Original sci-fi IP Page 2

  • Page

    of 4 First / Last

  • kalel 15 Jan 2013 15:03:16 83,875 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I would say 1984 myself.
  • Gambit1977 15 Jan 2013 15:03:39 9,563 posts
    Seen 9 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    The problem nowadays is what are people going to write about...facebook and twitter?
  • elstoof 15 Jan 2013 15:04:26 6,140 posts
    Seen 45 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Hollywood Sci fi is reliant on using the same old talent far too often, you could have someone write a great screenplay but as soon as the studio gets involved they send in someone like Damon Lindelhof to "tidy it up" and it all starts to look the same.
  • LeoliansBro 15 Jan 2013 15:05:01 41,865 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Oooh, can satire make for truly great sci-fi? Or does there need to be something aspirational and wide-eyed in there too?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • kalel 15 Jan 2013 15:10:59 83,875 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Oooh, can satire make for truly great sci-fi? Or does there need to be something aspirational and wide-eyed in there too?
    Well, the whole idea of making any kind of judgement of "the best" is nonsense as we all know. There's always a case why one thing can be considered better than another. I don't see why something being satirical should nullify a case though.

    You could argue the true purpose of sci-fi is to subversively demonstrate the follies and shortcomings of the world we live in, as opposed to being aspiring to a world we could live in.
  • SClaw 15 Jan 2013 15:11:09 826 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    The only people who like 1984 are people who’ve never read 1984. Reading that book is a painful, tedious experience (but a fascinating work of propaganda). Dune is also mostly toss (but filled with amazing ideas – credit where credit is due) and was retrospectively ruined by its many cash-in sequels which were all awful.

    Both are good examples of why sci-fi is hard to take from the page to the screen though; the loss in translation is brutal. 1984 has only ever been given good credit in Brazil, and that’s because Brazil was mostly taking the piss out of it and Gilliam never even read 1984.
  • kalel 15 Jan 2013 15:12:51 83,875 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I'm pretty sure I've read and liked 1984.
  • w00t 15 Jan 2013 15:13:13 10,976 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    SClaw wrote:
    Dune is also mostly toss
    Your opinions are hereby invalid.

    The day charity died - NEVER FORGET

    (the mic was OK in the end)

  • LeoliansBro 15 Jan 2013 15:16:23 41,865 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Yeah I've also read and enjoyed 1984. And kalel is annoyingly right - is it better to say I like Dune the best*?

    *becauseitisobjectivelythebest

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • oceanmotion 15 Jan 2013 15:19:07 15,243 posts
    Seen 4 days ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Haven't read either but is one sand with giant worm and the other big brother stuff.
  • kalel 15 Jan 2013 15:20:34 83,875 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    FWIW most of my favourite sci-fi novels fall in the category of being a bit satirical and subversive, and frankly not set in space or whatever. Clockwork Orange, Man in the High Castle, Brave New World...that kind of thing.

    If I had to pick a spacey future one it would be Slaughterhouse 5, although that's a bit different as well. Actually I really like Slaughterhouse 5. I might have that instead of 1984.
  • LeoliansBro 15 Jan 2013 15:23:00 41,865 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Only Vonnegut I've read is Cat's Cradle, I'm afraid.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • SClaw 15 Jan 2013 15:26:48 826 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Exaggeration. 1984 is fine but it’s not the cultural milestone everyone makes it out to be. It’s one of those book a lot of people claim to like, because it’s easy to remember the name and the plot is widely known, but have never actually read themselves. It is a tedious read though; the pacing of the last quarter is absolutely shocking.

    Dune is one of the best settings ever created and the first half of that book is astoundingly original, but the second half is utter tripe as Herbert falls into a common sci-fi trap – he knows the “point” he’s trying to make but he can’t fit a story around it. A lot of random stuff happens just because it can, and the whole thing sort of unravels itself and ends up a literary mess.

    I’m not saying I hate those books (I own several editions of Dune - any sci-fi fan should read it); but they are far from Shakespeare in their messy execution and don't deserve endless praise (the same way I won't kiss Tolkien's ass - nice setup, but mostly boring as sin).

    You know… Dune is about ready for another remake I think. I bet they can hash it up even worse this time. At least the explosions would be cool though. And the winged codpieces epic.
  • LeoliansBro 15 Jan 2013 15:29:51 41,865 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Dune made today would end up being like John Carter or Return of the King:

    Political build up and machinations: 20 mins.

    CGI overthrow of the Atreides battle POW ZAP KABOOM: 100 minutes.

    Wilderness rediscovery, harnessing the water of life, moulding an army, guerrilla attacks: 15 minutes.

    CGI revenge battle ZOWIE KABLAM: 1,000,000,000,000,000 minutes and three sequels POW.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • glaeken 15 Jan 2013 15:30:09 10,977 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I really like 1984 and have also read it. I am quite a fan of Orwell in general though so I am somewhat biased. If it's not a cultural milestone what Sci-Fi book is?
  • disusedgenius 15 Jan 2013 15:32:29 5,142 posts
    Seen 50 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    w00t wrote:
    SClaw wrote:
    Dune is also mostly toss
    Your opinions are hereby invalid.
    Quite: some is toss, the rest is wank.

    Not read 1984 though, so carry on there.

    Edited by disusedgenius at 15:33:20 15-01-2013
  • kalel 15 Jan 2013 15:32:57 83,875 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I think you're massively underplaying (or possibly under-appreciating) the cultural significance of 1984. It's not just the plot being well known. The concepts contained have had such incredible resonance and significance that they have almost become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The book has actually both shaped the world we live in, and acted as a significant deterrent to becoming a world we could be.

