Starship Asterisk*

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.

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'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.

A concept perhaps too sophisticated for conversion to a movie by any but the most masterful writer and director.

Chris Peterson wrote:

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.

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.

A concept perhaps too sophisticated for conversion to a movie by any but the most masterful writer and director.

I wonder what this concept would be like if it was directed by Alfred Hitchcock? And maybe starred Hedy Lamarr?

On another related note, how about a new movie version of War of the Worlds that is a total adaptation of the book?

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?

I don't care for the book, so I'm not sure how I'd like a movie version.

Well so far so good. I watched the first episode last night and it wasn't as bad as I thought it could be. Let's hope the "Childhood's" part goes as well.

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.

Rob

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.

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.

(As an aside, the TV series was written by Matthew Graham, who also wrote the TV series Life on Mars, which in both its British and American versions was one of the best TV shows ever.)

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

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

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.

Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:

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.

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.

Yeah. Too bad he's a fairly crappy actor.

Yes despite his good looks my wife still fell asleep. I suppose that's a tell.

I have long enjoyed well written science fiction from authors such as Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke. I have no doubt there are literally thousands of others I have missed over the years. I am curious if the landscape has changed due to easy access to good information on the internet or for other reason I just don't see. Maybe I was biased toward my favorites or naïve due my own lack of range but it seems like a lot of the newer science fiction is much more believable than much of the sci-fi from the past. Even relative newbies (to the genre) seem to be able put out, what I think of, as a very imaginative and an accurate depiction of what the future may hold. Recent examples I've posted include "The Martian" (Andy Weir), "Saturn Run" (John Sandford) and "Seveneves" (Neal Stephensen). Andy Weir by his own admission didn't expect to have his book published, John Sandford, though his book was co-authored to enhance the photography angle, is traditionally a crime novelist and Neal Stephensen's books are not always "future" sci-fi. I would like to know if others think better science fiction is currently at hand (even compared to the well-known oldies but goodies) or maybe I'm just being impressed by what's currently been placed on my doorstep because "I" have access to the internet.

If it all started with the Big Bang maybe some sci-fi writer could, after the climax, have it deflate with black holes ending the universe.

Now that there's a theme - anyone have a spare plot you're not using? I suppose it could be adapted form Much Ado about Nothing and then, though a little long, whether good or bad, it all ends as it started.

Except for the sequel.

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) ...

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.

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

rstevenson wrote:

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) ...

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.

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

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.

Andy Weir may have figured out how to present the concept of faster-than-light travel in his next novel but I've always enjoyed the opportunities that type of travel might provide. Besides the ability to travel through space to other star systems it might allow for traveling back in time. 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.

Maybe our future race is doing that right now? Guess we might have to start calling them IFO"s

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.

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.

neufer wrote:

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.

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.

Hmmm. There seems to be a "flaw" in my ointment. It's said "breaking up" is hard to do - so would be "getting back". Unless you are Taylor Swift

Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:

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.

Hmmm. There seems to be a "flaw" in my ointment.
It's said "breaking up" is hard to do - so would be "getting back".

Not nearly as hard as traveling "forward to the past".

• There was a young lady named Bright
  Whose speed was much faster than light;
  She set out one day,
  In a relative way
  And returned on the previous night.

- Inflicted by Arthur Henry Reginald Buller (1874-1944), in the December 19, 1923 issue of Punch

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

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

Thanks Rob. It's on my list.

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.

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.

Johannes Kepler

A "waking dream" at the age of 18 was the inspiration for her novel.

That's some good digging! I never knew Johannes Kepler wrote a novel!