Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   How 'Star Wars' ruined sci-fi   (cnn.com) divider line 176
    More: Obvious, Star Wars, MacArthur Foundation, Forever War, Francois Truffaut, Episode VII, The Big Book of  
•       •       •

6025 clicks; posted to Geek » on 03 May 2014 at 2:07 PM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



176 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-03 07:35:24 PM  

kroonermanblack: Mad_Radhu: Mad_Radhu: 2wolves: Any story that uses Fate to shape itself is fantasy, not Science Fiction.

Babylon 5 managed to pull of the prophecy thing well, by having a main chapter travel back in time to become Valen, the one who wrote the prophecies.

Also, in Foundation, psychohistory was a sort of a hand of fate that moved the story forward. Especially when it was subverted by the Mule.

Is foundation an episode of Deep space nine, a show, or a novel? Because the word's too vague to google without a qualifier.


Seriously? If you don't know this, you should get out of this thread. "Classic science fiction" for you is probably some TOS fanfic.
 
2014-05-03 07:44:40 PM  

006andahalf: aiiee: ruined sci-fi literature too, most new "hard" sci-fi has lots of battles and one on one fights, drawn out to blow by blow tedium.  It feels like they are writing screenplays for the marching morons, not novels.  I'm looking at you, James Corey.

Same for Fantasy.  Plus unnecessarily graphic sex scenes.  I'm looking at you, George R. R. Martin.

/Never watched the show
//The books made me want to nuke the whole place from orbit.


George Lucas and George RR Martin have very similar creative arcs. They both had a very successful trilogy then proceeded to ruin it by not understanding what made their original works popular.

Lucas thought people like Star Wars for the special effects and the visuals where as really people were into it because it was an interesting, if simplistic, plot with a space battles and memorable characters. The prequels are about rich people who don't want to pay Space Taxes with the Jedi being IRS enforcers. The Emperor is the leader of the TEA Party.

Martin wrote a medieval political thriller with dragons and ice zombies sprinkled on the side for 3 books. He decided for the next two he would write travel diaries, introduce a whole bunch of new zany characters and instead of focusing on how the story progressed he mangled his writing with more and more authentic medieval words like nuncle and sarjeant.

Both sold out to big media companies Disney and HBO respectively who might be able to fix their magnum opuses.
 
2014-05-03 07:50:10 PM  

Any Pie Left: 2001 was never a huge commercial success, or even a moderate one.


LOL...wut? Did you even glance at the link I provided? No? Well then let me set the record straight. From TFA: "...it eventually became the highest grossing picture from 1968 in North America."

Also from TFA: it cost $10.5 million to make and pulled in $190 million. In 2013 dollars that's $1.275 Billion.

Questions?
 
2014-05-03 07:54:44 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: Elegy: kroonermanblack: Is foundation an episode of Deep space nine, a show, or a novel? Because the word's too vague to google without a qualifier.

Set of novels by Isaac Assimov. A very, very long set of novels that everyone hypes as one of the greatest series in sci-fi, but that I personally found trite and rather boring in aggregate.

There were interesting parts, but I felt like I had to wade through too much dross to get to them.

I remember each book being pretty short. And self contained so you don't have to read them all in row. But it's been a while, so I may be wrong.


Good description of the first trilogy.  A few points where it hasn't age well, but pretty good still.  Have not read the stuff after the first 3, so can't tell you what to expect there.
 
2014-05-03 07:54:44 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: Sci fi has been dead since Frank Herbert died.

There i said it


Larry Niven still lives.

/ But he's getting a bit repetitive.
 
2014-05-03 07:57:03 PM  

Elegy: And in terms of movie adaptations:
FFS HOLLYWOOD CAN WE PLEASE GET A MOVIE ADAPTATION OF BUJOLD'S VOR SAGA WITH PETER DINKLAGE CAST AS MILES?


I so want Hollywood to stay the Hell away from Miles.
 
