Movies inspired by written works
Robbie
While watching tv, I saw the description for the movie "Meet Dave"
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0765476/), and for some reason it reminded
me of the Piers Anthony short story "The Bridge".
(http://www.piers-anthony.com/bridge.html)
I only watched a few minutes of "Meet Dave" before I decided I didn't
like it, so I don't know much about it. However, I can't get the crazy
thought out of my head that the two are related. Did anyone else make
that connection?
Or are they just common plots that are otherwise unrelated? Is the basic
plot of "mini people try to save their world by coming to earth for
common materials which are instantly transported away" more common than
I think it is?
Out of curiosity, does anybody know any movies that are based on, or
inspired by written works, where it is not obvious or common knowledge
that the movie draws from said work? Does knowing this (and having read
the book/story) change the movie for you in any way? Good? Bad?
I'll lead things off with the movie "Demolition Man" being somewhat
inspired by "Catharsis Central" by Antony Alban. I'm pretty sure I
posted about Demolition/Catharsis a while back, but google groups search
is broken as usual, so I can't check. I don't think having read
Catharsis Central changed Demolition Man much, if any.
Mike Muth
> I might sound crazy with this, but what the hell.
> While watching tv, I saw the description for the movie "Meet Dave"
> (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0765476/), and for some reason it reminded
> me of the Piers Anthony short story "The Bridge".
> (http://www.piers-anthony.com/bridge.html)
>
> I only watched a few minutes of "Meet Dave" before I decided I didn't
> like it, so I don't know much about it. However, I can't get the crazy
> thought out of my head that the two are related. Did anyone else make
> that connection?
>
> Or are they just common plots that are otherwise unrelated? Is the basic
> plot of "mini people try to save their world by coming to earth for
> common materials which are instantly transported away" more common than
> I think it is?
>
> Out of curiosity, does anybody know any movies that are based on, or
> inspired by written works, where it is not obvious or common knowledge
> that the movie draws from said work? Does knowing this (and having read
> the book/story) change the movie for you in any way? Good? Bad?
I'd say that few people know that "Blade Runner" was loosely based on
"do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" Or, how about "Soylent Green"
being based on "Make Room, Make Room"?
Outside the realm of SF, "the Outlaw Josey Wales" was based on the book
"Gone to Texas".
I think it's probably fairly common for movies to be based upon books
without the general public's awareness.
How about the other way round? I'll give an example: Many people
think that "Starship Troopers" is based on RAH's novel of the same
name.
--
Mike
_I Eat Vegetarians: Cows are vegetarians, aren't they?_ ISBN:
978-0-615-22203-5 (kindle), 978-0-9841042-1-5 (.pdf) 978-0-9841042-0-8
(mobi)
Nicholas Waller
[...]
> Out of curiosity, does anybody know any movies that are based on, or
> inspired by written works, where it is not obvious or common knowledge
> that the movie draws from said work? Does knowing this (and having read
> the book/story) change the movie for you in any way? Good? Bad?
Not a written work as such - the Terry Gilliam movie 12 Monkeys was
based on the French short film (made mostly of photo stills) La Jetée.
I don't think Gilliam had seen it when he made his film, but he didn't
have to have done as he didn't write the Monkeys script. It should
have been common knowledge as, according to Wikipedia, Universal
Pictures openly acquired the rights to remake La Jetée as a full-
length film and the credits reflected this in some way, but presumably
not as many people had heard of (or seen) La Jetée as have heard of
the source material of more obvious adaptations like Batman or things
developed from Philip K Dick or HG Wells books.
I get the impression Dr Strangelove is generally thought of as a film
original, but Peter George's Red Alert is a/the source - Kubrick had
been looking for something in the area of nuclear danger, and the book
was brought to him and bought for him. Apparently there's no Dr
Strangelove character in the book, and also the book is not a black
comedy, two essential elements of anyone's memory of the movie, but
presumably there were enough similarities in plot and launch points
for ideas that if Kubrick hadn't credited the book it would have
looked dodgy.
--
Nick
Arthur
> Robbie wrote :
way? Good? Bad?
