The Zone

by **Fickleman** on Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:59 pm

In THIS article. Not sure about the Star Wars sequels - the series was already going downhill with Jedi - but I think the Matrix stuff is dead-on.

by **Eric G** on Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:06 am

Hitchhikers would not be in my top 10 and the Matrix would certainly not be #1

by **wonkabar** on Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:20 am

Everyone remembers the exact moment when they realized that their Phanom Menace sandwich was filled with shit. For me, it was the scene on Tatooine where Qui-Gon is talking and Jar Jar is snatching fruit from the bowl with his tongue, eating like an insect. Annoyed, Qui-Gon reaches out and snatches his tongue out of the air and holds it in his fist while he talks. That was when I realized I was watching a cartoon.

Fuck, are you kidding? WAY before that. The collective "oh my god, this movie actually kinda sucks"-feeling started creeping into my theater on "how wude" People began cringing on that stupid Boss-Nass spit-shake, then full-on hand over the mouth panic after the ill-timed "ye gods, whata mesa sayn'?!?"
By the time "there's always a bigger fish" rolled around the grim reality had set in. All we could do was hope it didn't get any worse.

by **DennisMM** on Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:22 am

There's a good book from a few years back titled The Greatest Sci-Fi Movies Never Made (roughly). H@rry Knowles even wrote the afterword. Check it out for really interesting failed projects.

by **Eric G** on Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:27 am

wonkabar wrote:
Everyone remembers the exact moment when they realized that their Phanom Menace sandwich was filled with shit. For me, it was the scene on Tatooine where Qui-Gon is talking and Jar Jar is snatching fruit from the bowl with his tongue, eating like an insect. Annoyed, Qui-Gon reaches out and snatches his tongue out of the air and holds it in his fist while he talks. That was when I realized I was watching a cartoon.

Fuck, are you kidding? WAY before that. The collective "oh my god, this movie actually kinda sucks"-feeling started creeping into my theater on "how wude" People began cringing on that stupid Boss-Nass spit-shake, then full-on hand over the mouth panic after the ill-timed "ye gods, whata mesa sayn'?!?" By the time "there's always a bigger fish" rolled around the grim reality had set in. All we could do was hope it didn't get any worse.

Oh, how right you are..... Im just as big a Star Wars fan as the next guy, but when I heard...."How Wude" and 'Exqueeeze me" I wanted to walk out. How Wude!?!??! Doesn't anybody remember the little blonde girl from that dismal 80's sitcom Full House?! Fcuking Lucas.....

by **wonkabar** on Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:32 am

Yep, I remember...that's exactly what I thought too. I was half expecting Jar-Jar to say "NOT!" at some point.

by **Fievel** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:02 am

Yeah, the "Exqueeze me" did it for me. It needed Wayne or Garth's head to pop into a corner of the screen briefly and say "Baking powder?" ala the "Toasty!" guy from Mortal Kombat.

by **Carolian** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:14 am

Yeah, the "Exqueeze me" did it for me. It needed Wayne or Garth's head to pop into a corner of the screen briefly and say "Baking powder?" ala the "Toasty!" guy from Mortal Kombat.

IPAMPILASH!

Greatest sci-fi movie that has never been made? A true-to-the-book adaptation of either RENDEZVOUS WITH RAMA or CHILDHOOD'S END, both by Arthur C. Clarke.

YouTube · by **Tubbs Tattsyrup** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:25 am

Or indeed, ANY adaptation of RENDEZVOUS WITH RAMA.

by **Seppuku** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:31 am

Someone should bring an Alfred Bester book to life. Can you imagine just how kick-ass an adaptation of Tiger, Tiger (also known as The Stars My Destination) would be? I must have read hundreds of sci-fi books ripe for movie adaptations. The Cold War brought out the best in science fiction novelists; there's nothing like a good old injection of paranoia to get those fingers-a-writing.

Why haven't there been more films like Gattaca released? I guess Sci-Fi isn't the most bankable genre nowadays. Serenity didn't exactly sell it to the masses.

