Foundation: the movie

Wow! I never saw I Robot. I need to. Foundations would be cool to see. I am so happy people are finally producing SciFi again.

I'm not sure that the plot lends itself to the big screen....

Ah, but the producers smell big bucks.

I'm not sure the plot lends itself to Roland Emmerich. But I'm with LilK, I'd rather see bad Sci-Fi than no Sci-Fi

Er...

Pitch Black
Terminator 3
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Starship Troopers
Alien 3
Alien 4

Need I go on?

I liked Pitch Black. The others in your list are passable at best. Definitely worth watching just because they are Sci-Fi, don't get me wrong. But certainly not the caliber that I hope new Sci-Fi can be.

For anybody who thinks they won't f*ck this up, I have one word for you. Dune.

Pitch Black sucked ass.

The sequel was fun, though.

Of course they'll F it up. The only good sci-fi is original sci-fi (with the exception of Star Wars V and VI of course)

Yeah, Hollywood tends to screw up novels of any kind . . . maybe it's just a petty resentment on my part, but it seems to me that they really screw up royally when it's classic science fiction.

Pitch Black was great! Chronicles of Riddick was only good. I liked them both.

Here's some top notch sci-fi movies:
1. Terminator
2. Serenity
3. Alien
4. Aliens
5. Predator
6. RoboCop
7. Dark City
8. Matrix
9. Donnie Darko
10. Star Wars
11. Blade Runner
... in no particular order...

That's because they don't understand Sci-Fi. Good sci-fi is about *ideas*, the glitz and graphics are just icing on the cake.

Oh, I love good science fiction.

But bad science fiction is worse than soggy potato chips.

Well you didn't have 2001 A Space Odyssey in there...so yeah, you gotta go on.

Glad you mentioned Blade Runner. I was gonna come back and mention it.

Nobody's mentioned Barbarella.

What offends my sense of decency and ethics
is screenwriters & producers who a take a LIBERAL vu
of the book whose name thay use to entice the public
and thay write their OWN book, bearing little
resemblance ( or insufficient resemblance ) to the book
that thay promise to put up on the screen.

I have been a victim of that; its grossly disappointing
and gives rise to a sense of having been cheated.

Were I writing a screenplay and/or producing
a movie based on a successful, popular book,
I 'd make every possible effort to be as obsessively
meticulous as I coud possibly be
to conserve intact every minute point of detail.

Admittedly, some of the contents of a book
might be impossible to put on the screen with no distortion
( or unreasonably expensive to do it ),
but scrupulously vigilant care shoud be taken
to keep that to a minimum, and perhaps an apology
offered to the original author, or his survivors,
and to the audience for any deviations from the book.

I guess that liberals LOVE to see
deviations from and distortions of the book.

The audience is paying to see THE BOOK,
brought to life up on the screen,
not some stranger 's adaptation of how he thinks
it woud have been better to re-write it.

Ideally, if it were possible, a conservative
application of the book shoud bear such
flawless fidelity to its original writing
that it is as tho the book were a
fotografic transparent slide thru which
the movie makers shined the light
of the projector thru it,
projecting it up onto the movie screen
with NO deviations. It shoud approach
being LITERAL as closely as possible.






David

Way I see it: If you want the book, pick up a copy. If you want a movie, go ahead, you already know what to expect.

have to admit i've never been a big asimov fan, but i can't imagine a story of the scope of foundation being made into a very good single film