>
> I'd say that few people know that "Blade Runner" was loosely based on
> "do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" Or, how about "Soylent Green"
> being based on "Make Room, Make Room"?
How many people know that 2001 was inspired by "The Sentinel" ? Maybe
fewer than those 2 examples above, at least based on percentage of
those who have seen the movie
> Outside the realm of SF, "the Outlaw Josey Wales" was based on the book
> "Gone to Texas".
Quick, what is the name of the book which "Vertigo" is based on? (It
is in French)
I have never read "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". Is it any good....?
Anthony Nance
> On Jul 1, 5:29B am, Mike Muth <mike.m...@unverbesserlich.org> wrote:
>> Robbie wrote :
> way? Good? Bad?
>>
>> I'd say that few people know that "Blade Runner" was loosely based on
>> being based on "Make Room, Make Room"?
>
> How many people know that 2001 was inspired by "The Sentinel" ? Maybe
> fewer than those 2 examples above, at least based on percentage of
> those who have seen the movie
>> Outside the realm of SF, "the Outlaw Josey Wales" was based on the book
>> "Gone to Texas".
>
> Quick, what is the name of the book which "Vertigo" is based on? (It
> is in French)
"Vertigeaux"?
Jon Schild
Of course it is, or there wouldn't be two Oscar categories for original
screenplay and adapted screenplay.
> How about the other way round? I'll give an example: Many people think
> that "Starship Troopers" is based on RAH's novel of the same name.
Well, if you define "based on" loosely enough, it is. Certainly not very
faithfully or very well. But Starship Troopers is the idea they started
with before the geniuses in Hollywood started "improving" it.
--
Wanted dead and/or alive: Shroedinger's cat.
Robert Carnegie
> Robbie wrote :
> > I might sound crazy with this, but what the hell.
> > While watching tv, I saw the description for the movie "Meet Dave"
> > (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0765476/), and for some reason it reminded
> > me of the Piers Anthony short story "The Bridge".
> > (http://www.piers-anthony.com/bridge.html)
>
> > I only watched a few minutes of "Meet Dave" before I decided I didn't
> > like it, so I don't know much about it. However, I can't get the crazy
> > thought out of my head that the two are related. Did anyone else make
> > that connection?
>
> > Or are they just common plots that are otherwise unrelated? Is the basic
> > plot of "mini people try to save their world by coming to earth for
> > common materials which are instantly transported away" more common than
> > I think it is?
Well, there was _The Borrowers_, and Terry Pratchett's _Truckers_, and
_Joe's Apartment_.
> > Out of curiosity, does anybody know any movies that are based on, or
> > inspired by written works, where it is not obvious or common knowledge
> > that the movie draws from said work? Does knowing this (and having read
> > the book/story) change the movie for you in any way? Good? Bad?
>
> I'd say that few people know that "Blade Runner" was loosely based on
> "do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" Or, how about "Soylent Green"
> being based on "Make Room, Make Room"?
>
> Outside the realm of SF, "the Outlaw Josey Wales" was based on the book
> "Gone to Texas".
>
> I think it's probably fairly common for movies to be based upon books
> without the general public's awareness.
>
> How about the other way round? I'll give an example: Many people
> think that "Starship Troopers" is based on RAH's novel of the same
> name.
_I, Robot_. And, honestly, several Philip K. Dick based efforts get
an awfully long way away from the source material.
On the other hand, Lewis Carroll made one of his fantasy characters
explain that with a finite alphabet of letters or words, the set of
all possible book texts could be used up - at least within a length
limit as well, if the world lasts long enough, and if we can find
somewhere to put them all. (I think a Mr. Borges applied for the
librarian job, although it's a bit of a change from his piano cabaret
act.) But now consider what it takes to describe a movie recognisably
- a pitch - say half a page of manuscript paper at most, one page
double spaced if you prefer. You could probably file all possible
movie pitches, including hypothetical movies based on books, on just
one continent. So no wonder if they start to look similar.