2014-05-03 07:58:42 PM  

studebaker hoch: Faster than light travel and faster than light data transmission.



that's not exactly a star wars exclusive.
 
2014-05-03 08:03:57 PM  

Mike_1962: I'd like to see them make a movie from Niven's "The Mote in God's Eye".


Yes. Ditto "Footfall" - I want to see an Orion take off - even if it's only CGI.

"Ringworld" and its sequels could do with a franchise - lots of rishathra!
 
2014-05-03 08:06:17 PM  
As for Philip K.Dick, his characters always struck me as cartoonish stereotypes, and saying his stories weren't subtle is an understatement. Having said that, obviously he's had an immense influence on SF. So, taste is subjective.
 
2014-05-03 08:13:40 PM  

Any Pie Left: Mote in God's Eye and the sequel would make a great movie... The stuff Niven and Pournelle wrote as a team was always written in a cinematic form, like novelizations of a screenplay. They even list the cast in the book as if it was a film. Adapting those would be easy.

I do NOT want to see Hollywood's take on "Ringworld": they could get the *look* right with modern FX technology, but they would ruin the STORY.


Well first they'd have to do a shiatload of movies & miniseries to get the audience familiar with The Known Universe. Including the Man-Kzin wars. Then bring on Ringworld.
 
2014-05-03 08:15:43 PM  

Fano: Sci fi used to be rocket ships, space babes, and cardboard aliens. piss on anything this guy might say or think.


This.  Picking apart what space adventure with ships and lasers and alien races.... is and isn't sci-fi goes beyond the scope of usefulness.  I know of 2 other schools that do this, techno music and philosophy.

People taking it to that analytical extreme should really just keep it in their own circles of interest.  Ever know a guy with the most boring hobby that drones on and on about it until you want to stab him in the neck?  Yeah, you people are doing that here. Go be an anal retentive elitist elsewhere.
 
2014-05-03 08:16:17 PM  

Wenchmaster: Any Pie Left: Mote in God's Eye and the sequel would make a great movie... The stuff Niven and Pournelle wrote as a team was always written in a cinematic form, like novelizations of a screenplay. They even list the cast in the book as if it was a film. Adapting those would be easy.I do NOT want to see Hollywood's take on "Ringworld": they could get the *look* right with modern FX technology, but they would ruin the STORY.
Protector would be a far better choice than Ringworld, IMO. Better yet- make it a short series on HBO or something similar.
I'd love to see a series made from The Hercules Text by Jack McDevitt.


You're probably right - the rishathra would become the main theme. Pity these things are so expensive to make - someone dedicated enough to remain true to the story wouldn't even approach the level of $$$ needed to make it.

BTW - no love for Blade Runner? There's not much visible science in it - the Voight-Kampff machine is the most obvious piece - but the concept of human-like replicants really made me think. It's a slow film until the chase at the end, but it gives you time to reflect on what the characters say and do.

Films made from Dick's stories aren't generally the blockbuster types - Total Recall being the obvious exception - but they're usually interesting and entertaining.
 
2014-05-03 08:17:58 PM  

almejita: simplicimus: almejita: Anyone remember a sci-fi novel in which there was a third sex? not male or female, but 'Aer'?  Read it as a kid and can't remember the name.

Just a guess, but it sounds like a Ursula Le Guin sort of thing.


Pretty sure that's not it....that name doesn't ring a bell

It's been 30 years since i read it though, i could be wrong


Storm Constantine?

Always hated her.
 
2014-05-03 08:23:21 PM  

mainsail: As for Philip K.Dick, his characters always struck me as cartoonish stereotypes, and saying his stories weren't subtle is an understatement. Having said that, obviously he's had an immense influence on SF. So, taste is subjective.


I was never big on his seemingly drug addled ramblings that some call books, but I did like that.  It's very common in sci-fi actually, to take archetypes and place them in futuristic settings.  Detectives, cops, rugged men, etc.  It gave a lot of them the feel that they were a dying breed, which was actually the subject of The Forever War.

