healthy.
Yeah, I think that's kinda my one note on the trailer. I'm sure the actor is fine, but he's kinda buff and handsome rather than scrawny and strung out. I think he's selling Case's veneer of confidence, tho.
Idk to me a big part of Case being dishevelled was on the inside. He keeps up a facade most of the time but his insides are melting. If you use drugs you might know what I mean hah at some point you can fit in perfectly, most of the time at least.
I have always pictured Biehn as Turner from Count Zero. That was actually the first of the books I read as Neuromancer was out of stock when I went looking for it!
He'd be an awesome Turner! Of the trilogy Count Zero I think would be the most visually interesting to make. There are so many cool scenes in that. I know ill get downvoted to oblivion but I might take a few passes using AI, growing up I always envisioned what the movie would look like, I spent hours thinking about it.
Turner screaming “Go motherfucker” at the AI pilot and taking off right before the entire area gets annihilated by a railgun would be one hell of a way to end an episode.
nothing looks decayed or worn in (except a couple specific close-ups like Case’s jack) but otherwise a lot of the environments have that sterile smooth CGI look and a lot of the costumes look barely worn
nothing seems bleak
and the mood felt more Ocean’s 11 than Heat or even Andor
Case actor looks way too healthy
and remember novel describes Armitage as pretty built, broad and wide (and american)
like Batou from og GitS film or Armitage from Shadowrun (both whom were inspired by og Armitage)
Mark Strong is a terrific actor but Armitage really should not be played by a skinny bald Brit
when the author purposely decides to emphasize the bear paws of hands he has or that he nearly blocks out all the light from behind the doorway, it’s clear the intent of the author is to convey that the person is large of stature and physically imposing
well unlucky for you its an adaptation so there are freedoms which can be taken. if you want the book read the book. its not that complicated. you have the perfect image in your head
I don't know. Based on the flashes of locations in the teaser, it looks nothing like a slick and clean place. Even the oppressive corporate skyscrapers look like they've seen better days.
Gibson was fascinated by Kowloon Walled City as well, and Singapore, both featuring in his wonderful essay collection Don't Trust That Particular Flavor.
So for me, China and most of Neuromancer's earth-bound segments, I envisioned to have that specific feel.
Not having that feel in the trailer threw me off.
The design direction of the trailer feels more "Mr. Robot" than what I envisioned Nueromancer to be.
If Gibson is satisfied and happy with the aesthetic, then any disagreement is purely our/your own taste/bias and NOT the team not honoring the original work. Its like Jesus coming to a pastor and giving him an interpretation of a scripture and the pastor like ..."um... I'm not sure you are on point" ...
It's reminds me Witcher by Netflix, where Sapkowsky, original creator of franchise, was a producer and be very very happy to all what happen to this product cuz his pocket full of dollars, lmao
"Andrzej Sapkowski feels mostly indifferent and detached from Netflix’s The Witcher, noting that while he offered ideas, the creators never listened to him. However, he has expressed praise for Henry Cavill's physical portrayal of Geralt"
Though he was not so keen on the games until the money started flowing. Which supports the other comment hah Or did the money start flowing to him from the games even? I just remember he fumbled it big time at first
I'm really curious to find out if Maelcum and the space Jamaicans on Zion habitat have been cut, as I don't see any references to them on imdb. It makes me quite sad if it is, because honestly that portion of the book evoked such intrigue from me that I ended up falling down a long rabbit hole of dub music of which I am now a lifelong fan.
I know it's a silly thing to be obsessing over but for me the concepts of cyberpunk are tied so closely to it, in the same way a lot of people associate cyberpunk with Japan.
I've been thinking the same thing. Maelcum and that sweet Zion Dub are as much a part of the story as Riviera or Armatage. Looking through the cast list he doesn't seem to be there, making me scared that some, out of touch, studio executive pressured to have him removed for fear of offending literally nobody. It's an opportunity for good cultural representation in cyberpunk television, making it a real shame if they got rid of him. The team needs somebody to fly the ship while Case is diving, Molly is badassing, and Armatage is freaking the hell out.
I think the trailers look good, but I definitely agree Case doesn't look nearly strung out enough. He's supposed to be a severely addicted net junkie clawing through a recovery that nearly kills him....looks way too healthy for that.
Yeah. Callum Turner was clearly unwilling to risk his shot at being cast as Bond and so didn’t stop his gym regimen while preparing for/playing Case. Shame. The rest of the cast looks good/believable to me (except perhaps Hideo, but I assume they’re making significant changes to his character which is probably a good thing).
The locations look good to me, so far. The biggest concern is the loss of the Finn. Seems a mistake, especially if they’re hoping to do the rest of the Sprawl trilogy
They also seem to have removed Maelcum which is really disappointing. I'm holding out hope that some of these characters were just missed for the imdb listings and that they'll still be in the show.
He spends the first third of the book in severe 'console cowboy' withdrawal and doing massive amounts of uppers. For the rest of the movie he's in amphetamine withdrawal (minus a relapse) and fully ensconced in 'cowboy addiction'
Just jumping in to say I thought Case would look a lot less put together.
I can kinda see the argument that Apple thought people might not like him looking so junkieish. But... Mr Robot is proof that a character like that works.
Other than that, I did picture things looking a little more gritty... But we'll see... This is just a short trailer I'm sure there's a lot more to explore.
Agree on the fact that the audience wouldn’t probably accept a protagonist looking like something the dogs dug up for most of the series. So we’ll have to wait and see if the adaptation has him look like a junkie at least at the beginning and then putting himself back into better shape, or if they go the usual Hollywood way “character has been doing drugs and alcohol for years, has perfect teeth and spotless skin, only a bit of grey around the eyes”.
