NationStates Jolt Archive

...and if they were doing it, who would you like to see cast as your favorite characters?

I just want them to do a Dracula movie and a Frankenstien movie that is close to the books.

Turning Point by Lisanne Norman

Casting would be done by the casting dept...

I'd like to see a compilation of animated shorts on H.P. Lovecraft stories done by Tim Burton

Another Clive Cussler/Dirk Pitt novel, except, you know, follow the damn book. Sahara completely omitted the part where Lincoln's body is in the ironclad. Fucking Hollywood.

I would like to see both Little Birds and Delta of Venus put into movie form.

Juliette Binoche could star in some of the vignettes. As could Maria de Medeiros, obviously. Penelope Cruz would do a good job, I would think, as would Antonio Banderas.

However, this is one French movie that Depardieu could stay out of.

I'd like to see a compilation of animated shorts on H.P. Lovecraft stories done by Tim Burton

How about Burton stays the hell away from Lovecraft. Id like the movies to be good.

I'd like to see brave new world as a film. Great book. But who to get to play the main roles.... hum....

I would like to see them do a big budget version of Dune.

How about Burton stays the hell away from Lovecraft. Id like the movies to be good.

You don't like any Burton films at all?

Any Rands Atlas Shrugged
Although they are making a movie, They better not screw it up!

My biography.

With Heath Ledger as me, and Eddie Murphy as everyone else.

Directed by Chuck Norris.

I would like to see them do a big budget version of Dune.

Did you not see the David Lynch version?

You don't like any Burton films at all?

I believe the word Im looking for is "no".

Well, Sweeny Todd was tolerable. But thats because Burton didnt make it up, and anything cool in that movie was probably in the play version,

Any Rands Atlas Shrugged
Although they are making a movie, They better not screw it up!

That movies gonna flop.

I believe the word Im looking for is "no".

Well, Sweeny Todd was tolerable. But thats because Burton didnt make it up, and anything cool in that movie was probably in the play version,

You sir are a monster. I still love you though.

Did you not see the David Lynch version?

I have. I'll amend my statement to say, "I would like to see them do a good big budget version of Dune."

You sir are a monster. I still love you though.

He obviously never saw Peewee's Big Adventure or Mars Attacks.

The Magic Faraway Tree for kids, Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell (Land and Freedom by Ken Loach was close to this), a really raunchy version of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" with Tinania really having it off with Bottom. A newer, sleeker and more evil "King Lear"
Someone should do "Judas Iscariot" (from his perspective) and a global warming Noah.

He obviously never saw Peewee's Big Adventure or Mars Attacks.

:fluffle:

I'd die a happy man if A Game of Thrones ever made it to the big screen.

Casting would be a bitch, though. The only character I could really see being an easy casting choice might be Tywin Lannister (Alan Rickman with blond hair). With maybe Sean Bean as a convincing Ned Stark.

But I could be totally off on my estimates of the characters and their respective actors.

I'm happy with the fact that the one movie adaption I'd like to see is already being planned.

An Avengers movie.

And the casting is looking great:
(confirmed)
Iron Man: Downey Jr.
Hulk: Norton
Fury: Jackson

(rumored, supported)
Thor: Kevin McKidd (Lucius Vorenus from Rome)

(rumored, and God Please Not This)
Captain America: Matthew McConaughey
(Seriously, May God Have Mercy On His Children And Prevent This Heresy!)

I just want them to do a Dracula movie and a Frankenstien movie that is close to the books.

There'll never be a REALLY accurate version of Frankenstein because he's just such an unbearably horrible character. And... not like "grr...arghhh" horrible, he's just a total fucking wet lettuce.

I want to see one day in the life of Ivan denisovich made into a movie.

I'm happy with the fact that the one movie adaption I'd like to see is already being planned.

An Avengers movie.

And the casting is looking great:
(confirmed)
Iron Man: Downey Jr.
Hulk: Norton
Fury: Jackson

(rumored, supported)
Thor: Kevin McKidd (Lucius Vorenus from Rome)

(rumored, and God Please Not This)
Captain America: Matthew McConaughey
(Seriously, May God Have Mercy On His Children And Prevent This Heresy!)

What's wrong with Matthew McConaughey in the role? I assume you simply mean that he's far too good an actor to have to play such an utterly shit role?

I want to see one day in the life of Ivan denisovich made into a movie.

It was in the late 1960s or early 70s, CM! Imbd it!

Is there a movie for the dictionary? That'd be one intense movie. :D

What's wrong with Matthew McConaughey in the role? I assume you simply mean that he's far too good an actor to have to play such an utterly shit role?

Yeeesssss...

Let's take a guy whose movie Surfer Dude is pretty much him being himself, and ask him to play the most kick-ass soldier in WWII, which occurred during the first half of the 1940s.

And in the fact that he's supposed to be a first generation American growing up in New York to Irish immigrants, and I'm pretty damn sure that Steve Rogers has a specific accent difficult for a lifelong Texan to replicate.

