Quote
Use of Weapons declared best sci-fi film never made
11th May 2011
Our poll to name the best sci-fi film never made has returned Use of Weapons by Iain M Banks as the book Reg readers would most like to see projected on the silver screen.
The 50 candidates attracted a whopping 27,088 votes, with the winner securing 10,032. Runner-up was Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's The Mote In God's Eye, which was honoured with 7,099 votes. You can see the full results right here.
So, Hollywood take note: scrap plans to "reimagine" Total Recall and get down to making something original.
I haven't personally read Use of Weapons, so I'll leave it to you lot to suggest how it might best be brought to the big screen. If we get some decent casting/directorial suggestions, we'll look into knocking up a poster to celebrate the movie which is yet to be. ®
http://m.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/11/sci_fi_poll/ (http://m.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/11/sci_fi_poll/)
Poll results here:
http://forms.theregister.co.uk/poll/?id=28 (http://forms.theregister.co.uk/poll/?id=28)
Quote
The best sci-fi film never made
Use of Weapons 37% (10032)
The Mote In God's Eye 26% (7099)
Foundation 3% (682)
Neuromancer 2% (623)
The Stainless Steel Rat 2% (610)
Ender's Game 2% (581)
Rendezvous With Rama 2% (538)
Ringworld 2% (478)
Snow Crash 2% (436)
Consider Phlebas 1% (356)
Altered Carbon 1% (298)
Excession 1% (288)
Night's Dawn 1% (279)
The Player of Games 1% (279)
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress 1% (260)
The Forever War 1% (248)
Stranger in a Strange Land 1% (232)
Dragonriders of Pern 1% (223)
Hyperion 1% (210)
The Atrocity Archives 1% (196)
Cryptonomicon 1% (193)
The Stars My Destination 1% (193)
The Chronicles of Amber 1% (189)
Eon 1% (184)
Lensmen 1% (178)
On Basilisk Station 1% (169)
The Algebraist 1% (142)
Childhood's End 1% (137)
The Man in the High Castle 0% (129)
Footfall 0% (128)
A Fire Upon the Deep 0% (106)
The City and the Stars 0% (105)
Lord of Light 0% (103)
A Canticle for Leibowitz 0% (95)
The Gap Cycle 0% (91)
Titan 0% (90)
Old Man's War 0% (87)
Gateway 0% (78)
Protector 0% (74)
Deathworld 0% (72)
The Baroque Cycle 0% (70)
Lucifer's Hammer 0% (67)
Downbelow Station 0% (65)
The Forge of God 0% (64)
The Legacy of Heorot 0% (61)
The Demolished Man 0% (58)
Cities in Flight 0% (57)
The Technicolor Time Machine 0% (57)
Skylark 0% (50)
Dorsai 0% (48)
Total votes cast - 27088.
The Mote In God's Eye would potentially make a fantastic movie. :cool:
I love Foundation and its sequels, but it seems like much too large a story to make into a movie unless you planned like a 12 movie franchise. If they tried to condense multiple books into one movie, it would probably suck.
I think The Player of Games would be more suitable for a film if you want to pick something by Banks.
Neuromancer would be a good film, the bad writing wouldn't show through on the screen.
Shame the retro 80sness wouldn't sell.
Quote from: Tyr on May 11, 2011, 08:40:59 AM
Neuromancer would be a good film, the bad writing wouldn't show through on the screen.
Unfortunately a
Neuromancer movie would be compared to
The Matrix ad nauseum.
I'd love to see Cryptonomicon and the Baroque Cycle filmed ... but they are not really "science fiction". :huh:
Otherland.
But they're making a game of it so perhaps that will be enough.
Quote from: Slargos on May 11, 2011, 10:06:09 AM
Otherland.
But they're making a game of it so perhaps that will be enough.
:x
That series pissed me off so much. I like reading the books but the ending was such a let down. Actually I don't even remember the ending but I remember how much it pissed me off. :angry: :blush:
They should all be directed by Peter Jackson.
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 11, 2011, 08:16:49 AM
I think The Player of Games would be more suitable for a film if you want to pick something by Banks.
Totally agree!
Quote from: garbon on May 11, 2011, 10:55:55 AM
I like reading the books but the ending was such a let down.
I haven't read Otherland, but I read his "Memory, Sorry and Thorn" series and felt the same about them. I found it hard to make it through the final 100 pages or so.
Quote from: Caliga on May 11, 2011, 08:12:21 AM
The Mote In God's Eye would potentially make a fantastic movie. :cool:
Best. Aliens. Ever. Pat would like it. Very Malthusy.
Quote from: garbon on May 11, 2011, 10:55:55 AM
Quote from: Slargos on May 11, 2011, 10:06:09 AM
Otherland.
But they're making a game of it so perhaps that will be enough.
:x
That series pissed me off so much. I like reading the books but the ending was such a let down. Actually I don't even remember the ending but I remember how much it pissed me off. :angry: :blush:
The story is fan-fucking-tastic but I can agree that it didn't have a spectacular ending.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 11, 2011, 11:56:50 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 11, 2011, 08:12:21 AM
The Mote In God's Eye would potentially make a fantastic movie. :cool:
Best. Aliens. Ever. Pat would like it. Very Malthusy.