As much as technology changed, mankind's mentality often didn't in those books.  Same wars, same prejudices, same motivations (power, money, sex) etc etc.

Don't do that and you end up going with some Stranger in a Strange land, where it really is about a queer alien that a lot of readers don't identify with.
/*queer, as in strange, ie no homo(phobe)
//If Richard Dawkins can use the term in a lecture, I can too damnit
 
2014-05-03 08:46:43 PM  
Stone Meadow:
 2001 was never a huge commercial success, or even a moderate one.

LOL...wut? Did you even glance at the link I provided? No? Well then let me set the record straight. From TFA: "...it eventually became the highest grossing picture from 1968 in North America."

Also from TFA: it cost $10.5 million to make and pulled in $190 million.good.


Yes, I have a few. Look at this

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=2001.htm

Then look at this:

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=starwars4.htm


And tell me, where are all the millions of 2001 A Space Odyssey toys, happy meals, lunch-boxes, cartoons, spin-offs, etc. ?

If I tell a HAL 900 joke today, or drop a quote from 2001, in general public, the result is likely "huh? (crickets).  But every sentient on the planet for the last 20 years, except in some remote tribes of the Amazon, and the worse corners of North Korea maybe, knows who the fark Darth Vader is... they know him even more so than Mickey Mouse.

    2001 was an outlier; a stand-out in an otherwise moribund market segment full of mostly middling commercial and few critical successes.  SF was considered by hollywood and the critical public to be a lower tier niche genre' between the 50's to the 70's, where the biggest hits were rubber suit monster flicks and b-movie alien invasions.

It was the financial success of Star Wars that got Paramount scrambling to cash in on the SF interest and thus re-start the Star Trek franchise. You can confirm that in a couple of Trek-related history books. It got Disney to bankroll The Black Hole, and to think about Tron.  Between the two of them, the big franchises created the modern SF market, which all the production companies have tried to tap into since.  In fact, it was the success of Star Wars that generated enough interest in SF that MGM producers were able to get a sequel to 2001 made, based on Clark's book sequel, 2010, back in the early 80's. 2010 wasn't great, and it only made about 40 million, but it was entertaining.

Anyway, my only point, and I think it still stands, is that we have as much SF, good, bad, or in-between, as we have today, only because SW and a revived trek franchise created the market, and hollywood doesn't know good from bad, they are a business and they go for what they think  will make the most money at the time.
 
2014-05-03 08:52:07 PM  
There's an element of truth in the author's com[plaint, but there's nothing wrong with good, mindless space opera either. Disney's big mistake in marketing "John Carter of Mars" was not using Burrough's actual title, "A Princess of Mars," a novel to which it was thematically and visually reasonably faithful.

I'm still waiting for Jack Vance's "Planet of Adventure" trilogy, the greatest space opera ever written, to get the cinematic treatment; just as I'm waiting for Disney to do Janacek's opera, "The Cunning Little Vixen," and for Lucas pr Spielberg to do justice to the "Ring of the Nibelung."
 
2014-05-03 08:52:15 PM  
Star Wars is a crappy science fiction movie in the same way M.A.S.H. is a crappy war movie.
 
2014-05-03 09:21:09 PM  
 But here's the thing: George Lucas' creation, basically a blown-up Flash Gordon adventure with better special effects

So, really, Flash Gordon ruined Sci-fi.
 
2014-05-03 09:22:37 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: Sci fi has been dead since Frank Herbert died.

There i said it


Frank Herbert wrote some really interesting ideas in the most boring-ass way possible.

There, I said it.
 
2014-05-03 09:24:55 PM  

sendtodave: But here's the thing: George Lucas' creation, basically a blown-up Flash Gordon adventure with better special effects

So, really, Flash Gordon ruined Sci-fi.


No, Georges Méliès ruined it in 1902 with his gratuitous special effects.
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-05-03 09:32:39 PM  

wandero: Cymbal: I completely disagree. Star Wars is the gateway drug. It's safe enough for your kids to use and get addicted to while they are young. Then they will spend the rest of their lives delving the depths of the harder stuff.