Last suggestion: Joe Haldeman's The Forever War would, if adapted right, be quite literally the best movie ever. Anyone who's read the book would have to agree with me.

by **Carolian** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:36 am

Why haven't there been more films like Gattaca released?

TOO FUCKING RIGHT. To me, GATTACA is criminally overlooked.

I don't know why the public hasn't taken to science fiction, as a movie genre; or, rather, only in small doses, i.e. THE MATRIX. The STAR WARS films don't really count; to the average Joe Moviegoer, they're not sci-fi films, they're STAR WARS films. Far be it from me to cast aspersions on the intelligence of the entire populace, but are the heady themes of a great sci-fi film just too much for the average moviegoer?

I mean, 2001's obviously become recognized as a classic, as has A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, but would they do good business today, if they were released? I doubt it. And I wish I could figure out why.

by **Seppuku** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:41 am

Carolian wrote:I don't know why the public hasn't taken to science fiction, as a movie genre; or, rather, only in small doses, i.e. THE MATRIX. The STAR WARS films don't really count; to the average Joe Moviegoer, they're not sci-fi films, they're STAR WARS films. Far be it from me to cast aspersions on the intelligence of the entire populace, but are the heady themes of a great sci-fi film just too much for the average moviegoer?

I mean, 2001's obviously become recognized as a classic, as has A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, but would they do good business today, if they were released? I doubt it. And I wish I could figure out why.

Good, albeit depressing point. I think it's something to do with the fact that Joe Public sees Sci-Fi as being masturbatory bullshit that says nothin' 'bout nothin'. When Sci-Fi's always been about changing our world, skewing it just enough to make us look at it from a different angle; it says more about the world than any Michael Moore documentary ever could.

by **Adam Balm** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:13 am

I'd like to add

1) James Cameron's adaptation of Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy to that list. He bought the rights, did absolute dick with them, then eventually decided to make his own original Mars themed movie, and did absolute dick with that.

2) The Kubrick/Clarke follow-up to 2001, The Songs of Distant Earth. They were looking for another project to do together, and so Clarke wrote an outline for the first realistic movie about interstellar colonization. No Faster-than-light travel, no aliens, no cliches. Kubrick replied to the idea with a non-plussed 'interesting...'. Clarke later novelized the idea.

by **havocSchultz** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:44 am

DennisMM wrote:There a good book from a few years back titled The Greatest Sci-Fi Movies Never Made (roughly). H@rry Knowles even wrote the afterword. Check it out for really interesting failed projects.

i have that book - it's an interesting read - especially cause it ists a few movies in there - that in the last year or two - and possibly upcoming year - will eventually be made... like spiderman, F4, Hitchhiker's... and Harry mentions John Carter in the foreword... pretty cool stuff...

by **the man with no name** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:11 am

I'm gonna throw it out there and see what happens, i have my views and i'm keeping them quiet for now but it was a one of those i was discussing the other day - Bladerunner!

by **Peven** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:26 am

i began reading Ray Bradbury in 4th grade, because one of my older brothers had brought home The Illustrated Man from school. he was reading it for English class. i was hooked from the start. i went on to read various science fiction anthologies, but Bradbury always had a special place for me. i read an interview with him about 10 yrs ago, and for anyone not familiar with him, the guy speaks his mind and doesn't care who likes it or not. i love it.

anyway, he was going off on "sci-fi". he had no use for it. you may be thinking at this point, "wtf?" well, to Bradbury there was science fiction and then there was sci-fi. science fiction, Bradbury explained, is just what the name implies by defintion; SCIENCE fiction. and science has rules, order, things have to add up. good science fiction is taking what we know of science and extending it out to a "what if"? as fantastic as the story may be, a true science fiction story is still grounded in science.

sci-fi, he argued, doesn't bother to justify or explain, in terms of real science, how or why things happen the way they do. its more about spectacle and imagery, and what he referred to as a dumbing down of storytelling. in his opinion the prevelance of sci-fi was why true, quality science fiction was fading out. science fiction makes people think, it asks questions about the moral implications of technology and the direction it is heading, i.e. Gattaca. sci-fi doesn't ask that of its reader/viewer, it is there purely to entertain, and nothing more.

