Sign in or Create an account
friends
rooms
me
everyone
Book versus Film versus whatever

Book versus Film versus whatever

This is a public room. Anyone can join to post and comment.

Administrators

Slippy Lane

Members

edythe
Heather Cee
Karim
Kevin Shannon
Mark Trapp
Michael Moran
Nick
RAPatton
roamin
Scott Kitchen
Book versus Film versus whatever
Classic SciFi/SciFan discussion. List your all-time favourites, discuss the merits of book versus film, film versus series, or just spout random film names and see who bites. Nothing violates the spirit of this room.
FriendFeed
Abby Martin posted a link
Empire: Movie News - Alex Proyas To Adapt Heinlein Novella
August 23 at 11:16 am - via Bookmarklet - Link
I think J.Phil posted something about Heinlein awhile ago- just saw this. - Abby Martin via Bookmarklet
FriendFeed
Kevin Shannon posted a link
AFI: 10 Top 10 Sci Fi
July 3 at 8:24 pm - via Bookmarklet - Link
AFI has their top 10 films in 10 genres special coming up. How about we look at each group and comment on what they got right, and what they missed. Here's the top 10 sci-fi films. - Kevin Shannon via Bookmarklet
OK - The list is not bad, but I'm not sure Back To The Future is one of the best Sci-fi films of all time. I think any top 10 list has to have a nod to the films that started and defined the genre. So the biggest miss on the list for me is Fritz Lang's "Metropolis".. I'd also like to get the original "War of the Worlds" in there but I'm not sure what I'd take out. - Kevin Shannon
FriendFeed
J. Phil posted a message
“The Works of Robert Heinlein: What makes for better movie material, his early hard SF work, or his later more philosophical/hedonistic stuff? Bonus: Would Number of the Beast make for a good movie?”
July 14 at 8:03 pm - Link
FriendFeed
Slippy Lane posted a message
“Challenge - think of a spinoff series that, in your opinion is better than the film on which it was based?”
June 30 at 2:21 pm - Link
Not counting Buffy, of course, because I think the film was SUPPOSED to be that bad! - Slippy Lane
Too fast- you beat me to it on Buffy. :) - Abby Martin
Show 14 more comments
Hmmm. M*A*S*H? - Karim
Excellent choice on M*A*S*H. I'd also say the Odd Couple, although I really do love the movie. Also possibly The Dead Zone. And this new Sarah Conner Chronicles is shaping up to be pretty good. - Kevin Shannon
You guys are very good! Wish I could get my brain to work today.... - Abby Martin
@Abby it just shows I've wasted most of my life watching TV - Kevin Shannon
Was kind of hard to say that about an Altman movie, but Alan Alda pretty much owns the Hawkeye Pierce role. Also, Major Winchester was a cool character. That is all. - Karim
:) major winchester. - edythe
Charles (pronounced chaahles in that delightfully uppercrust way.) Don't feel bad. It wasn't one of his very best flicks. And it was one of the best series tv ever had. - Abby Martin
I knew there was one I was forgetting. La Femme Nikita. - Kevin Shannon
Kevin S: never saw the series, but the original French La Femme Nikita ROCKED. - edythe
She's right. It did- and it was soooo much better than the American remake. Why does Hollywood insist on remaking really great foreign films- and then screwing them up totally? - Abby Martin
I have to confess I never saw the film, but I liked the show so much I assumed it had to be better :-) Now I have to rent the film. - Kevin Shannon
Kevin- hopefully you'll love it. Let us all know. - Abby Martin
Ok, how about this one. The original Max Headroom was a made-for-TV movie filmed in England. When ABC picked up the series rights in 1987, they did a scene-for-scene remake of the movie in America. So, I like the original movie, followed by the series, followed by the remade movie. Still following? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...) - J. Phil
Phil - a minor correction or two. For some reason, the link's closing bracket doesn't translate. I just tried putting the same link in :-) The chronology of Max appears to be UK TV Magazine show (85-86), UK TV film (87), Cinemax magazine show (87), US sci-fi action series (87-88). The british film was re-shot in the US as the pilot episode of the US series. Incidentally, what's with Matt Frewer's accent in Eureka? - Slippy Lane
Incidentally, I thought that both the british film and the american spinoff series were pretty good. - Slippy Lane
Slippy - you are right, the pilot was the remade American version. I'd like to get my hands on the original British film though, still my favorite. If I remember correctly they used a different bryce (the computer genius kid that creates max headroom) in the UK movie and he's more of a dick. I like that. - J. Phil
Stargate. - Jason Kaneshiro
FriendFeed
Kevin Shannon posted a link
METROPOLIS Rebuilt!! Fritz Lang's Long-Missing, Full-Length Edit Has Finally Been Located!! -- Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.
