Aside from the long-in-the-works adaptation of Good Omens, Neil Gaiman would like all of his works made into movies by Terry Gilliam. He told Empire last week that he would "always give anything to Terry Gilliam, forever." That includes Sandman, which the writer said should be Gilliam's if he wants to do it. Currently, though, Gilliam is shooting an untitled movie about the "band" The Gorillaz, and then he's back to familiar territory with The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus, about a travelling theater production, which reunites him with screenwriter Charles McKeown (Brazil; The Adventures of Baron Munchausen) and stars Heath Ledger, Tom Waits, Verne "Mini Me" Troyer and Lily Cole. But according to Gaiman, Gilliam is still trying to make Good Omens, based on the hilariously comic fantasy novel by Gaiman and Terry Pratchett. Gilliam is having trouble getting financing for the project; Gaiman said he needs about $70 million, if anybody is interested.

It is great to see Gaiman have so much faith in Gilliam. After the barely tolerable (I did enjoy it) The Brothers Grimm and the barely watchable (I hated my first Gilliam film!) Tideland, I'm a bit worried about my longtime favorite filmmaker. But I must agree with Gaiman that Gilliam would likely be a better choice to adapt his works than anyone else in Hollywood. Certainly better than Joel Schumacher. Gaiman told Empire that he wants the person directing Sandman to have the same passion that Peter Jackson and Sam Raimi had with The Lord of the Rings and Spider-Man, respectively. And that Zach Snyder seems to have with Watchmen. Would Gilliam have that passion? Is he a huge Sandman fan? Who knows? I guess Gaiman, who also said he'd rather have no Sandman movie than a bad Sandman movie.

Given the fact that everywhere you turn at this year's Comic-Con you see something else with Neil Gaiman's name on it, it's surprising that I was able to corner him for an interview with Cinematical.

He had just arrived in San Diego and was busy signing boxes full of books for people attending the convention. I'm surprised his hand didn't give out after writing his own signature over and over. If I fill out the "memo" section on a check, my hand starts to cramp.

We cover all things Stardust, Beowulf, and Neverwhere, and he drops a few tidbits in about Coraline, Sandman, the Death movie, and the new novel he's working on, The Graveyard Book.

He just celebrated passing one million words on his own blog/journal, although one of his favorite moments on it was when his daughter Maddy took over and guest-blogged. Now, if he could just get her started on writing more books ...

Check out the audio interview here, or click on Neil's picture to hear what he has to say in his own words.

I suppose the more cynical among you could file this one away in the "unsubstantiated rumor" category. But what the heck, this a film blog, not the New York Times. So, in the interest of giving you, the important Cinematical reader, information about upcoming films as soon as we possibly can, here we go: according to a source, Neil Gaiman is apparently now set to make his feature film directorial debut later this year when he takes the reigns of a film adapted from his graphic novel Death: The High Cost of Living.

Film Ick says that Gaiman will be adapting his graphic novel for the screen and directing with production to start sometime in late Autumn in the U.K. -- even though, as the article states, the graphic novel takes place mainly in the U.S. At the site there's also several other bits and pieces of information, including that Gaiman will be including new story items in the film -- particularly an arc about roving Buddhist Monks -- that were not in the original graphic novel, some rumors about the potential casting of soon-to-be-everywhere Shia LaBeouf as male lead Sexton Funival and, of course, the big question of who will play the title character: Death herself.

As a huge fan of Neil Gaiman and everything he does, this graphic novel and its variations are of particular interest to me. Over the years, I've often thought about who I would like to see in a movie adaptation if one was ever made. Although I wasn't hugely impressed by what LaBeouf did with Chas Kramer in Constantine (much like a commenter at the Film Ick site) I do think he fits the part of Funival pretty well. As for Death, I would like to see Natalie Portman take on the role. What do you guys think?

