HBs, CTs, Deniers, Alien Apologists...

[smartcooky]

Last movie I watched in a theater was "The Hunt for Red October"

Book are better than movies, IMHO.

The last movie I watched in the theatre (as far as sci-fi and having already read the book goes) was Carl Sagan's "Contact".

WARNING: HEREAFTER BE SPOILERS!!!

While it varied from the book in a few important (and some not so important) aspects, I was satisfied enough that Robert Zemeckis got it as close as he could have without some naff background explanations. For example, the "message hidden in the value of pi*" would have been a very difficult concept to get across to the public in a film (it was hard enough getting it across in the book) because it implies that the aliens were not only ancient, but that they created the physical laws of the universe, and therefore, the universe itself.

ETA: Just thinking about that, I still think that for the most part, movie directors, producers and studio executives often seriously underestimate the movie going public's capacity to understand complicated concepts. Blade Runner (based on Philip K. Dick's superb "Do Androids Dream of Electri Sheep") is a great example of where studio executives interfered in a movie in an effort to dumb it down, only for their interference to have the opposite effect.

[Tedward]

Usually I equate a  "film based on the book" (in a very deep basso voice gargling gravel), these films, to a story that might have some connection. Some more than others. 2001 is one that was written in conjunction but even then there were differences.

Starship Troopers film, I had no idea that that was a book and it led me to read it. What a difference, and "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" same again, though in both cases I enjoyed both versions but for different reasons.

But until I read this thread, I had never heard of that Heinlein quote.

Now, Forever War, that would be a good rip off.

[mako88sb]

A lot can be done with practical effects. Just look at the powered exoskeleton forklift used in "Aliens".

Imperial Storm troopers too.

The power armour of the Mobile Infantry was described looking like a steel "hydrocephalic gorilla" as well as flying, or at least jumping, with style, and don't forget the drop pods! I love practical effects too, and I would love seen them for certain shots, buuut I think CGI would have to do some heavy lifting, no pun intended but accepted with glee.

Starship Troopers 3 has something approaching what I had visioned the power armor to be. Pretty brief appearance near the end of the movie though. Not as bad as the 2nd one.

[Obviousman]

That's why I thought the message was corrupted. For example, "the hump". I don't think that was even mentioned. Anyone who has been turn from a civilian to a military person has gone through that.

Another thing were the "federal" messages in the movie; they sounded... fascist? Heinlein would have been rolling in his grave so rapidly it is a surprise that someone didn't try to run a dynamo off of him.

There is no doubt in my mind the society in the book was highly authoritarian and probably totalitarian.  Fascist?  The massive xenophobia and militarism certainly points that way. 

That's interesting because I didn't take it that way. I'd like to take this further and discuss why we see the same thing in different ways. If I start another thread on it, would you like to discuss it?

[Obviousman]

Last movie I watched in a theater was "The Hunt for Red October"

Book are better than movies, IMHO.

The last movie I watched in the theatre (as far as sci-fi and having already read the book goes) was Carl Sagan's "Contact".

WARNING: HEREAFTER BE SPOILERS!!!

While it varied from the book in a few important (and some not so important) aspects, I was satisfied enough that Robert Zemeckis got it as close as he could have without some naff background explanations. For example, the "message hidden in the value of pi*" would have been a very difficult concept to get across to the public in a film (it was hard enough getting it across in the book) because it implies that the aliens were not only ancient, but that they created the physical laws of the universe, and therefore, the universe itself.

ETA: Just thinking about that, I still think that for the most part, movie directors, producers and studio executives often seriously underestimate the movie going public's capacity to understand complicated concepts. Blade Runner (based on Philip K. Dick's superb "Do Androids Dream of Electri Sheep") is a great example of where studio executives interfered in a movie in an effort to dumb it down, only for their interference to have the opposite effect.

I have pretty much always enjoyed books more compared to movies.

Re: Contact. I thought reducing it from the five (?) people down to one removed something; when there were multiple people reporting similar experiences you could at least say that it is unlikely to be a lie, especially the varied composition of the crew.

[Obviousman]

Now, Forever War, that would be a good rip off.

I would love to see that as a movie. Could they do it?

Likewise the Foundation series.... though that would have to be done as a mini-series or the like. Far too much too fit into a single movie.

[LunarOrbit]

Re: Contact. I thought reducing it from the five (?) people down to one removed something; when there were multiple people reporting similar experiences you could at least say that it is unlikely to be a lie, especially the varied composition of the crew.

That's exactly why I enjoyed the movie more. If five people had similar experiences then where is the mystery? Why would people doubt them? With the movie, even the audience doubted Ellie... right up until the moment that it is revealed that her camera recorded 18 minutes of static.

[gillianren]

I like both books and movies on different levels.  I think there is very much such thing as a bad adaptation of a book, and I think there's definitely such thing as an unfilmable book!  However, I don't think there's anything particularly admirable about not liking movies.

[Zakalwe]

I think that I've only ever seen two films that were better than the books- The Deer Hunter and Fight Club. FC, in particular, is a thin little book that can be read in an afternoon. The Deer Hunter is similar- the film is, IMHO, better.

With a book you are using your own imagination. With a film, you are relying on someone else's.

[raven]

Hmm, as for movies better than the books. The Godfather? Part 1 & 2, at least. Remember the sex scene at the start? That woman gets a whole big sub-plot about how her vagina and vulva are too loose to enjoy sex most of the time.
Ben-Hur may also be an example of 'movie better', though I've never read the book.

[gillianren]

The book of Ben-Hur is fairly silly, but the movie is as well. (Both of them; I've actually seen the original silent version.)  I maintain that the movie of The Lost World is better, because the book is dreadful, whereas the movie is merely mediocre.  Still, I enjoy movies and I don't mind admitting it.  It's a different kind of art and a different kind of entertainment from reading, but so what?

http://www.the-solute.com/extraordinary-people-do-what-they-love/

[Luke Pemberton]

The book of Ben-Hur is fairly silly, but the movie is as well. (Both of them; I've actually seen the original silent version.)  I maintain that the movie of The Lost World is better, because the book is dreadful, whereas the movie is merely mediocre.  Still, I enjoy movies and I don't mind admitting it.  It's a different kind of art and a different kind of entertainment from reading, but so what?

You might add to this short list of one, but did Nero take part in chariot races? I'm fairly sure I overheard this on the TV the other night when those in the front room were watching TV.

[gillianren]

I don't think he actually took part, but he was certainly a fan despite the fact that they were considered low-class entertainment at the time.

[Al Johnston]

Apparently he had a brief (and nearly fatal) driving career in the 67 Olympic Games...

[mako88sb]

Re: Contact. I thought reducing it from the five (?) people down to one removed something; when there were multiple people reporting similar experiences you could at least say that it is unlikely to be a lie, especially the varied composition of the crew.

That's exactly why I enjoyed the movie more. If five people had similar experiences then where is the mystery? Why would people doubt them? With the movie, even the audience doubted Ellie... right up until the moment that it is revealed that her camera recorded 18 minutes of static.

Small correction. It was 18 hours, not mins of static.