Guardians of the Galaxy

[Lee Gleason]

Just saw it. I liked it fine - but, I kept thinking that with the same
casting effort and budget, they could have done a hell of a version of Keith
Laumer and Rosel George Brown's "Earthblod". Chris Pratt would have made a
pretty believable Roan Cornay, and Yondu and his crew could have served
pretty well as Captain Henry Dredd and his crew of Yill and other humanoids
(sans blue makeup for Yondu, natch).

And, in like wise, the effort it took to create Rocket Raccoon could have
been used to create Chee Lan for a movie version of one of Poul Anderson's
Trader Team stories (a little less machine gun, and a little more disdain
would have been required...Chee Lan would threaten to destroy your base with
a disdainful sniff and a war beam rather than screaming while firing a
machine gun).

I wish that Hollywood could become aware of the real SF classics instead
of reading only comic books and Philip K. Dick novels.

--
Lee K. Gleason N5ZMR
Control-G Consultants
lee.g...@comcast.net

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

I love the comic book movies, though Guardians is simply not my cuppa.
I may try it if the opportunity presents but the presentation has not
encouraged me.

But "Earthblood" and "real SF classics"? It's not even Laumer's best
effort in that direction, and Laumer's strictly second-string if you're
looking for classics. Nothing against Laumer -- I love some of his stuff
-- but he's not going to be on the list of most people's "real SF
classics", and if he is, I wouldn't expect "Earthblood" to be the entry.

(Me? I'd either go for early Reteif, or for "A Plague of Demons")




--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <53e7f14b$0$28104$882e...@usenet-news.net>,

Well, if they started filming SF classics, I don't think they would get
to _Earthblood_ or Falklyn until a couple of hundred movies in..

(Not that there was anything wrong with those books.)

And realistically, Marvel studio is going to film Marvel properties.

I'm just kind of amazed at how far Bill Mantlo's one joke character
has come. Rocket Racoon debuted in an off-Earth arc of "The Hulk", and
was specifically a riff on the Beatles "White Album" song "Rocky Racoon".
Originally his planet of anthromorphic animals was in quest for the world
changing artifact "Gideon's Bible". (Not sure how that was finally
resolved..)

--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[JRStern]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 17:25:15 -0500, "Lee Gleason"
<lee.g...@comcast.net> wrote:

> I wish that Hollywood could become aware of the real SF classics instead
>of reading only comic books and Philip K. Dick novels.

amen.

otoh three or four efforts in and they still haven't done justice to
Dune.

J.

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 11, 2014 8:25:15 AM UTC+10, Lee Gleason wrote:
>
> I wish that Hollywood could become aware of the real SF classics instead
> of reading only comic books and Philip K. Dick novels.
>

What gives you the idea that Hollywood reads anything?
As far as comic books go they make movies from comic books because they make money, in many cases _lots_ of money.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 19:19:13 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
<news:ls8uli$p4j$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:

> On 8/10/14 6:25 PM, Lee Gleason wrote:

[...]

> But "Earthblood" and "real SF classics"? It's not even
> Laumer's best effort in that direction, and Laumer's
> strictly second-string if you're looking for classics.
> Nothing against Laumer -- I love some of his stuff -- but
> he's not going to be on the list of most people's "real
> SF classics", and if he is, I wouldn't expect
> "Earthblood" to be the entry.

> (Me? I'd either go for early Reteif, or for "A Plague of
> Demons")

If I were going to use a novel, I’d go with _Galactic
Odyssey_, with _A Plague of Demons_ as a second choice. I’m
very fond of the (first three) Imperium novels, especially
_Assignment in Nowhere_, but I don’t think that they’re as
well suited for conversion to film. The novella ‘Once There
Was a Giant’ is another favorite that’s a possibility. And
I suspect that something fairly exciting could be done with
‘King of the City’, ‘Of Death What Dreams’, or ‘The Day
Before Forever’.

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

"Guardians of the Galaxy" isn't really based on the comic book, either
-- the only character in the movie who was in the original run of the
comic book series is Yondu, who was one of the original Guardians.

On the other hand, they've taken lots of Marvel characters and ideas
from other titles (Warlock, Fantastic Four, Nova, etc.) and put
together a really entertaining movie with them.





--
I'm serializing a new Ethshar novel!
The twenty-second chapter is online at:
http://www.ethshar.com/ishtascompanion22.html

[David Johnston]

On 8/10/2014 11:16 PM, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On 2014-08-10 22:53:09 -0400, hamis...@gmail.com said:
>
>> On Monday, August 11, 2014 8:25:15 AM UTC+10, Lee Gleason wrote:
>>>
>>> I wish that Hollywood could become aware of the real SF classics instead
>>> of reading only comic books and Philip K. Dick novels.
>>>
>>
>> What gives you the idea that Hollywood reads anything?
>> As far as comic books go they make movies from comic books because
>> they make money, in many cases _lots_ of money.
>
> "Guardians of the Galaxy" isn't really based on the comic book, either
> -- the only character in the movie who was in the original run of the
> comic book series is Yondu, who was one of the original Guardians.

The line-up from the movie matches the current comic book.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

You mean the comic book that was launched when they'd settled on who'd
be in the movie?

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On 2014-08-11 01:22:22 -0400, Lawrence Watt-Evans said:

> On 2014-08-11 01:20:25 -0400, David Johnston said:
>
>> On 8/10/2014 11:16 PM, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>>> On 2014-08-10 22:53:09 -0400, hamis...@gmail.com said:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, August 11, 2014 8:25:15 AM UTC+10, Lee Gleason wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I wish that Hollywood could become aware of the real SF classics instead
>>>>> of reading only comic books and Philip K. Dick novels.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What gives you the idea that Hollywood reads anything?
>>>> As far as comic books go they make movies from comic books because
>>>> they make money, in many cases _lots_ of money.
>>>
>>> "Guardians of the Galaxy" isn't really based on the comic book, either
>>> -- the only character in the movie who was in the original run of the
>>> comic book series is Yondu, who was one of the original Guardians.
>>
>> The line-up from the movie matches the current comic book.
>
> You mean the comic book that was launched when they'd settled on who'd
> be in the movie?

Okay, I retract that; the modern team, which is almost the movie
line-up, dates back to 2008. I had somehow managed to miss it until
2013.

[hamis...@gmail.com]

Saying that the script was apparently started in 2009 so who knows what the background actually is
(apparently the original script writer was given a choice of lesser Marvel options and picked the Guardians of the Galaxy)

[JRStern]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 01:16:59 -0400, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
wrote:

>On 2014-08-10 22:53:09 -0400, hamis...@gmail.com said:
>
>> On Monday, August 11, 2014 8:25:15 AM UTC+10, Lee Gleason wrote:
>>>
>>> I wish that Hollywood could become aware of the real SF classics instead
>>> of reading only comic books and Philip K. Dick novels.
>>>
>>
>> What gives you the idea that Hollywood reads anything?
>> As far as comic books go they make movies from comic books because they
>> make money, in many cases _lots_ of money.
>
>"Guardians of the Galaxy" isn't really based on the comic book, either
>-- the only character in the movie who was in the original run of the
>comic book series is Yondu, who was one of the original Guardians.
>
>On the other hand, they've taken lots of Marvel characters and ideas
>from other titles (Warlock, Fantastic Four, Nova, etc.) and put
>together a really entertaining movie with them.

Huh. I just looked at the plot on the wikipedia entry, it does sound
more interesting than the tv trailers let on. Maybe too much stuff,
but I get the general idea, may have to actually go see it. Thanks.

J.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Lee Gleason" <lee.g...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:53e7f14b$0$28104$882e...@usenet-news.net:

> I wish that Hollywood could become aware of the real SF
> classics instead
> of reading only comic books and Philip K. Dick novels.
>

Given Hollywood's long history of completely screwing up "real SF
classics," and the current success rate of Marvel Studios, well,
things could only be worse.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in

news:ls8uli$p4j$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 8/10/14 6:25 PM, Lee Gleason wrote:
>> Just saw it. I liked it fine - but, I kept thinking that with
>> the same
>> casting effort and budget, they could have done a hell of a
>> version of Keith Laumer and Rosel George Brown's "Earthblod".
>> Chris Pratt would have made a pretty believable Roan Cornay,
>> and Yondu and his crew could have served pretty well as Captain
>> Henry Dredd and his crew of Yill and other humanoids (sans blue
>> makeup for Yondu, natch).
>>
>> And, in like wise, the effort it took to create Rocket
>> Raccoon could
>> have been used to create Chee Lan for a movie version of one
>> of Poul Anderson's Trader Team stories (a little less machine
>> gun, and a little more disdain would have been required...Chee
>> Lan would threaten to destroy your base with a disdainful sniff
>> and a war beam rather than screaming while firing a machine
>> gun).
>>
>> I wish that Hollywood could become aware of the real SF
>> classics
>> instead of reading only comic books and Philip K. Dick novels.
>>
>
>
> I love the comic book movies, though Guardians is simply
> not my cuppa.
> I may try it if the opportunity presents but the presentation
> has not encouraged me.

