and 3d??? 3d?????????? WTF , he wants us to se Hardins face in 3 dimensions or sth?

I’ve put down films like Star Wars, Blade Runner, and The Matrix, but I can’t deny that these films can be thought-provoking even if they are only recycling “old” ideas.

As for your list of books that might make good films, I wanted to mention a television mini-series in the 70s that adapted Bradbury’s “The Martian Chronicles.” Admittedly, the visual effects were crappy. And the critics hated it. But I loved it. The adaptation was done by Richard Matheson who is no slouch as a science-fiction writer, himself. The problem, I think, was that the characters did too much pontification, but I love that.

BTW, most people hated “2001″ when it first came out. And then when people got the explanation as to what it meant, they began to think it was a great film. The reason why I wouldn’t place 2001 in my top ten is because it ironically lacks humanity. It’s sterile. It’s boring. It may be “good” science-fiction, but the general population will not like it.

I think Ridley Scott recently said that the Sci-Fi film genre has been more or less dead since “2001: A space odyssey” (still my favrourite), and I have to agree. The fantastic literature is full of great stories just waiting to be told: instead we are still being fed mindless action film junk. There are notable exceptions like “Gattaca” but I still look forward to a sense of wonder experience like “2001″ or Tarkovski’s “Solaris”. I like P.K. Dick but most of his books have been turned into B-movies and I’d like to see other author’s turn now.

I read Asimov’s “Foundation” trilogy when I was an early teenager and ever since I’ve been re-reading it and still find new angles. I really hope the makers of the film will be able to pick out the philosophy of the film and not turn into a typical Hollywood mass-market product like “I Robot”, which had little or nothing to do with the charm and intelligence Asimov’s original Robot stories.

Here’s a list of novels/short stories. I’n not saying all are filmable, but it just shows that there is enormous potential out there.

Huxley: “Brave new world”
Silverberg: “Hawksbill station”
Robinsson: “Red Mars”, “Green Mars”,”Blue Mars”
Clarke: “Childhood’s end”, “The fountains of paradise”
Andersson: “Tau zero”
Card: “Ender’s game”
Stephensson: “Cryptonomicon”
Dick: “The man in the high castle”
Lem: “The cyberiad”
Niven: “Ringworld”
Pournelle: “The mote in god’s eye”
LeGuin: “The dispossessed”
Vinge: “A fire upon the deep”
Harrison: “The stainless steel rat”
Bradbudy: “The martian chronicles”
Bear: “Eon”, “Darwin’s radio”
Aldiss: “Hothouse”, the “Helliconia” trilogy (3 books)

Regards,

Sören Molander

I wouldn’t do exact dialog though because all that “inner dialog and expression” could be explicated through spoken dialog and scenes.

I just ordered the book to replace my lost copy and read I’ll it with the mind I read everything nowadays: how could this be an awesome film and be true to the book at the same time?

The story is simple, and involving.

People think Asimov’s characters lack character development, and that the women are underdeveloped. That’s what makes Asimov books so filmable! What I mean to say is that Asimov’s stories are heavily plot-driven and dispenses with the inner dialog and expression of feeling that make books more satisfying than film. But Asimov’s writing is compelling even without the stuff that books rely on.

Oh, some people may think that his dialog is not natural, but I enjoy his type of dialog.