It may be a book geared more towards youth, but I think I Am The Cheese would make a good movie.

Yeeesssss...

Let's take a guy whose movie Surfer Dude is pretty much him being himself, and ask him to play the most kick-ass soldier in WWII, which occurred during the first half of the 1940s.


You must be American... "always turning up two years late to every war"....


And in the fact that he's supposed to be a first generation American growing up in New York to Irish immigrants, and I'm pretty damn sure that Steve Rogers has a specific accent difficult for a lifelong Texan to replicate.

My problem with it isn't the accent. It's the fact that Captain America has got to be one of the lamest, if not THE lamest, character ever committed to paper. Whether or not you think Matthew McConaughey has the chops for a soldier role (he was pretty good in "Reign of Fire"), he's certainly too good for Captain America.

Hell... Chevy Chase is too good for Captain America...

There'll never be a REALLY accurate version of Frankenstein because he's just such an unbearably horrible character. And... not like "grr...arghhh" horrible, he's just a total fucking wet lettuce.

Well, I think Frankenstein's monster is a compelling character, even if Frankenstein himself is not. With a suitably good actor portraying the monster, I think a movie sticking *somewhat* to the book could work.

One thing I would like as a movie (well, a series of movies might work better): Romance of the Three Kingdoms, though it would require somebody brilliant to do it.

Hmm..Like Sdaeriji, a good big budget version of Dune, of course.

Apart from that, the Dorian Hawkmoon trilogy, or the Night's Dawn Trilogy. Not because I think they are particularly good books, but because I think they would make kick ass movies.

I'd also like to see someone make the Glass Bead Game, just because I am curious what would come out.

Is everyone dissing on Lynch's Dune? :(

Ender's Game. It has been in the works for years.

I'd love to see a movie based on the X-Wing series of books. If Denis Lawson wasn't so old (he has the same EXACT birthday as my father), he could reprise the role as Wedge Antilles, and maybe Angelina Jolie could play Ysanne Isard (she could be evil enough for the role).

The Honor Harrington novels.

And Guillermo del Toro should direct, because he's awesome.

Oh, right, cast:

Honor Harrington: Summer Glau
McKeon: Wil Wheaton
Paul Tankersley: Shia LaBeouf
Nimitz: Chuck Norris

The difficulty with casting the younger Manticoran officers is that thanks to the prolong, they look like they're in their twenties. Summer looks sorta Asian, which is exactly right for Honor. She can also show a wide range of emotion - critical for Honor. Shia LaBeouf and Wil Wheaton are both competent actors in the right age range. And Nimitz HAS to be played by Chuck Norris.

Protector Benjamin: Patrick Stewart
Yanakov: Liam Neeson

Audiences will have a negative opinion of the Graysons at first. We need to ensure that this is overcome quickly. I think Qui-Gon and Picard can take care of that.

Alfredo Yu: Aaron Eckhart

Just like Two-Face, Alfredo Yu is both hero and villain - though he goes from villain to hero.

The Honor of the Queen - the second novel in the Honor Harrington series. At the very least, I need to see that scene where Nimitz goes to town on the assassins. Preferably in slow motion.

And Guillermo del Toro should direct, because he's awesome.

True, this^^

And Guillermo del Toro should direct, because he's awesome.

HE would be a good director for some movies based off Lovecraft.


Rats in the Walls would be a sick (both in the good and bad use of the word) movie.

HE would be a good director for some movies based off Lovecraft.


Rats in the Walls would be a sick (both in the good and bad use of the word) movie.
Hells yes... look at Pan's Labyrinth.

Hells yes... look at Pan's Labyrinth.

Or The Orphanage. While not as good as Pan's (IMO) it shows he has a flare for the gothic as well.

Any thoughts on my casting choices?

Or The Orphanage. While not as good as Pan's (IMO) it shows he has a flare for the gothic as well.

pssst... that wasn't del Toro, that was Bayona.... shhh

IT . I want it to be true to the story , unlike the real movie.

The Color of Magic. With Eric Idle as Rincewind.

For having so many Discworld fans on this forum, I'm incredibly surprised no one suggested a single Discworld book so far.

HE would be a good director for some movies based off Lovecraft.


Rats in the Walls would be a sick (both in the good and bad use of the word) movie.

I'd much rather see The Shadow Over Innsmouth done right. And none of that cheesy Sci-fi Channel bullshit, either.

Has anyone ever read IT ? Its a great book.

Where's My Cow?

Keanu Reeves can play the cow. He'd probably be good at it.

Is everyone dissing on Lynch's Dune? :(

There were some very good bits. But there were also some very bad bits. And the final edit - both versions - were a bit poor.

Rumor has it that Lynch had originally put together a four and a half hour version that Herbert saw and approved of thoroughly. The studio butchered it or some shit.

