I am bummed.
![Evil or Very Mad :evil:](./images/smilies/icon_evil.gif)
![Sad :(](./images/smilies/icon_sad.gif)
I'm recording it and will give it a shot. But from the trailers I've seen, it looks like the Overlords are more or less bad guys, and in the book, they were ultimately very good, even if their purpose was to smooth an evolutionary transition of humans to a collective consciousness, and the extinction of the human species.Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:I am surprised that I don't see a Sci-fi thread among those previously started. There are so many in other places that no one could convey the need here. Oh well-it's worth a try.
I am bummed. :evil: The book was one of my favorites in my youth. Let's see someone wreck "The Gods Themselves" or even make it as a movie. I guess I shouldn't put that past the sci-fi channel. :(
I wonder what this concept would be like if it was directed by Alfred Hitchcock? And maybe starred Hedy Lamarr?Chris Peterson wrote:I'm recording it and will give it a shot. But from the trailers I've seen, it looks like the Overlords are more or less bad guys, and in the book, they were ultimately very good, even if their purpose was to smooth an evolutionary transition of humans to a collective consciousness, and the extinction of the human species.Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:I am surprised that I don't see a Sci-fi thread among those previously started. There are so many in other places that no one could convey the need here. Oh well-it's worth a try.
I am bummed.The book was one of my favorites in my youth. Let's see someone wreck "The Gods Themselves" or even make it as a movie. I guess I shouldn't put that past the sci-fi channel.
A concept perhaps too sophisticated for conversion to a movie by any but the most masterful writer and director.
I don't care for the book, so I'm not sure how I'd like a movie version.starsurfer wrote:On another related note, how about a new movie version of War of the Worlds that is a total adaptation of the book?
Haven't watched it yet. I had read about the idiotic decision to turn Rikki Stormgren into a hick farmer. That's got "made for American audiences" written all over it. And the 50 year wait was a critical plot element of the book, since it was done so that an entirely new generation was present for the reveal, free of the biases of the generation alive when the Overlords arrived. Of course, that would mean presenting the story as the epic it is intended to be, requiring a nearly complete shift in characters and cast.rstevenson wrote:I've watched the first episode so far, and have noted two changes to the original story. In this new series, the farmer inexplicably selected to represent humanity to the aliens is Rick Stormgren. In the book it's Rikki Stormgren, the UN Secretary-General, which makes a lot more sense. And in the book, the aliens reveal their appearance after 50 years, not 15. I can't see why the film makers would have made these changes, but at least the rest of episode one followed the original plot pretty closely.
Using Mike Vogel (Dome Above the Dumb) to portray Rikki was another obvious attempt to garner more viewers. I finished the trio last night but was pleasantly surprised that I enjoyed the series despite the efforts to enact changes.rstevenson wrote:Now that I've seen episode 2 and 3, I remain somewhat disappointed. I prefer that a well-known story, such as Clarke's novel, be filmed as closely as possible in line with that story. I've seen other sci fi TV shows and films which have done that to good effect, so I know it is possible. But this one was modified too much, and the central point of the story was muddied in the process. That's a shame.
Rob
Yeah. Too bad he's a fairly crappy actor.Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:Using Mike Vogel (Dome Above the Dumb) to portray Rikki was another obvious attempt to garner more viewers. I finished the trio last night but was pleasantly surprised that I enjoyed the series despite the efforts to enact changes.rstevenson wrote:Now that I've seen episode 2 and 3, I remain somewhat disappointed. I prefer that a well-known story, such as Clarke's novel, be filmed as closely as possible in line with that story. I've seen other sci fi TV shows and films which have done that to good effect, so I know it is possible. But this one was modified too much, and the central point of the story was muddied in the process. That's a shame.
From my recent reading, new (to me) SF authors seem able to write convincingly about near future environments, but most of the stories are not what I'd call science fictional in their themes. A story may be an excellent who-dun-it, for example, but it's sold as SF only because it takes place in a future setting.Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:... I would like to know if others think better science fiction is currently at hand (even compared to the well-known oldies but goodies) ...
Talk about future military gadgets - the novel by Stephensen - "Seveneves" has plenty (eventually - long book). I love the symmetry of the title too. And the gadgets aren't necessarily portrayed as lethal which was very humane of him.rstevenson wrote:From my recent reading, new (to me) SF authors seem able to write convincingly about near future environments, but most of the stories are not what I'd call science fictional in their themes. A story may be an excellent who-dun-it, for example, but it's sold as SF only because it takes place in a future setting.Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:... I would like to know if others think better science fiction is currently at hand (even compared to the well-known oldies but goodies) ...
I have read some new stories that deal with what I think of as science fictional themes -- humans meeting aliens, for example -- but those stories tend not to dwell too much on the technological surroundings. They just accept an implied (by so many other authors and stories) background, and go on with the story from there. That's always been true. The most interesting SF stories are and always have been about the idea, not the milieu.
Recent reading includes a trilogy with the overall title of In Her Name, by Michael R. Hicks. One reviewer described it as "a mixture of military space opera and epic fantasy that works very well." I shy away from fantasy, so I'm glad I didn't read that before trying them out. If you can accept the usual unPhysics of rapid space travel and fantastic feats of strength and endurance, you'd enjoy it too, I think.
Rob
Faster-than-light always takes you into the past.Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:
If our galaxy is traveling en masse through space it would have been at a specific point in space in our past. Travel faster-than-light to that place, gather your information then return faster-than-light to the place where the Milky Way will be in the future. You will be able to tell future humans what was actually going on when some great event happened in our distant past which wasn't well documented prior to your trip.
Hmmm. There seems to be a "flaw" in my ointment.neufer wrote:Faster-than-light always takes you into the past.Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:
If our galaxy is traveling en masse through space it would have been at a specific point in space in our past. Travel faster-than-light to that place, gather your information then return faster-than-light to the place where the Milky Way will be in the future. You will be able to tell future humans what was actually going on when some great event happened in our distant past which wasn't well documented prior to your trip.
To travel "back to the future" one must travel just a bit slower than the speed of light.
Not nearly as hard as traveling "forward to the past".Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:Hmmm. There seems to be a "flaw" in my ointment.neufer wrote:
Faster-than-light always takes you into the past.
To travel "back to the future" one must travel just a bit slower than the speed of light.
It's said "breaking up" is hard to do - so would be "getting back".
Thanks Rob. It's on my list.rstevenson wrote:Another book you might enjoy, Ron, is "2312" by Kim Stanley Robinson, the author of the Martian Trilogy (Red Mars, Blue Mars, Green Mars). I greatly enjoyed that trilogy, and I'm currently re-reading 2312. Lots of interesting background future tech, with truly mind-bending extrapolations of what we could do to ourselves in the future. Plus -- a bonus in science fiction -- believable, fully wrought characters.
Rob
That's some good digging! I never knew Johannes Kepler wrote a novel!Fred the Cat wrote:Who would guess which author might be attributed with the first work of science fiction? I think many might say Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. And that's probably correct but some think an earlier work would qualify.
A "waking dream" at the age of 18 was the inspiration for her novel.