    That aside, Orwell writes very well, and it's a very exciting little thriller.
  • LeoliansBro 15 Jan 2013 15:34:23 41,865 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    It's true that 1984 is so enduring a commentary on society that it's taken for granted. From that perspective there's nothing to touch it except Utopia (and possibly Asimov).

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 15 Jan 2013 15:36:35 41,865 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Dune, as they'd cast it today:

    Paul Atreides: Shia Le Boeuf.

    ...need I go on?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Deleted user 15 January 2013 15:37:17
    Virtually every concept in 1984 has made it into popular consciousness. Big Brother, Room 101, doublethink and newspeak, thought crime and thought police etc etc - even the term "Orwellian" is basically a 1984-esque term. It's also a rare example of a book that's actually become more relevant as time passes.

    And what kalel said, Orwell was a fantastic writer.

    Edited by meme at 15:37:38 15-01-2013
  • kalel 15 Jan 2013 15:38:58 83,875 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    To return to the OP, I'm hoping Charlie Kaufman writes some new stuff, and then gives it to Spike Jonz or Michael Gondry to direct instead of doing it himself.

    Although again, this is what I think of as sci-fi, but most don't.
  • PearOfAnguish 15 Jan 2013 15:49:46 6,989 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I'd class Kaufman's stuff - at least Eternal Sunshine and Being John Malkovich - as fantasy rather than SF, though they're great movies that should appeal to fans of either genre, or anyone who isn't wrong in the head.

    Be nice if Ridley Scott did something with The Forever War, but given the state of Prometheus probably best if he handed it over to someone else. There's also been an adaptation of The Stars My Destination in development hell for years, and A Gift From The Culture.
  • LeoliansBro 15 Jan 2013 15:51:30 41,865 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    What happened to the Rendezvous with Rama adaptation?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • MetalDog 15 Jan 2013 15:52:00 23,706 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Gambit1977 wrote:
    The problem nowadays is what are people going to write about...facebook and twitter?
    If you eat enough onions, you'll sweat onion-smell. Almost everything being created now is sweating elements of the Zeitgeist and for the most part not the twitter and facebook bits - although the mass communication and loss of control over personal identity in some yarns is reflecting them. There's plenty to contemplate in this particular time - the west is wobbling, the middle east is a fireworks factory waiting for the wrong spark, the east is rising, material desires vs spiritual ones, the vacuity and transitory nature of fame and it's tendency to lead to self-destruction, our increasingly isolated lives, the 'death before discomfort' thing that seems so prevalent, our fear and loathing of obesity, the disfunctional attitudes to body image in general etc, etc.

    There's shitloads of Zeitgeist to be reflecting these days!

    I suspect that unless you're a storytelling god (and while many claim the title even if only in the privacy of their own minds, few actually deserve it), deliberately setting out to capture the spirit of the times is probably going to fall flat on its arse, be cripplingly heavy handed or just plain boring. It's always dangerous to try to make a soapbox into story, but if you make a story, your soapboxes will make up part of the set without you really trying - hell, even if you actively try to rip them all out, they will be there somewhere.

    (edit: incidentally, I'd class Orwell as one of the very few to actively make soapboxes into story and do it well)

    Edited by MetalDog at 15:53:42 15-01-2013

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • kalel 15 Jan 2013 15:54:07 83,875 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    PearOfAnguish wrote:
    I'd class Kaufman's stuff - at least Eternal Sunshine and Being John Malkovich - as fantasy rather than SF, though they're great movies that should appeal to fans of either genre, or anyone who isn't wrong in the head.

    They're definitely not fantasy. In fact they're definitely sci-fi.

    Fantasy is defined by a completely different version of reality to the one we know that goes beyond one or two simple alterations.

    Eternal Sunshine is "the world we know it except it's possible to erase memories". That's proper sci-fi stuff. Almost HG Wells-like.

    Malkovich is a bit more out there, but it's still essentially the world we know but with one important difference in what's scientifically possible (in this case being able to be John Malkovich by going through a portal).

    Edited by kalel at 15:54:48 15-01-2013
  • PearOfAnguish 15 Jan 2013 15:56:18 6,989 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Gambit1977 wrote:
    The problem nowadays is what are people going to write about...facebook and twitter?
    That is pretty much what Cory Doctorow does, so, yeah...
    And there was that zombie series - Feed - which had a bloody RSS logo on its cover.

    But these people are decades behind. Gibson was writing about the internet in the 80s, and Vernor Vinge had galactic newsgroups in the early 90s.
  • LeoliansBro 15 Jan 2013 15:56:25 41,865 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Dunno kal, I think that's more your definition of sci-fi than the commonly accepted one.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • kalel 15 Jan 2013 16:00:34 83,875 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Dunno kal, I think that's more your definition of sci-fi than the commonly accepted one.
    It's a broad church sure, but surely it's basically "what would the world be like if..." stuff?

    Whereas fantasy is less grounded in imagining our world going off in a different direction, and instead imagines a completely different world.
  • PearOfAnguish 15 Jan 2013 16:01:20 6,989 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    Fantasy is defined by a completely different version of reality to the one we know that goes beyond one or two simple alterations.
    There are many, many SF and fantasy books which don't fit that definition at all.

    Put it all under speculative fiction if you like.
  • kalel 15 Jan 2013 16:02:44 83,875 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Found an interesting link of lots of different definitions of sci-fi, mostly from sci-fi writers.

    I think most of them roughly reflect the definition I've suggested:

    http://scifi.about.com/od/scififantasy101/a/SCIFI_defs.htm
  • Page

    of 4 First / Last

Log in or register to reply