July 3 at 8:36 pm - via Reshare - Link
Not to harp on Metropolis, but just ran across this great news. The original Fritz Lang cut has been found. - Kevin Shannon
I really like the new scene where Gaff says about the female robot, "It's too bad she won't live... but then again, who does?" - Karim
@Karim - :-) Very good. And it actually kinda makes sense. - Kevin Shannon
And here's the Zeit Online article http://www.zeit.de/online/2008... - Slippy Lane
FriendFeed
Kevin Shannon posted a link
A Friendfeed discussion about a list of best 4th of July films
July 4 at 8:12 pm - Link
I was not pleased to see that Yankee Doodle Dandy was missing. Who thinks up these Digg lists? - Kevin Shannon
Films about 4th July or films released on 4th July? With or without Will Smith? :-) - Slippy Lane
FriendFeed
Abby Martin posted a message
“What about one of my faves- "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" vs. "Blade Runner" (original version, director's cut, final cut, his mother's hairdresser's cut, whatever.)”
June 29 at 9:01 pm - Link
I have commented on this before :-) The book is basically about empathy, and how -- in a world of artificial organs, animals, spare parts and people -- it's empathy that makes us human. So many fans of the movie get caught up in the whole "is Deckard a replicant" argument, which really misses the point. The lines are blurred in the novel -- Deckard has doubts about himself and another bounty hunter, that turn out to be unfounded. The "andys" in the novel are trying to learn how to use an Empathy Box. In the novel, it is empathy that saves Deckard (Mercer appears, warns him of Pris), and in the movie, Roy acquires empathy ("Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it?") and saves Deckard's life. The book and the movie are very different, but the point remains the same: empathy humanizes. - Karim
That's beautiful- and beautifully put. Thank you. - Abby Martin
Without deconstructing too much, Blade Runner is one of my favorite films, and Philip K. Dick is one of my favorite writers. I like both the story and the movie without reservation. - J. Phil
Why is it that P.K.D.'s books often morph so far from their source material when they are turned into movies? Is Blade Runner the best of the adaptations? - Abby Martin
To be honest, I don't rate Dick's writing that much. I've always found it a little naive, and his science a little lacking. That's probably why his work doesn't translate directly to the screen and has to - as Abby pointed out - morph so far from the source material in order to make a believable film. Nothing can touch the film for atmosphere and power, as far as I'm concerned. - Slippy Lane
I think it is interesting that when the story was optioned, the first screenplay was a far cry from the finished movie. In fact, it only called for two or three locations. When Ridley Scott saw it, he fired the writer and got a new writer to write it the way he wanted it, and then did a lot of his own elaborations on that script as he was filming. The movie was Ridley Scott's baby, and it was taken away from him and 'hollywoodized' for its release. - J. Phil
FriendFeed
Kevin Shannon posted a link
Archive Classic Movies | Home
July 2 at 3:14 am - via Bookmarklet - Link
If you like old movie (including some B and B- stuff as well as great old movie serials) point your iPod over here. A huge collection of public domain films. Want to see the original version of "I Am Legend", look at "The Last Man on Earth" with Vincent Price. For a cheesy sci-fi serial, try Gene Autry's "The Phantom Empire". - Kevin Shannon via Bookmarklet
FriendFeed
Abby Martin posted a message
“How about favourite dystopian sci-fi film/book? There are a lot of great ones.”