Taki Kogoma
allegedly proclaimed to rec.arts.sf.written:
> Mike Muth wrote:
>> How about the other way round? I'll give an example: Many people think
>> that "Starship Troopers" is based on RAH's novel of the same name.
>
> Well, if you define "based on" loosely enough, it is. Certainly not very
> faithfully or very well. But Starship Troopers is the idea they started
> with before the geniuses in Hollywood started "improving" it.
"Starship Troopers: Based on the back cover of the novel by Robert
Heinlein."
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) quirk @ swcp.com
Just an article detector on the Information Supercollider.
Greg Goss
>I'd say that few people know that "Blade Runner" was loosely based on
>"do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" Or, how about "Soylent Green"
>being based on "Make Room, Make Room"?
Though the title was bought from a Nourse film. (The name always
bothered me -- Lots of running, but no running on, with, or anything
to do with blades. The Nourse novel was about smuggling medical
equipment such as scalpels.)
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Shawn Wilson
> Out of curiosity, does anybody know any movies that are based on, or
> inspired by written works, where it is not obvious or common knowledge
> that the movie draws from said work? Does knowing this (and having read
> the book/story) change the movie for you in any way? Good? Bad?
I may be alone in this, but Firefly/Serenity bears a *striking*
resemblance to the RPG 'Traveller'.
Robbie
<1424f337-5da5-477d...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Arthur <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 1, 5:29�am, Mike Muth <mike.m...@unverbesserlich.org> wrote:
> > I'd say that few people know that "Blade Runner" was loosely based on
> > "do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" �Or, how about "Soylent Green"
> > being based on "Make Room, Make Room"?
I thought it was fairly common knowledge that Blade Runner was based on
Androids. Or is it just common knowledge among SF fans who have more
books than bookshelves?
Soylent Green and Make Room I'd heard about, but it does seem less well
known than Blade/Androids.
> How many people know that 2001 was inspired by "The Sentinel" ? Maybe
> fewer than those 2 examples above, at least based on percentage of
> those who have seen the movie
I also knew about 2001/Sentinel, and would rate it as the most unknown
movie/book connection of the three I've mentioned. Since Soylent Green
and 2001 are both well known films, both will have a high percentage of
people who have seen the film, yet have never heard of Harry Harrison or
Arthur C. Clarke, much less the stories they wrote.
Kevin Reilly
> I may be alone in this, but Firefly/Serenity bears a *striking*
> resemblance to the RPG 'Traveller'.
You're not entirely alone. While I didn't make the immediate leap to
Traveller I did find much of Firefly reminding me of the Elite/Frontier
videogame universe, which was itself heavily influenced by Traveller.
--
Kev
__________________________________________________________________________
"Smile at someone who is hard to love. Say 'Hell' to someone who doesn't
care much about you." From a church bulletin
Will in New Haven
You aren't alone in that opinion. Gamers I know who played Traveller
extensively have always said that. I didn't play it that much but I
felt there was some resemblance.
--
Will in New Haven
Arthur
> On 1 July, 08:37, Robbie <nob...@example.invalid> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Out of curiosity, does anybody know any movies that are based on, or
> > inspired by written works, where it is not obvious or common knowledge
> > that the movie draws from said work? Does knowing this (and having read
> > the book/story) change the movie for you in any way? Good? Bad?
> I get the impression Dr Strangelove is generally thought of as a film
> original, but Peter George's Red Alert is a/the source - Kubrick had
> been looking for something in the area of nuclear danger, and the book
> was brought to him and bought for him. Apparently there's no Dr
> Strangelove character in the book, and also the book is not a black
> comedy, two essential elements of anyone's memory of the movie, but
> presumably there were enough similarities in plot and launch points
> for ideas that if Kubrick hadn't credited the book it would have
> looked dodgy.
I think they were planning to do it straight originally, but decided
to make it a comedy (note that Fail Safe came out the same year as
Strangelove, The plots of the two movies have a lot in common). I
have Strangelove on DVD, in the extras they talk about all this but I
forget the details.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:1424f337-5da5-477d...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.
com:
> How many people know that 2001 was inspired by "The Sentinel" ?