It's like the Avengers, only it doesn't take itself nearly so
seriously. And didn't take half a dozen movies to set up.

>
> But "Earthblood" and "real SF classics"? It's not even
> Laumer's best
> effort in that direction, and Laumer's strictly second-string if
> you're looking for classics. Nothing against Laumer -- I love
> some of his stuff -- but he's not going to be on the list of
> most people's "real SF classics", and if he is, I wouldn't
> expect "Earthblood" to be the entry.

I hear the Pern movie is back in pre-production again. This week.

>
> (Me? I'd either go for early Reteif, or for "A Plague of
> Demons")
>

The number of real SF classics is sufficient that none of us would
live long enough to see them all, if one came out every week
forever.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote in
news:28agu9lk37h3d9p3l...@4ax.com:

> otoh three or four efforts in and they still haven't done
> justice to Dune.
>

I'm not sure it's possible to make a movie that identifiably the
story in Dune, in a visual medium, and have it not suck.

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2014-08-11 05:16:59 +0000, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> said:

> On 2014-08-10 22:53:09 -0400, hamis...@gmail.com said:
>
>> On Monday, August 11, 2014 8:25:15 AM UTC+10, Lee Gleason wrote:
>>>
>>> I wish that Hollywood could become aware of the real SF classics instead
>>> of reading only comic books and Philip K. Dick novels.
>>>
>>
>> What gives you the idea that Hollywood reads anything?
>> As far as comic books go they make movies from comic books because they
>> make money, in many cases _lots_ of money.
>
> "Guardians of the Galaxy" isn't really based on the comic book, either
> -- the only character in the movie who was in the original run of the
> comic book series is Yondu, who was one of the original Guardians.

It's based on a later comic book line-up that used the same name.

kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2014-08-11 05:22:22 +0000, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> said:

> On 2014-08-11 01:20:25 -0400, David Johnston said:
>
>> On 8/10/2014 11:16 PM, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>>> On 2014-08-10 22:53:09 -0400, hamis...@gmail.com said:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, August 11, 2014 8:25:15 AM UTC+10, Lee Gleason wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I wish that Hollywood could become aware of the real SF classics instead
>>>>> of reading only comic books and Philip K. Dick novels.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What gives you the idea that Hollywood reads anything?
>>>> As far as comic books go they make movies from comic books because
>>>> they make money, in many cases _lots_ of money.
>>>
>>> "Guardians of the Galaxy" isn't really based on the comic book, either
>>> -- the only character in the movie who was in the original run of the
>>> comic book series is Yondu, who was one of the original Guardians.
>>
>> The line-up from the movie matches the current comic book.
>
> You mean the comic book that was launched when they'd settled on who'd
> be in the movie?

No. The comic book with that line-up predates them putting together the movie.

[Kurt Busiek]

The people who put together the comic know.

For instance, it was editor Tom Brevoort who suggested to the writers
that they should add a Kirby monster to the cast, abs another editor,
Bill Rosemann, suggested Groot. That was done while putting together
the comic, not the movie.

[Lynn McGuire]

"We are all Groot!".

I believe that you are trivializing the movie
making process which is highly not understandable
by yours truly. There is no logic in the movie
making process whatsoever.

The one thing that I do know is that Marvel
movies are HOT now. 10 wins, zero losses. That
is quite the record.

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

On 8/11/2014 11:57 AM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> "Lee Gleason" <lee.g...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:53e7f14b$0$28104$882e...@usenet-news.net:
>
>> I wish that Hollywood could become aware of the real SF
>> classics instead
>> of reading only comic books and Philip K. Dick novels.
>>
>
> Given Hollywood's long history of completely screwing up "real SF
> classics," and the current success rate of Marvel Studios, well,
> things could only be worse.

+1

All I need to say is "Dune". I won't even mention
"Nightfall".

Lynn

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote in news:lsatt8$5s1$2@dont-
email.me:

Not that there haven't been some real turkey superhero movies, but
Marvel, so far, has an outstanding record of success.

[Paul Arthur]

On 2014-08-11, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> "Lee Gleason" <lee.g...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:53e7f14b$0$28104$882e...@usenet-news.net:
>
>> I wish that Hollywood could become aware of the real SF classics
>> instead of reading only comic books and Philip K. Dick novels.
>
> Given Hollywood's long history of completely screwing up "real SF
> classics," and the current success rate of Marvel Studios, well,
> things could only be worse.

Let's not forget that '"—All You Zombies—"' has recently been made
into a film.

I'm sure that will turn out well.

--
Why have vampire strength if you can't use it to hold up your slave boy only
by the power of your undead hooha?
--Naxuul on RPGnet

[Greg Goss]

Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:

>I believe that you are trivializing the movie
>making process which is highly not understandable
>by yours truly. There is no logic in the movie
>making process whatsoever.
>
>The one thing that I do know is that Marvel
>movies are HOT now. 10 wins, zero losses. That
>is quite the record.

I am not a Marvel reader, and even in my youth was a DC fan.

I liked DareDevil as a standalone, knowing nothing about the comic.
But in the movie discussions, DD seems to be considered a dud.

Have there only been ten Marvel movies? It seems like they're up in
that range with just Spidey and the X-Men.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2014-08-11 17:46:24 +0000, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> said:

> Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>
>> I believe that you are trivializing the movie
>> making process which is highly not understandable
>> by yours truly. There is no logic in the movie
>> making process whatsoever.
>>
>> The one thing that I do know is that Marvel
>> movies are HOT now. 10 wins, zero losses. That
>> is quite the record.
>
> I am not a Marvel reader, and even in my youth was a DC fan.
>
> I liked DareDevil as a standalone, knowing nothing about the comic.
> But in the movie discussions, DD seems to be considered a dud.

Marvel didn't make DAREDEVIL or ELEKTRA. They were both Fox.

> Have there only been ten Marvel movies? It seems like they're up in
> that range with just Spidey and the X-Men.

The Spider-Man movies are from Sony and the X-Men movies are from Fox.

Marvel also didn't make the Ghost Rider movies, the Punisher movies and
a bunch of others. Blade, Fantastic Four, and so on.

The first Marvel Studios movie, if I'm remembering right, was IRON MAN.

Three IRON MAN movies, two CAPTAIN AMERICAs, two THORs, AVENGERS,
GUARDIANS...that's nine, so I'm missing one?

Ah. THE INCREDIBLE HULK. I don't know if that should be scored a win.
Cost a lot, made more, but it was the weakest of their films so far.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Monday, August 11, 2014 9:57:26 AM UTC-7, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:


> > I wish that Hollywood could become aware of the real SF
>
> > classics instead
>
> > of reading only comic books and Philip K. Dick novels.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Given Hollywood's long history of completely screwing up "real SF
>
> classics," and the current success rate of Marvel Studios, well,
>
> things could only be worse.

What I would love to see is the SciFi channel making some more obscure (but quality) SF novels into movies. If they can make 'Sharknado' they can damn well make 'Have Spacesuit, Will Travel'.

[Lynn McGuire]

Not without paying Heinlein's estate a lot of money...

Lynn

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1e0794b5-3753-40f9...@googlegroups.com:

Unfortunately, HSWT would be difficult to market, at best, and
Sharknado made so much money it got a theatrical release, and
recognizable names are competing to be in Sharknado 3.

At least we're past the days with SciFi (Now "the Syphilis
Channel") thought it a good idea to cancel Farscape in preference
to Fear Factor and professional wrestling (that latter of which is,
actually, fantasy).

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote in

news:lsb330$btr$1...@dont-email.me:

There are, without a doubt, thousands of decent SF books for which
the rights are already in appropriate hands, if anyone actually
cared. But you are correct, in that the rights to Sharknado have
always belonged to the network.

[James Nicoll]

Well, there's always Clarke's variation on that theme. The fact I am
blanking on the title is an indication of how memorable it was. Islands
in the Sky, maybe.