June 30 at 9:49 am - Link
"The Jetsons" is kind of dark, if you examine it very, very carefully. - Karim
Can't think of a film/book comparison, but how about Logan's run - film versus series? - Slippy Lane
Show 13 more comments
@Karim- I think perhaps you have a very sly sense of humour. I like it. @Slippy When was there a series? - Abby Martin
Abby, the series was a run of 14 episodes, first aired in 1977 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...). It sucked about as badly as the planet of the apes series did - Slippy Lane
Looks pretty awful. Guess I didn't miss too much. Hmm. Maybe we could make this topic just favourite dystopian film? Or does that violate the spirit of the room? - Abby Martin
Violate away! - Slippy Lane
As someone else mentioned in another thread (AJ?) Gattaca is a really underrated classic. The story, the performances, the 1960s style lighting and stylization and the Michael Nyman soundtrack combine for a really moving, beautiful film. (Blade Runner is still my favourite though. But this was a dark horse. It got such terrible reviews- and then proved to exceed expectations!) - Abby Martin
I like to be surprised at least once during a film, so Gattaca didn't really do it for me. - Slippy Lane
Andromeda Strain book and movie were both really good. - Jason Kaneshiro
Agreed- though the tv-movie remake....eh.... - Abby Martin
Andromeda Strain (book & film) were great - not so much dystopian, though? Crichton at the top of his game. Science has mostly held up, though "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance" imaging isn't quite as exotic as it was in the early 70s. - Karim
Fair enough. Not technically dystopian but still good Sci-Fi. Why were the 70s able to provide so many Sci-Fi classics? - Abby Martin
That's a good question -- followed by, did any of these classics make any money? If I remember correctly, George Lucas said that by the time he was making "Star Wars," no one in Hollywood wanted to touch Sci-Fi with a 10-foot pole. - Karim
Abby, I think it was because, in the 70's there was much depression in the world, but at the same time, there was a surge of new science and technology, we were just about getting the hang of going into space, and to cap it all, a lot of directors discovered they could tap into the previous decade's tendency towards psychedelia in art and music to really add a wallop to their films. All of this adds up to some fantastic sci-fi. Icing on the cake would be colour film, and new film-manipulation techniques - Slippy Lane
Slippy, do you think that maybe then we're due for a Sci-Fi film Renaissance? We have a lot of new technology. We have a lot of depression. And we have some interesting new film techniques. Maybe some great movies could come out of this? (fingers crossed.) - Abby Martin
I think the technological advancement, global dissatisfaction and evolution of film have been pretty consistent over the last 30-some years, so I don't think we're in for a renaissance any time soon. NOwadays, most potential classics get dwarfed by the latest superhero movie or whatever. Occasionally though, a real gem manages to slip through. Children of Men, for example, had me sitting open-mouthed in shock for almost its entirety. - Slippy Lane
YES! It was smart, surprising and tragic. I was devastated by that film. (However, I still believe that more than a few classics can sneak around the marketing machines. You just have to look harder under the collectible cups, happy meal toys, etc.) Now that's a dystopian classic. Good call. (And I think the movie deviates a fair bit from the book.) - Abby Martin
Ooooh, there's a book? Another one for my reading list, then! I loved the fact that, in the end of Children of Men, the protagonist never got to see the thing he was working towards come to fruition, and so never knew that the human project succeeded - Slippy Lane
FriendFeed
Slippy Lane posted a message
“Old version vs New version - Round 2 - Vanilla Sky”
July 1 at 5:19 am - Link
Didn't see the original OR the remake, but my better half was quite impressed with the remake - Slippy Lane
Original. The remake had potential- and some good performances- but needed a different leading man to be taken seriously.... - Abby Martin
FriendFeed
Slippy Lane posted a message
“Five words. Return. To. The. Forbidden. Planet.”