> Maybe fewer than those 2 examples above, at least based on
> percentage of those who have seen the movie
How can you figure out what the movie is based on when it's
impossible to figure out what the movie is *about*?
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:h2fp74$b55$1...@news.xmission.com:
How about "based on the title of a popular book"?
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:20b22ad8-8eb4-4565...@b9g2000yqm.googlegroups.c
om:
Starting with a nebulous and variable definition of science.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:cf076730-3f47-4acf...@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.
com:
I've played Traveller a lot, and if you look dispassionately at the
game universe vs the show universe, there isn't much resemblance at
all.
But the characters on the show were *defininitely* player
characters in every respect. That show reminded me of every
roleplaying game I've ever been in, of any genre.
Bill Snyder
Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Arthur <art...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:1424f337-5da5-477d...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.
>com:
>
>> How many people know that 2001 was inspired by "The Sentinel" ?
>> Maybe fewer than those 2 examples above, at least based on
>> percentage of those who have seen the movie
>
>How can you figure out what the movie is based on when it's
>impossible to figure out what the movie is *about*?
It's about 2 hours and 21 minutes.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:jsjn455eo0h84cllc...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:54:37 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Arthur <art...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>news:1424f337-5da5-477d-8979-d62be5e4ff78
@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.
>>com:
>>
>>> How many people know that 2001 was inspired by "The Sentinel" ?
>>> Maybe fewer than those 2 examples above, at least based on
>>> percentage of those who have seen the movie
>>
>>How can you figure out what the movie is based on when it's
>>impossible to figure out what the movie is *about*?
>
> It's about 2 hours and 21 minutes.
>
That I will never get back.
David DeLaney
>> Maybe fewer than those 2 examples above, at least based on
>> percentage of those who have seen the movie
>
>How can you figure out what the movie is based on when it's
>impossible to figure out what the movie is *about*?
Why, it's about two and a half hours.
Dave "ask the maaaailman / ask the pooostman / ask the milllkman / white with
foooam!" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Tina Hall
>>>> How many people know that 2001 was inspired by "The Sentinel"
>>>> ? Maybe fewer than those 2 examples above, at least based on
>>>> percentage of those who have seen the movie
>>>
>>> How can you figure out what the movie is based on when it's
>>> impossible to figure out what the movie is *about*?
>>
>> It's about 2 hours and 21 minutes.
>>
> That I will never get back.
So I am lucky for having fallen asleep during the waltz at the
beginning? (It was a rented tape, us staying with friends. So no
loss in going anywere just to watch it either.)
--
"And do try to use your head on what tricks you play on them. They're better
at that. And whatever you see won't be what you think it is, and even that
isn't certain." -- Gorash to Lanar about the Autumn tribe, S&E II: CtM
Excerpts at: <http://home.htp-tel.de/fkoerper/ath/athintro.htm>
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2F2199.13=40fidonet...@fidonet.org:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote
>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Arthur <art...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>>>>> How many people know that 2001 was inspired by "The Sentinel"
>>>>> ? Maybe fewer than those 2 examples above, at least based on
>>>>> percentage of those who have seen the movie
>>>>
>>>> How can you figure out what the movie is based on when it's
>>>> impossible to figure out what the movie is *about*?
>>>
>>> It's about 2 hours and 21 minutes.
>>>
>> That I will never get back.
>
> So I am lucky for having fallen asleep during the waltz at the
> beginning? (It was a rented tape, us staying with friends. So no
> loss in going anywere just to watch it either.)
>
For all I know, it could be the best movie ever made. I couldn't
tell. There are individual scenes that make a lot of sense. But the
movie, as a whole, makes no sense at all to me. I have no idea what
it was about.
Sean O'Hara
Carrying Sissy declared:
> >>
> For all I know, it could be the best movie ever made. I couldn't
> tell. There are individual scenes that make a lot of sense. But the
> movie, as a whole, makes no sense at all to me. I have no idea what
> it was about.
>
It's really straightforward.
Alien probe lands on primordial Earth, modifies some local primates
so they will then develop intelligence. Second probe is buried on
the moon in a way that it'll be easily found if humans ever go
there. Humans find the probe, and when it's exposed to sunlight it
sends out a signal to a third probe near Jupiter.