I wish I could agree with that, but I've known too many people for whom the only sf they read or watch is Star Wars: endless, shaky amounts of Star Wars, novels and TV shows and increasingly awful video games, on and on forever.


Ah, but at that point the question is whether in the absence of Star Wars whether they would be reading or watching anything even remotely considered science fiction at all. My vote is for no.
 
2014-05-03 09:41:06 PM  
ITT:

t2.gstatic.com
 
2014-05-03 09:43:30 PM  
The good point that he makes is this: the first two Star Wars films, even when they appropriated past stories and styles, were original and inventive in themselves. Both visually, but even narratively- even if the story was tropey, those tropes had never been combined that way before.

The problem is that they started repeating themselves. Tatooine was never that interesting a setting- it's a desert planet, and as we're told in the first film- a  boring one. ROTJ attempts to backtrack on that, the plot gets messy and loses focus, and then we return to having to deal with a gigantic battle station because if you're building one, you might as well build two, because fark that's lazy writing.

The new trilogy falls into the category of "not even wrong". Nothing that happens, nothing that any of the characters do, makes any sense. There are so many scenes of people just walking and talking and talking and walking and sitting and talking that it's obviously a first draft that never got punched up- it's clear that Lucas at some point decided that trying to have some character development in an action sequence was too difficult, and that character moments must obviously be boring, so we get nothing  but boring character-focused segments which are just talking head scenes where nothing happens, as filler to eat up running time until we get to the next action sequence where lots of big flashy stuff happens, but tells us nothing about the characters. You  can expand on the characters in action sequences- in fact, it's the best time to do so! The extreme moments, those are the parts that tell us what characters are really made of.

Which, as a note, this is basically what Michael Bay does.

And like Michael Bay, they made money. And now the property is owned by a company that is really good at making money. Companies that like to make money don't invent, they don't vary, they just repeat. And repeat. So any new Star Wars films are going to be nothing but rehashes of the previous films.
 
2014-05-03 09:51:14 PM  
George Lucas is a hack and stole starwars from EE doc smith's lensman.

After Lucas ran out of source material, he tried cobbling the prequels together. I still can't forgive him for jar-jar. Or a young Anakin Skywalker who should have been a teenager like Luke.

CSB

I was almost named LUKE SKY (last name walker) by my mom. Thankfully my dad had enough sense to not allow it.

/CSB
 
2014-05-03 10:21:02 PM  

Plant Rights Activist: If this is the thread for voting for the next movie adaptation I'm casting my vote for Hyperion and/or Diamond Age


Ditto on Hyperion, I'd love to see it done right. Not sure how realistic an expectation that is.
 
2014-05-03 10:22:30 PM  
This nice timeline in a wikipedia article more or less backs my claim that Star Wars helped sci-fi more than it hurt sciu-fi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_fiction_films
 
2014-05-03 10:27:55 PM  

Anonymous Bosch: Doktor_Zhivago: Sci fi has been dead since Frank Herbert died.

There i said it

Frank Herbert wrote some really interesting ideas in the most boring-ass way possible.

There, I said it.


I really, really wanted to like the Dune series. But, fak me sideways it was so dull and boring. Nineteen farking pages just to tell us how fat the Baron was. That man needed an editor.
 
2014-05-03 10:29:53 PM  

Anonymous Bosch: wandero: Cymbal: I completely disagree. Star Wars is the gateway drug. It's safe enough for your kids to use and get addicted to while they are young. Then they will spend the rest of their lives delving the depths of the harder stuff.

I wish I could agree with that, but I've known too many people for whom the only sf they read or watch is Star Wars: endless, shaky amounts of Star Wars, novels and TV shows and increasingly awful video games, on and on forever.

Ah, but at that point the question is whether in the absence of Star Wars whether they would be reading or watching anything even remotely considered science fiction at all. My vote is for no.


