Frank Darabont. I just mentioned him on Barry's new thread about what movies are better than their books. Darabont directed The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile, both based on Stephen King stories.

I think Darabont would be an excellent choice!

Frank Darabont. I just mentioned him on Barry's new thread about what movies are better than their books. Darabont directed The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile, both based on Stephen King stories.

I think Darabont would be an excellent choice!

And I second the nomination here as well.

I officially have three recommendations now. Well, two for sure and one qualified vote.

Frank Darabont. I just mentioned him on Barry's new thread about what movies are better than their books. Darabont directed The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile, both based on Stephen King stories.

I think Darabont would be an excellent choice!

Has he ever done action though? :confused: :confused:

I read the novel. I didn't think the movie was a disappointment. In fact, I thought it was a pretty good updated and somewhat different version. I thought the movie was great.

The novel was published in 1980 and most ex-spy novels don't tend to stand up well over time. Could you imagine filming the Bourne movies as they were originally written? No.

Spy novels don't age well because the technology moves so quickly and renders the stories obsolete; so many times when you watch old films and the hero's in a sticky predicament you think to yourself "Wouldn't happen these days, he'd just get on his mobile and call the rozzers in!"

so I can definitely accept the film needed to be updated, and changing surface details ie Creasy being ex-CIA instead of ex-Foreign Legion is a little less romantic but at the same time negligible. But changing not only the plot but also the story in fundamental ways is not "somewhat" different, it's entirely different.

The movie was pretty good, but it wasn't Man On Fire.

What would happen if the RJ director decides that The Tomb - having been written in the 80s - needs "updating"? What if he pulls a Michael Mann on it, and gets rid of the Rakoshi? :eek: Even if the rest of the film is better than the entire Bourne Trilogy put together, it would still be a disppointment to us lot, wouldn't it?

Even if the rest of the film is better than the entire Bourne Trilogy put together, it would still be a disppointment to us lot, wouldn't it?

You know, I hate to say it, but I'm setting myself up for a disappointment anyway. There is no way this film can live up to my expectations. I've loved Jack for over twenty years now (now there's a sentence I hope never gets taken out of context!) and a film of The Tomb, no matter how faithful, just won't be the same as the book; films of books never are.
Yes, it'll be a rush to see Repairman Jack finally brought to the masses, and many people are sure to become avid readers of the series too. But does anyone really think it will be as good and as faithful as we all want it to be?
Just my opinion, of course, please feel free to shoot me down!

You know, I hate to say it, but I'm setting myself up for a disappointment anyway.

I definitely understand. I've read Vampire$, probably six times or so and was pretty thrilled it was going to make it to "the big screen" even though I I knew I probably wouldn't like it.

The result was a movie by John Carpenter. I guess it was fine, but my favorite character was absent from the movie.

Felix.

How can you film a Steakley novel without a Felix? It just isn't possible.

This reminds me of what I was ranting at Auskar about in the Dark Knight thread a whle back.

Why do fans of books/comics look forward to film adaptations? Aside from the fact that the majority of them are rubbish, what is it about a film that makes it intrinsically better than a book?

Upon hearing that RJ is being made into a film, our response should be a disinterested shrug. We already know the story and love the character, what could we possible gain from a movie version other than disappointment? :confused:

Here are a few suggested names...

• Richard Donner (Lethal Weapon, 16 Blocks)
  
• Brian Helgeland (Payback)
  
• F. Gary Gray (The Italian Job)
  
• Steve Norrington (Blade)
  
• John McTiernan (in his big comeback from the Die Hard series)
  
• Len Wiseman (based off of Die Hard 4.0)
  
• Peter Yates (old schmold - his work on Bullitt is stellar)
  
• Breck Eisner (Sahara)
  
• *cough*Spielberg[SIZE=2]*cough*
  [/SIZE]
  
• [SIZE=2]Jonathan Mostow (Breakdown)[/SIZE]

I don't think John Woo would be very good for it. Too many sloooooooooooow mooooooooooooooo shots. It gets old, fast.

And Uwe Boll? Stay the (expletive) away from this.

Brian Helgeland and John McTiernan are good choice!


Spielberg.......? Hmm, but he's better than Uwe Boll! :p

Yeah, but Tarantino wouldn't be able to help himself and would tinker needlessly with the script until Repairman Jack would be utterly recognizable to the rest of us. It might still wind up being a better-than-decent movie but we want Repairman Jack. Not Quentin Tarantino presents...

I think Talantino is good for Black Wind, NOT Repairman Jack. He loves Japanese cultures.

I have not read the book.

As to why I liked it? I don't know, it's just a great film to me. Why do I like chocolate ice cream better than vanilla? I just do.

Vanilla is original character in the novel, and chocolate is Denzel Washington?