June 30 at 3:40 pm - Link
Yes! (That's one word.) ;) - Abby Martin
Lesley Nielsen's first (and as far as I'm aware, only) straight role. I think it was while filming it that he discovered that his face was more suited to comedy! - Slippy Lane
FriendFeed
Slippy Lane posted a message
“Old version vs New version - Round 1 - Planet of the apes ... go!”
June 30 at 2:29 pm - Link
Old version leads in with the most memorable lines in movie history, "You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!", scores +5 hit - Slippy Lane
Tim Burton is a visionary but his version of the film has a ridiculous ending. It's my least favourite of his films. - Abby Martin
Show 3 more comments
Old version uses Super-Power-Heston-Acting Punch. Fatality. Flawless victory. - Karim
Old version, no contest - Jason Kaneshiro
You can not beat a screenplay written by Rod Serling. - Kevin Shannon
That's true! (Look at how awful the Twilight Zone movie was vs. the original series...) - Abby Martin
old version! - edythe
The figurative in the new one has racial overtones. The old one representative of the French government. - Jacob
FriendFeed
Slippy Lane posted a message
“Updated the title and description for this room so as not to limit freedom of discussion. Enjoy!”
June 30 at 2:19 pm - Link
Book vs Film vs Lion vs Ben-Hur: Who will win? - J. Phil
Well, a picture paints a thousand words, and a film consists of millions of pictures (and pictures of pictures), so the film beats the book on the sheer amount of raw data conveyed. Lions prefer raw meat to raw data, so would turn away from the film in favour of eating Ben Hur. I'm pretty sure a lion could outrun a chariot, if the lion was really hungry, so we're left with lion versus film. We've all seen lions captured on film, so the film wins. *bow* - Slippy Lane
Also, check the rooms new logo image! :-) - Slippy Lane
Very nice Slippy! - Abby Martin
(raises Spock eyebrow) Logical, Slippy. Flawlessly logical. - Karim
FriendFeed
Slippy Lane posted a message
“Also, invite more people!”
June 30 at 2:28 pm - Link
FriendFeed
Slippy Lane posted a message
“Gotta kick off with "Soylent Green" vs "Make Room, Make Room" The book came first, btw.”
June 29 at 4:23 pm - Link
I'm probably the only one here who's actually read the book. In my opinion, the film, by making the whole thing seem to be about unknowing human cannibalism missed the mark entirely. The story in the book has no such mention of soylent green being made of people. The whole point about people registering for state-sponsored suicide was not to get meat (the bodies were burned for fuel, incidentally, not used as meat), but to illustrate the sheer desperation of society caused by massive and terminal overpopulation. A very dark and depressing story indeed. - Slippy Lane
Interesting. You are correct -- I haven't read the book.. yet. - J. Phil
Haven't read the book, actually didn't know there was one. I'll have to look it up... - Jason Kaneshiro
Hehe, at this rate, Mr. Harrison's gonna get a surprise letter from his publishers, notifying him that they need to do a reprint! - Slippy Lane
FriendFeed
Slippy Lane posted a message
“How about 2001: A Space Odyssey. The book and the film are different, but they were both written at the same time, in a collaboration between Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick.”