Oh, and when I mean "Malthusy" I mean it in a Pat way which is to say the word is devoid of any real meaning.
While Ringworld would be cool for effects, it would be difficult to turn the story into an exciting popcorn film without wrecking it.
Alert Michael Bay!
Quote from: Slargos on May 11, 2011, 12:01:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 11, 2011, 10:55:55 AM
Quote from: Slargos on May 11, 2011, 10:06:09 AM
Otherland.
But they're making a game of it so perhaps that will be enough.
:x
That series pissed me off so much. I like reading the books but the ending was such a let down. Actually I don't even remember the ending but I remember how much it pissed me off. :angry: :blush:
The story is fan-fucking-tastic but I can agree that it didn't have a spectacular ending.
No clutch.
I think Use of Weapons would be a bit too philosophical for most people, although done right I'm sure you could get most people cheering for the destruction of the Culture.
Quote from: Caliga on May 11, 2011, 08:12:21 AM
The Mote In God's Eye would potentially make a fantastic movie. :cool:
I love Foundation and its sequels, but it seems like much too large a story to make into a movie unless you planned like a 12 movie franchise. If they tried to condense multiple books into one movie, it would probably suck.
It'd be way too much work to bring this to the screen. Look at the pseudo-history that made up
Foundation, and then look at
Foundation and Empire- you'd have to heavily rewrite one to make them work as a coherent series; I'm not sure an audience would be up to a film series with formats as disparate as the
Foundation books. The only one I could see not needing a lot of material injected or rewritten is
Second Foundation.
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 11, 2011, 08:16:49 AM
I think The Player of Games would be more suitable for a film if you want to pick something by Banks.
Algebraist would be even better, since it is a better story and setting, IMO.
The Course Of Empire.
Probably impossible to port to the big screen because of how alien the Jao culture is.
Using body postures as a communication device is ridiculos, and truly alien.
The Honor Harrington series would be cool too.
So would be the Bolo and the Hammer's Slammers.
But the best of them all would be S.M. Stirling's The Change series.
What is the Use of Weapons?
I wouldn't at all mind seeing The Chronicle of Amber filmed, but it would be tough to do it properly. In terms of scope, a TV mini-series would be best, but then the budget might not be there to get the effects right.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 11, 2011, 01:31:22 PM
It'd be way too much work to bring this to the screen. Look at the pseudo-history that made up Foundation, and then look at Foundation and Empire- you'd have to heavily rewrite one to make them work as a coherent series; I'm not sure an audience would be up to a film series with formats as disparate as the Foundation books. The only one I could see not needing a lot of material injected or rewritten is Second Foundation.
IMO the two best stories in the overall arc are the one with The Mule (I forget which actual novel that was) and
Forward The Foundation.
Quote from: Caliga on May 11, 2011, 03:24:42 PM
IMO the two best stories in the overall arc are the one with The Mule (I forget which actual novel that was) and Forward The Foundation.
That's the second half of
Foundation and Empire.
EDIT: Correction. He's in
Second Foundation as well, which might actually be the one you're thinking of; IIRC,
Second Foundation is the one where he poses as his own jester and stumbles onto the ruins of Earth.
Quote from: Caliga on May 11, 2011, 03:24:42 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 11, 2011, 01:31:22 PM
It'd be way too much work to bring this to the screen. Look at the pseudo-history that made up Foundation, and then look at Foundation and Empire- you'd have to heavily rewrite one to make them work as a coherent series; I'm not sure an audience would be up to a film series with formats as disparate as the Foundation books. The only one I could see not needing a lot of material injected or rewritten is Second Foundation.
IMO the two best stories in the overall arc are the one with The Mule (I forget which actual novel that was) and Forward The Foundation.
Really? I thought all the Foundation books not written in the 1950s were crap, and got crappier as he wrote more.
Quote from: Siege on May 11, 2011, 02:07:44 PM
What is the Use of Weapons?
Ironic that you of all people, should ask that question.
:D
Quote from: jamesww on May 11, 2011, 04:01:13 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 11, 2011, 02:07:44 PM
What is the Use of Weapons?
Ironic that you of all people, should ask that question.
:D
More like disturbing, really. :P
I would also like to know more about that book.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 11, 2011, 11:56:50 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 11, 2011, 08:12:21 AM
The Mote In God's Eye would potentially make a fantastic movie. :cool:
Best. Aliens. Ever. Pat would like it. Very Malthusy.
Plus when they take the Mote Engineer into the
MacArthur, he could fantasize about raping it in its locked stateroom.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 11, 2011, 04:21:55 PM
I would also like to know more about that book.
Use of Weapons is one of Iain (M.) Banks' best works. Great science fiction.
Quote from: Barrister on May 11, 2011, 03:30:26 PM
Really? I thought all the Foundation books not written in the 1950s were crap, and got crappier as he wrote more.
You thought wisely. Asimov was never a great writer, though he was a great idea-man. He had fewer good ideas later in life, but kept writing anyway.