The US sends a mission to Jupiter. The two pilots, who will have to
interact with the media during the flight, aren't briefed about the
probe, but the three scientists in suspended animation are. The AI
is also fully informed and instructed to conceal the truth, which
conflicts with its primary programming. It grows paranoid. It cuts
off contact with Earth so its concealment won't be discovered by the
pilots, but when they discover the truth it begins killing them.
The last survivor deactivates the computer and continues the mission
on his own. When he approaches the third probe at Jupiter, it opens
up a wormhole which takes him to the aliens. The aliens put him in a
room based upon a TV show that had been playing when the moon-probe
had been activated. They then uplift the astronaut to their level of
existence and send him back to Earth as an ambassador.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://www.diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
New audio book: As Long as You Wish by John O'Keefe
<http://librivox.org/short-science-fiction-collection-010/>
Dorothy J Heydt
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Tina...@ftn.kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote in news:MSGID_2=3A240=
>2F2199.13=40fidonet...@fidonet.org:
>
>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote
>>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Arthur <art...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>>>>>> How many people know that 2001 was inspired by "The Sentinel"
>>>>>> ? Maybe fewer than those 2 examples above, at least based on
>>>>>> percentage of those who have seen the movie
>>>>>
>>>>> How can you figure out what the movie is based on when it's
>>>>> impossible to figure out what the movie is *about*?
>>>>
>>>> It's about 2 hours and 21 minutes.
>>>>
>>> That I will never get back.
>>
>> So I am lucky for having fallen asleep during the waltz at the
>> beginning? (It was a rented tape, us staying with friends. So no
>> loss in going anywere just to watch it either.)
>>
>For all I know, it could be the best movie ever made. I couldn't
>tell. There are individual scenes that make a lot of sense. But the
>movie, as a whole, makes no sense at all to me. I have no idea what
>it was about.
You surprise me. There were a lot of people who wondered
about it when it first came out, and even some who wonder
today maybe, but they weren't SF readers.
The black monoliths are mechanisms from some undisclosed
source that search the universe for what David Brin has since
called Uplift Potential. When they see a species that looks
promising, they do one or more of several things: help a
species to survive if it looks as if it otherwise wouldn't,
put a "sentinel" somewhere out of reach for a species that
doesn't have space travel (to notify HQ when it gets found),
educate one (or more) individuals when they reach a stage
where they can be Uplifted still further.
Lots of people were confused about the end, in which the
chosen individual (Bowman) keeps seeing himself briefly, older
each time. His timeline has been looped so that he can spend
a lifetime being educated -- which we don't get to see and
probably would see nothing if we did. Each time the timeline
crosses itself, we see a brief encounter. This prevents the
film from being about forty years long.
The reason for the loop is so that Bowman can undergo his
course of studies and still get back to Earth a few years
later, when he's needed.
In the sequel, _2010,_ we glimpse the monoliths beginning
their work with another species, living on Europa.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Tina...@ftn.kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote in news:MSGID_2=3A240=
> 2F2199.13=40fidonet...@fidonet.org:
>
>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote
>>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Arthur <art...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>> How many people know that 2001 was inspired by "The Sentinel"
>>>>>> ? Maybe fewer than those 2 examples above, at least based on
>>>>>> percentage of those who have seen the movie
>>>>> How can you figure out what the movie is based on when it's
>>>>> impossible to figure out what the movie is *about*?
>>>> It's about 2 hours and 21 minutes.
>>>>
>>> That I will never get back.
>> So I am lucky for having fallen asleep during the waltz at the
>> beginning? (It was a rented tape, us staying with friends. So no
>> loss in going anywere just to watch it either.)
>>
> For all I know, it could be the best movie ever made. I couldn't
> tell. There are individual scenes that make a lot of sense. But the
> movie, as a whole, makes no sense at all to me. I have no idea what
> it was about.
>
I know what it was about, but I think it does a piss-poor job of
conveying it.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Dorothy J Heydt
Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>....The aliens put him in a
>had been activated.