I would like to see a Matthew Reilly book, Scarecrow (http://www.amazon.com/Scarecrow-Matthew-Reilly/dp/0312937660/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222829372&sr=1-2), made into a movie. I just think it would be fantastic.

There were some very good bits. But there were also some very bad bits. And the final edit - both versions - were a bit poor.

Rumor has it that Lynch had originally put together a four and a half hour version that Herbert saw and approved of thoroughly. The studio butchered it or some shit.

The studio butchered one version (with the stupid intro, etc) which is why Lynch's name wasn't on the credits. The other version was - as you say - supposedly cut down to fit release timing... but Lynch was willing to claim responsibility for that one.

I like it. It's not really a fair representation of the book.. but it might well be as good as you can get.

If they made a better and more true to the book IT movie , who do you think should play adult Bill and adult Richie?

I'd be interested to see the Bible made into a movie. Actually, I'd be interested to see any work that tells the stories in the Bible as one, unified epic. There's plenty of material, but also lots of room for interpretation and editing.

I'd like to see a compilation of animated shorts on H.P. Lovecraft stories done by Tim Burton
Nah, it should be Jan Švankmajer, if anyone can do madness and unnameable horrors, it is him.
Seriously, just (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7xh4NnFKXo) watch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvkJy4mM05g&feature=related) these (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCkPIp_dbiY&feature=related), and tell me if they aren't the most disturbing things you've ever witnessed.

I would be ever so happy if someone would make good movie versions of the Dark is Rising sequence. I loved those books so much when I was a kid. :)

I would like to see a Matthew Reilly book, Scarecrow (http://www.amazon.com/Scarecrow-Matthew-Reilly/dp/0312937660/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222829372&sr=1-2), made into a movie. I just think it would be fantastic.

It's funny, I thought Scarecrow was the second weakest of the Reilly books. Now, a Temple movie, THAT would kick ass...

Oh, and I wanna see a Men At Arms (Pratchett)... and for some obscure reason, I can see Rickman as Vimes. Something about being so god-awfully cynical. But I'm also an idiot, so I'd leave the casting to someone clever. Like The Doctor.

HE would be a good director for some movies based off Lovecraft.


I can't argue with that at all

I think The Monk by Matthew Gregory Lewis would make a pretty great movie if done well.

Jennifer Government, lawl.

Also, The Metamorphosis, by Kafka, and the Redwall series.

No idea who I would want in any roles, though.

Maybe Eragon, not because its a great book, but because I kind of feel it deserved better than that waste of film it got.

Jennifer Government, lawl.

Also, The Metamorphosis, by Kafka, and the Redwall series.

No idea who I would want in any roles, though.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/redwall.png

Maybe Eragon, not because its a great book, but because I kind of feel it deserved better than that waste of film it got.

I found the book generic in the extreme. The "plot twists" were wholly predictable (I even predicted Murtagh and what's-his-face were brothers in the first book. It was kind of obvious).

I found the book generic in the extreme. The "plot twists" were wholly predictable (I even predicted Murtagh and what's-his-face were brothers in the first book. It was kind of obvious).

Yeh, I just felt bad for the guy who wrote it after I saw the movie. I know I'd be pissed if someone took my book, removed all possitive qualities, added some crappy ones, and then projected it on screens across the world.:D

You must be American... "always turning up two years late to every war"....



My problem with it isn't the accent. It's the fact that Captain America has got to be one of the lamest, if not THE lamest, character ever committed to paper. Whether or not you think Matthew McConaughey has the chops for a soldier role (he was pretty good in "Reign of Fire"), he's certainly too good for Captain America.

Hell... Chevy Chase is too good for Captain America...

wtf? Steve Rogers is a great character. He belongs to a bygone era; no one holds to the same set of principles and integrity that he does, his best friend is now in a rest home married to his sweetheart whom he was waiting for, and yet he still tries to do the right thing and live up to the best that America is supposed to be. How is that not heroic.

Oh wait, "the best that America is supposed to be" is an oxymoron, right? Or maybe it's just that he should be dark and brooding. Maybe have adamantium claws rather than that sucky shield. Like. . .oh, what's his name again?

Yeh, I just felt bad for the guy who wrote it after I saw the movie. I know I'd be pissed if someone took my book, removed all possitive qualities, added some crappy ones, and then projected it on screens across the world.:D

I'd feel worse if it weren't for the fact that the guy's success is largely due to his youth, brilliant marketing, and using a tried and true, if generic, formula.

What I would like to see, what I would truly love to experience, what I desire more than Peace in the Middle East, an end to World Hunger, and a common sense approach to the current Wall Stree crisis combined, is simple: I, Robot.

Not, I say again, not a movie with the same title that is based upon an unrelated script, not a movie featuring as its star a character not represented in any of the books' short stories, and most certainly not a movie whose entire premise is the complete fucking opposite of the book. While it would most likely need to be a made-for-TV miniseries rather than a feature production, the age of serialized and anthology films has sadly passed us by, I feel that an accurate and loyal depiction of Asimovs' collection of short stories would truly be a wonder to behold.