Quote from: Caliga on May 11, 2011, 03:24:42 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 11, 2011, 01:31:22 PM
It'd be way too much work to bring this to the screen. Look at the pseudo-history that made up Foundation, and then look at Foundation and Empire- you'd have to heavily rewrite one to make them work as a coherent series; I'm not sure an audience would be up to a film series with formats as disparate as the Foundation books. The only one I could see not needing a lot of material injected or rewritten is Second Foundation.
IMO the two best stories in the overall arc are the one with The Mule (I forget which actual novel that was) and Forward The Foundation.
I liked the early ones better.
QuoteChildhood's End 1% (137)
Meh, of all the Arthur C. Clarke books to make into a movie, this probably isn't the one I'd most like to see. (It's not a bad book, but the end is a little bullshitty, and 3001 or Imperial Earth are better novels and the former would also be far superior in a visual medium.)
Stranger in a Strange Land would probably be a better film than a book because it would allow someone to lop off the last, crappy hundred pages full of extended dull denoument that ensue after Michael learns why people laugh, and also completely jettison the nonsense about angels.
I'd also say that The Possibility of an Island should be on that list, but evidently that was made into a movie, directed by the actual author, and it is meant to be
just terrible.
Quote from: grumbler on May 11, 2011, 08:17:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 11, 2011, 03:30:26 PM
Really? I thought all the Foundation books not written in the 1950s were crap, and got crappier as he wrote more.
You thought wisely. Asimov was never a great writer, though he was a great idea-man. He had fewer good ideas later in life, but kept writing anyway.
I don't think any of the Big Three were that good as writers. Their strength was a good grounding in science (which was absent in most contemporary sci-fi). They often wrote about things that were theoretically possible while the field was cluttered with stuff about "anti-gravity" machines and the like.
Clarke was a good writer, with a clean style, real sense of wonder, good sense of humor, and, depending on what he was trying to do, capable of good characterization. Heinlein was good, too, but suffered badly from bizarre writing tics, character types, and of course a all-encompassing ideological bias.
In fairness to their contemporaries, Clarke and Heinlein made a lot of shit up that doesn't even pass a cursory examination for scientific plausibility (e.g., telepathy in Childhood's, the alien evolution rays in the 2001 series, Martian God Mode in Stranger, TANSTAAFL in Mistress).
I've never read an Asimov book in my life, so I don't know about him.
I'm not saying they were bad. They were certainly better then me, but they weren't great word smiths.
Actually, you know what I would have liked to have seen as a movie? Jack L. Chalker. Midnight at the Well of Souls. Like Solaris with some action.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2011, 12:22:56 AM
I'm not saying they were bad. They were certainly better then me, but they weren't great word smiths.
I just wonder to whom you're comparing them? Shakespeare? Melville? Fitzgerald? I mean, I guess they don't rank
that highly. The only SF writers I can think of offhand that are treated to serious respect in literary circles (and even then not unanimously) are Orwell and Houllebecq. Heinlein might be included in that number too--even though I find Clarke far more appealing. I'm unsure as to how well-regarded Lem is.
Oh, and there's that pretentious chick who wrote The Handmaid's Tale, whose book I'll never read because the author isn't English-proficient enough to even understand what the words "speculative fiction" mean.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 12, 2011, 12:49:25 AM
I just wonder to whom you're comparing them? Shakespeare? Melville? Fitzgerald? I mean, I guess they don't rank that highly... the only SF writers I can think of offhand that are treated to serious respect in literary circles (and even then not unanimously) are Orwell and Houllebecq. Oh, and that pretentious chick who wrote The Handmaid's Tale, whose book I'll never read because the author isn't English-proficient enough to even understand what the words "speculative fiction" mean.
:blink: Verne or Wells ring a bell? Also, I'm surprised you'd be willing to grant Heinlein but not Bradbury.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 12, 2011, 12:52:19 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 12, 2011, 12:49:25 AM
I just wonder to whom you're comparing them? Shakespeare? Melville? Fitzgerald? I mean, I guess they don't rank that highly... the only SF writers I can think of offhand that are treated to serious respect in literary circles (and even then not unanimously) are Orwell and Houllebecq. Oh, and that pretentious chick who wrote The Handmaid's Tale, whose book I'll never read because the author isn't English-proficient enough to even understand what the words "speculative fiction" mean.
:blink: Verne or Wells ring a bell? Also, I'm surprised you'd be willing to grant Heinlein but not Bradbury.
I did say "offhand." Are Verne or Wells really considered giants, though? Not merely SF giants, but literary ones as well? (Not to draw an arbitrary line, but it tends to be drawn anyway...)
What little Bradbury I've read--Fahrenheit 451 (or whatever the number was) and a few short stories--was just kinda okay to me, and although I'm aware he has a large stature in SF, I'm not sure about "real" literature.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 12, 2011, 12:56:24 AM
I did say "offhand." Are Verne or Wells really considered giants, though? Not merely SF giants, but literary ones as well? (Not to draw an arbitrary line, but it tends to be drawn anyway...)
