KVR Audio

aMUSEd · Post by **aMUSEd** » Sat Aug 07, 2004 8:29 am

gol wrote:
then you need an imagination gol
at the same time, do androids dream of electronic sheep was written in 68, so I maintain that the universe described in it is kinda old SF. And I read the book after the movie, so I could have easily seen the movie while reading it.

Much as I love Blade Runner I think people should give up on even trying to compare it with Do androids dream of electric sheep (which is a far more interesting and beautiful piece of work if you treat it in it's own right). It might as well have been based on The cat in the hat as far as I'm concerned - it has virtually nothing in common with the book apart from calling androids Replicants. No one has managed to make a succesful adaptation of anything by Phillip Dick - most Hollywood directors lack the imagination and studios/producers, all they want is action, sex and big fx.

tony tony chopper · Post by **tony tony chopper** » Sat Aug 07, 2004 8:33 am

gunnm is indeed by far the best thing ever. No bit of fantasy here, everything that seems weird is explained with technical details. Nanotechnology at its best. And it's probably the best drawing in any manga ever.
The 2 animé aren't bad, but the story was too compressed.

tony tony chopper · Post by **tony tony chopper** » Sat Aug 07, 2004 8:37 am

it has virtually nothing in common with the book

uh? what was the book you read about then?

jens · Post by **jens** » Sat Aug 07, 2004 9:13 am

why is this thread still in the 'everything else'-forum?

Mods???

Big Tick · Post by **Big Tick** » Sat Aug 07, 2004 12:28 pm

I'm jumping in late, but I'd love to see:
Jack Vance's "Tschai cycle" and "Daemon princes serie"
A.E. Van Vogt's "A cycle".

'Tick

hao nao · Post by **hao nao** » Sat Aug 07, 2004 2:06 pm

more than anything else, this thread makes me feel like reading

I love SF visuals (cover paintings and old magazine illos, movies with lots of eye-candy, starships, cityscapes, dwellings, appliances, alien antiquities)

but a lot of written SF might not translate well because it depends on text for its effects the way that poetry does, in the sense that phrases of a few words can introduce or imply important details about the setting that might be clumsy to get across with image, sound and action, and many of those details might be "off-stage" (internal, noospherical, happening at a different scale or part of the spectrum)

might as well just start with a blank slate and see what can be conjured using the limitations of a movie

Bigg John · Post by **Bigg John** » Sat Aug 07, 2004 2:15 pm

Mo Verdigast wrote:
Sometimes movies can be better than the book. I know no one will agree, but I think the Lord of the Rings movie is better than the book (but I've only read the book three times). The movie of LOTR really showed me the land and what it looked like. Tolkien was a great list-maker, but is just a slow read (to me). Obviously you can tell I like short fast-paced books like Stars My Destination!

The movie is exceptionally outstanding IMHO. Tolkien esteemed character and plot development ahead of speed i would say. I think the movie team took a page out of lucas' handbook and built extremely complex sets and raced through them. The movie gives you that edginess that Tolkien just dosen't deliver.

I just watched the two towers. the way they presented Soromon's demise at the end (all the elements coming together in terms of rohan's allies) was just so hugely entertaining.When you combine that fast pace with Tolkiens complex plot lines, it just rulez !!!

hao nao · Post by **hao nao** » Sat Aug 07, 2004 2:26 pm

jens wrote:why is this thread still in the 'everything else'-forum?

Mods???

ummm, sound-design is so important in a science-fiction film

(hehe, I agree)

Amberience · Post by **Amberience** » Sun Aug 08, 2004 1:59 am

Bigg John wrote:
Mo Verdigast wrote:
Sometimes movies can be better than the book. I know no one will agree, but I think the Lord of the Rings movie is better than the book (but I've only read the book three times). The movie of LOTR really showed me the land and what it looked like. Tolkien was a great list-maker, but is just a slow read (to me). Obviously you can tell I like short fast-paced books like Stars My Destination!
The movie is exceptionally outstanding IMHO. Tolkien esteemed character and plot development ahead of speed i would say. I think the movie team took a page out of lucas' handbook and built extremely complex sets and raced through them. The movie gives you that edginess that Tolkien just dosen't deliver.