Or steal the basic idea and either enough that a lawsuit was unlikely
to win or pull a Fatal Subtraction on Heinlein (hire all the lawyers
with applicable experience and if that does not work, settle for a
large fraction of net profits).
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)

[David Johnston]

On 8/11/2014 12:57 PM, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <lsb330$btr$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>> On 8/11/2014 1:04 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 11, 2014 9:57:26 AM UTC-7, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>> Sissy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I wish that Hollywood could become aware of the real SF
>>>>
>>>>> classics instead
>>>>
>>>>> of reading only comic books and Philip K. Dick novels.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given Hollywood's long history of completely screwing up "real SF
>>>>
>>>> classics," and the current success rate of Marvel Studios, well,
>>>>
>>>> things could only be worse.
>>>
>>>
>>> What I would love to see is the SciFi channel making some more obscure
>> (but quality) SF novels into movies. If they can make 'Sharknado' they
>> can damn well make 'Have Spacesuit, Will Travel'.
>>
>> Not without paying Heinlein's estate a lot of money...
>>
> Well, there's always Clarke's variation on that theme. The fact I am
> blanking on the title is an indication of how memorable it was. Islands
> in the Sky, maybe.
>
> Or steal the basic idea

The basic idea of a teenager getting to live his dream of spaceflight
thanks to aliens has been done several times, never with great success.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 8/11/2014 2:21 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> On 8/11/2014 12:57 PM, James Nicoll wrote:
>> In article <lsb330$btr$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/11/2014 1:04 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
>>>> On Monday, August 11, 2014 9:57:26 AM UTC-7, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>>> Sissy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> I wish that Hollywood could become aware of the real SF
>>>>>
>>>>>> classics instead
>>>>>
>>>>>> of reading only comic books and Philip K. Dick novels.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Given Hollywood's long history of completely screwing up "real SF
>>>>>
>>>>> classics," and the current success rate of Marvel Studios, well,
>>>>>
>>>>> things could only be worse.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What I would love to see is the SciFi channel making some more obscure
>>> (but quality) SF novels into movies. If they can make 'Sharknado' they
>>> can damn well make 'Have Spacesuit, Will Travel'.
>>>
>>> Not without paying Heinlein's estate a lot of money...
>>>
>> Well, there's always Clarke's variation on that theme. The fact I am
>> blanking on the title is an indication of how memorable it was. Islands
>> in the Sky, maybe.
>>
>> Or steal the basic idea
>
> The basic idea of a teenager getting to live his dream of spaceflight thanks to aliens has been done several times, never with great
> success.

"The Last Starfighter" was pretty good.

Lynn

[lal_truckee]

On 8/11/14 9:59 AM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:

> The number of real SF classics is sufficient that none of us would
> live long enough to see them all, if one came out every week
> forever.

Sounds like it might be heaven to a certain sort. Is this the 40 virgins
gambit, but aimed at euro SF geeks?

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:06:04 -0700, lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Except for the "one a week" thing. That would be painfully slow.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
COFFEE.SYS not found. Abort, Retry, Fail?

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote in

news:lsb59v$t90$1...@dont-email.me:

But not, as I recall, all that notably successful.

[michael]

Much as I love the story, HSWT wouldn't make a successful movie at
this time. It has no sex, no real violence, no explosions, and with
the exception of the scenes with the tribunal there are no real
opportunities for stunning eye-candy cgi aliens. I suppose you could
have a "Mother Thing" plush in the stores for Christmas, but other
than that you're not really looking at a money maker. For good or
bad, that's just about the only criteria that Hollywood seems to pay
attention to.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Monday, August 11, 2014 2:12:21 PM UTC-7, michael wrote:


> Much as I love the story, HSWT wouldn't make a successful movie at
>
> this time. It has no sex, no real violence, no explosions, and with
>
> the exception of the scenes with the tribunal there are no real
>
> opportunities for stunning eye-candy cgi aliens. I suppose you could
>
> have a "Mother Thing" plush in the stores for Christmas, but other
>
> than that you're not really looking at a money maker. For good or
>
> bad, that's just about the only criteria that Hollywood seems to pay
>
> attention to.

SciFi, as in MADE FOR TV, as in shoestring budget. Not hollywood blockbuster.

And HSSWT was just the example a moment's thought came up with, it could be something else.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

michael <m...@here.com> wrote in
news:f6ciu996rqeilon7h...@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 11:04:45 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson
> <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Monday, August 11, 2014 9:57:26 AM UTC-7, Gutless Umbrella
>>Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>
>>
>>> > I wish that Hollywood could become aware of the real SF
>>>
>>> > classics instead
>>>
>>> > of reading only comic books and Philip K. Dick novels.
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Given Hollywood's long history of completely screwing up "real
>>> SF
>>>
>>> classics," and the current success rate of Marvel Studios,
>>> well,
>>>
>>> things could only be worse.
>>
>>
>>What I would love to see is the SciFi channel making some more
>>obscure (but quality) SF novels into movies. If they can make
>>'Sharknado' they can damn well make 'Have Spacesuit, Will
>>Travel'.
>
> Much as I love the story, HSWT wouldn't make a successful movie
> at this time. It has no sex, no real violence, no explosions,
> and with the exception of the scenes with the tribunal there are
> no real opportunities for stunning eye-candy cgi aliens.

Sounds like a Disney move.

> I
> suppose you could have a "Mother Thing" plush in the stores for
> Christmas, but other than that you're not really looking at a
> money maker. For good or bad, that's just about the only
> criteria that Hollywood seems to pay attention to.
>

Lack of merchandising, however, is about as anti-Disney as it is
possible to get.

[Greg Goss]

michael <m...@here.com> wrote:

>>What I would love to see is the SciFi channel making some more obscure (but quality) SF novels into movies. If they can make 'Sharknado' they can damn well make 'Have Spacesuit, Will Travel'.
>
>Much as I love the story, HSWT wouldn't make a successful movie at
>this time. It has no sex, no real violence, no explosions, and with
>the exception of the scenes with the tribunal there are no real
>opportunities for stunning eye-candy cgi aliens. I suppose you could
>have a "Mother Thing" plush in the stores for Christmas, but other
>than that you're not really looking at a money maker. For good or
>bad, that's just about the only criteria that Hollywood seems to pay
>attention to.

They blow up the bad guys' Pluto base, or at least blow out the doors.
The wormfaces would be CGIed like Avatar was.

[JRStern]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 10:00:44 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote in
>news:28agu9lk37h3d9p3l...@4ax.com:
>
>> otoh three or four efforts in and they still haven't done
>> justice to Dune.
>>
>I'm not sure it's possible to make a movie that identifiably the
>story in Dune, in a visual medium, and have it not suck.

I think the idea is (a) make it not suck, and then (b) have it as much
like the book as possible. If Peter Jackson could get it done (not
that I didn't have many quibbles some major) on LOTR, I'd say it can
be done with virtually anything. The recent "Ender's Game" walked a
fine line, but I think it was an OK rendering if no more, left a lot
on the table.

It's actually turning out to be harder to render the comic books, I
think, into recognizable movies, a lot farther to go from comic book
storyboards to continuous action not to mention plot or character or
anything like that. But by following (a) then (b), they're at least
raking in a lot of dough.

J.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 8/11/14 12:59 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
> news:ls8uli$p4j$1...@dont-email.me:

>
>> On 8/10/14 6:25 PM, Lee Gleason wrote:
>>> Just saw it. I liked it fine - but, I kept thinking that with
>>> the same
>>> casting effort and budget, they could have done a hell of a
>>> version of Keith Laumer and Rosel George Brown's "Earthblod".
>>> Chris Pratt would have made a pretty believable Roan Cornay,
>>> and Yondu and his crew could have served pretty well as Captain
>>> Henry Dredd and his crew of Yill and other humanoids (sans blue
>>> makeup for Yondu, natch).
>>>
>>> And, in like wise, the effort it took to create Rocket
>>> Raccoon could
>>> have been used to create Chee Lan for a movie version of one
>>> of Poul Anderson's Trader Team stories (a little less machine
>>> gun, and a little more disdain would have been required...Chee
>>> Lan would threaten to destroy your base with a disdainful sniff
>>> and a war beam rather than screaming while firing a machine
>>> gun).
>>>

>>> I wish that Hollywood could become aware of the real SF
>>> classics
>>> instead of reading only comic books and Philip K. Dick novels.
>>>
>>
>>

>> I love the comic book movies, though Guardians is simply
>> not my cuppa.
>> I may try it if the opportunity presents but the presentation
>> has not encouraged me.
>
> It's like the Avengers, only it doesn't take itself nearly so
> seriously. And didn't take half a dozen movies to set up.


"Doesn't take itself nearly so seriously" is the part that worries me.
I *like* the fact that the Avengers took itself seriously. The trailers,
I have to assume, are exaggerating the "not taking itself seriously",
though, because the ones I've seen made it look like a bad comedy, using
music I was tired of before I heard them the first time.

And the setup was even better, from my point of view; get a good,
strong intro to each character, establish each character as their own
being with their own agenda. (I would've liked one for Black Widow too).


>>
>> But "Earthblood" and "real SF classics"? It's not even
>> Laumer's best
>> effort in that direction, and Laumer's strictly second-string if
>> you're looking for classics. Nothing against Laumer -- I love
>> some of his stuff -- but he's not going to be on the list of
>> most people's "real SF classics", and if he is, I wouldn't
>> expect "Earthblood" to be the entry.
>
> I hear the Pern movie is back in pre-production again. This week.

"Oh, that trick never works."

>>
>> (Me? I'd either go for early Reteif, or for "A Plague of
>> Demons")

>>
> The number of real SF classics is sufficient that none of us would
> live long enough to see them all, if one came out every week
> forever.
>

If anyone actually did them well.