I just got a message from a friend that said: "NOOO!" (with many more O's than that). Why? It seems that Neil Gaiman's beloved comic book series, The Sandman, could fall into the hands of nipply film director, Joel Schumacher. That's right, the man who made Batman one of the biggest jokes in showbiz wants to take on what is one of the most sophisticated and successful comic series out there, or so he told IESB during a junket for The Number 23. It's been over 10 years since The Sandman series ended, and a movie still hasn't been officially attempted. This could be due to the 75 issues of material to choose from, which makes a miniseries or at least a trilogy seem more managable. However, hopeful filmmakers also have to deal with Gaiman himself, who told fans last year at San Diego's Comic Con: "I'd rather no Sandman movie got made than [to have] a bad Sandman movie."

To give Schumacher credit, he has put out some good films like The Lost Boys and Phone Booth, and I enjoyed Falling Down. But they weren't coming from material that has already garnered a large cult following. Even the Potter films, which are in no way nipply failures, get criticized for the directorial choices. I can only imagine the uproar that Schumacher would create. He has enough sense to not be thrilled with the thought of Lost Boys 2, but does he have enough to appease Gaiman and his army of fans?

[via JAM! Movies]

There's nothing like having a highly-anticipated film ruined for you long before the pic is even set to hit theaters. With that said, I must warn you that the following information contains monumental Spider-Man 3 spoilers. And when I say monumental, I'm talking about who will live, who will die -- to put it plainly -- how the film will end. If you're the type of person who doesn't want to know those things ahead of time, then by all means do not continue reading ... or click on the link that I'm about to share with you. Understand? Spoilers. Lots of them. You've been warned.

So, Brendon over at Film Ick says he's been provided with "lots of information" with regards to the super duper finale in Spider-Man 3. I won't go into too much detail here, but let's just say a major fight takes place at a construction site (I imagine because there are plenty of metal things to swing off of) and a number of different characters are involved: Spidey, Sandman, Eddie Brock as Venom, Mary Jane, Sandman's daughter and Harry Osborn. Brendon shovels out as many details as he can regarding the battle (some of it is speculation since his source only provided him with so much information), but all of it makes sense.

And, based on what goes down at that construction site, it certainly raises a lot of questions -- mainly, would a Spider-Man 4 even be worth it?

If you've read Terry Prachett and Neil Gaiman's hilarious fantasy novel Good Omens , and if you're at all familiar with the films of Terry Gilliam, it's easy to see how the two must come together at some point. There's been talk of Gilliam directing the film version for some time, and while nothing appears to be set in stone, there remains a spark of life in the project. "I've been working on it for quite a while, but it's a big budget," Gilliam said in an interview posted to Sci Fi Wire. "I was doing this before The Brothers Grimm, before Tideland, but it needs A-list stars to work -- to get the money is what I mean -- and none of the A-list stars are right for the part. That's what's frustrating."

The novel is basically a humorous look at the coming of the anti-christ, told with a marvelously absurd British wit. Gilliam is American, but his nightmarishly bizarre cartoons for Monty Python's Flying Circus meshed seamlessly with the contributions of his British colleagues. Gilliam says he's frustrated with the Hollywood system. "Here's my beef with Hollywood," he says. "Before The Brothers Grimm, we went out to Hollywood to get [Good Omens] made. We had raised $45 million from the rest of the world, and we needed $15 [million] out of Hollywood. I had two actors, Johnny Depp and Robin Williams. I couldn't get $15 million out of Hollywood with those two people. They said, 'Johnny, nah, he does those European art movies, Chocolat, The Man Who Cried, and Robin -- his career is finished.' And now there's Pirates of the Caribbean."

If somebody were to say to me "Mark, I'd like you to choose a writer-director and team him up with a movie producer to create the craziest, most whacked-out, amazing geek film possible," it'd be quite likely I'd respond "give me Neil Gaiman and Guillermo del Toro, please." In fact, I really can't imagine a more utterly insane yet amazingly talented union. Is it possible for this geek joy-dream to come true? Apparently, it is, as del Toro has agreed to produce (or at least executive produce) Neil Gaiman's Death: The High Cost of Living should the project ever find a real green-light. Gaiman himself would direct the project, because he doesn't want anyone save himself screwing up his classic work. Warner Brothers has the rights to the comic (as it was produced under a DC label and they've got a deal with DC comics), and as of right now nobody is sure which WB division would handle the project. Let's hope they can come to some sort of agreement, because I don't think the world can go much longer without a Neil Gaiman/Guillermo del Toro team-up. I know I can't, anyway.