Casting would be difficult. There are several distinct stories, featuring characters ranging in age from childhood to retirement and with personalities across the spectrum, and with little action or serious jeopardy there would be extraordinary pressure to somehow portray extreme angst while just staring at a piece of paper. I can't picture off the top of my head who would be cast, but I feel that it would be necessary for a more literal representation than usually found even in good book-to-film productions, since oftentimes their physical appearance is an integral part of who and what they are (Susan Calvin, for example, can not be a hot woman. She does not necessarily have to be ugly, but it is specifically stated that she is, for all intents and purposes, asexual; she is not feminine in the least and does not inspire even intellectual consideration of a sexual nature, she's more an it than a she, and that is an integral factor in the formation of her cold and impersonal psyche. Casting a sexual and attractive woman, even is she is a perfectly fine actress, already hampers her portrayal).

One point I am clear on is that the robots would need to be as real as possible; animatronics, puppetry, and miniatures as much as possible, with a bare minimum of CGI. Asimov's robots were always a part of the real world, always written with a consideration of how it would happen in real life, and as construction models, maintenance bots, and the like they were not shiny white plastic and smooth curves like walking iPods, they were clunky and heavy, and though CGI can do clunky and heavy, it would lend a slight touch of fantasy to something you should feel that you might actually bump into on your way home. Physical props lend the film an air of solidarity, a sense that the people on the screen are actually in the room with whatever they're looking at, rather than the feeling that they're in an empty room accompanied by a visual effect.

I'd almost prefer a small budget to a larger one, since the visual effects would actually be relatively small for a sci-fi production (There are, for example, no dogfights, shootouts, or Praxis waves), and without the tried-and-true method of "drown the plot in flashy visuals" they might be forced to rely on the dialogue and character interaction for the drama, but I must admit that if they were forced to rely on a small budget they'd probably just hire cheaper actors and keep the large visuals.

Of course, this is all wishful thinking, since it's simply not going to happen. Will Smith already killed this dream of mine, and Wash, beautiful Wash, lent his voice to the demonic cry that drowned my soul.

Still, it's nice to dream.

Flight of the Old Dog by Dale Brown.

It would make an excellent movie.

Jack Vance's Dying Earth series would be hilarious, especially the Cugel Saga.

Likewise, his Lyonese trilogy. That would be fantastic.

Keeping with the old earth theme, Gene Wolfe's 'Shadow of the Torturer' series would be fantastic. Though probably better as a TV series to really show the depth.

Maybe Iain M Banks 'The Culture' series? Would that work on screen?

Yeh, I just felt bad for the guy who wrote it after I saw the movie. I know I'd be pissed if someone took my book, removed all possitive qualities, added some crappy ones, and then projected it on screens across the world.:D
I'm sure he cried all the way to bank.

wtf? Steve Rogers is a great character. He belongs to a bygone era; no one holds to the same set of principles and integrity that he does, his best friend is now in a rest home married to his sweetheart whom he was waiting for, and yet he still tries to do the right thing and live up to the best that America is supposed to be. How is that not heroic.

Oh wait, "the best that America is supposed to be" is an oxymoron, right? Or maybe it's just that he should be dark and brooding. Maybe have adamantium claws rather than that sucky shield. Like. . .oh, what's his name again?

Any idea what you're talking about, because you lost me already.

Where did I say that the best America could be was an oxymoron? Oh, that's right - I didn't.

I'm not personally a big fan of the Wolverine, which is the character I assume you were heading for, but I am quite a fan of the Dark Knight - make of that what you will - a character that saw his family slaughtered before his eyes (depending on which version of the story is being told) and went on to fight his way to a kind of peace that can only be maintained by NEVER being the innocent man who does nothing, leaving evil to triumph. A character that DOESN'T have any superhuman powers, but puts himself on the line every day. A character that faces evil that is so multifaceted and ubiquitous that he can never win. The Dark Knight is what I consider heroic.

To me, Captain America is a two-dimensional representation of a lot of things I despise - from the assumption that just getting on with your life when the girl you like picks another guy... is somehow special, to the shallow warlike mentality, to the sickening motif of nationalism as a virtue.

It's nothing to do with adamantium claws, and everything to do with being toothless chestbeating.

To me, Captain America is a two-dimensional representation of a lot of things I despise - from the assumption that just getting on with your life when the girl you like picks another guy... is somehow special, to the shallow warlike mentality, to the sickening motif of nationalism as a virtue.

two-dimensional?
You think quite highly of him then. Twice what I do at least.

Cpt America is irritating for his single-minded devotion to what he thinks are the perfect ideals. Anyone and everyone who doesn't conform and uphold HIS beliefs are by his definition wrong and most probably evil.
In short the man's a dick.

My biography.

With Heath Ledger as me, and Eddie Murphy as everyone else.
what are you, a zombie?
Or just really immobile and skinny?