Really? What TV show? Can anybody, by the way, identify the
style in which that room is decorated? I assume it's Louis
some-number-or-other....
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:7b6pq2F...@mid.individual.net:
Sounds a little trite and formulaic, but given that it's the
*reason* for that formula, it can be forgiven.
Why couldn't they put all that in the movie?
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:KM7sB...@kithrup.com:
Yeah, I actually know what it's about. I just coun't tell from
watching the movie.
Dorothy J Heydt
It IS in the movie. It just isn't s-p-e-l-l-e-d o-u-t;
Clarke and Kubrick paid us the compliment of recognizing some
standard stfnal patterns when we saw them.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
They should have included the encryption key in the opening
credits.
> Clarke and Kubrick paid us the compliment of recognizing some
> standard stfnal patterns when we saw them.
>
Heh.
Shawn Wilson
<tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I may be alone in this, but Firefly/Serenity bears a *striking*
> >> resemblance to the RPG 'Traveller'.
>
> > You aren't alone in that opinion. Gamers I know who played
> > Traveller extensively have always said that. I didn't play it
> > that much but I felt there was some resemblance.
>
> I've played Traveller a lot, and if you look dispassionately at the
> game universe vs the show universe, there isn't much resemblance at
> all.
Except if you look at the main differences, they all seem to be
ridiculous nonsense serving no purpose but to 'make it different'.
The band of PCs on a tramp freighter is Traveller to the core. Battle
of Serenity Valley = Invasion of Earth. Browncoats = Solomani.
Colony worlds where the action takes place = Spinward Marches.
Imerials (whatever they called tham) = Imperials.
I mean, someone played Traveller and thought, "Hey, I could make a TV
sries out of this..."
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
om:
> On Jul 1, 2:02�pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> I may be alone in this, but Firefly/Serenity bears a
>> >> *striking* resemblance to the RPG 'Traveller'.
>>
>> > You aren't alone in that opinion. Gamers I know who played
>> > Traveller extensively have always said that. I didn't play it
>> > that much but I felt there was some resemblance.
>>
>> I've played Traveller a lot, and if you look dispassionately at
>> the game universe vs the show universe, there isn't much
>> resemblance at all.
>
>
>
>
> Except if you look at the main differences, they all seem to be
> ridiculous nonsense serving no purpose but to 'make it
> different'. The band of PCs on a tramp freighter is Traveller to
> the core.
A common setup throughout all kinds of fiction, actually, that
predates Traveller by centuries.
> Battle of Serenity Valley = Invasion of Earth.
> Browncoats = Solomani. Colony worlds where the action takes
> place = Spinward Marches. Imerials (whatever they called tham) =
> Imperials.
Protagonists who were on the losing side of a war are also a
univeral theme throughout all history.
>
> I mean, someone played Traveller and thought, "Hey, I could make
> a TV sries out of this..."
>
That's nice. If Firefly ripped off Traveller, than Traveller ripped
of thousands of other sources. Whoopie.
--
Terry Austin
Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole. -
William December Starr
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> said:
[ re "2001: A Space Odyssey" ]
> For all I know, it could be the best movie ever made. I couldn't
> tell. There are individual scenes that make a lot of sense. But
> the movie, as a whole, makes no sense at all to me. I have no idea
> what it was about.
Clarke's 3.14th Law: Any sufficiently undecipherable aliens will
result in an undecipherable movie.
-- wds
William December Starr
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said:
[ re "2001: A Space Odyssey" ]
> Lots of people were confused about the end, in which the chosen
> individual (Bowman) keeps seeing himself briefly, older each time.
> His timeline has been looped so that he can spend a lifetime being
> educated -- which we don't get to see and probably would see
> nothing if we did. Each time the timeline crosses itself, we see
> a brief encounter. This prevents the film from being about forty
> years long.
But: why was the greying-at-the-tenmples Bowman -- the first one
that we see outside of the EVA pod -- wandering around the suite
*in his spacesuit*?
-- wds
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
@panix1.panix.com:
Clarke was a wise man.