Last month at Comic-Con, Sam Raimi and the entire Spidey gang exposed some new Spider-Man 3 footage to an audience that was literally foaming out the mouth. Said footage briefly appeared online in the form of one giant blur and, unfortunately, was quickly removed. Darn.

However, there's a good chance we'll be seeing it again real soon. Sam Raimi and Thomas Haden Church (who plays Sandman in the movie) showed up to surprise a group of fans in New York (and, via satellite, another one in London), revealing to them the brand spanking new Spider-Man 3 trailer. Over on the film's official blog, there's a video of the event showing Raimi and Church's introduction and the subsequent reaction from fans. Conveniently missing is, well, a sneak peak at some of that footage. So, if you're in the mood to see a bunch of people gush over the trailer, feel free to check out the blog post. Everyone else will just need to hang in there a little while longer.

[via Superhero Hype]

This is a leftover bit of news from Comic-Con which I somehow overlooked in all the Con coverage I've been doing this week. It is far too good to pass on, however, so I'm sharing it with you now. Noted geek kingpin Neil Gaiman (author of books, movies, TV shows, and comics), is looking to get back into the movie business with a character from his exceptionally popular Vertigo comic book Sandman. In fact, Gaiman's portrayal of the anthropomorphic personification of Death was so popular it was spun off into a couple of mini-series. The first, called Death: The High Cost of Living, shortly thereafter became a hot subject for movie rumors, none of which panned out.

Happily for his fans, Gaiman has now told us the project is not at all dead, it merely encountered some struggles getting out of the gate. Because of obvious corporate licensing issues, the property is in the stable of Warner Brothers. According to the man himself, Gaiman cooked up a script they were happy with, but it was a 15 million dollar movie, and the big WB told him they "don't do 15 mil movies." So it was on to New Line (a corporate sister) and up to 30 million, only to be told New Line likewise "doesn't do 30 mil movies." The property is now headed over to Warner Independent, which Gaiman feels is the best fit for it anyway. All of this means we will hopefully see action begin on a Neil Gaiman's Death movie sometime in the near-ish future. As for wanting to direct it, Gaiman said: "I do, mostly just because it's really dear my heart. If anyone's going to f* it up, I'd rather it be me." And if anyone can bring it to brilliance, it is also him.

The news of the hour for geek movie fans is the sudden appearance of a plot synopsis for the third Spider-Man movie. You can read the full three paragraph summary here, but for now I'll break it down for you to hit the important bits.  Mostly, it's a list of confirmations of previous rumors -- presuming, of course, this synopsis is legitimate.

• Gwen Stacy, daughter of the new police chief, will in fact develop a crush on Peter, causing some sort of love triangle as Pete and MJ are finally getting their relationship off the ground.
• Jameson will hire investigative journalist Eddie Brock to follow Peter around and figure out why MJ would leave Jameson's successful son for this loser kid.
• Sandman will come into being as an escaped prisoner hiding out on a remote beach is caught in a dreadful accident and finds himself turned into a shape-shifting sand creature.
• While investigating a crime scene Peter will find a "black substance" which merges with his costume to give him new powers. Hello, Venom.
• Harry finally snaps and becomes the new Goblin, teaming up with Sandman to fight Spider-Man.
• Lives of people "close to Peter" will be lost. This probably means MJ, since she isn't supposed to be alive currently anyway.
• Eddie Brock will become "distraught" for some reason. At this point, the "black substance" departs from Peter and joins up with Eddie to form sequel fuel.

Still not pleased with the existence of Gwen out of nowhere, after they gave her famous death scene to MJ and allowed MJ to survive it -- but oh well. I have a feeling I'll enjoy the flick anyway.