now, he can come across like a grumpy old codger, i realize that, but ever since i read that interview i have looked at the world of science fiction and sci-fi in a new light, and while i enjoy sci-fi for what it is, cotton candy fun, i have to say i do have a greater respect true science fiction and its creators. so, what was my point of this rambling post you may ask? :wink:

thanks to the mind-set i picked up from Bradbury, as i sat here and tried to think of some movies for this list i kept coming back to the idea that there should be two lists, one for sci-fi movies and one for science fiction movies. and i figured a discussion of what movies would fall in what catagory would be an interesting discussion as well. imo, Star Trek= science fiction, Star Wars= sci-fi. just as an example.

pardon my long windedness, btw, i'm not having the best of weeks and i end up going off on rants and diatribes as a way of relieving the stress. :oops:

thanks for putting up with it.

by **ThisIsTheGirl** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:29 am

Carolian wrote:CHILDHOOD'S END, both by Arthur C. Clarke.

Pardon me, I was just admiring the cut of your jib. I came on this thread to say exactly the same thing! A well-made movie of Childhood's End would be probably my favourite Sci-Fi ever!

Oh, and:

wonkabar wrote:The collective "oh my god, this movie actually kinda sucks"-feeling started creeping into my theater on "how wude" People began cringing on that stupid Boss-Nass spit-shake, then full-on hand over the mouth panic after the ill-timed "ye gods, whata mesa sayn'?!?"
By the time "there's always a bigger fish" rolled around the grim reality had set in. All we could do was hope it didn't get any worse.

That is quite possibly the best summary of TPM I have ever read! Kudos, Sir!

by **Seppuku** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:30 am

Peven wrote: imo, Star Trek= science fiction

Even Star Trek IV? I guess whales are pretty deep when you think about it...

by **Peven** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:38 am

seppukudkurosawa wrote:
Peven wrote: imo, Star Trek= science fiction

Even Star Trek IV? I guess whales are pretty deep when you think about it...

ok, i see what you mean there, but then again, who knows just how smart whales are? though, with as much Star Trek material as there is, i know there are some holes to be poked in the science. in the final equation, i guess i give Trek the credit for making an effort to work from a real science base as much as they can, most of the time. but you're right, Trek isn't pure hardcore science fiction. i picked the Star Trek-Star Wars comparison just as a quick easy example of two properties i figured everyone would be familiar with to give a general idea of what i meant.

by **Doc Holliday** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:42 am

Carolian wrote:
Why haven't there been more films like Gattaca released?

TOO FUCKING RIGHT. To me, GATTACA is criminally overlooked.

I don't know why the public hasn't taken to science fiction, as a movie genre; or, rather, only in small doses, i.e. THE MATRIX. The STAR WARS films don't really count; to the average Joe Moviegoer, they're not sci-fi films, they're STAR WARS films. Far be it from me to cast aspersions on the intelligence of the entire populace, but are the heady themes of a great sci-fi film just too much for the average moviegoer?

I mean, 2001's obviously become recognized as a classic, as has A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, but would they do good business today, if they were released? I doubt it. And I wish I could figure out why.

Just a theory...but I think dystopian sci-fi films...usually are initially received lukewarm at best...but are normally the ones that endure the most.

My own, homegrown pop psychology theory is we go to the movies normally to escape in some sense..not have the fact we are hellbent on ruining ourselves highlighted. Today is miserable enough...for a lot of people...lets at least pretend tomorrow is going to be fun.

But then...when we actually think about it beyond the popcorn, these are the ones that ring truest and actually help us shape our future away from what it could be.