Alien would have been a low-budget John Corman movie and the next Big Thing would have been The Black Hole and we'd be back in the 60's crap sci-fi movie doldrums.
 
2014-05-03 10:32:19 PM  

t3knomanser: Nothing that happens, nothing that any of the characters do, makes any sense. There are so many scenes of people just walking and talking and talking and walking and sitting and talking that it's obviously a first draft that never got punched up


www.oddballdaily.com

Stop stealing my lines!
 
2014-05-03 10:35:31 PM  

Ed Grubermann: Anonymous Bosch: Doktor_Zhivago: Sci fi has been dead since Frank Herbert died.

There i said it

Frank Herbert wrote some really interesting ideas in the most boring-ass way possible.

There, I said it.

I really, really wanted to like the Dune series. But, fak me sideways it was so dull and boring. Nineteen farking pages just to tell us how fat the Baron was. That man needed an editor.


I liked the first book. The rest, meh. They got way too weird way too fast.
 
2014-05-03 10:45:11 PM  

gunther_bumpass: Stratohead: gunther_bumpass: Thank god for Cory Doctorow. He'll save us from this living hell.

Cory Doctrow will save us from Hipster Fandom?

BoingBoing is the epicenter of SciFi Posers everywhere.... if you want to suck up to Cory...you're in the wrong forums

He's the best thing to happen to literature since the first vaguely-mammalian family's slowest offspring spread its own feces on the wall of the home cave.


Cory Doctorow is a pedantic, petulant manchild whose "novels" test the limits of tolerability. His male protagonists are unlikeable entitled douchebags, and his female characters are so flimsy and sub-heinlein in their composition that it makes you wonder if he's ever had a conversation with a woman in his life. The "plots" of his "novels" are scarcely concealed vehicles for his promotion of a cyber-libertarian adolescent utopia, and read like the breathless, hyperbolic blog posts he's so famous for. He's the worst thing to happen to SF in decades. William Gibson has chunks of Cory Doctorow in his stools.
 
2014-05-03 10:45:44 PM  
Evil Twin Skippy

Star Wars is a crappy science fiction movie in the same way M.A.S.H. is a crappy war movie.

Star Wars was space fantasy, not science fiction.

There is zero scientific content in Star Wars.
 
2014-05-03 10:49:56 PM  
Gattaca? Primer? Hell even Looper as well as the already mentioned District 9 and how about Inception? This idea that there's no good sci-fi anymore is the genre movie equivalent of people saying no good music has been made since "I" was in college during X year. Whatever. There's silk and there's swine no matter what decade or generation it is.
 
2014-05-03 11:01:05 PM  

Anonymous Bosch: Doktor_Zhivago: Sci fi has been dead since Frank Herbert died.

There i said it

Frank Herbert wrote some really interesting ideas in the most boring-ass way possible.

There, I said it.


I believe you are confusing Frank Herbert  with Stephen R. Donaldson
 
2014-05-03 11:08:50 PM  
Well Mr Nerdy author, if you don't like shootouts and battles don't watch movies where one the two words in the title is "wars."

I'm sure it would have equally good written as Star Knitting.
 
2014-05-03 11:18:08 PM  

t3knomanser: The good point that he makes is this: the first two Star Wars films, even when they appropriated past stories and styles, were original and inventive in themselves. Both visually, but even narratively- even if the story was tropey, those tropes had never been combined that way before.

The problem is that they started repeating themselves. Tatooine was never that interesting a setting- it's a desert planet, and as we're told in the first film- a  boring one. ROTJ attempts to backtrack on that, the plot gets messy and loses focus, and then we return to having to deal with a gigantic battle station because if you're building one, you might as well build two, because fark that's lazy writing..


To be fair, "A New Hope" was supposed to be the first of three movies in the Star Wars series, with the third ending with the destruction of the death star. But since Lucas didn't know whether he would be able to do any more he had to condense the entire story down to one film just called "Star Wars". So he didn't really re-use the Death Star so much as he added an extra one out of uncertainty.