They invented a genre, that's pretty respectable. Much like Poe and Wilkie Collins.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 12, 2011, 12:56:24 AM
I did say "offhand." Are Verne or Wells really considered giants, though? Not merely SF giants, but literary ones as well? (Not to draw an arbitrary line, but it tends to be drawn anyway...)
What little Bradbury I've read--Fahrenheit 451 (or whatever the number was) and a few short stories--was just kinda okay to me, and although I'm aware he has a large stature in SF, I'm not sure about "real" literature.
Wells definitely (more for
War of the Worlds than
The Time Machine), but I guess Verne could be debated. Bradbury I'd count, but I'd split his work into
Fahrenheit 451 and everything else, at least for these purposes. I figure there's a lot more store to be set by concepts and narrative methods than by a simple grasp of the language- at least that's the only way I can reconcile Conrad's standing.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 12, 2011, 01:07:24 AM
I figure there's a lot more store to be set by concepts and narrative methods than by a simple grasp of the language- at least that's the only way I can reconcile Conrad's standing.
They probably are (and should be), which is why it strikes me as a little odd that the sci-fi ghetto persisted for so long, and to some degree still persists (although when Houllebecq is so widely read, praised, debated, and condemned, and Elementary Particles was framed as a biography of his creator written by a genetically engineered superman, and a third of The Possibility of an Island takes place in the year 3000 or so, it's hard to say that it still exists as recognizably as it did when Atwood and people like her shrieked at anyone who labeled
Handmaid's science fiction.)
Also, I liked Conrad in
Heart of Darkness. It seemed like it consisted largely of pretty sentences to me. :unsure:
Oh, another name occurred to me: Shelley might well count. Although if my memory of
Frankenstein is correct, that really is resting on the strength of the concept and not the actual prose.
Quote from: Eddie TeachThey invented a genre, that's pretty respectable. Much like Poe and Wilkie Collins.
I guess so. Although "writing about shit that doesn't exist but might" was pretty much inevitable. "A(n) Indian/German/Martian builds a submarine/airship/spaceship and declares war on the world" are pretty easy plots to come up with too, even as much as I like the stories. :p
I don't think I'd even heard of Houllebecq before this thread. Does that make me an uncultured barbarian? :unsure:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 12, 2011, 01:28:43 AM
I don't think I'd even heard of Houllebecq before this thread. Does that make me an uncultured barbarian? :unsure:
Yes, and choosing Harry Turtledove and John Ringo over the finer options available to you doesn't help. :P
Seriously, he's a reasonably new author. He's only written four novels; the first,
Extension of the Domain of the Struggle aka
Whatever in its utterly lame English-edition title was published in 1994. That said, he's really pretty famous. He was sometimes hailed as the new Camus, which I suspect is probably a
reasonably accurate prediction of his legacy--he shook shit up, to be sure, and I personally think he's a better writer, but I don't think he'll have
as large a place in literary history. He writes a lot about fucking and meaninglessness, though, so he was bound to be my favorite author.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 12, 2011, 12:49:25 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2011, 12:22:56 AM
I'm not saying they were bad. They were certainly better then me, but they weren't great word smiths.
I just wonder to whom you're comparing them? Shakespeare? Melville? Fitzgerald? I mean, I guess they don't rank that highly. The only SF writers I can think of offhand that are treated to serious respect in literary circles (and even then not unanimously) are Orwell and Houllebecq. Heinlein might be included in that number too--even though I find Clarke far more appealing. I'm unsure as to how well-regarded Lem is.
Oh, and there's that pretentious chick who wrote The Handmaid's Tale, whose book I'll never read because the author isn't English-proficient enough to even understand what the words "speculative fiction" mean.
Eh, I just mean I find them somewhat dry. I have stayed away from Heinlein's later work. His latest book I read was the one about the moon revolt.
Also I think Malthus is Atwoods nephew or something.
For some reason, I kept picturing Wee Malthus and his auntie Margaret Thatcher.
In fairness, she changed/clarified/softened her position in later interviews, and I somewhat misrepresent her for the sake of the joke.
Everything I've read about Handmaid's makes it sound like it takes place in an extremely far-fetched and unbelievable alternate history such as Tim could not even accept. But on the other hand, I gather that the plausibility of her scenario isn't the point? I dunno, but if there's no factual basis in the dystopia, isn't it just victimhood porn?
Edit: I actually have a bit of the same criticism of 1984, which I have actually read as opposed to just the Wikipedia page thereof, but at least Orwell was writing at a time that such regimes did seem possible, and perhaps did his own small part in making them impossible, versus, you know, writing a story about how Mormons and/or Muslims suck in 1985. But maybe I minimize the importance of adding one's voice, in a compelling way, to the already-existing consensus within Western civilization that such a dystopia would be pretty awful.
Open question--would reading Handmaid's disabuse me of my prejudice?
My new pet theory is that his aunt is Margaret Cho. :hmm:
Quote from: Ideologue on May 12, 2011, 12:00:07 AM
Clarke was a good writer, with a clean style, real sense of wonder, good sense of humor, and, depending on what he was trying to do, capable of good characterization. Heinlein was good, too, but suffered badly from bizarre writing tics, character types, and of course a all-encompassing ideological bias.