June 29 at 4:27 pm - Link
I think both were equally kick-ass, but the book just about had the edge for me, as it was a little easier to "get" first time around than the film was. - Slippy Lane
Hard to believe it's past 1984 and 2001.... - Mitchell Tsai
Show 6 more comments
I liked the original movie better, but I liked the subsequent books better (2010 and 2021, I think) - J. Phil
(in a very small voice) I always found the film overrated. Please don't throw things. - Abby Martin
(begins hooting and waving jawbone in direction of Abby) - Karim
LOL. Nice one! - Abby Martin
Abby - the movie was extremely pretentious, which I think is the way Stanley Kubrick prefers his films to be. There's a reason why people call stuff "Kubrickian" That said, especially for the time when it was released.. it did so much RIGHT.. the silence of space, the simulated gravity, holographic memory.. it's almost one of those "toynbee convector" type movies that changes reality. That said, as a movie, it's long and somewhat boring in parts. - J. Phil
Gentlemen - thank you for being so nice about this. I've had my head handed to me before over not adoring this film. Guess I am just not a huge Kubrick fan. (Though I did find Barry Lyndon hilarious, much to the chagrin of the people I saw it with who informed me it was not a comedy.....) - Abby Martin
I think the book and the film are such different experiences that they are complementary and not competitive. The story (ape man --> man --> star child) makes sense in the book; less so if you've only seen the film. The film does a better job of getting across the feeling of space travel. The film takes the fantastic setting (space travel) and injects the mundane and accessible: going to the bathroom, making a phone call, microwaving your dinner and sitting in front of the tablet PC at the end of a day. - Karim
The book definitely explains what's going on - very clear that the monolith is teaching the apes how to use tools - but the film is awesome because it's a lot more open to interpretation - I've heard some say the monolith is a stand in for God - not necesarially aliens. - Jason Kaneshiro
Jason, I think that's one of the things I like about the story in general, in that it blurs the line between our concept of God, and the technology available to a race so advanced that we can't even perceive them in their own framework. - Slippy Lane
FriendFeed
Slippy Lane posted a message
“Here's a good one. Philip K Dick's short "We can remember it for you, wholesale" versus the screenplay "Total Recall" versus Piers Anthony's novelisation of the film.”
June 30 at 9:57 am - Link
The short story was just what a short story should be - powerful and with a great twist. The film was visually groundbreaking and fleshed out the world quite successfully. As for the novelisation, believe it or not, I actually corresponded with Mr. Anthony about it after I'd read it some years ago. His main impetus for writing, he said, was to correct the "bad science" of the screenplay. To be honest, the style was a little too much like his "Xanth" series for me to really have found it enjoyable. - Slippy Lane
FriendFeed
Kevin Shannon posted a message
“I guess we should discuss my all time favorite sci-fi novel "Dune".”
June 29 at 8:43 pm - Link
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00... the 1984 film was a big disappointment. There have been a number of alternate cuts, none of which I've seen, but I've heard there is some improvement. I actually enjoyed the 2000 mini-series http://www.imdb.com/title/tt01... but I think I'm in the minority here. And lo and behold, a new big screen version is in the works for 2010 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt11... - Kevin Shannon
Dune works better as a mini-series. It allows for more detail and background. But that's my $.02. Curious to see the 2010 version! - Abby Martin
Show 2 more comments
Loved the books, but the movie sucked... I guess it's a very bbbiiiiggg setting, and hard to make that effect on the big screen. Perhaps easier to imagine. - Mitchell Tsai
@Abby In general I think a lot of books would do better as a mini-series. Hope after a few years go by they remake the Davinci Code as a mini-series. - Kevin Shannon
I liked the book Dune, but never read any of the followup books. Dune the movie.. I like it but I don't really think of it as a very accurate representation of the book. For example, nowhere in the book do they use "weirding modules" in any way, shape, or form. Also, there is a Dune mini-series that Sci-Fi did a few years ago.. I enjoyed that a lot. - J. Phil
Dang. The book was awesome, the David Lynch version fell short in many ways (trying to be star wars), and I also disliked the miniseries because the dude cast as Duke Leto wasn't good enough for me, and I preferred the art direction behind the Lynch version. There still needs to be a decent Dune movie / miniseries. - Jason Kaneshiro
First incarnation of the film totally ruled, as did the book. The recent miniseries/remake was a complete abomination, managing to capture all of the imagery whilst conveying none of the atmosphere. - Slippy Lane
Tip: Now you can add FriendFeed to your blog with our new customizable FriendFeed widgets!
Other ways to read this feed: Feed