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Lynn McGuire]

On 8/10/2014 6:19 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 8/10/14 6:25 PM, Lee Gleason wrote:
>> Just saw it. I liked it fine - but, I kept thinking that with the same
>> casting effort and budget, they could have done a hell of a version of
>> Keith Laumer and Rosel George Brown's "Earthblod". Chris Pratt would
>> have made a pretty believable Roan Cornay, and Yondu and his crew could
>> have served pretty well as Captain Henry Dredd and his crew of Yill and
>> other humanoids (sans blue makeup for Yondu, natch).
>>
>> And, in like wise, the effort it took to create Rocket Raccoon could
>> have been used to create Chee Lan for a movie version of one of Poul
>> Anderson's Trader Team stories (a little less machine gun, and a little
>> more disdain would have been required...Chee Lan would threaten to
>> destroy your base with a disdainful sniff and a war beam rather than
>> screaming while firing a machine gun).
>>
>> I wish that Hollywood could become aware of the real SF classics
>> instead of reading only comic books and Philip K. Dick novels.
>>
>
>
> I love the comic book movies, though Guardians is simply not my cuppa. I may try it if the opportunity presents but the
> presentation has not encouraged me.
>

> But "Earthblood" and "real SF classics"? It's not even Laumer's best effort in that direction, and Laumer's strictly
> second-string if you're looking for classics. Nothing against Laumer -- I love some of his stuff -- but he's not going to be on the
> list of most people's "real SF classics", and if he is, I wouldn't expect "Earthblood" to be the entry.
>

> (Me? I'd either go for early Reteif, or for "A Plague of Demons")

Dude, you are going to love GOTG. The simple progression
of the movie from "I am Groot" to "We are Groot" tells a
story as good as any other. Simple yes, but you will
like, maybe even love, the characters at the end. Rockets
and Groots relationship is most excellently handled.

And as usual for all Marvel movies, DO NOT LEAVE UNTIL
THE SCREEN GOES MONOCOLOR.

Lynn

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote in
news:8ghiu9haeouof024f...@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 10:00:44 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote in
>>news:28agu9lk37h3d9p3l...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> otoh three or four efforts in and they still haven't done
>>> justice to Dune.
>>>
>>I'm not sure it's possible to make a movie that identifiably the
>>story in Dune, in a visual medium, and have it not suck.
>
> I think the idea is (a) make it not suck, and then (b) have it
> as much like the book as possible. If Peter Jackson could get
> it done (not that I didn't have many quibbles some major) on
> LOTR, I'd say it can be done with virtually anything. The
> recent "Ender's Game" walked a fine line, but I think it was an
> OK rendering if no more, left a lot on the table.

I've never read Ender's Game, but LotR was a pretty visual story to
begin with. Dune really isn't. To have it be identifibly based on
the book, it would be too cerebral for a movie with that high a
budget. An art film, sure, but that would mean too limited a
budget.

>
> It's actually turning out to be harder to render the comic
> books, I think, into recognizable movies, a lot farther to go
> from comic book storyboards to continuous action not to mention
> plot or character or anything like that. But by following (a)
> then (b), they're at least raking in a lot of dough.
>

Comic books are inherently visual stories, so craft wise, it's not
as big a jump. There are style issued, like spandex tights in
primary colors, which can work in a comic book, but never, ever in
a movie unless the character is a teenage girl.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in

news:lsbh3g$e2j$1...@dont-email.me:

If you require that all movies you watch have some level of
phiolosophical depth, then you'll hate Guardians.

> The
> trailers, I have to assume, are exaggerating the "not taking
> itself seriously", though, because the ones I've seen made it
> look like a bad comedy,

The trailers are not chosen to be representative of the movie, the
are chosen to draw the most people in to the theater, and often
have very, very little to do with the story.

This is an action movie. It's about action. With wise-cracking
heroes and lots of Things That Go Fast And Explode. This is not
typeical of the superhero movie genre, it is true. A certain amount
of internal angst and introspection has been a significant element
of all the previous (highly successful) superhero movies.

This is not of that genre. It has more in common with, say, Die
Hard, REDS, or the Expendables movies. If you're not interested in
action movies, then, well, it's an action movies. If you like
action movies, stop thinking of this as a superhero movie and start
thinking of it as an action movie with takling plants and animals.
But an action movie, nonetheless.

> using music I was tired of before I
> heard them the first time.

The nostalgia is, apparently, a big part of its financial success.
The soundtrack has apparently been selling *extremely* well, which
is not surprising, given the nostalgic appeal.

Doesn't do that much for me, either, since I wasn't listening to
Country then, too. But it doesn't really detract from the movie.

>
> And the setup was even better, from my point of view; get a
> good,
> strong intro to each character, establish each character as
> their own being with their own agenda. (I would've liked one for
> Black Widow too).

Again, that's all good for a superhero movie. But for an action
movie, too much background just takes up screen time better used
for Blowing Shit Up. One did not need to know, or care, about John
McClane's childhood to enjoy watching him shoot bad guys in the
face, preferably while cracking wise to them.

>
>
>>>
>>> But "Earthblood" and "real SF classics"? It's not even
>>> Laumer's best
>>> effort in that direction, and Laumer's strictly second-string
>>> if you're looking for classics. Nothing against Laumer -- I
>>> love some of his stuff -- but he's not going to be on the list
>>> of most people's "real SF classics", and if he is, I wouldn't
>>> expect "Earthblood" to be the entry.
>>
>> I hear the Pern movie is back in pre-production again. This
>> week.
>
> "Oh, that trick never works."

Nobody is taking it seriously, again, since it's been on again/off
again so many times, but at the moment, it's on again. I'll care
when somebody commits an eight or nine figure budget to it.

>
>>>
>>> (Me? I'd either go for early Reteif, or for "A Plague of
>>> Demons")
>>>
>> The number of real SF classics is sufficient that none of us
>> would live long enough to see them all, if one came out every
>> week forever.
>>
>
>
> If anyone actually did them well.
>

Oh, it'd take multiple lifetimes at one a week regardless of how
good or bad they were. You'd just give up long before you died, if
they were all bad.

On the other hand, there are multiple new movies every week
already, and you haven't given up yet.

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2014-08-11 22:46:11 +0000, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"

<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:

> "Doesn't take itself nearly so seriously" is the part that worries me.
> I *like* the fact that the Avengers took itself seriously. The
> trailers, I have to assume, are exaggerating the "not taking itself
> seriously", though, because the ones I've seen made it look like a bad
> comedy, using music I was tired of before I heard them the first time.

I think you'd like GUARDIANS a lot. It's a big, splashy space opera.
With jokes. Aside from the fact that the heroes are anything but
incorruptible (or at least they think they are), I think it'd warm any
E.E. Doc Smith fan's heart -- the settings, the exotica, the
power-items, the battles...

Just don't read Lynn McGuire's post (too late, right), since he blows a
key spoiler right upfront.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote in
news:lsbjo6$te7$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 2014-08-11 22:46:11 +0000, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
>
>> "Doesn't take itself nearly so seriously" is the part that
>> worries me.
>> I *like* the fact that the Avengers took itself seriously. The
>> trailers, I have to assume, are exaggerating the "not taking
>> itself seriously", though, because the ones I've seen made it
>> look like a bad comedy, using music I was tired of before I
>> heard them the first time.
>
> I think you'd like GUARDIANS a lot. It's a big, splashy space
> opera. With jokes. Aside from the fact that the heroes are
> anything but incorruptible (or at least they think they are), I
> think it'd warm any E.E. Doc Smith fan's heart -- the settings,
> the exotica, the power-items, the battles...

Yeah, I can see that element to it. But I stand by the statement that
it's a mistake to think of it as a superhero movie rather than an
action movie.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote in

news:lsbilr$nd3$1...@dont-email.me:

> And as usual for all Marvel movies, DO NOT LEAVE UNTIL
> THE SCREEN GOES MONOCOLOR.
>

Or, better yet, do not leave until the ushers make you.

(Apparently, the rights are actually available, sort of, through
Disney. Didn't realize THAT MOVIE was made by THAT GUY.

[Lynn McGuire]

Sorry, did not think of the Groot thing as a spoiler.

Lynn

[JRStern]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 16:14:21 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote in
>news:8ghiu9haeouof024f...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 10:00:44 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote in
>>>news:28agu9lk37h3d9p3l...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> otoh three or four efforts in and they still haven't done
>>>> justice to Dune.
>>>>
>>>I'm not sure it's possible to make a movie that identifiably the
>>>story in Dune, in a visual medium, and have it not suck.
>>
>> I think the idea is (a) make it not suck, and then (b) have it
>> as much like the book as possible. If Peter Jackson could get
>> it done (not that I didn't have many quibbles some major) on
>> LOTR, I'd say it can be done with virtually anything. The
>> recent "Ender's Game" walked a fine line, but I think it was an
>> OK rendering if no more, left a lot on the table.
>
>I've never read Ender's Game, but LotR was a pretty visual story to
>begin with. Dune really isn't. To have it be identifibly based on
>the book, it would be too cerebral for a movie with that high a
>budget. An art film, sure, but that would mean too limited a
>budget.