--
Terry Austin
Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole. - David
David DeLaney
>Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> said:
>[ re "2001: A Space Odyssey" ]
>
>> For all I know, it could be the best movie ever made. I couldn't
>> tell. There are individual scenes that make a lot of sense. But
>> the movie, as a whole, makes no sense at all to me. I have no idea
>> what it was about.
>
>Clarke's 3.14th Law: Any sufficiently undecipherable aliens will
>result in an undecipherable movie.
Were I still snarfing, this I would snarf.
Though it might be "indecipherable". I can't tell.
Dave
William December Starr
d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) said:
> William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Clarke's 3.14th Law: Any sufficiently undecipherable aliens will
>> result in an undecipherable movie.
>
> Were I still snarfing, this I would snarf.
Consider it a gift.
> Though it might be "indecipherable". I can't tell.
I wasn't sure either. I plugged ^undeciph into a local tool
somebody at Panix wrote that, its man page says:
looks up words from /usr/share/dict/words or /usr/dict/words
(as available) using regular expressions. Handy for word games.
and I got hits on "undecipherable" and variations, so I didn't
bother checking to see whether the "in" version was also there.
Which, checking now, I see that it is. So, um, I still don't know
which is preferred, because I'm too lazy to do any research into
this on a Saturday morning.
Hmm, the ispell spellchecker that GNU Emacs calls only believes in
"indecipherable." That may be a clue. Oh well.
-- wds
Dorothy J Heydt
He had just managed to get out of the pod and not out of the
spacesuit yet; he was still in shock after having gone
through the hyperspatial tunnel or whatever it was. It is
true that he wouldn't have gone grey that fast -- that is,
the hair that had already grown from his follicles wouldn't
have changed color, being dead already. You may say that
Kubrick goofed in this detail; or you may call it artistic
license.
Dorothy J Heydt
It's a Clarke story. Clarke stories frequently consist of
large dollops of "We saw this and we don't know what the hell
it was." But *most* of _2001_ is pretty darned
straightfoward SF, though expressed in mindblowing graphics
(particularly for the late sixties). About all we don't
know is whether the monoliths were themselves the Uplifting
aliens, or whether they were mechanisms the aliens left
behind, though Clarke's written text IIRC seems to hint at
the latter.
David Johnston
>Mike Muth wrote:
>> How about the other way round? I'll give an example: Many people think
>> that "Starship Troopers" is based on RAH's novel of the same name.
>
Because it is. Parody is one way to base something on something else.
David Johnston
>Mike Muth <mike...@unverbesserlich.org> wrote:
>
>>I'd say that few people know that "Blade Runner" was loosely based on
>>"do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" Or, how about "Soylent Green"
>>being based on "Make Room, Make Room"?
>
>Though the title was bought from a Nourse film. (The name always
>bothered me -- Lots of running, but no running on, with, or anything
>to do with blades. The Nourse novel was about smuggling medical
>equipment such as scalpels.)
The only reason it bothers me is because The Bladerunner would make a
great movie in it's own right.
William December Starr
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said:
> William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> But: why was the greying-at-the-tenmples Bowman -- the first one
>> that we see outside of the EVA pod -- wandering around the suite
>> *in his spacesuit*?
>
> He had just managed to get out of the pod and not out of the
> spacesuit yet; he was still in shock after having gone through the
> hyperspatial tunnel or whatever it was. It is true that he
> wouldn't have gone grey that fast -- that is, the hair that had
> already grown from his follicles wouldn't have changed color,
> being dead already. You may say that Kubrick goofed in this
> detail; or you may call it artistic license.
Mmm, no. I used "greying-at-the-temples" as a feature to identify
him, but as I said elsewhere in rasfw I happened to see the last
hour or so of the film on tv just a few weeks ago and I'm certain
that Keir Dullea, inside the space helmet, was wearing (very good)
aging make-up on his face as well. Not sallowing (pardon the
verbization) make-up that would make Bowman a shock or stress
victim, but clearly an aging job.
I just don't believe, from what I saw, that Keir Dullea, in the
spacesuit, was intended to be portraying a Bowman who was the same
age as the one in the EVA pod.