What's wrong with Matthew McConaughey in the role?
this sums it up perfectly what's wrong with Matthew McConaughey:
http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=ikSdZn8PK0w

Of course, this is all wishful thinking, since it's simply not going to happen. Will Smith already killed this dream of mine, and Wash, beautiful Wash, lent his voice to the demonic cry that drowned my soul.

Still, it's nice to dream.
Will Smith is to blame for many things, but the stories in I, Robot being unforgivably boring is not one of them. Even if you did like them, what would be gained in a movie version?
Do you really want to watch 20 minutes of some girl moping around because her "friend" robot was taken away by her evil mommy? Or a 30 minute montage of two guys antagonizing a robot that is stuck running circles? What about an AI that malfunctions and, OH MY GOD, forces the crew to eat beans?

two-dimensional?
You think quite highly of him then. Twice what I do at least.

Cpt America is irritating for his single-minded devotion to what he thinks are the perfect ideals. Anyone and everyone who doesn't conform and uphold HIS beliefs are by his definition wrong and most probably evil.
In short the man's a dick.

I'm still trying to work out why we're supposed to consider values like "He belongs to a bygone era" and "no one holds to the same set of principles and integrity that he does" as virtues.

By the same token, "Adulterous Victorian Man", or "Plantation Owner" (with his amazing ability to make people stop being uppity, and pick his damn cotton) are the next obvious choices for superhero greatness.

I'm still trying to work out why we're supposed to consider values like "He belongs to a bygone era" and "no one holds to the same set of principles and integrity that he does" as virtues.

By the same token, "Adulterous Victorian Man", or "Plantation Owner" (with his amazing ability to make people stop being uppity, and pick his damn cotton) are the next obvious choices for superhero greatness.

And let's hope we get to see "WitchStoningMan" with his magic bag of infinite rocks and deep hatred of trouser-wearing women.

And let's hope we get to see "WitchStoningMan" with his magic bag of infinite rocks and deep hatred of trouser-wearing women.

I was going to come up with something witty about drowning people till they confessed to their satanic works... but then I realised they already put that character in the Whitehouse...

Ender's Game. It has been in the works for years.

This...absolutely this.

They'll mess it up...but that doesn't mean I won't go see it if it ever comes out.

I'd also really really like a Starship Troopers movie that is even remotely like the book.

y'know, I finally picked up a copy of Ender's Game a few weeks back and have really tried to get into it.
But nope. just can't.

I don't know why people go on about how great it is. The characters are too fake, the writing too knowing and the situations too contrived.
I just can't believe a 6yr old boy, no matter how intelligent, is going to speak and think the way Ender does. Let alone his elder siblings being able to manipulate the entire world's opinions so easily. And the Colonel who is in charge of Ender is just too perceptive, making him appear to be more of a plot device to explain to us readers what's going on rather than a real character. Their parents are just basic 1-dimensional cut-outs who are barely seen.
If he'd made them a few years older - say Ender starting his training at 12 I think I could have got into it more.



I was also greatly put off when I read his introduction which alternated between going on and on about how wonderful his book is ("this university course uses it, that university course uses it!") with sycophantic fan letters ("It's such a great book Orson!") and slagging off any criticism by attacking the critic (or rather belabouringly pointing out that he has a Masters in literature, which presumably indicates how great a writer he must be).
One woman wrote in saying she, as a gifted child teacher, didn't feel the characterisations were accurate. Orson responds by saying he felt like writing back to her telling her that: "gifted children don't talk like that around you because they know better than to talk like this around you" but then says he didn't as he thought it was too rude to say this. So if it was too rude to write back in a personal letter saying this, why is it okay to put in the foreword of a book to be read by hundreds of thousands?

http://www.amazon.com/Futurama-Benders-John-Di-Maggio/dp/B001DZOC78/

I know it's not the same, but :p

y'know, I finally picked up a copy of Ender's Game a few weeks back and have really tried to get into it.
But nope. just can't.

I don't know why people go on about how great it is. The characters are too fake, the writing too knowing and the situations too contrived.
I just can't believe a 6yr old boy, no matter how intelligent, is going to speak and think the way Ender does. Let alone his elder siblings being able to manipulate the entire world's opinions so easily. And the Colonel who is in charge of Ender is just too perceptive, making him appear to be more of a plot device to explain to us readers what's going on rather than a real character. Their parents are just basic 1-dimensional cut-outs who are barely seen.
If he'd made them a few years older - say Ender starting his training at 12 I think I could have got into it more.



I was also greatly put off when I read his introduction which alternated between going on and on about how wonderful his book is ("this university course uses it, that university course uses it!") with sycophantic fan letters ("It's such a great book Orson!") and slagging off any criticism by attacking the critic (or rather belabouringly pointing out that he has a Masters in literature, which presumably indicates how great a writer he must be).
One woman wrote in saying she, as a gifted child teacher, didn't feel the characterisations were accurate. Orson responds by saying he felt like writing back to her telling her that: "gifted children don't talk like that around you because they know better than to talk like this around you" but then says he didn't as he thought it was too rude to say this. So if it was too rude to write back in a personal letter saying this, why is it okay to put in the foreword of a book to be read by hundreds of thousands?

