On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:32:40 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:13:46 +0000, Aratzio wrote: > >> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:37:15 -0400, in >> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG> >> bloviated: >> >>>so, im watching teevee last night. and "I, Robot" is on. how did i >>>miss this when it came out?? >> >> Good taste? Common sense? Read the book? > >The book is of course and deservedly a classic. > >Which is why I religiously avoid the movie. > >I don't like other people imposing their ideas of how something lit'ry >looks or sounds on me: That doesn't have anything to do with "I Robot", though because "I Robot" the movie is not an adaptation of either of the two written works by that title. I don't even like illustrations in books, although >occasionally-- rarely-- a set of illustrations is sufficient of a work of >art in its own right to at least not be a liability to my taste for the >edition. > >And it's about that frequently that a movie will be even as good as, let >alone better than, the book, to my taste-- two classic examples to me >being _A Clockwork Orange_ ("as good as", in its own way) and _Blade >Runner_ ("better than", ditto, _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_, I'd rather have seen an adaptation of "Blade Runner" the novel, though.,
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 04:59:07 +0000, David Johnston wrote: > On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:32:40 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >>On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:13:46 +0000, Aratzio wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:37:15 -0400, in >>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG> >>> bloviated: >>> >>>>so, im watching teevee last night. and "I, Robot" is on. how did i >>>>miss this when it came out?? >>> >>> Good taste? Common sense? Read the book? >> >>The book is of course and deservedly a classic. >> >>Which is why I religiously avoid the movie. >> >>I don't like other people imposing their ideas of how something lit'ry >>looks or sounds on me: > > That doesn't have anything to do with "I Robot", though because "I > Robot" the movie is not an adaptation of either of the two written > works by that title. Still sounds icky. Although Dave seems to've liked it. Oh, well, maybe a piece of it will hook me while channel-surfing some time or other. > I don't even like illustrations in books, although >>occasionally-- rarely-- a set of illustrations is sufficient of a work >>of art in its own right to at least not be a liability to my taste for >>the edition. >> >>And it's about that frequently that a movie will be even as good as, let >>alone better than, the book, to my taste-- two classic examples to me >>being _A Clockwork Orange_ ("as good as", in its own way) and _Blade >>Runner_ ("better than", ditto, _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_, > > I'd rather have seen an adaptation of "Blade Runner" the novel, though., They have someone do a straight novelization? LOL I mean, OK, I liked the movie better, but still--! Come to think of it, the same thing was done with _2001_ . . . . And one of the few unamusing things I've read by Ron Goulart was his all too straight novelization of _Capricorn One_, perfectly readable, perfectly competent, no doubt perfectly well-paid, but by no means what I think of as "Goulart" . . . . -- tinmimus99@hotmail.com smeeter 11 or maybe 12 mp 10 mhm 29x13 Since when is a mechanical cow an act of God? < Goulart
mimus wrote: > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 04:59:07 +0000, David Johnston wrote: > > I'd rather have seen an adaptation of "Blade Runner" the novel, though., > > They have someone do a straight novelization? LOL I believe David is talking about Nourse's THE BLADERUNNER, the title of which was licensed for BLADE RUNNER (even though BLADE RUNNER'S plot is entirely based on Dick's DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP?). > Come to think of it, the same thing was done with _2001_ . . . . Not exactly, because the book 2001 was developed simultaneously with the screenplay and the movie, not independently as a novelization. I still think they should have gotten Terry Brooks to do the novelization of Peter Jackson's THE LORD OF THE RINGS, but that's because I'm easily amused. -- Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 05:26:31 -0000, Justin Alexander <justin@thealexandrian.net> wrote: >I still think they should have gotten Terry Brooks to do the >novelization of Peter Jackson's THE LORD OF THE RINGS, but that's >because I'm easily amused. It could still happen. Jasper
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 05:26:31 +0000, Justin Alexander wrote: > mimus wrote: > >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 04:59:07 +0000, David Johnston wrote: >> > I'd rather have seen an adaptation of "Blade Runner" the novel, though., >> >> They have someone do a straight novelization? LOL > > I believe David is talking about Nourse's THE BLADERUNNER, the title > of which was licensed for BLADE RUNNER (even though BLADE RUNNER'S > plot is entirely based on Dick's DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC > SHEEP?). I thought I'd read-- if indeed it's not a credit in the movie-- that William Burroughs suggested the title . . . . -- tinmimus99@hotmail.com smeeter 11 or maybe 12 mp 10 mhm 29x13 I wonder what I have been up to. < _Beyond Apollo_
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 01:15:44 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 04:59:07 +0000, David Johnston wrote: > >> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:32:40 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:13:46 +0000, Aratzio wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:37:15 -0400, in >>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG> >>>> bloviated: >>>> >>>>>so, im watching teevee last night. and "I, Robot" is on. how did i >>>>>miss this when it came out?? >>>> >>>> Good taste? Common sense? Read the book? >>> >>>The book is of course and deservedly a classic. >>> >>>Which is why I religiously avoid the movie. >>> >>>I don't like other people imposing their ideas of how something lit'ry >>>looks or sounds on me: >> >> That doesn't have anything to do with "I Robot", though because "I >> Robot" the movie is not an adaptation of either of the two written >> works by that title. > >Still sounds icky. > >Although Dave seems to've liked it. > >Oh, well, maybe a piece of it will hook me while channel-surfing some time >or other. > >> I don't even like illustrations in books, although >>>occasionally-- rarely-- a set of illustrations is sufficient of a work >>>of art in its own right to at least not be a liability to my taste for >>>the edition. >>> >>>And it's about that frequently that a movie will be even as good as, let >>>alone better than, the book, to my taste-- two classic examples to me >>>being _A Clockwork Orange_ ("as good as", in its own way) and _Blade >>>Runner_ ("better than", ditto, _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_, >> >> I'd rather have seen an adaptation of "Blade Runner" the novel, though., > >They have someone do a straight novelization? LOL Um...no. At least that isn't what I was talking about. I'm talking about the novel by Alan E. Nourse author of medical science fiction, about a smuggler of medical supplies to unlicensed doctors serving the uninsured poor (who have refused to be sterilised in return for free legal medical care). It has all the ingredients of a Hollywood blockbuster with a bit of massaging, including excuses for chase scenes, a future near enough that you can film among modern day buildings, and an outlaw hero who saves everyone from catastrophe. It even had a good title that would play well with movie audiences. However, the title of "Bladerunner" was optioned by and used in place of Do Androids...because the latter title was a crappy title for a movie. Even though Bladerunner made no sense as a title for a movie in which no edged weapons or tools ever appear, it sounded cool and that was enough. It's similar to "I, Robot" in that regard. Originally the title of a short story written from the point of view of a robot, it was then reused by Asimov's publishers as a title for their compilation of Asimov's short stories which weren't written from the point of view of a robot. Later a movie which had the working title of "Hardwired" turned out to be so heavily based on the intellectual property of Asimov's estate (the three laws) that if it was filmed as things stood, they would be sued. Therefore they had to option something by Asimov not to get their butts sued off, and having paid for the title, the suits figured they might as well get their money's worth out of it.
Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote: >Justin Alexander <justin@thealexandrian.net> wrote: >>I still think they should have gotten Terry Brooks to do the >>novelization of Peter Jackson's THE LORD OF THE RINGS, but that's >>because I'm easily amused. > >It could still happen. After some neurons crossed, now I want to read Terry Pratchett's novelization of it. Dave -- \/David DeLaney posting from dbd@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.