Piffle. David Lynch gave it beautiful visuals, he just didn't give a
rat's ass about the story, not the written story or any story at all,
the actors just got in the way of the scenery, as the joke goes.

Giant worms, knife fights, ornithopters, gladiators in the coliseum,
giant spaceships, weird navigators, crazy nuns, face dancers, a fat
villain, an Emperor - not visual? I could shoot the movie in ten
scenes, and about 60 of the 90 minutes from the perspective of Paul's
crotch, and make it more exciting and true to the book than anything
done yet. Hollywood.

J.

[Kay Shapero]

In article <ls8uli$p4j$1...@dont-email.me>, sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com
says...

>

>
> (Me? I'd either go for early Reteif, or for "A Plague of Demons")

I still want to see someone make a movie out of the James Schmitz short,
"The Searcher". There is just enough plot for one without having to
eviscerate the plot, lots of action and suspense, two equally competant
protagonists (one each male and female) and done properly it could scare
the audience right out of their socks.

--

Kay Shapero
Address munged, try my first name at kayshapero dot net.

[Kay Shapero]

In article <lsbh3g$e2j$1...@dont-email.me>, sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com
says...

>
> "Doesn't take itself nearly so seriously" is the part that worries me.
> I *like* the fact that the Avengers took itself seriously. The trailers,
> I have to assume, are exaggerating the "not taking itself seriously",
> though, because the ones I've seen made it look like a bad comedy, using
> music I was tired of before I heard them the first time.

The only trailer I saw reminded me, painfully, of why I got up and fled
the theater during the early parts of Galaxina. I only went because
Nicolai wanted to see it, and there was nothing else playing at the
theater that I was even vaguely interested in. To my delighted
surprise, it turned out to be pretty good.

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2014-08-11 23:34:24 +0000, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

<taus...@gmail.com> said:

> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote in
> news:lsbjo6$te7$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 2014-08-11 22:46:11 +0000, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>> <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
>>
>>> "Doesn't take itself nearly so seriously" is the part that
>>> worries me.
>>> I *like* the fact that the Avengers took itself seriously. The
>>> trailers, I have to assume, are exaggerating the "not taking
>>> itself seriously", though, because the ones I've seen made it
>>> look like a bad comedy, using music I was tired of before I
>>> heard them the first time.
>>
>> I think you'd like GUARDIANS a lot. It's a big, splashy space
>> opera. With jokes. Aside from the fact that the heroes are
>> anything but incorruptible (or at least they think they are), I
>> think it'd warm any E.E. Doc Smith fan's heart -- the settings,
>> the exotica, the power-items, the battles...
>
> Yeah, I can see that element to it. But I stand by the statement that
> it's a mistake to think of it as a superhero movie rather than an
> action movie.

Yeah, they're not superheroes, at least not conventionally. They're
heroes, but they're space-opera heroes.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 8/11/14 7:35 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote in
> news:lsbilr$nd3$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> And as usual for all Marvel movies, DO NOT LEAVE UNTIL
>> THE SCREEN GOES MONOCOLOR.
>>
> Or, better yet, do not leave until the ushers make you.
>
> (Apparently, the rights are actually available, sort of, through
> Disney. Didn't realize THAT MOVIE was made by THAT GUY.
>

The rights for Howard the Duck lapsed back to Marvel years ago.

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:53:08 AM UTC+10, JRStern wrote:
>
> Huh. I just looked at the plot on the wikipedia entry, it does sound
> more interesting than the tv trailers let on. Maybe too much stuff,
> but I get the general idea, may have to actually go see it. Thanks.
>
I enjoyed it.
Not a perfect movie but very good at the least.

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 4:04:45 AM UTC+10, Shawn Wilson wrote:

> What I would love to see is the SciFi channel making some more obscure (but
> quality) SF novels into movies. If they can make 'Sharknado' they can damn
> well make 'Have Spacesuit, Will Travel'.

Shawn, this idea is sufficient grounds to throw you out an airlock...

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <lsbrs5$b9o$1...@dont-email.me>,

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>On 8/11/14 7:35 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote in
>> news:lsbilr$nd3$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> And as usual for all Marvel movies, DO NOT LEAVE UNTIL
>>> THE SCREEN GOES MONOCOLOR.
>>>
>> Or, better yet, do not leave until the ushers make you.
>>
>> (Apparently, the rights are actually available, sort of, through
>> Disney. Didn't realize THAT MOVIE was made by THAT GUY.
>>
>
> The rights for Howard the Duck lapsed back to Marvel years ago.
>

Rather controversially as I recall. The original creator of the character,
Steve Gerber, felt ill used. (Unless there was some settlement after
it fell off my radar).

It's a shame the movie was so awful, the comic was an often quite funny
satire.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[J. Clarke]

In article <MPG.2e531151b...@news.eternal-september.org>,
k...@invalid.net says...

Personally I was never a Marvel comics fan for some reason--the style of
DC just appealed to me more--so Guardians was completely new to me. The
main reason I watched it was the principle that any movie featuring a
talking raccoon with a BFG couldn't be all bad. I was right--I enjoyed
it more than any other movie I have seen from the Marvel Cinematic
Universe and felt more "satisfied" at the end than I have in a long
time, while still wanting more.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 15:44:40 -0700, JRStern
<JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote in
<news:8ghiu9haeouof024f...@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> I think the idea is (a) make it not suck, and then (b)
> have it as much like the book as possible. If Peter
> Jackson could get it done (not that I didn't have many

> quibbles some major) on LOTR, [...]

Perhaps he could have done, but he didn’t.

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, August 11, 2014 11:15:21 AM UTC-6, Paul Arthur wrote:

> Let's not forget that '"--All You Zombies--"' has recently been made
> into a film.

> I'm sure that will turn out well.

It's too bad they don't try to make movies from science fiction books that actually _could_ be made into movies. Like "If This Goes On..." - it should be relatively straightforward to turn that into a good movie.

John Savard

[T Guy]

On Monday, August 11, 2014 11:46:11 PM UTC+1, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:


> I *like* the fact that the Avengers took itself seriously. The trailers,
> I have to assume, are exaggerating the "not taking itself seriously",
> though, because the ones I've seen made it look like a bad comedy, using
> music I was tired of before I heard them the first time.
>
>
> And the setup was even better, from my point of view; get a good,
> strong intro to each character, establish each character as their own
> being with their own agenda. (I would've liked one for Black Widow too).

well, that's the disadvantage of films compared with comics. In comics, you can intro Iron Man, intro the Avengers a few months later, intro Hawkeye as an Iron Man villain a few months after that, intro the Black Widow as an Iron Man villain and establish her relationship with Hawkeye in a couple of stories a few months later, then a few months after that have Hawkeye reform and join the Avengers, and finally have the Black Widow change sides as well.

I would think it's difficult to replicate that sort of thing in a series of Blockbuster Movies at the rate of one a year.

[JRStern]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 05:42:52 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"
<b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 15:44:40 -0700, JRStern
><JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote in
><news:8ghiu9haeouof024f...@4ax.com> in
>rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>[...]
>
>> I think the idea is (a) make it not suck, and then (b)
>> have it as much like the book as possible. If Peter
>> Jackson could get it done (not that I didn't have many
>> quibbles some major) on LOTR, [...]
>
>Perhaps he could have done, but he didn�t.
>
>Brian

So what's your beef?

My biggest beef is he raped the Aragorn character, squeezed him into a
Hollywood redemption story (which I think few viewers even noticed)
instead of an epic hero story. Bleh. Oh, and very nearly the same on
Faramir. Double-bleh.

And watching the extended cuts with comments, they almost screwed it
up royally but came to their senses on what would have been major
departures from the book. And nearly everywhere they did depart from
the book, it was a mistake. Moving good lines from scene to scene and
even character to character, I'll excuse in most cases, just so they
squeezed them in.

But any ten minute segment of the movie has great stuff that any
reader of the book will recognize as wonderfully rendered. I'll give
the whole thing an A-/B+ range.

J.

[Lynn McGuire]

The movie was so awful that it was funny.

Lynn

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote in
news:7moiu9l580uu48950...@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 16:14:21 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote in
>>news:8ghiu9haeouof024f...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 10:00:44 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>>> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote in
>>>>news:28agu9lk37h3d9p3l...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> otoh three or four efforts in and they still haven't done
>>>>> justice to Dune.
>>>>>
>>>>I'm not sure it's possible to make a movie that identifiably
>>>>the story in Dune, in a visual medium, and have it not suck.
>>>
>>> I think the idea is (a) make it not suck, and then (b) have it
>>> as much like the book as possible. If Peter Jackson could get
>>> it done (not that I didn't have many quibbles some major) on
>>> LOTR, I'd say it can be done with virtually anything. The
>>> recent "Ender's Game" walked a fine line, but I think it was
>>> an OK rendering if no more, left a lot on the table.
>>
>>I've never read Ender's Game, but LotR was a pretty visual story
>>to begin with. Dune really isn't. To have it be identifibly
>>based on the book, it would be too cerebral for a movie with
>>that high a budget. An art film, sure, but that would mean too
>>limited a budget.
>
> Piffle. David Lynch gave it beautiful visuals,

That had nothing to do with the book.

