Joel Schumacher Eyeing Neil Gaiman's Sandman

[The Question]

Here's an interesting thought for a director: Hayao Miyazaki.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Darren Aronofsky or Guillermo Del Toro seem tailor-made to do a SANDMAN film. For a project like SANDMAN or WATCHMEN or whatever-have-you, they should be looking at top-of-the-line directors.

Say what you will about Schumacher, but he's no auteur. At best, he just knows how to point a camera. He's not a visionary, and that's what a SANDMAN needs.

I mentioned Guillermo Del Toro earlier, but he is an obvious choice. I'd also say Terry Gilliam, Darren Aronofsky, David Fincher, Tim Burton (ooohhh imagine Johnny Depp as Sandman)Park Chan-Wook and Ridley Scott.

Interesting choices,Del Torro is the guy that sprung to my mind even though Ive never read Sandman the art Ive seen and pages seem to fit with him and Burton/Depp would certainly bring the edge needed

Ridley seemed an outside the box choice to me though

Anyway looks like everyone can rest easy

http://www.latinoreview.com/news.php?id=1422

 

[Killgore]

Heh heh. And to think I had a part in everyone getting their panties in a bunch.

 

[Kritish]

Is this about time for a picture of Vader yelling no?

 

[Spoon Tang]

 

[Steelsheen]

hmmm Schumacher.... Sandman....

.... Schumacher has his talents, but methinks he should steer clear of this one. just my gut feeling.

 

[MaskedManJRK]

I mentioned Guillermo Del Toro earlier, but he is an obvious choice. I'd also say Terry Gilliam, Darren Aronofsky, David Fincher, Tim Burton (ooohhh imagine Johnny Depp as Sandman)Park Chan-Wook and Ridley Scott.

Not sure if Sandman is Scott's forte', but other than that, I like that list--espicially Gilliam and Burton.

No, it was a poor adaptation, and most of the musical's fanbase either hated or was disappointed with his film.

First, Schumacher sought out two non-experienced singers for the two leads and ultimately hurt the music in the process. You don't cast non-singers in some of the most demanding voice parts in musical theatre. And if you really think Emmy Rossum was great vocally, you need to hear the other people who have performed that part.

Second, Schumacher made the story "young and sexy" (his words, not mine), and had ludicrous things such as the Phantom's chest exposed like he was Fabio on a romance novel cover. The Phantom is not supposed to be young and physically sexy. He's supposed to be world weary, tired of living a life full of mistreatment. He entirely misses the heart and poignancy of the story.

Third, Schumacher didn't know what to take from the stage show and what not. For example, the candles rising out of the water. It's cool on stage because it's not literally happening. In the movie, it just looks silly (in fact, the whole title song looks like an overproduced 80s music video).

Foruth, visually, Schumacher's PHANTOM film is horrifically overdone, with fake-looking sets galore. The original stage show was grand, but it was grand in decent doses and maintained an aura of darkness. Schumacher's Phantom film is just plain garish.

Completely agree--though I thought Butler wasn't that bad in the role, and with a better director would have been great as the Phantom.

 

[The Question]

I guess no one likes the idea of Miyazaki then?

 

[Movies205]

First off in terms of Batman, for god-sakes... Just because something happened before you were born, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Batman has been many things, one of which is campy and ridiculous, that's what Schmacher representation obviously came from, it wasn't like he failed miserably at making a dark batman, he just had a different perception of the character... It's like thinking that the 1931- Universal Portrayal of Frankenstein is the definate portrayal.

As for Schumacher, he's a mediocre director who churns out entertaining films much akin to Brian DePalma, his films never hit it out of the ball-park, however with the right script and people it very well could(Untouchables for Brian DePalma). I could def. see Schumacher handling the Sandman franchise well.

 

[Agentsands77]

Completely agree--though I thought Butler wasn't that bad in the role, and with a better director would have been great as the Phantom.

Only if he had been dubbed, my friend. There's nothing beautiful about his singing, and considering the Phantom is supposed to sound absolutely beautiful, that's a poor choice.

 

[Agentsands77]

As for Schumacher, he's a mediocre director who churns out entertaining films much akin to Brian DePalma, his films never hit it out of the ball-park, however with the right script and people it very well could(Untouchables for Brian DePalma). I could def. see Schumacher handling the Sandman franchise well.

So SANDMAN, one of the greatest graphic novel series' ever produced (truly brilliant), should be placed in the hands of a mediocre director who might do a decent job with it? No thank you.