You read the introduction?? :p

It took a while for the book to draw me in, but the payoff was well worth it. The last ten or twenty pages are some of the best I've ever read.

You read the introduction?? :p
I know. Stupid of me wasn't it!
It was 16 pages long so I figured he must have something to say for himself. Unfortunately what he had to say for himself was worth saying and damn near put me off reading the book!
Last time I read an intro

Will Smith is to blame for many things, but the stories in I, Robot being unforgivably boring is not one of them. Even if you did like them, what would be gained in a movie version?
Do you really want to watch 20 minutes of some girl moping around because her "friend" robot was taken away by her evil mommy? Or a 30 minute montage of two guys antagonizing a robot that is stuck running circles? What about an AI that malfunctions and, OH MY GOD, forces the crew to eat beans?

Yes, I would like that, because it's better than 20 minutes of a girl moping about not getting the perfect pink earrings for her birthday, and that is something which more than one Hollywood film has stretched out into two hours; it brings up the the question of sapience vs. "life," the value of an inanimate but still emotionally important object, and highlights the dreadful impact that a mothers fear of social stigma can have on her children (The story of a child being told not to hang out with black/Jewish/gay kid from down the street has been filmed countless times). The stories of Powell and Donovan often examine relevant social issues in robotic metaphor, and yes, the fact is that it would simply be funny to watch a drunk robot run in circles singing Gilbert & Sullivan. Other short stories examine the ideas of free will, the age-old question of "Is a man a slave if he doesn't know he's a slave," etc.

It would not be an action-packed romp of whacky fun, but it would be a quality example of serious film that packages intellectual thought into an entertaining package.

And again, drunk robots FTW.

death and designation among the asaadi - r.a.lafferty
ringworld - larry nevin

there's probably a bunch of others, those are just the first two that come to mind.

skeen's leap and pride of chanur too. (actually the skeen and chanur stories are both series of four books each, though each stand alone, rather then being quadrillogies as such)

as for acting, well i think seagorny weaver would be a shoe in for signey malory, that's from another series of cherreh's but set in the same universe as chenur, that the two series, though seperate, kind of dovetail into each other, so if you take everything cherreh set in that universe, you could have the kind of major epic, if that's what a studio wanted, if it worked for them, like with the star wars series.

clark's childhood's end, when i read it back in the early 60s, i saw that in my mind as a major movie too, though i'm not so sure i'd care one way or another about it finally being made into a movie now.

witches of kerries, and then the telzey amberdon series of stories and those related that tie into it and its universe, would make absolutely wonderful gonzo movies, and i think each of the latter are about the right length, novellas or long 'short stories' that you could put the whole thing, of each one, each into a movie, without having to trunkate any of the essentials, as too often happens when books ARE made into movies.

really true novels are too long to not have to, but novellas, which a lot of real skiffy stories are written as, are just about the right length.

and it is the mystery and science fiction genre's i see as having the most potential for making the kinds of movies i would most like to see.

i'm not a big one on actors, i think the problem with the star concept is people watch the actors too much and miss the story, and for me, the story, and then the tecnology of the visual effects, are what the movie media is all about.

Job: A Comedy of Justice by Robert A Heinlein just for the special effects it would take to do it right.

Job: A Comedy of Justice by Robert A Heinlein just for the special effects it would take to do it right.

I'd like to see the Rapture put to film in such a manner...

RHIP

Ender's Game. It has been in the works for years.

:)

Anyways.

The Cloven Viscount (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cloven_Viscount) by Italo Calvino
Director: Tim Burton or Peter Greenway

John Carpenter's Hungry, hungry caterpillar

Starship Troopers... FOLLOWING THE BOOK! not just tagging the lead characters with the names from the book and leaving that as the total extent of changing an existing script...

skeen's leap and pride of chanur too. (actually the skeen and chanur stories are both series of four books each, though each stand alone, rather then being quadrillogies as such)

as for acting, well i think seagorny weaver would be a shoe in for signey malory, that's from another series of cherreh's but set in the same universe as chenur, that the two series, though seperate, kind of dovetail into each other, so if you take everything cherreh set in that universe, you could have the kind of major epic, if that's what a studio wanted, if it worked for them, like with the star wars series.




If you like Cherryh then have you read "40,000 in Gehenna" it would be a hell of a movie to follow with serial generations and confusing interactions on screen, but if it could be done, it ought to be good.


then theres the Outsider novels, diplomacy at it's peak.


For a political action, Daughter of the Empire, Servant of the Empire and Mistress of the empire by raymond fiest far outshine his midkemia novels.