> he just didn't
> give a rat's ass about the story,

You've just agreed wit hme.

> not the written story or any
> story at all, the actors just got in the way of the scenery, as
> the joke goes.
>
> Giant worms, knife fights, ornithopters, gladiators in the
> coliseum, giant spaceships, weird navigators, crazy nuns, face
> dancers, a fat villain, an Emperor - not visual? I could shoot
> the movie in ten scenes, and about 60 of the 90 minutes from the
> perspective of Paul's crotch, and make it more exciting and true
> to the book than anything done yet. Hollywood.
>

I remain skeptical that it _can_ be done, ever. Even if convincing
arguments could be made to the contrary, you, of course, are
incapable of making them.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote in
news:MPG.2e5376585...@news.newsguy.com:

It is not surprising that your tastes run to action movies.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote in

news:lsbrld$apv$1...@dont-email.me:

Neither is Batman, but the Dark Knight movies are still superhero
movies.

> They're heroes, but they're space-opera heroes.
>

And the movie is built like an action movie.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
news:lsbrs5$b9o$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 8/11/14 7:35 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote in
>> news:lsbilr$nd3$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> And as usual for all Marvel movies, DO NOT LEAVE UNTIL
>>> THE SCREEN GOES MONOCOLOR.
>>>
>> Or, better yet, do not leave until the ushers make you.
>>
>> (Apparently, the rights are actually available, sort of,
>> through Disney. Didn't realize THAT MOVIE was made by THAT GUY.
>>
>
> The rights for Howard the Duck lapsed back to Marvel years
> ago.
>

No idea who owns what rights, but don't confuse the rights to the
character with the movie rights to the character.

In any event, Marvel Studios and Lucasfilms are both owned by Disney
now.

[Lynn McGuire]

Why? I would prefer COTG or TSB but HSWT is an
excellent book.

Lynn

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote in
news:c4tgi5...@mid.individual.net:

> In article <lsbrs5$b9o$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>On 8/11/14 7:35 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>> Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote in
>>> news:lsbilr$nd3$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> And as usual for all Marvel movies, DO NOT LEAVE UNTIL
>>>> THE SCREEN GOES MONOCOLOR.
>>>>
>>> Or, better yet, do not leave until the ushers make you.
>>>
>>> (Apparently, the rights are actually available, sort of,
>>> through Disney. Didn't realize THAT MOVIE was made by THAT
>>> GUY.
>>>
>>
>> The rights for Howard the Duck lapsed back to Marvel years
>> ago.
>>
>
> Rather controversially as I recall. The original creator of the
> character, Steve Gerber, felt ill used. (Unless there was some
> settlement after it fell off my radar).

A creative type who felt ill-used by Hollywood? That would never
happen. (Appaerntly, the creator of Rocket does *not* feel ill-
used, after the studio went to a fair amount of trouble to show him
the movie in his home[1] before it opened in the studio. A notable
exception, though.)

>
> It's a shame the movie was so awful, the comic was an often
> quite funny satire.

And the character apparently appeared on occasion in Guardians
comics.

[1] A tragic story

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/08/03/bill-mantlo-co-creator-of-
rocket-raccoon-gets-a-private-viewing-of-guardians-of-the-galaxy-
courtesy-of-marvel/

http://tinyurl.com/of4qq65

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

hamis...@gmail.com wrote in
news:8c12d186-8f1c-465d...@googlegroups.com:

I can't help but wonder about the economics of that.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote in
news:0beku99i0ijehd76h...@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 05:42:52 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"
> <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 15:44:40 -0700, JRStern
>><JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote in
>><news:8ghiu9haeouof024f...@4ax.com> in
>>rec.arts.sf.written:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>> I think the idea is (a) make it not suck, and then (b)
>>> have it as much like the book as possible. If Peter
>>> Jackson could get it done (not that I didn't have many
>>> quibbles some major) on LOTR, [...]
>>
>>Perhaps he could have done, but he didn�t.
>>
>>Brian
>
> So what's your beef?
>

In cutting the Scouring of the Shire, they changed the basic story
from that of the Hobbits "growing up" to being about the Ring War,
which is a completely different story. A very well done story, mind
you, and obviously related, but not the same story as the books.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote in

news:lsdfld$4dt$1...@dont-email.me:

It has a cult following on that basis. It's not as awful/funny as,
say, The Barbarian Brothers, or Ator: The Fighting Eagle, but it's
a classic of that genre.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 09:02:25 -0700, JRStern
<JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote in
<news:0beku99i0ijehd76h...@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

> On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 05:42:52 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"
> <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

>>On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 15:44:40 -0700, JRStern
>><JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote in
>><news:8ghiu9haeouof024f...@4ax.com> in
>>rec.arts.sf.written:

>>[...]

>>> I think the idea is (a) make it not suck, and then (b)
>>> have it as much like the book as possible. If Peter
>>> Jackson could get it done (not that I didn't have many
>>> quibbles some major) on LOTR, [...]

>> Perhaps he could have done, but he didn’'t.

> So what's your beef?

> My biggest beef is he raped the Aragorn character,
> squeezed him into a Hollywood redemption story (which I
> think few viewers even noticed) instead of an epic hero
> story.

Precisely. And you can extend that to most of the
characters, albeit in different degrees. Since I’m a very
character-centred reader, significantly changing the
characters is pretty much the kiss of death.

I also think that omitting the scouring of the Shire does
violence to the thematic structure of the story, though I
can understand why a director would do it.

[...]

[JRStern]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 13:19:00 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"

<b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 09:02:25 -0700, JRStern
><JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote in
><news:0beku99i0ijehd76h...@4ax.com> in
>rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 05:42:52 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"
>> <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>>>On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 15:44:40 -0700, JRStern
>>><JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote in
>>><news:8ghiu9haeouof024f...@4ax.com> in
>>>rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>>>[...]
>
>>>> I think the idea is (a) make it not suck, and then (b)
>>>> have it as much like the book as possible. If Peter
>>>> Jackson could get it done (not that I didn't have many
>>>> quibbles some major) on LOTR, [...]
>

>>> Perhaps he could have done, but he didn?'t.

>
>> So what's your beef?
>
>> My biggest beef is he raped the Aragorn character,
>> squeezed him into a Hollywood redemption story (which I
>> think few viewers even noticed) instead of an epic hero
>> story.
>
>Precisely. And you can extend that to most of the
>characters, albeit in different degrees. Since I�m a very
>character-centred reader, significantly changing the
>characters is pretty much the kiss of death.

He differentiated the characters a bit more than the book so they
weren't all quite so noble all the time, and he filled in a lot of
moment to moment characterization that a movie needs and a novel
omits. I'd have done this or that a bit differently, but I can think
of very little characterization that he got wrong - other than Aragorn
and Faramir. I also wasn't wild about Treebeard, but it was passable.
I thought he enhanced Merry and Pippen and it worked. His version of
Denethor didn't quite meet my mental image or maybe Tolkien's, but it
worked. Gandalf was 99% spot on. Frodo was, oh, 90%. Sam was
somewhat enhanced, to the good. Gollum was enhanced greatly, and it
mostly worked. Arwen, oh, well, passable, and if her part was
expanded, at least Jackson pulled back on even further expansions.
Galadriel, very good.

>I also think that omitting the scouring of the Shire does
>violence to the thematic structure of the story, though I
>can understand why a director would do it.

Well, time, mostly, he would have needed a fourth movie to pick up the
new themes of unwinding and redemption and loss, and who would want to
see it? Even with some good action and Saruman's proper end.

(of course he could have cut about ten minute of falling brickwork in
Moria, and the whole warg rider bit and Aragorn's magic horse, ... but
I'm not sure that would do it, anyway those were in previous episodes)

As for what we wanted to see, Bombadil hey right, and Peter Jackson
could well have played the part, maybe. And other scenes he did film
and put on the DVD but had to cut either because they didn't fit or
didn't work and he probably just ran out of revision time. Heck even
Tolkien had to take stuff out and jam it into the appendices.

I'm also not sure just how well anyone could follow any of the movie
if they had NOT read the books, in fact did not have the books pretty
nearly memorized. But I'm giving him something of a pass on that,
too.

J.