 

[IKnowSomeJudo]

I guess no one likes the idea of Miyazaki then?

Tell us more about him.

 

[Octoberist]

I guess no one likes the idea of Miyazaki then?

In terms of live action, that is not his emphesis as a director. and he's too old now..though his son COULD work on it.

In terms of animation..sure.

 

[The Question]

Tell us more about him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayao_Miyazaki

In terms of live action, that is not his emphesis as a director. and he's too old now..though his son COULD work on it.

In terms of animation..sure.

I really don't think there's such a thing as being too old to be a director. But anyway, I was thinking animated from the get-go. He is an animator, after all. And he has worked with Gaiman before, as Neil did write the English diologue for Princess Mononoke.

 

[Katsuro]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayao_Miyazaki



I really don't think there's such a thing as being too old to be a director. But anyway, I was thinking animated from the get-go. He is an animator, after all. And he has worked with Gaiman before, as Neil did write the English diologue for Princess Mononoke.

I want it live action, and definately not anime.

 

[Rac]

Umm, no! Joel Schumacher can make great films (The Lost Boys, Phone Booth, Falling Down) and sucky films (Batman Forever, Batman & Robin, 8MM), but I think he's not suitable for Sandman. Please, someone else (Tim Burton*) take over!

*He's the first one to pop into my mind. I know, there's lots of other that can make working Sandman movie too. And Alan Rickman for Sandman!

 

[The Question]

I want it live action, and definately not anime.

Have you ever even seen a Miyazaki film?

 

[Rac]

I want it live action, and definately not anime.

Have you ever even seen a Miyazaki film?

I've seen. I love 'em. Totoro's been my favorite since I saw it back in 1995. But I'd like to see live action Sandman as well, not anime.

 

[The Question]

But you have to admit, an animated Sandman directed by Miyazaki would be pretty ****ing brilliant.

 

[Rac]

Well, yeah. It might be. It would be better than a Joel Schumacher Sandman, that's a fact.

 

[Killgore]

But you have to admit, an animated Sandman directed by Miyazaki would be pretty ****ing brilliant.

Except that no matter how awesome it would definitely be, fanboys would still be holding out for a live action adaptation of the anime adaptation of the comic book.

 

[The Question]

Why? I think Sandman is much better suited for an animated film than a live action one.

 

[Movies205]

So SANDMAN, one of the greatest graphic novel series' ever produced (truly brilliant), should be placed in the hands of a mediocre director who might do a decent job with it? No thank you.

It's a comic book, chill out, it's not the holy grail. Just in the same way that "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" by James Joyce is just a novel, Dr. STrangelove is just a movie, etc... Who cares... Sandman was meant for the graphic novel medium, as thus I enjoy it in that form, anything else after the fact is disconnected... I already have the work of art, what does it matter if it's made into a decent movie or not? Unless you perceive movies to be of greater value than comics. So please chill out, it's isn't the end of the world, it's just a movie, in which we have no control over... Also in terms of direction, Schumacher is very compentent, however his scripts are weak usually. Hence what I said, good script=good movie with schumacher.

 

[Agentsands77]

Sandman was meant for the graphic novel medium, as thus I enjoy it in that form, anything else after the fact is disconnected... I already have the work of art, what does it matter if it's made into a decent movie or not?

Well, I'd far rather have a very excellent film made out of the source material. Movies are generally better-known than graphic novels, and if we want the art to have any respectability, we better not have been people associating crappy movies with it.

Unless you perceive movies to be of greater value than comics.

I always think adaptations stand alongside the original works, especially when the adaptations are excellent.

 

[Movies205]

Well, I'd far rather have a very excellent film made out of the source material. Movies are generally better-known than graphic novels, and if we want the art to have any respectability, we better not have been people associating crappy movies with it.


I always think adaptations stand alongside the original works, especially when the adaptations are excellent.

I agree with this statement to a certain extent... The minute a story is taken from one medium to another, it's no longer the same story, it can't, nor should it be... The best remakes/adaptions are the ones that add to the story or change it, ala remake "The Fly". The minute this movie is made, it's no longer Neil Gainman's Sandman, it is someone elses sandman... My point is, the adaption is no longer the same as the book. I'm not saying I want the movie to be bad or anything. I hope it's awesome, however I just can't get hugely upset about it either way. Also I could see Schumacher doing an awesome job.