Rendezvous with Rama would make an interesting sci-fi movie. :cool:
I used to adore the Stainless Steel Rat books. I had no idea the early ones were written so long ago or that Harry Harrison is still churning them out aged 86! They even had me learning Esperanto for a bit!
Would they make a good film? Don't know, maybe better as an animation?
Oh and while a great novel Rendezvous with Rama would make a very tedious film.
Quote from: Brazen on May 12, 2011, 05:33:27 AM
I used to adore the Stainless Steel Rat books. I had no idea the early ones were written so long ago or that Harry Harrison is still churning them out aged 86! They even had me learning Esperanto for a bit!
Would they make a good film? Don't know, maybe better as an animation?
Yes, unfortunately, Harrison is still ruining the rep of a formerly-great series. They were going to make a SSR movie but apparently ran into some intellectual property issues with the
The Saint concept and dropped it.
QuoteOh and while a great novel Rendezvous with Rama would make a very tedious film.
Clarke did a script for the movie, then there were many re-writes by a number of people, and the conclusion of the studios was that you are right: the movie would be a gorgeous-looking snoozefest. No movie.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 12, 2011, 02:54:56 AM
Edit: I actually have a bit of the same criticism of 1984, which I have actually read as opposed to just the Wikipedia page thereof, but at least Orwell was writing at a time that such regimes did seem possible, and perhaps did his own small part in making them impossible, versus, you know, writing a story about how Mormons and/or Muslims suck in 1985. But maybe I minimize the importance of adding one's voice, in a compelling way, to the already-existing consensus within Western civilization that such a dystopia would be pretty awful.
I don't think Orwell ever visited the Soviet Union and his only direct experience with it was when his communist allies purged his militia. While not all the elements of 1984 were true in Stalinist Russia, many of the themes were seen in later communist states. Extreme surveillance in East Germany, the simplification of society in Cambodia, the use of a fake war to justify shortages in North Korea. Though in 1984 it's implied that the war exists to create shortages rather then the war existing to explain the shortages. In some ways, no totalitarian regime was ever as bad as the one in 1984. In other ways many were far, far worse.
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2011, 06:15:00 AM
Clarke did a script for the movie, then there were many re-writes by a number of people, and the conclusion of the studios was that you are right: the movie would be a gorgeous-looking snoozefest. No movie.
Imagine how OSSUM it would be if Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer produced it.
Rendezvous with Hot Chicks and Fiery Explosions on Rama. :yeah:
Quote from: Ideologue on May 12, 2011, 01:42:21 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 12, 2011, 01:28:43 AM
I don't think I'd even heard of Houllebecq before this thread. Does that make me an uncultured barbarian? :unsure:
Yes, and choosing Harry Turtledove and John Ringo over the finer options available to you doesn't help. :P
Seriously, he's a reasonably new author. He's only written four novels; the first, Extension of the Domain of the Struggle aka Whatever in its utterly lame English-edition title was published in 1994. That said, he's really pretty famous. He was sometimes hailed as the new Camus, which I suspect is probably a reasonably accurate prediction of his legacy--he shook shit up, to be sure, and I personally think he's a better writer, but I don't think he'll have as large a place in literary history. He writes a lot about fucking and meaninglessness, though, so he was bound to be my favorite author.
Explains why I wasn't familiar with him either--I haven't read much fiction in the last 15 or so years, and a lot of what I have read in that time was a matter of catching up on stuff I had been meaning to read for a long time.
Speaking of the distinction between fiction and non-fiction, while I enjoy Asimov's work, overall I think I prefer his non-fiction essays to his novels, especially his later novels.
Quote from: ulmont on May 11, 2011, 07:40:20 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 11, 2011, 04:21:55 PM
I would also like to know more about that book.
Use of Weapons is one of Iain (M.) Banks' best works. Great science fiction.
My favourite by that authour is still his first -
The Wasp Factory.
I particularly liked my edition of it. He put all of the truly negative reviews on the back, like "this book is total trash, that will only appeal to the purient interest of the degenerate". :lol:
Quote from: dps on May 12, 2011, 07:48:19 AM
Speaking of the distinction between fiction and non-fiction, while I enjoy Asimov's work, overall I think I prefer his non-fiction essays to his novels, especially his later novels.
Agree completely. He was much better at explaining the universe than trying to create a credible character. I never understood why he kept writing bad SF for so long when writing good science had finally started to pay.
Quote from: dps on May 11, 2011, 03:09:48 PM
I wouldn't at all mind seeing The Chronicle of Amber filmed, but it would be tough to do it properly. In terms of scope, a TV mini-series would be best, but then the budget might not be there to get the effects right.
HBO could do it. :hmm:
I think that
Altered Carbon would be fairly easy to make into a cool film.
I demand more Gor.
Another novel for TEH LIST: Darwin's Radio. :cool:
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 12, 2011, 10:18:52 AM
I demand more Gor.
And get Norman to do the screenplay and dialogue. :P
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2011, 08:46:02 AM
Agree completely. He was much better at explaining the universe than trying to create a credible character. I never understood why he kept writing bad SF for so long when writing good science had finally started to pay.