I just watched the two towers. the way they presented Soromon's demise at the end (all the elements coming together in terms of rohan's allies) was just so hugely entertaining.When you combine that fast pace with Tolkiens complex plot lines, it just rulez !!!

Remember that Tolkien didn't want three books.. he wanted one big book. I think LOTR was designed to be an intricate masterpeice and it should be treated as such. It wasn't meant to be a Hollywood screenplay.

The movie is very good, it provides a different edge to the Tolkien world.

Lunch Money · Post by **Lunch Money** » Sun Aug 08, 2004 2:59 am

There were some things I hated about the movies, being that Tolkien was my introduction to "large novels" and I've read them many times since.

But I have to say, I wasn't entirely disappointed with the treatment of many elements of the book. Yeah, the important missing things were frustrating, and the completely fabricated ones even moreso; however, I felt the vision of Middle Earth and the (other) characters was right on the money, and that more than redeemed it in my eyes.

Greg

BONES · Post by **BONES** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 5:58 am

whyterabbyt wrote:Mick Farren's DNA Cowboys series. I think they could be made to work quite well, as long as nobody goes 'Postman' on them...

I don't think I need to say how irksome it is to agree with whyterabbit but I kinda do. I actually think the DNA Cowboys would make a great TV show because every week our heroes could walk out of the nothings into a new story and you could do it on a pretty small budget.

BONES · Post by **BONES** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:05 am

shamann wrote:Ooh, tough call. It is definitely one of the worst. Starship Troopers has to be close

Are you insane!?! That is one of my all-time Top 10 films. It's much better than the book and does the same job. I mean, what would be the point of getting stuck into 1950's American society in 1997? Ed Neumeier did a great job of getting stuck into 1990's American society whilst paying homage to Heinlein's oriinal fascist vision, thus staying true to his intention. Brilliant! I don't think I've ever read a decent Heinlein book, come to think of it.

BONES · Post by **BONES** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:18 am

SynDrone wrote:Ender's Game is completely adaptable material and Orson Scott Card has reliquished control to Warner Brothers... Big mistake IMO as the childrens age is what makes this book magic.

Only read that last year and I thought it was krap. The big surprise at the end was a big yawn and the side-story about his brother and sister was far more interesting but ended badly. And it is so obvious that card has never served in the military, he has no idea.

Rama's in the dumps as David Fincher has moved on from the "unmakeable".

Another krap book I read last year that would make a boring film. Might be a good episode of the Outer Limits.

Martin Scorsese is adapting "Hyperion"

haven't read it but I must now assume its set in New York city, or will he relocate it there?

Lunch Money · Post by **Lunch Money** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:55 am

BONES wrote:
SynDrone wrote:Ender's Game is completely adaptable material and Orson Scott Card has reliquished control to Warner Brothers... Big mistake IMO as the childrens age is what makes this book magic.
Only read that last year and I thought it was krap. The big surprise at the end was a big yawn and the side-story about his brother and sister was far more interesting but ended badly. And it is so obvious that card has never served in the military, he has no idea.

Well... it's a piece of Juvenile Lit, so you have to give him some leeway. The adults are caricatures, because the focus is on the children; hence, the adult 'military' world is a bit off (though not too much of a stretch, as I've observed being a base brat myself), but the children's military world is appropriate to the children. It doesn't NEED to (and shouldn't be) like the adult military of the real world.

As for the ending... well, even the most telegraphed surprises can still hold impact. I would have been disappointed by any other ending than the one presented.

Agreed that the stories of the siblings was more interesting, but that aspect wouldn't make a very good film.

Greg

gwhite · Post by **gwhite** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:10 am

Anyone bring up Well's "War of the Worlds" yet? I can just see the CGI war machines!

On a musical note there was a prog rock-opera based on the books, i forget the artist: if I remember Richard burton provided the narration and Phil Lynot, of Thin Lizzy, provided the voice for the character of the "curate".

what books are you waiting for to be in turned into SF-films