Blade Runner, Silent Running, Phase IV, Gattaca, Equilibrium even.... and so on and so forth...what do you think?

by **Seppuku** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:46 am

Naw I was just joking anyway, and as a hardcore science fictionite I agree with you completely. I guess sci-fi is another way of describing fantasy, which is escapism from this world, whereas science fiction is the world squared. Movies aren't really made like that nowadays though, I guess there was that befuddling philosophical time machine flick that came out last year (anyone remember the title?), and in a way Pi was science fiction...or maybe not, depends on your angle on it. I'm not sure what H.G. Wells and Jules Verne would say about films like Serenity being branded as science fiction, I mean it's probably closer to the spirit of a Western than 20, 000 Leagues Under the Sea. S'all semantics though, eh?

by **Peven** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:52 am

seppukudkurosawa wrote:Naw I was just joking anyway, and as a hardcore science fictionite I agree with you completely. I guess sci-fi is another way of describing fantasy, which is escapism from this world, whereas science fiction is the world squared. Movies aren't really made like that nowadays though, I guess there was that befuddling philosophical time machine flick that came out last year (anyone remember the title?), and in a way Pi was science fiction...or maybe not, depends on your angle on it. I'm not sure what H.G. Wells and Jules Verne would say about films like Serenity being branded as science fiction, I mean it's probably closer to the spirit of a Western than 20, 000 Leagues Under the Sea. S'all semantics though, eh?

ahh, don't ever underestimate the importance semantics. as George Carlin once said, "be careful about the words you choose to use".

by **Carolian** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:57 am

Just a theory...but I think dystopian sci-fi films...usually are initially received lukewarm at best...but are normally the ones that endure the most.

My own, homegrown pop psychology theory is we go to the movies normally to escape in some sense..not have the fact we are hellbent on ruining ourselves highlighted. Today is miserable enough...for a lot of people...lets at least pretend tomorrow is going to be fun.

But then...when we actually think about it beyond the popcorn, these are the ones that ring truest and actually help us shape our future away from what it could be.

Blade Runner, Silent Running, Phase IV, Gattaca, Equilibrium even.... and so on and so forth...what do you think?

First off, I think you da man now, dog, for naming a few films I hadn't heard that much about, and giving me Netflix fodder. Beautiful, beautiful!

Yeah, I'd agree with you... the "escape" mentality is why we have so many blockbusters and popcorn movies. Even when there's a movie with a non-blockbuster theme has to have that shoehorned-in happy ending.

I mean, I understand wanting to escape; God knows there are times when I just want a fun, light-hearted movie. I think, though, that in the end, the films that reveal the world around us are the ones that are the most powerful. This doesn't really mean grimness/grittiness for their own sake; it has to be true, not just a copycat of other films' styles. Shoehorning in a depressing ending to a film is just as useless as shoehorning in a happy one; it has to be natural, y'know? It has to be true. I think that movies can show us a lot more of ourselves than we might like to see.

As long as movies are a for-profit business, though, it's gonna be the moneymen who decide what films get made and what films don't. This makes an adaptation of CHILDHOOD'S END or NEUROMANCER possible, but not likely, and it makes the likelihood of these adaptations being any good something less than considerable. I can't help but think, though, that there are a world of good science fiction films just waiting to be made, and that money being the deciding factor is depressing.

Sorry for the wind and pretension, I'm skipping class and killing time.

OT: Can anyone help me on a minor PZ matter? I can't figure out how to name the person when I quote them in replies. Thanks in advance.

by **Doc Holliday** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:01 pm

True...but he also said:

Hitchhiker: [explaining why he gives head for rides] Have you seen the price of bus tickets lately. There's no way I'm gonna cough up 200 bucks just to get to Chicago.

Jay: Fuck that, I don't wanna cough up some dude's sperm.

Hitchhiker: Don't be so suburban.

by **Seppuku** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:03 pm

Carolian wrote:OT: Can anyone help me on a minor PZ matter? I can't figure out how to name the person when I quote them in replies. Thanks in advance.

Had the same problem when I first started, you have to click on the QUOTE box on the right of their post.

by **Peven** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:08 pm

seppukudkurosawa wrote:
Carolian wrote:OT: Can anyone help me on a minor PZ matter? I can't figure out how to name the person when I quote them in replies. Thanks in advance.

Had the same problem when I first started, you have to click on the QUOTE box on the right of their post.

yeah, i started out copying and pasting to quote people, until i got called a n 0 0 b for doing so :oops:

, then told me about that little "quote" box in the upper right of each post.

by **Doc Holliday** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:09 pm

First off, I think you da man now, dog, for naming a few films I hadn't heard that much about, and giving me Netflix fodder. Beautiful, beautiful!