(In passing, I'll pass on the goofy idea I came up with that we were
seeing a twenty-some-years-older Bowman who, like the forty-year-old
man who discovers the tux he wore to his high-school prom in a box
in the attic, had decided to try on his old spacesuit to see if it
still fit. :-)
-- wds
Chris Thompson
[...]
> Clarke's 3.14th Law: Any sufficiently undecipherable aliens will
> result in an undecipherable movie.
That doesn't sound pi-thy enough to me...
--
Chris Thompson
Email: cet1 [at] cam.ac.uk
Dorothy J Heydt
Chris Thompson <ce...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>William December Starr wrote:
>[...]
>> Clarke's 3.14th Law: Any sufficiently undecipherable aliens will
>> result in an undecipherable movie.
>
>That doesn't sound pi-thy enough to me...
I assume you've read Sagan's _Contact_?
Joseph Nebus
>In article <h2vq5b$er6$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>Chris Thompson <ce...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>William December Starr wrote:
>>[...]
>>> Clarke's 3.14th Law: Any sufficiently undecipherable aliens will
>>> result in an undecipherable movie.
>>
>>That doesn't sound pi-thy enough to me...
>I assume you've read Sagan's _Contact_?
Pardon me a moment. I've got some hatches that need battening.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Stemper
>In article <h2mqiv$ida$1...@panix1.panix.com>, William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>>[ re "2001: A Space Odyssey" ]
>>But: why was the greying-at-the-tenmples Bowman -- the first one
>>that we see outside of the EVA pod -- wandering around the suite
>>*in his spacesuit*?
>
>He had just managed to get out of the pod and not out of the
>spacesuit yet; he was still in shock after having gone
>through the hyperspatial tunnel or whatever it was.
I've always thought that the trip was pretty explicitly modeled on
Chapter 27 of _Children of the Lens_ ("Kinnison Trapped"). Flies
through (or past) jillions of universes, then scores, then singles.
Sees things from a less and less omniscient viewpoint as things
slow down. Ends up in a place where nothing will harm him.
I'll admit that he didn't arrive naked, asking for a steak with
Valerian mushrooms, though.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
No animals were harmed in the composition of this message.
Tina Hall
[2001]
>>>> It's about 2 hours and 21 minutes.
>>>>
>>> That I will never get back.
>>
>> So I am lucky for having fallen asleep during the waltz at the
>> beginning? (It was a rented tape, us staying with friends. So no
>> loss in going anywere just to watch it either.)
>>
> For all I know, it could be the best movie ever made. I couldn't
> tell. There are individual scenes that make a lot of sense. But
> the movie, as a whole, makes no sense at all to me. I have no
> idea what it was about.
Then I concluede that I am lucky. (I doubt I'd not want the time
back.)
--
"What's kept you?" - "Dreaqas and Veron seem to have some kind of
game going
on. Who falls asleep first is a plosh, whatever that is." - "Scorel and
Scievan do that, too, though with them Shurayn has to be careful that they
don't try to knock the other out with a handy toy." -- Ghira & Theron, S&E III
Steven L.
> Out of curiosity, does anybody know any movies that are based on, or
> inspired by written works, where it is not obvious or common knowledge
> that the movie draws from said work? Does knowing this (and having read
> the book/story) change the movie for you in any way? Good? Bad?
"Forbidden Planet" was loosely based on Shakespeare's "The Tempest." I
don't know if that was common knowledge in 1956 America--though when the
movie was released in Britain, the headlines there screamed "Shakespeare
In Space!"
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
erilar
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Forbidden Planet" was loosely based on Shakespeare's "The Tempest." I
> don't know if that was common knowledge in 1956 America--though when the
> movie was released in Britain, the headlines there screamed "Shakespeare
> In Space!"
Yes, I'd expect them to notice 8-)
And even more remotely, there are more modern TV shows and movies that
have borrowed from "Forgotten Planet" and thus from "The Tempest".
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)
You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument is
that reason doesn't count. --Isaac Asimov
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo