I would suggest Alfred Hitchcock.

Almost impossible for a name to jump to mind. I think we need a good unknown independent who is not as concerned with box office as putting out one hellacool kickass movie without getting too artsy.

Almost impossible for a name to jump to mind. I think we need a good unknown independent who is not as concerned with box office as putting out one hellacool kickass movie without getting too artsy.

I agree that the book deserves a better play, but maybe...maybe...Paul's stories are too rich in detail to lend themselves to film. Just a thought. Now I must go play chess, will see the gang on the endless wire tomorrow.

I think Hitchcock would make a HORRIBLE director ..... seeing as he's dead and all.

I think Hitchcock would make a HORRIBLE director ..... seeing as he's dead and all.

I agree Jim, but not because Hitch is dead, though that certainly would impede is abilities. He was a fabulous director of the material he chose. He never dealt with the supernatural, though "The Birds" could be considered unnatural but not necessarily supernatural. I don't think he'd be the one to do "The Keep" justice. At this point, "The Keep" would be considered a period piece. I don't think Hitchcock ever did one. His movies were all placed in his current time, which, actually, is the time of "The Keep." But that's why being dead makes things so tricky.

Alfonso Cuaron could do an interesting job.

Peter Jackson.

Ridley Scott.

Ian Fischer, Marc Buhmann or David Moore?

I'll go with Hitchcock, too -- mostly because he is dead and might have a little extra insight into the material.

Guillermo del Toro! Definitely him!

If you saw "Blade II" and "Hellboy"....you'll know why I picked him.