Cheers dude...my pleasure. Silent Running is a beautiful film, on many levels. Phase IV has one of the best endlines I can think of ever seeing (I feel a new thread coming up though) - I'll leave it at that

No worries about being long-winded - far from it..its good to get to the meat of some matters and sometimes a 10 word sentence just won't cut it.

The best dystopian movies don't portray us as Evil. Like The Island, most recently. Not the best film maybe - but a case in point. Sean Bean in that started out with honourable intentions...but then his own monster took on a life of its own and lead him down dark paths in order to sustain his "model" long enough to achieve the higher goals for all our benefits.
Far more realistic...then along the way things get perverted or simple greed takes over....that can be the downside of human nature and its a good thing to write new tales warning us of this IMO

by **Carolian** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:11 pm

Doc Holliday wrote:No worries about being long-winded - far from it..its good to get to the meat of some matters and sometimes a 10 word sentence just won't cut it

I don't know about that--sometimes it fits just right.

by **thomasgaffney** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:13 pm

Carolian wrote:OT: Can anyone help me on a minor PZ matter? I can't figure out how to name the person when I quote them in replies. Thanks in advance.

You can also do it without using the QUOTE button like this:

Code: Select all: [quote="the user you are quoting"]I think Cpt Kirks 2pay is a wanker![/quote]

And you would get this:

the user you are quoting wrote:I think Cpt Kirks 2pay is a wanker!

by **Carolian** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:15 pm

Excellent! I shall be a master of ZoneTML!

by **Peven** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:18 pm

it just came to me, damn my brain is just not hitting on all cylinders lately. "cautionary tale" was the term i was groping for earlier and couldn't find. thats what a lot of true, quality science fiction is. carry on.

by **Carolian** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:21 pm

Peven wrote:it just came to me, damn my brain is just not hitting on all cylinders lately. "cautionary tale" was the term i was groping for earlier and couldn't find. thats what a lot of true, quality science fiction is. carry on.

Yes! That's the perfect way to describe it. A whole hell of a lot of Ray Bradbury's short stories, I'd say, could be described as "cautionary tales", often toward the encroachment of technology. Hell, it'd go all the way back to H.G. Wells, and THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU... if that's not a cautionary tale, I don't know what is.

by **Doc Holliday** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:30 pm

Carolian wrote:
Peven wrote:it just came to me, damn my brain is just not hitting on all cylinders lately. "cautionary tale" was the term i was groping for earlier and couldn't find. thats what a lot of true, quality science fiction is. carry on.

Yes! That's the perfect way to describe it. A whole hell of a lot of Ray Bradbury's short stories, I'd say, could be described as "cautionary tales", often toward the encroachment of technology. Hell, it'd go all the way back to H.G. Wells, and THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU... if that's not a cautionary tale, I don't know what is.

For hiring Marlon Brando anyway! and I love the dude.

by **austenandrews** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:55 pm

Peven wrote:anyway, he was going off on "sci-fi". he had no use for it. you may be thinking at this point, "wtf?" well, to Bradbury there was science fiction and then there was sci-fi.

That was a common distinction among fans when the term "sci-fi" got popular. Sci-fi usually denoted "media SF" - movies, TV shows, etc. bereft of anything but cursory science. That was back in the 70's, when there wasn't much media SF to speak of and harder SF still filled several racks at the mall bookstore. These days there's more media stuff than you can shake a stick at, while hard SF has shrunken to a tiny niche. Cruel world.

by **The Vicar** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 3:58 pm

seppukudkurosawa wrote:Someone should bring an Alfred Bester book to life. Can you imagine just how kick-ass an adaptation of Tiger, Tiger (also known as The Stars My Destination) would be? I must have read hundreds of sci-fi books ripe for movie adaptations. The Cold War brought out the best in science fiction novelists; there's nothing like a good old injection of paranoia to get those fingers-a-writing.

Or The Demolished Man.