>
>[...]
>
>Brian

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2014-08-12 16:36:32 +0000, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

<taus...@gmail.com> said:

> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote in
> news:lsbrld$apv$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 2014-08-11 23:34:24 +0000, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>> <taus...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote in
>>> news:lsbjo6$te7$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>

>>>> I think you'd like GUARDIANS a lot. It's a big, splashy space
>>>> opera. With jokes. Aside from the fact that the heroes are
>>>> anything but incorruptible (or at least they think they are),
>>>> I think it'd warm any E.E. Doc Smith fan's heart -- the
>>>> settings, the exotica, the power-items, the battles...
>>>
>>> Yeah, I can see that element to it. But I stand by the
>>> statement that it's a mistake to think of it as a superhero
>>> movie rather than an action movie.
>>
>> Yeah, they're not superheroes, at least not conventionally.
>
> Neither is Batman, but the Dark Knight movies are still superhero
> movies.

I wouldn't agree that Batman isn't a superhero -- he's one of the
foundational characters that the term was coined (or repurposed) to
describe -- but I got tired of arguments about the definition of the
term years ago.

But with the single exception of Peter Quill having a codename (which
is treated more like a nickname in the movie), the Guardians have
virtually no superhero trappings -- they're the classic rag-tag band of
misfits.

[Greg Goss]

He's disturbed by his mental image of what Hollywood would do to it.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Kurt Busiek]

Probably not merely "Hollywood," but "the Sci-Fi Channel." Er, Syfy.

The idea that the creative minds that brought you SHARKNADO are
qualified to adapt Heinlein is a little shudder-inducing.

On the other hand, if they do a good job with GHOST BRIGADES, that'd be
a much better sign -- but using SHARKNADO as some kind of qualification
-- if they're capable of that, surely they're capable of this? It
doesn't seem to follow.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
news:p7wqxkc90f4a.r...@40tude.net:

It helps if you think of it as a completely different story that
happens to use the same names. (This is true of virtually *all*
movies based on books.)

>
> I also think that omitting the scouring of the Shire does
> violence to the thematic structure of the story, though I
> can understand why a director would do it.
>

I understand why. It's not a complimentary comment on Jackson, but
I understand *why*.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote in
news:ctjku91v71dug0vlb...@4ax.com:

> Well, time, mostly, he would have needed a fourth movie to pick
> up the new themes of unwinding and redemption and loss, and who
> would want to see it?

Yeah, that's why he's keeping The Hobbit short and sweet, with
nothing new added.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote in

news:lsdkg8$ccn$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 2014-08-12 16:36:32 +0000, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <taus...@gmail.com> said:
>
>> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote in
>> news:lsbrld$apv$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> On 2014-08-11 23:34:24 +0000, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>>> <taus...@gmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote in
>>>> news:lsbjo6$te7$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>>
>>>>> I think you'd like GUARDIANS a lot. It's a big, splashy
>>>>> space opera. With jokes. Aside from the fact that the heroes
>>>>> are anything but incorruptible (or at least they think they
>>>>> are), I think it'd warm any E.E. Doc Smith fan's heart --
>>>>> the settings, the exotica, the power-items, the battles...
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I can see that element to it. But I stand by the
>>>> statement that it's a mistake to think of it as a superhero
>>>> movie rather than an action movie.
>>>
>>> Yeah, they're not superheroes, at least not conventionally.
>>
>> Neither is Batman, but the Dark Knight movies are still
>> superhero movies.
>
> I wouldn't agree that Batman isn't a superhero -- he's one of
> the foundational characters that the term was coined (or
> repurposed) to describe -- but I got tired of arguments about
> the definition of the term years ago.

He's as much a superhero as the Guardians are.

>
> But with the single exception of Peter Quill having a codename
> (which is treated more like a nickname in the movie), the
> Guardians have virtually no superhero trappings -- they're the
> classic rag-tag band of misfits.

Other than the surgically altered assassin(s), the genetically
modiefied racoon, the tree that - literally - defies the laws of
physics with enough leveral to toss, what, a dozen or more guys
back and forth in a corridor hard enough to kill everyone else,
etc., yeah, sure, they're all just ordinary guys.

Batman's gadgets are no more superheroic than the technology the
Guardians use.

The real difference, though, isn't the characters. It's the
structure of the movie, the way the scenes are built and put
together. The Dark Knight stuff is built as a superhero movie,
Guardians is built as an action movie. That's the difference you're
seeing, and it's the difference I'm talking about. It tastes like

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
news:c4v3ap...@mid.individual.net:

That applies to all movies, whether based on a book or not.

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2014-08-12 18:32:13 +0000, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

I wouldn't agree, no.

>> But with the single exception of Peter Quill having a codename
>> (which is treated more like a nickname in the movie), the
>> Guardians have virtually no superhero trappings -- they're the
>> classic rag-tag band of misfits.
>
> Other than the surgically altered assassin(s), the genetically
> modiefied racoon, the tree that - literally - defies the laws of
> physics with enough leveral to toss, what, a dozen or more guys
> back and forth in a corridor hard enough to kill everyone else,
> etc., yeah, sure, they're all just ordinary guys.

By that yardstick, Tars Tarkas and Chewbacca are superheroes.

> Batman's gadgets are no more superheroic than the technology the
> Guardians use.

You seem to be focusing on the idea that "superhero" means
"superhuman." But it never has. Some superheroes are superhuman, many
aren't. Some superhuman characters are superheroes, many aren't.

> The real difference, though, isn't the characters. It's the
> structure of the movie, the way the scenes are built and put
> together. The Dark Knight stuff is built as a superhero movie,
> Guardians is built as an action movie. That's the difference you're
> seeing, and it's the difference I'm talking about. It tastes like
> an action movie.

You seem to strongly want to disagree about something we actually seem
to agree on.

Neither of us think it's a superhero movie. I think it's space opera,
you say it's an action movie. The two aren't remotely mutually
exclusive.

[David DeLaney]

On 2014-08-12, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
> The idea that the creative minds that brought you SHARKNADO are
> qualified to adapt Heinlein is a little shudder-inducing.

Oh, it's worse than that; recently there was a SHARKNADO 2.

Srsly. It has ads sitting on Subway's tables right now. (Which I'm not too
sure what the ads are FOR, since it was a straight-to-TV movie as far as I
know...)

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "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.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote in

news:lsdn42$v8$1...@dont-email.me:

Clearly.

>
>>> But with the single exception of Peter Quill having a codename
>>> (which is treated more like a nickname in the movie), the
>>> Guardians have virtually no superhero trappings -- they're the
>>> classic rag-tag band of misfits.
>>
>> Other than the surgically altered assassin(s), the genetically
>> modiefied racoon, the tree that - literally - defies the laws
>> of physics with enough leveral to toss, what, a dozen or more
>> guys back and forth in a corridor hard enough to kill everyone
>> else, etc., yeah, sure, they're all just ordinary guys.
>
> By that yardstick, Tars Tarkas and Chewbacca are superheroes.

Arguably, yes. Again, the difference bewtween superheroes and
action heroes isn't in the heroes, it's in the way the story is
told.

>
>> Batman's gadgets are no more superheroic than the technology
>> the Guardians use.
>
> You seem to be focusing on the idea that "superhero" means
> "superhuman." But it never has. Some superheroes are superhuman,
> many aren't. Some superhuman characters are superheroes, many
> aren't.
>
>> The real difference, though, isn't the characters. It's the
>> structure of the movie, the way the scenes are built and put
>> together. The Dark Knight stuff is built as a superhero movie,
>> Guardians is built as an action movie. That's the difference
>> you're seeing, and it's the difference I'm talking about. It
>> tastes like an action movie.
>
> You seem to strongly want to disagree about something we
> actually seem to agree on.

You're the one disagreeing. You said so, up above.

>
> Neither of us think it's a superhero movie. I think it's space
> opera, you say it's an action movie. The two aren't remotely
> mutually exclusive.

One is setting, the other is storytelling style, so they aer not
actually related.

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2014-08-12 19:22:05 +0000, David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> said:

> On 2014-08-12, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
>> The idea that the creative minds that brought you SHARKNADO are
>> qualified to adapt Heinlein is a little shudder-inducing.
>
> Oh, it's worse than that; recently there was a SHARKNADO 2.

I'm not sure that make them any less qualified to adapt Heinlein. Is it
possible to dig through the bottom of the barrel?

> Srsly. It has ads sitting on Subway's tables right now. (Which I'm not too
> sure what the ads are FOR, since it was a straight-to-TV movie as far as I
> know...)

Even TV movies live on, in our brave new world.

You can watch it on various online services, and it's even playing
theaters for one night in late August sometime.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:2rqdnVIIC73A9HfO...@earthlink.com:

> On 2014-08-12, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
>> The idea that the creative minds that brought you SHARKNADO are
>> qualified to adapt Heinlein is a little shudder-inducing.
>
> Oh, it's worse than that; recently there was a SHARKNADO 2.

3 was announced at ComicCon a few weeks ago. Contracts have been
signed. Actors with recognizable names (including Harry Potter
himself) are competing for cameos.