Similarly, Tatooine was intended to come back around from the start because of good writing, not bad. Han's situation with Jabba the Hutt was intended to constantly add tension, and allow the introduction of additional challenges at any moment throughout the series (in the form of bounty hunters) until it is resolved in the final movie shortly before moving on to resolve the bigger issue, Darth Vader and the Death Star. So ROTJ is not backtracking on Tatooine, it is resolving Han's sub-plot, Tatooine is just the setting for doing so, and given how little time was spent on Tatooine in ROTJ, you really can't complain too much about its reuse in that movie.
 
2014-05-03 11:41:07 PM  

Elegy: Don't care. Sci-fi movies still have to pander to the lowest common denominator of anti-intellectual audiences to be commercially successful, so it makes it hard to bring an intellectual genre to the big screen.

Star Wars is WIZARDS IN SPACE, and always has been. Star Trek - especially the new JJ Abrams incarnation - has always been MAKE shiat UP WITH TECHNOBABBLE. The farking Matrix was "let's throw in a bunch of smart sounding philosophy but let the studios dumb down the foundational premises of the movie so the dumb audiences can understand it to the point where very little actually makes sense." And that recent James Cameron atrocity - not even touching the problems with that one with a 10 foot pole.

What I'm saying is that the main body of sci-fi films has always been disappointing if you judge against the strict standards of "hard" sci-fi literature and not "its sci-fi because spaceships and blasters (but really just fantasy)."

There have been some standout exceptions in recent years that I can think of - the first couple of Aliens movies, District 9, Event Horizon, hell even the Last Starfighter - but honestly, this is what movie adaptations usually are: dumbed down versions that pander to the lowest common denominator with pretty explosions and other eye cady.

The short of it: if you want smart, cerebral scifi, read a damn book. If you want to get baked out of your gourd on your substance of choice and enjoy pretty pictures in front of your eyeballs, go see a movie.

It's the exact same way across every genre of literary-film adaptations, excluding indy films.


Agreed. Although Star Wars, Star Trek, B5, Stargate, The Last Starfighter, etc. was a big inspiring for me growing up to get into STEM. I've read Clarke, Herbert, Heinlein, etc., and that just fine-tuned the interest. It is science-fiction for a reason, and the breadth and scope is defined only be the reader.

I love the various concepts, and tend to smooth over the inconsistencies (looking at you, Trek), in my own brain, although I will take apart a movie for being internally inconsistent. Because it's fun. Unless said movie is more fantasy that science, in which case, SLAY THAT DRAGON!

Bring on the new Star Trek! The new Star Wars! Someone make a Foundation mini-series! A Halo one! Mass effect (please!) I pay nothing for the attempt, I am inconvenienced in exactly 0 ways by the existence of such media. If I don't like it, I'm living in the golden age of special effects, reboots, and popular culture - they'll surely make another!

tl;dr - that article was the definition of 1st world problems
 
2014-05-03 11:46:42 PM  

ThreadSinger: Someone make a Foundation mini-series!


I would think it is statistically likely to happen in the next 7 years.
 
2014-05-04 12:02:14 AM  
If I had to choose a modern Sci Fi that is great but also quite creative I gotta choose The Abyss I know it's 25 years old but quite a great original story, a good balance between special effects and characters.
 
2014-05-04 12:15:17 AM  
Star Wars is fantasy set in space. It was never science fiction.
 
2014-05-04 12:29:37 AM  

Surool: Star Wars is toy commercial fantasy set in space. It was never science fiction.

FTFY

 
2014-05-04 12:38:41 AM  
Well, let's see. We can remove Star Wars like it never happened...

Hrm. Sci-fi ends up remaining a terribly small "niche" element nobody takes seriously. As a result, there's also no fantasy or comic book explosion in the media...

In case you forgot, "Star Wars" is the single event that exploded into the American conscious that pretty much made (probably) everything you like in media today possible. Before that you had a whole bunch of shiatty B movies and Star Trek, which by the point Star Wars was created was just another long dead, cancelled and forgotten TV show.