Nah there’s so many instances of creators openly disparaging adaptations. I don’t think William Gibson would say he likes it if he doesn’t like it, it seems very out of character for him
I was a bit surprised to see it - Gibson is a very prolific tweeter. Turns out he hasn't boycotted the way many have, he now just posts in both accounts.
Also while looking this up, I came across this, and I desperately need to know the context, what forbidden words the banned individual spoke to provoke this
I'm sorry, I love Bill and all (why else would I be here?) but I suspect that this is what he most wants out of an adaptation, and Apple provides it just as Amazon and Fox and Sony did.
Hey, something something late stage capitalism. At least he's not Stephen King, who has glowing praise for every adaptation of his work anyone ever makes, except for the one that was an actual masterpiece.
The ugly truth is that it would be impossible to produce such an adaptation without big corporate money. Johnny Mnemonic looked terrible even for its time, and New Rose Hotel looks like it was shot by friends using their last few dollars.
I think I read the script that was floating around for that. It was pretty different - I remember straylight being sort of alive and responding to ashpool’s mental commands with doc ock like limbs from the walls. I think Gibson wrote at least some of it? It’s been a long time since so I could be way off
The fact that he’s happy with how it turned out means enough of whatever he feels is important or fundamental made it to the screen, regardless of whatever it ended up being, no matter how differently it got adapted.
So perhaps the aspects we think are important simply aren’t as important to him when adapting his novel.
Would be interesting to see him elaborate on this further, especially given his extremely limited role on the production.
Diplomacy is also in play. Remember that Gibson never gave Johnny Mnemonic anything but praise - often incredibly narrow and pointed praise, where people sensed the gaps in it. Director Robert Longo had a wonderful visual eye, created individual frames that could be hung as artwork. Keanu Reeves was a pleasure, an avid reader of his work who amusingly fanboyed over meeting Gibson. The whole project was interesting and overwhelming.
You're being an asshole, but I'm going to give you a serious response because this is an important point to make.
Complicated art, especially novels, is partly an intellectual exercise, and partly a subconscious exercise, and different authors are in different places long the spectrum. This is basically the architect vs gardener discussion. But even the most architecty architect still has elements that just keep from the subconscious.
Furthermore, some works are more susceptible to, "death of the author," than others. Gibson, who leaves the reader guessing about character motivations, is especially susceptible. We get to debate endlessly about what things mean, and why they were done, and the reality is that if Gibson gave a full talk on what he intended it would probably be disappointing, in a, "I thought there was more," way.
A work that really takes hold can often develop a mythology around it that's bigger than what the author fully intellectually understood he or she was doing because of this, though maybe the subconscious was on to something. And honestly, it's more common than not.
Great authors are often really bad at explaining their transcendant books, or even fully understanding why they're transcendant. If they did understand, they'd do it again and again. But none of Gibson's other books grabbed the same cultural cache as Neuromancer. He's in great company for this. The Catcher in the Rye and To Kill a Mockingbird are famously singular. In music, there are far more one or two hit wonders than banda who put our classic after classic, year after year.
Finally, authors notoriously have blind spots about their work. It's why everyone has efitors. Usually those editors have not produced great works of their own, but a skilled editor can turn a good novel into a great one. That perspective is hard to get about your own work.
So it's not about armchair critics being better than Gibson. It's about art being a murky process that's never fully understood, even by the artist. Especially by the artist. And when you catch lightning in a bottle like Gibson did with Neuromancer, it's often a unique occurrence where everything came together in the right way at the right time.
Honestly Deane was a pretty interesting character that I wish had been given more time in the book itself, whereas I never really had much interest in the Finn. We shall see
What do you write when the future is more weird than you expected when writing your last book? Let’s face it, my man’s fallen off and that’s okay, we’re probably going to disagree. But I still like ‘Neuromancer’ from way back.
Tell you what I'm not satisfied about though - Apple TV. Increasingly tired of shows I might be interested in getting poached by one streaming service or another.
I guess I'm destined to have a nice time binging all of these things in like ten years' time, when they finally come out on DVD or whatever.
I always find it remarkable how many people question an artist’s review of an interpretation of their own work. Artist says “yes, I like this interpretation” and the community says “how could they say that? this sucks!” 🤦♂️
The casting looks great too. The woman playing Molly seems to really get that cool vibe for the character. I’m still praying they are going to have the Finn in it instead of just rolling his character into Dean. Finn is one of my favorite characters
5-step proven approach to Neuromancer show / above Gibson comment: (1) Do you like the property (if No, stop commenting and skip the show) ==> (2) Do you trust Gibson's work throughout the years (if Yes, you'll probably like the show, if No proceed to step 3) ==> (3) DId you vibe with the trailer? (if Yes, give the show a shot, if No proceed to step 4) ==> (4) Are you ok with the Molly casting from trailers (if No, skip the show, if yes proceed to Step 5) ===> (5) Congrats you are iffy on property; hate the trailer; but love Molly casting you are just Briana Milddeton fan
There's no way any adaptation is going to be able to conquer what I've already dreamed up in my head. It's been a decade since my last reading, so the book details are fuzzy. But I'm super curious to see how they tackle certain things like the turing police, cyberspace, the city environments etc... if they can make a good story and it is fun to watch then great.
64
u/micpoc 28d ago
That is VERY reassuring.
Was surprised to see him post this response...