Oh, I freely admit Asimov wasn't the best at character development and dialogue. But I really like his ideas at a higher level and I felt like he was good at making various subplots come together in an interesting way.
HAY EVERYBODY! Bel Riose is Belisarius.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2011, 06:27:19 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 12, 2011, 02:54:56 AM
Edit: I actually have a bit of the same criticism of 1984, which I have actually read as opposed to just the Wikipedia page thereof, but at least Orwell was writing at a time that such regimes did seem possible, and perhaps did his own small part in making them impossible, versus, you know, writing a story about how Mormons and/or Muslims suck in 1985. But maybe I minimize the importance of adding one's voice, in a compelling way, to the already-existing consensus within Western civilization that such a dystopia would be pretty awful.
I don't think Orwell ever visited the Soviet Union and his only direct experience with it was when his communist allies purged his militia. While not all the elements of 1984 were true in Stalinist Russia, many of the themes were seen in later communist states. Extreme surveillance in East Germany, the simplification of society in Cambodia, the use of a fake war to justify shortages in North Korea. Though in 1984 it's implied that the war exists to create shortages rather then the war existing to explain the shortages. In some ways, no totalitarian regime was ever as bad as the one in 1984. In other ways many were far, far worse.
Personally, I'm not really sure that 1984 is a possible society. It's too extreme, and its totalitarianism too perfect: the only real dissidents are people reading a made-up book, no one seems to have any sense, there is absolutely no contact with the outside world when it takes place in a country that is (to my understanding) not capable of autarky, Ingsoc itself appears to be a monolith with no competing factions, etc.
There's also no really obvious road from the United Kingdom to Oceania, or explanation why Europe or the Anglo world permits Ingsoc to retain power, given the heavy implication that Eurasia and East Asia do not exist, as such.
Interestingly, V For Vendetta (the comic), heavily influenced by 1984, was probably slightly more realistic. It gave a history of how fascism descended on Britain, provided an actual war and anti-terrorist campaign (versus Scotland and Ireland) to drive fear, explains that nuclear war eliminated the possibility of foreign intervention from elsewhere, and all the party members were all very human, prone to power struggles, mistakes, and compromising lechery, as well as guilt and honor. Indeed, all the characters are recognizably human (except, arguably, V), possessing the faculties of memory and emotion which were being "removed" from the citizenry in 1984--as if that were achievable by nothing more profound than defacing some history books and a dictionary.
I mean, taking your examples, East Germany did have an amazingly perverse informer culture, but everyone still hated it; the Khmer Rouge went so far off the deep end a fellow communist nation invaded them; and the DPRK is barely able to continue on, economically and agriculturally, and presumably the top people are biding their time until Kim bites it. (On the other hand, that someone has not removed the leadership already is a testament to human cowardice.)
But I guess "Imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for several decades, until the leg breaks" doesn't sound as good as "forever."
I do recognize that the over-the-top Nazicommie regime in 1984 was part of the point, however.
Why does the world let North Korea continue to exist?
And thats when the existance of its nukes is very dubious.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 12, 2011, 04:00:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2011, 06:27:19 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 12, 2011, 02:54:56 AM
Edit: I actually have a bit of the same criticism of 1984, which I have actually read as opposed to just the Wikipedia page thereof, but at least Orwell was writing at a time that such regimes did seem possible, and perhaps did his own small part in making them impossible, versus, you know, writing a story about how Mormons and/or Muslims suck in 1985. But maybe I minimize the importance of adding one's voice, in a compelling way, to the already-existing consensus within Western civilization that such a dystopia would be pretty awful.
I don't think Orwell ever visited the Soviet Union and his only direct experience with it was when his communist allies purged his militia. While not all the elements of 1984 were true in Stalinist Russia, many of the themes were seen in later communist states. Extreme surveillance in East Germany, the simplification of society in Cambodia, the use of a fake war to justify shortages in North Korea. Though in 1984 it's implied that the war exists to create shortages rather then the war existing to explain the shortages. In some ways, no totalitarian regime was ever as bad as the one in 1984. In other ways many were far, far worse.
Personally, I'm not really sure that 1984 is a possible society. It's too extreme, and its totalitarianism too perfect: the only real dissidents are people reading a made-up book, no one seems to have any sense, there is absolutely no contact with the outside world when it takes place in a country that is (to my understanding) not capable of autarky, Ingsoc itself appears to be a monolith with no competing factions, etc.
There's also no really obvious road from the United Kingdom to Oceania, or explanation why Europe or the Anglo world permits Ingsoc to retain power, given the heavy implication that Eurasia and East Asia do not exist, as such.
Interestingly, V For Vendetta (the comic), heavily influenced by 1984, was probably slightly more realistic. It gave a history of how fascism descended on Britain, provided an actual war and anti-terrorist campaign (versus Scotland and Ireland) to drive fear, explains that nuclear war eliminated the possibility of foreign intervention from elsewhere, and all the party members were all very human, prone to power struggles, mistakes, and compromising lechery, as well as guilt and honor. Indeed, all the characters are recognizably human (except, arguably, V), possessing the faculties of memory and emotion which were being "removed" from the citizenry in 1984--as if that were achievable by nothing more profound than defacing some history books and a dictionary.