The Hungry Hungry Catapillar. :D

Artemis Fowl!

Terry Pratchett's Discworld series.

Alastair Reynold's Revelation Space...Though a high profile TV sci-fi series might suit that one better.

Cast? Who cares, I don't watch movies anyways :P

The Hungry Hungry Catapillar. :D
Gotta be faster:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14058023&postcount=87

y'know, I finally picked up a copy of Ender's Game a few weeks back and have really tried to get into it.
But nope. just can't.

I don't know why people go on about how great it is. The characters are too fake, the writing too knowing and the situations too contrived.
I just can't believe a 6yr old boy, no matter how intelligent, is going to speak and think the way Ender does. Let alone his elder siblings being able to manipulate the entire world's opinions so easily. And the Colonel who is in charge of Ender is just too perceptive, making him appear to be more of a plot device to explain to us readers what's going on rather than a real character. Their parents are just basic 1-dimensional cut-outs who are barely seen.
If he'd made them a few years older - say Ender starting his training at 12 I think I could have got into it more.



I was also greatly put off when I read his introduction which alternated between going on and on about how wonderful his book is ("this university course uses it, that university course uses it!") with sycophantic fan letters ("It's such a great book Orson!") and slagging off any criticism by attacking the critic (or rather belabouringly pointing out that he has a Masters in literature, which presumably indicates how great a writer he must be).
One woman wrote in saying she, as a gifted child teacher, didn't feel the characterisations were accurate. Orson responds by saying he felt like writing back to her telling her that: "gifted children don't talk like that around you because they know better than to talk like this around you" but then says he didn't as he thought it was too rude to say this. So if it was too rude to write back in a personal letter saying this, why is it okay to put in the foreword of a book to be read by hundreds of thousands?

Oh no, I never read the introduction first, always after I've read the book. It was more intended for those who had read it before and had picked up the new edition.

That said, I enjoyed the book immensely. Perhaps some of the ages were slightly unbelievable, but the idea was that the children were bred specifically for their intelligence. The point about the parents, in a sense the 'children' were never children in most senses so didn't have the same need of parents and adults in general.

Currently I'm reading the second in the series, which I feel may be better material for a film.

Gotta be faster:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14058023&postcount=87

Alright... :(

...War and Peace. :D

I just want them to do a Dracula movie and a Frankenstien movie that is close to the books.

'Mary Shelly's Frankenstien', with Kenneth Branger and Robert Denero, is very, very close to the book.

Something from the Foundation series

Starship Troopers... FOLLOWING THE BOOK! not just tagging the lead characters with the names from the book and leaving that as the total extent of changing an existing script...

The movie wasn't intended to be called Starship Troopers, the studio bought the rights after they green lighted the film, after noting the similarities. That's why it doesn't match at all. Same story with I,Robot.

Ringworld

The studio butchered one version (with the stupid intro, etc) which is why Lynch's name wasn't on the credits. The other version was - as you say - supposedly cut down to fit release timing... but Lynch was willing to claim responsibility for that one.

I like it. It's not really a fair representation of the book.. but it might well be as good as you can get.

I tend to think so. It would be difficult to make extended analogies to hydrodespotic regimes or discuss theological fatalism using the film medium. I can't imagine that iot would be easy to visually represent such things, and David Lynch was smart enough to focus on those things that do translate well, such as the plot and advanced mechanical technologies.

:)

Anyways.

The Cloven Viscount (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cloven_Viscount) by Italo Calvino
Director: Tim Burton or Peter Greenway

I'd love to see Greenaway do Calvino.

John Carpenter's Hungry, hungry caterpillar

By Eric Carle? Isn't that The Very Hungry Caterpillar?

'Mary Shelly's Frankenstien', with Kenneth Branger and Robert Denero, is very, very close to the book.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109836/
It also has Helena Bonham-Carter.

By Eric Carle? Isn't that The Very Hungry Caterpillar?





My mistake, though in mitigation it is a long time since I read it

By the same token, "Adulterous Victorian Man", or "Plantation Owner" (with his amazing ability to make people stop being uppity, and pick his damn cotton) are the next obvious choices for superhero greatness.

I literally laughed out loud at this.

'Mary Shelly's Frankenstien', with Kenneth Branger and Robert Denero, is very, very close to the book.

I watched the first 5 minutes and was repulsed by how inaccurate it was.

I lost all interest when they called the monster "Frankenstien".


THE MONSTER IS NOT FRANKENSTIEN!!!!!!!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109836/
It also has Helena Bonham-Carter.

Yesy yes!

I watched the first 5 minutes and was repulsed by how inaccurate it was.

I lost all interest when they called the monster "Frankenstien".


THE MONSTER IS NOT FRANKENSTIEN!!!!!!!