Incidentally, some one earlier mentioned The Forever War by Haldeman - did you know The Forever War was done as a play in Chicago at the Organic Theatre, mid 1980s? Talk about stone balls....

by **The Vicar** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:02 pm

The Nine Billion Names of God ( Arthur C. Clarke) deserves to be filmed. I've heard that The Twilight Zone was going to cover it, but the next season ( 6) never came. Pity. Serling would have done it right.

by **Peven** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:22 pm

the Chanur series by C.J. Cherryh, for anyone who is a fan of the genre, a must read, and with the fx technology of today would they could pull it off. only one human is in the story for the first few books who is the "alien" , along with 4 oxygen breathing species, and 3 methane breathing species, who are part of a "compact" created for the purpose of trade. great characters, great story, great concept.

The Gap Series, by Stephen R Donaldson. would have to be an R-rated treatment, and even that would be toning things down a little bit from the books. for me, no one creates 3 dimensional characters as well as Donaldson, and he has a real talent for creating a likeable anti-hero too. in this series it is Angus Thermopyle. this series has cybornetics, torture, spaceship battles, earth-based politics and intrigue, sex, aliens, deep space travel and lots of action and violence. would take the likes of Cameron, Jackson, or Spielberg to pull it off, but it could be done.

by **DennisMM** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:29 pm

ThisIsTheGirl wrote:
Carolian wrote:CHILDHOOD'S END, both by Arthur C. Clarke.

Pardon me, I was just admiring the cut of your jib. I came on this thread to say exactly the same thing! A well-made movie of Childhood's End would be probably my favourite Sci-Fi ever!

Check out the book I mentioned. Neal Adams did full-color conceptual art, a few pieces of which are reproduced in the book. He also created a working mechanism for the Overlords' wings.

Should I scan and post a couple of images?

by **DennisMM** on Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:34 pm

Rendevous with Rama is a brilliant idea and has been optioned several times. One company planned to do it as (traditional - this was some time ago) animation, which I think might be the best approach. I'd hate to see Rama just filled with bad CGI.

John Varley's "In the Hall of the Martian Kings" would make a fantastic movie. Combining several of his (god, I forget the name) universe stories could be very interesting, as well -- the shared space in which quick surgery on demand results in people with a variety of appearances and sometimes cyclical sex reassignments.

by **Keepcoolbutcare** on Sat May 19, 2007 7:50 pm

le bump, 'cuz I just did a search in movie news for NEUROMANCER and this is the only other thread in that vast wasteland I found...

by **Fried Gold** on Sat May 19, 2007 8:41 pm

It's not a particularly well-conceived article.

The stuff about Alien3 is a little incorrect. If you watch the documentary in the Alien Quadrilogy DVDs, the producers never really intended for the film to be set on Earth and was more an idea made up by Fox's advertising department. The Vincent Ward Alien3 was going to be the "real" film, which then got adapted into the film we saw. Yes, there were problems with production, but it's very well documented what happened.

The Hitchhiker's Guide film wasn't directed badly. What it suffered from was a poor script.

The Matrix films - there has never been anything concrete to suggest that trilogy was conceived as a prequel - middle - sequel structure as it suggests. It may just be one of those rumours that gets said enough for people to believe. It's like the way people are never sure if Lucas intended the Star Wars story to be made of 3/6/9 films.

As for a good Doom film being made, it just wouldn't happen. All films based on computer games will end up being a tad rubbish, just by the nature of their source material.

Personally these are the great scifi films that never existed (but perhaps will one day)

- adaptations of Arthur C Clarke's "2061: Odyssey Three" and "3001: The Final Odyssey". (Tom Hanks was interested in making the some years back)
- Red Dwarf (but it'll never happen)
- The Stars My Destination

by **minstrel** on Sat May 19, 2007 9:22 pm

Where's "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress", godammit?

Where's a series based on Asimov's Foundation series?