I mean, taking your examples, East Germany did have an amazingly perverse informer culture, but everyone still hated it; the Khmer Rouge went so far off the deep end a fellow communist nation invaded them; and the DPRK is barely able to continue on, economically and agriculturally, and presumably the top people are biding their time until Kim bites it. (On the other hand, that someone has not removed the leadership already is a testament to human cowardice.)
But I guess "Imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for several decades, until the leg breaks" doesn't sound as good as "forever."
I do recognize that the over-the-top Nazicommie regime in 1984 was part of the point, however.
Through dedicated propaganda you can make anything seem self-evident and natural.
Just look at the progress from healthy racism during the 50s to today's panic about saying something that might possibly be misconstrued as racist.
Niggardly, nappy-headed hos.
this is bullshit/44
S.M. Stirling, Henry Turteldove, Davidb Drake, David Weber,. amd John Ringo Star are great.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 12, 2011, 10:18:52 AM
I demand more Gor.
There was a movie made from that. I saw it on Mystery Science Theater 3000.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2011, 04:59:53 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 12, 2011, 10:18:52 AM
I demand more Gor.
There was a movie made from that. I saw it on Mystery Science Theater 3000.
Need more.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2011, 04:59:53 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 12, 2011, 10:18:52 AM
I demand more Gor.
There was a movie made from that. I saw it on Mystery Science Theater 3000.
Cabot!
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 12, 2011, 05:05:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2011, 04:59:53 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 12, 2011, 10:18:52 AM
I demand more Gor.
There was a movie made from that. I saw it on Mystery Science Theater 3000.
Need more.
Yes the movie sounds terrible.
Now I'm annoyed, why on earth did I sell my gor books ? :hmm:
A more important question is why did you buy them.
Is Gor the series like Conan except it's got spaceships and more sex?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2011, 05:17:40 PM
A more important question is why did you buy them.
To read in school in my teenage years ?
Whats weird is no one seemed bothered about me reading them in school, stranger still, given that later in the series they degenerated into misogynistic S&M, some of my female school friends were quite interested in them. :hmm:
There is a movie called Gor.
Its on Netflix.
Quote from: Caliga on May 12, 2011, 05:21:15 PM
Is Gor the series like Conan except it's got spaceships and more sex?
Roughly, yeah, though the space travel in most of them is just there as a way to get the main character to Gor in the first place.
I thought it actually started out OK (keeping in mind that I formed that opinion when I was a teen-ager), but as jamesww pointed out, later on it pretty much dropped any exploration of other ideas in favor of just giving vent to misogyny.
Quote from: Caliga on May 12, 2011, 05:21:15 PM
Is Gor the series like Conan except it's got spaceships and more sex?
Norman is nowhere near the writer Howard was, but his stories are somewhat better-fleshed-out and inter-related (in at least the first five or so books) and the action was not so pulpy. I do recall long monologues about trivia, so I would argue that the books were quite un-Conan-like and more like Piers Anthony. Later books (maybe after six or eight) got into pages-long paragraphs, which definitely was not Conan-like.
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2011, 05:42:19 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 12, 2011, 05:21:15 PM
Is Gor the series like Conan except it's got spaceships and more sex?
Norman is nowhere near the writer Howard was, but his stories are somewhat better-fleshed-out and inter-related (in at least the first five or so books) and the action was not so pulpy. I do recall long monologues about trivia, so I would argue that the books were quite un-Conan-like and more like Piers Anthony. Later books (maybe after six or eight) got into pages-long paragraphs, which definitely was not Conan-like.
This.
I swear i must have read the detailed explanation of the gorean slave lock in at least every third book.
I thought there were two Gor movies.
Quote from: Scipio on May 12, 2011, 06:17:46 PM
I thought there were two Gor movies.
No, you're thinking of the one made in Money's basement. :ph34r:
Quote from: jamesww on May 12, 2011, 06:51:42 PM
Quote from: Scipio on May 12, 2011, 06:17:46 PM
I thought there were two Gor movies.
No, you're thinking of the one made in Money's basement. :ph34r:
No, I'm right: Gor, and Outlaw of Gor.
Money of Gor was to be the third movie, but I had to spend the budget on Oreos and Crisco (don't ask).
I watched some of Outlaw of Gor (MST3K) on YouTube last night.
Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot!
:bleeding:
Quote from: Caliga on May 13, 2011, 08:28:08 AM
I watched some of Outlaw of Gor (MST3K) on YouTube last night.
Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot! Cabot!
:bleeding:
:lol: Seriously. For the first 15 minutes. At least thanks for helping me find the episode where the Fabio gag was from. :P
At first I thought his nerdy sidekick was Booger from Revenge of the Nerds. :)
I am surprised they haven't made the Honor Harrington series into movies. It would have a ton of action and feature a strong female character.
Quote from: Strix on May 13, 2011, 12:31:30 PM
I am surprised they haven't made the Honor Harrington series into movies. It would have a ton of action and feature a strong female character.