You're farking welcome.
 
2014-05-04 01:10:19 AM  

almejita: simplicimus: almejita: Anyone remember a sci-fi novel in which there was a third sex? not male or female, but 'Aer'?  Read it as a kid and can't remember the name.


I have a vague memory of such a novel.  It alternated between two story arcs that eventually intersected, and the arc about the gelatinous race had the third sex.  Sorry I can't be of more help.
 
2014-05-04 01:12:34 AM  

Terrible Old Man: Well, let's see. We can remove Star Wars like it never happened...

Hrm. Sci-fi ends up remaining a terribly small "niche" element nobody takes seriously. As a result, there's also no fantasy or comic book explosion in the media...

In case you forgot, "Star Wars" is the single event that exploded into the American conscious that pretty much made (probably) everything you like in media today possible. Before that you had a whole bunch of shiatty B movies and Star Trek, which by the point Star Wars was created was just another long dead, cancelled and forgotten TV show.

You're farking welcome.


Forbidden Planet was pretty good, as was The Day the Earth Stood Still and The Time Machine (the originals). And whatever you want to call the Quartermass and the Pit film. Anyone of these are better than Star Wars.
 
2014-05-04 01:31:29 AM  

Magorn: About goddamn time somebody said it. Lucas is a crap writer, crap director.  He's basically a special effects wizard who somehow got a director's chair.  Call me elitist if you want, but I don't consider star wars to be sci-fi at all, and i have little respect for fans of the novels who think they are.  And i say that even though I am a huge fan if space opera generally


I think it is fantasy translated to outer space. Always thought it was.
 
2014-05-04 01:31:40 AM  
I think that Ben Bova's "The Dueling Machine" could be a decent action flick with modern CG.  But I don't know if it even qualifies as Sci-fi, since all the science is assumed rather than explored.  Maybe Card's Darwin series is sci-fi, but good luck getting anything of his adapted in the next 20 years.
 
2014-05-04 01:31:44 AM  

Bslim: Stupid premise is stupid. Star Wars is not "sci" anything.


I came here for this. Thank you.
 
2014-05-04 01:52:23 AM  

I May Be Crazy But...: I remember each book being pretty short. And self contained so you don't have to read them all in row. But it's been a while, so I may be wrong.


He tied a bunch of his other books to it with fillers. All told it covers around 13 books.

/read the them all and enjoyed them
//Asimov fan here
 
2014-05-04 01:58:38 AM  

Harry_Seldon: ThreadSinger: Someone make a Foundation mini-series!

I would think it is statistically likely to happen in the next 7 years.


Unless that damn Mule shows up. He was always a party pooper.
 
2014-05-04 02:18:51 AM  

clambam: There's an element of truth in the author's com[plaint, but there's nothing wrong with good, mindless space opera either. Disney's big mistake in marketing "John Carter of Mars" was not using Burrough's actual title, "A Princess of Mars," a novel to which it was thematically and visually reasonably faithful.

I'm still waiting for Jack Vance's "Planet of Adventure" trilogy, the greatest space opera ever written, to get the cinematic treatment; just as I'm waiting for Disney to do Janacek's opera, "The Cunning Little Vixen," and for Lucas pr Spielberg to do justice to the "Ring of the Nibelung."


I would give an appendage for a really well done version of Vance's "Lyonesse" books. Of course that is pure fantasy. For scifi, Planet of Adventure would indeed rock. Araminta Station would too, though the sequels were a bit flat. The trouble with filming anything by Vance is getting the subtlety, nuance, and serious oddities to come through, His stuff would be harder to do right than even "Dune" I think.

I second (or third, or fiftieth) the idea of "A Mote in god's Eye". But for a stand-alone Niven book, how about "World of Ptaavs"?

/Still wishes someone would do a REAL version of "Starship Troopers".
//Verhoeven should rot in hell
 
Displayed 50 of 176 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report