Where's Childhood's End?

by **Adam Balm** on Sat May 19, 2007 9:44 pm

Fried Gold wrote:
- adaptations of Arthur C Clarke's "2061: Odyssey Three" and "3001: The Final Odyssey". (Tom Hanks was interested in making the some years back)
- Red Dwarf (but it'll never happen)
- The Stars My Destination

I guess the biggest problem with these two is that they revolve around the whole Jupiter-turning-into-the-new-sun Lucifer thing, which wouldn't make sense to the 99.99999% of movie goers who haven't seen 2010. They're too continuity heavy to make now.

Although 3001 would be worth it just to see the artificial sky-ring thing around earth.

by **Chairman Kaga** on Sat May 19, 2007 10:06 pm

Adam Balm wrote:
Fried Gold wrote:
- adaptations of Arthur C Clarke's "2061: Odyssey Three" and "3001: The Final Odyssey". (Tom Hanks was interested in making the some years back)
- Red Dwarf (but it'll never happen)
- The Stars My Destination

I guess the biggest problem with these two is that they revolve around the whole Jupiter-turning-into-the-new-sun Lucifer thing, which wouldn't make sense to the 99.99999% of movie goers who haven't seen 2010. They're too continuity heavy to make now.

Although 3001 would be worth it just to see the artificial sky-ring thing around earth.

Couldn't they do like a quick flashback to the events of 2010 at the beginning to establish that though.....hmmm...

by **Fried Gold** on Sat May 19, 2007 10:08 pm

Adam Balm wrote:
Fried Gold wrote:
- adaptations of Arthur C Clarke's "2061: Odyssey Three" and "3001: The Final Odyssey". (Tom Hanks was interested in making the some years back)
- Red Dwarf (but it'll never happen)
- The Stars My Destination

I guess the biggest problem with these two is that they revolve around the whole Jupiter-turning-into-the-new-sun Lucifer thing, which wouldn't make sense to the 99.99999% of movie goers who haven't seen 2010. They're too continuity heavy to make now.

Although 3001 would be worth it just to see the artificial sky-ring thing around earth.

True. Although the beginning of 2010 uses slides from Heywood Floyd's report to recap the story from 2001, as was made 15 or so years after. Something similar could be used.

by **tapehead** on Sat May 19, 2007 10:26 pm

Adam Balm wrote:Although 3001 would be worth it just to see the artificial sky-ring thing around earth.

Haven't read it - is it the same as the one in The Fountains of Paradise?

by **Adam Balm** on Sat May 19, 2007 10:27 pm

tapehead wrote:
Adam Balm wrote:Although 3001 would be worth it just to see the artificial sky-ring thing around earth.

Haven't read it - is it the same as the one in The Fountains of Paradise?

I haven't read Fountains. I thought that was just about skyhooks in that one. Is there a ring-like structure surrounding earth too?

by **tapehead** on Sat May 19, 2007 10:35 pm

Adam Balm wrote:
tapehead wrote:
Adam Balm wrote:Although 3001 would be worth it just to see the artificial sky-ring thing around earth.

Haven't read it - is it the same as the one in The Fountains of Paradise?

I haven't read Fountains. I thought that was just about skyhooks in that one. Is there a ring-like structure surrounding earth too?

*Spoilers* - It's built like a wheel around the Earth, the elevators as spokes.

by **Adam Balm** on Sat May 19, 2007 10:36 pm

Yup. That's pretty much what you see in 3001. With one huge pillar on each continent er sumfinz.

by **unikrunk** on Sun May 20, 2007 8:00 am

1- A proper version of Dune
2- Childhoodâ€™s End â€“ Arthur C. Clark
3- Anything written by Octavia Butler
4- W. Gibsonâ€™sâ€™ Sprawl Trilogy
5- Clarkâ€™s Foundation books
6- Gibsonâ€™s script for Alien3 (the Alien being the only thing Satan was allowed to create)
7- The Dark Tower series (I like some fantasy in my sci-fi)
8- Ex Machina â€“ perfect for the screen
9- Hard Boiled â€“ Darrow and Miller â€“ get Jimmy Cameron to direct
10- Stranger in a Strange Land - Heinlein

The Zone

The Ten Best Sci-Fi Films That Never Existed

The Ten Best Sci-Fi Films That Never Existed

Who is online