>
> Srsly. It has ads sitting on Subway's tables right now. (Which
> I'm not too sure what the ads are FOR, since it was a
> straight-to-TV movie as far as I know...)
>

The first one was, too, but it later had a theatric al release.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote in

news:lsds65$8p6$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 2014-08-12 19:22:05 +0000, David DeLaney
> <davidd...@earthlink.net> said:
>
>> On 2014-08-12, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
>>> The idea that the creative minds that brought you SHARKNADO
>>> are qualified to adapt Heinlein is a little shudder-inducing.
>>
>> Oh, it's worse than that; recently there was a SHARKNADO 2.
>
> I'm not sure that make them any less qualified to adapt
> Heinlein. Is it possible to dig through the bottom of the
> barrel?

Sharknado isn't even close to the bottom of the barrel. Ask Seawasp
about Alien Apocalypse if you don't believe me.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 12 August 2014 21:07:02 UTC+1, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote in
> news:lsdn42$v8$1...@dont-email.me:
> > On 2014-08-12 18:32:13 +0000, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> > <taus...@gmail.com> said:
> >> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote in
> >> news:lsdkg8$ccn$1...@dont-email.me:

> >>> But with the single exception of Peter Quill having a codename
> >>> (which is treated more like a nickname in the movie),

I think the comics are currently treating it as an
aristocratic title, possibly invented for him,
and, yes, also used sarcastically.

> >>> the Guardians have virtually no superhero trappings -- they're
> >>> the classic rag-tag band of misfits.
> >>
> >> Other than the surgically altered assassin(s), the genetically
> >> modiefied racoon, the tree that - literally - defies the laws
> >> of physics with enough leveral to toss, what, a dozen or more
> >> guys back and forth in a corridor hard enough to kill everyone
> >> else, etc., yeah, sure, they're all just ordinary guys.
> >
> > By that yardstick, Tars Tarkas and Chewbacca are superheroes.
>
> Arguably, yes. Again, the difference bewtween superheroes and
> action heroes isn't in the heroes, it's in the way the story is
> told.

Well - here there's a valid distinction between superhuman
abilities - given that the audience are non-super human beings -
and merely a high standard of human athletic or intellectual
performance (Batman), but often portrayed as unreasonably
successful as well. (Also, Batman wears Iron Man armour
sometimes.)

And of course the "hero" angle. I haven't seen this feature
but I gather that the team aren't initially cast as heroes
in the role-model sense, but as either fighting the bad guys
to save their own skins, or as finding that if they don't
save the world then no one will so they step up? But then -
Spider-Man first used his powers to become a selfish jerk.

As for Tars Tarkas, Chewbacca, and Groot - they're basically
giants, aren't they. So, superhuman.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
news:d602751d-6a08-42a3...@googlegroups.com:

Indeed. That isn't the disctinction I'm talking about, and neither
is Kurt.

>
> And of course the "hero" angle. I haven't seen this feature
> but I gather that the team aren't initially cast as heroes
> in the role-model sense, but as either fighting the bad guys
> to save their own skins, or as finding that if they don't
> save the world then no one will so they step up? But then -
> Spider-Man first used his powers to become a selfish jerk.

Hero as a better known word than protagonist, yeah. They're not
really anti-heroes, but they're most like that than traditional
heroic heroes. But mostly, they're just protagonists.

>
> As for Tars Tarkas, Chewbacca, and Groot - they're basically
> giants, aren't they. So, superhuman.
>

The Tars Tarkas of the original books isn't exactly all that
superhuman - Carter kills one green martian with a punch, as I
recall. Chewbacca is a fantasy character, and frankly, less
superhuman than Luke, so, whatever. What Groot does in the scene in
the corridor is simply goofy superhero physics stuff, though, yeah.
If I didn't know better, I'd think they'd painted themselves in to
a corner and cheated to get out because they needed to cut xx
minutes of fight scene out to keep the run time down.

[JRStern]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 11:28:40 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote in
>news:ctjku91v71dug0vlb...@4ax.com:
>
>> Well, time, mostly, he would have needed a fourth movie to pick
>> up the new themes of unwinding and redemption and loss, and who
>> would want to see it?
>
>Yeah, that's why he's keeping The Hobbit short and sweet, with
>nothing new added.

Well I wasn't defending those ... at all ...

Any redemption on these will have to come in the creative act of
filling in what Tolkien never wrote about the Necromancer, and I'm not
optimistic.

J.

[Kurt Busiek]

Once they're done counting the take from THE HOBBIT 3, and want to know
where their next billion is coming from, maybe they'll do THE SCOURING
OF THE SHIRE.

As a trilogy, of course.

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 2:41:12 AM UTC+10, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> hamis...@gmail.com wrote in
> news:8c12d186-8f1c-465d...@googlegroups.com:
> > On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 4:04:45 AM UTC+10, Shawn Wilson
> > wrote:
> >> What I would love to see is the SciFi channel making some more
> >> obscure (but quality) SF novels into movies. If they can make
> >> 'Sharknado' they can damn well make 'Have Spacesuit, Will
> >> Travel'.
>
> > Shawn, this idea is sufficient grounds to throw you out an
> > airlock...
>
> I can't help but wonder about the economics of that.
>

Terry, as we've repeatedly been told all decisions are correct economic choices otherwise people wouldn't have made them...

(besides, I'd feel I'd done major disservice to the consumers if he was sold as minced pork)

[Robert Carnegie]

So this Kickstarter to "Send Shawn to 'The 20,000 Leagues
Under The Sea Experience'" is actually......? :-)

[Greg Goss]

David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 2014-08-12, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
>> The idea that the creative minds that brought you SHARKNADO are
>> qualified to adapt Heinlein is a little shudder-inducing.
>
>Oh, it's worse than that; recently there was a SHARKNADO 2.
>
>Srsly. It has ads sitting on Subway's tables right now. (Which I'm not too
>sure what the ads are FOR, since it was a straight-to-TV movie as far as I
>know...)

All the reviews I've seen say that #2 is vastly superior than the
original.

[JRStern]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 16:57:49 -0700, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com>
wrote:

With product placement for Mr. Clean.

J.

[T Guy]

On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 5:33:49 PM UTC+1, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> The movie was so awful that it was funny.

Art first, I thought you were talking about LotR. Then I realised that, no, it's tGotG. Then I realised that it was Howard the Duck.

[T Guy]

On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 7:41:06 PM UTC+1, Kurt Busiek wrote:
> On 2014-08-12 18:32:13 +0000, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>

[snippage]

>
> You seem to strongly want to disagree about something we actually seem
> to agree on.

Did you forget with whom you were talking?

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 8/12/2014 1:07 PM, Kurt Busiek wrote:
> On 2014-08-12 19:22:05 +0000, David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net>
> said:
>
>> On 2014-08-12, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
>>> The idea that the creative minds that brought you SHARKNADO are
>>> qualified to adapt Heinlein is a little shudder-inducing.
>>
>> Oh, it's worse than that; recently there was a SHARKNADO 2.
>
> I'm not sure that make them any less qualified to adapt Heinlein. Is it
> possible to dig through the bottom of the barrel?
>

I dunno but I'm guessing the recently announced Sharknado 3 will bite
its way thru the bottom of the barrel. :D


--
"The Snark must flow!" - Shaddam Emperor Animfsk the 8th

[Dimensional Traveler]

'The Silmarillion' decalogy.

[Dimensional Traveler]

I'd shift some of the blame away from Syfy and onto the studio that
produces the majority of those cheap "Saturday Night Special" movies,
Asylum. They'd been making two week, penny budget "sci-fi" movies for
years before Syfy became their best customer.

But I agree that I wouldn't want Asylum touching any movie I actually
wanted to be good.

[Joseph Nebus]

In <lsdlc5$jgf$1...@dont-email.me> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> writes:

>The idea that the creative minds that brought you SHARKNADO are
>qualified to adapt Heinlein is a little shudder-inducing.

>On the other hand, if they do a good job with GHOST BRIGADES, that'd be
>a much better sign -- but using SHARKNADO as some kind of qualification
>-- if they're capable of that, surely they're capable of this? It
>doesn't seem to follow.

I don't know; I did see (most of) Sharknado at a con have to
say it's really quite entertaining. Yes, it's bad, but it's the sort
of delightful bad. I know the story is they did it bad on purpose,
but that makes it kind of more impressive: being deliberately cheesey
without coming across as desperate and sad is actually a pretty tough
tone to nail.

--
http://nebusresearch.wordpress.com/ Joseph Nebus
Latest: In the Overlap of Logic, Fun, and Information http://wp.me/p1RYhY-BQ
--------------------------------------------------------+---------------------

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in
news:53eae169$0$52799$742e...@news.sonic.net:

TV series. By the time they get to it, the movie franchise will be
winding down, but a five year TV series will set the stage for the
next round.