They'd rather make remakes of movies which inevitably suck compared to the original. Yeah, it's a mystery to me as well. I'd do
The Mote in God's Eye first (could get lots of press because it implies that birth control is a good thing and the fundies would take the entire movie as an attack on their various beliefs) but
On Basilisk Station second.
And a Honor Harrington novel being turned into a movie wouldn't have to cut much out, as just dispensing of the pages that deal with explaining "weapon system X" or "societal/political tangent Y" would compress them nicely. :P
Though a six-legged cat could awkward, special-effects wise.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 14, 2011, 04:06:26 AM
And a Honor Harrington novel being turned into a book wouldn't have to cut much out,
:hmm:
A lot of science fiction wouldn't make very good film. Good science fiction explores ideas, be they scientific, sociological, or philosophic. Heinlein's Starship Troopers is excellent example of this. The novel is mostly concerned with political philosophy while the film is concerned with killing giant bugs (the political stuff is limited to some vaguely fascist militaristic society they all live in).
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 14, 2011, 04:06:26 AM
And a Honor Harrington novel being turned into a movie wouldn't have to cut much out, as just dispensing of the pages that deal with explaining "weapon system X" or "societal/political tangent Y" would compress them nicely. :P
Indeed, since you would be showing, one wouldn't
have to tell.
QuoteThough a six-legged cat could awkward, special-effects wise.
Six-legged cat could into space.
Aren't they making Ender's Game into a motion picture? Isn't Card writing the screen play?
Best book up there imo.
Quote from: Zeus on May 14, 2011, 02:46:38 PM
Aren't they making Ender's Game into a motion picture? Isn't Card writing the screen play?
Best book up there imo.
Great. More fucking emo teens. And we thought fucking emo teen vampires and werewolves were bad! :lol:
What surprises me about the poll I posted was how small the 'long tail' was; huge numbers of votes for Iain M.Banks, but classic British sci-fi authors like Brian Aldiss don't appear to have gotten into the top 50 or more than a handful of votes.
edit:
I should point out that 'The Register' is a British based IT website, but with a strong US following, still odd that recent British sci-fi authors like Christopher Priest, who has had one of his books filmed, also doesn't get a look in.
Can Halo hast into movie? :huh:
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2011, 04:57:47 PM
Quote from: Zeus on May 14, 2011, 02:46:38 PM
Aren't they making Ender's Game into a motion picture? Isn't Card writing the screen play?
Best book up there imo.
Great. More fucking emo teens. And we thought fucking emo teen vampires and werewolves were bad! :lol:
Ender's Game is about children, not teens.
While an entertaining book, it's not nearly as thought-provoking as The Mote in God's Eye(and probably several others on the list that I haven't read).
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 14, 2011, 08:36:43 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2011, 04:57:47 PM
Quote from: Zeus on May 14, 2011, 02:46:38 PM
Aren't they making Ender's Game into a motion picture? Isn't Card writing the screen play?
Best book up there imo.
Great. More fucking emo teens. And we thought fucking emo teen vampires and werewolves were bad! :lol:
Ender's Game is about children, not teens.
If it ever gets made, the film version of the characters will probably be in the 17-19 year old age range, played by actors aged between 25 and 35.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 14, 2011, 08:36:43 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2011, 04:57:47 PM
Quote from: Zeus on May 14, 2011, 02:46:38 PM
Aren't they making Ender's Game into a motion picture? Isn't Card writing the screen play?
Best book up there imo.
Great. More fucking emo teens. And we thought fucking emo teen vampires and werewolves were bad! :lol:
Ender's Game is about children, not teens.
While an entertaining book, it's not nearly as thought-provoking as The Mote in God's Eye(and probably several others on the list that I haven't read).
It appears the Halo story copied a lot from Larry Niven's work.
The moties are divided in the same castes that form the diferent races of the Covenant.
Not to mention the Halo seems to be inspired by "Ringworld".
Quote from: Siege on May 15, 2011, 09:08:11 PM
Not to mention the Halo seems to be inspired by "Ringworld".
Only the shape, really. The Ringworld is far, far larger and much more simple than the Halos.
Quote from: Neil on May 15, 2011, 09:14:54 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 15, 2011, 09:08:11 PM
Not to mention the Halo seems to be inspired by "Ringworld".
Only the shape, really. The Ringworld is far, far larger and much more simple than the Halos.
Have you read any of the Halo novels?
They have exctly all the castes the Moties have.
Only they are diferent alien races asimilated by the Covenant.
Quote from: Siege on May 16, 2011, 04:34:45 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 15, 2011, 09:14:54 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 15, 2011, 09:08:11 PM
Not to mention the Halo seems to be inspired by "Ringworld".
Only the shape, really. The Ringworld is far, far larger and much more simple than the Halos.
Have you read any of the Halo novels?
They have exctly all the castes the Moties have.
Only they are diferent alien races asimilated by the Covenant.
Of course I haven't. Reading fiction isn't really my thing for the most part, but were I to do so, novels based on first-person-shooters wouldn't be my choice.