I can't say I remember that? Say, clip wallah, go fetch me a clip!

this sums it up perfectly what's wrong with Matthew McConaughey:
http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=ikSdZn8PK0w

Thank you. That's a bit harsh, but essentially correct in the fact that Mr. McConaughey really can't be Steve Rogers

-small snip-

I'm not personally a big fan of the Wolverine, which is the character I assume you were heading for, but I am quite a fan of the Dark Knight - make of that what you will - a character that saw his family slaughtered before his eyes (depending on which version of the story is being told) and went on to fight his way to a kind of peace that can only be maintained by NEVER being the innocent man who does nothing, leaving evil to triumph. A character that DOESN'T have any superhuman powers, but puts himself on the line every day. A character that faces evil that is so multifaceted and ubiquitous that he can never win. The Dark Knight is what I consider heroic.

To me, Captain America is a two-dimensional representation of a lot of things I despise - from the assumption that just getting on with your life when the girl you like picks another guy... is somehow special, to the shallow warlike mentality, to the sickening motif of nationalism as a virtue.

It's nothing to do with adamantium claws, and everything to do with being toothless chestbeating.

Yes, Batman is heroic. He's awesome, and Christian Bale did a great job in the role.

But you fail to understand what Captain America is. What he stands for. He is not a nationalist, over-patriotic super-soldier. His power was never the reason that Cap was such a hero.

Cap's greatness lies in his drive, same as Batman. Sure, it might not be a drive to prevent another 8-year old boy from growing up an orphan, but it's his own drive. Cap's drive is a belief in something better, a world that is better because humanity has made the effort to do so. And it lies in his ability to lead, to inspire that same hope in others, that they might follow him in his footsteps.

And for the record, Captain America was one of the first to stand against the American government during the Civil War story arc over the Superhuman Registration Act. Rogers opposed the act (a strong allegorical reference to the Patriot Act) and refused to be drafted into hunting down unregistered superhumans, and when they tried to bring him in by force, he fought back. He's not the nationalist soldier that you claim. He's a man that gave everything for country, dedicating his life to others. He might not be the Dark Knight that Batman is, but Cap is driven just as hard. It's just a shame that a genuine belief in a better world can only come from a tragedy to be considered valid.

Comparing Batman and Captain America, I would saay that both are fairly mythological characters that relate to different aspects of us.

Batamn is the Redeemer. He truns the darkness and the violence into something that makes the world a better place, both inside himself and in his environment.

CA is the cowboy with the white hat. The absolute good guy. The shining knight.

Each appeals to a part of us, just like Wolverine appeals to our feral and renegade side.

But Batman makes better movies.

The George R. R. Martin-edited shared-world series Wild Cards. It IS what Heroes THINKS it is.

The George R. R. Martin-edited shared-world series Wild Cards. It IS what Heroes THINKS it is.

Heroes is awesome, but only for ONE reason:


http://torreyb.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/1203_hayden_gq.jpg


*drools*

...and if they were doing it, who would you like to see cast as your favorite characters?I'm looking forward to the rumored production of The Swarm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Swarm_(novel)). Not sure whom I would want to see playing the different characters, but it would be hilarious if Maximilian Schell played Sigur Johanson.

Casca: The Eternal Mercenary

I want to see genuine-Sadler/early-Casca, not the later ghost-writer stuff.

I wouldn't mind seeing a film adeptation of the 'Dragon Lance' saga.

I wouldn't mind seeing a film adeptation of the 'Dragon Lance' saga."Adeptation"... At first I was going to berate you for misspelling, but it so wonderfully combines the words "adept" and "adaptation" to imply that the adaptation would have to be good. I think we should add the word to the dictionary.

"Adeptation"... At first I was going to berate you for misspelling, but it so wonderfully combines the words "adept" and "adaptation" to imply that the adaptation would have to be good. I think we should add the word to the dictionary.

Sweet! although that was not my entent!

Mmmpphhbawahah.

Ender's Game, as someone mentioned already, would be fantastic, though perhaps some of the internal dialogue/conflict would be hard to pull off.

Someone else mentioned A Game of Thrones, which I whole-heartedly agree with. George Martin said that HBO might be picking up the rights to do a mini-series on it, which would be far superior to an actual movie. Although, I don't necessarily agree with your casting choices. (Tywin Lannister has a shaved head, btw). I don't think it would be essential to have any 'big name' actors for the show. Your expectations are already going to be high due to the books being so great; no need to add expectations of individual actors, too.

The Camels Are Coming- WE Johns not sure about the cast though

The Bible, using the cast of High School Musical.

The Bible, using the cast of High School Musical.

Is it really flipping weird that I was going to suggest the Bible, turned into a movie musical? :eek:

I watched the first 5 minutes and was repulsed by how inaccurate it was.

I lost all interest when they called the monster "Frankenstien".


THE MONSTER IS NOT FRANKENSTIEN!!!!!!!

Frankenstein was the monster. The so-called monster was a victim.

Man-eaters of Kumaon.

Any idea what you're talking about, because you lost me already.

Where did I say that the best America could be was an oxymoron? Oh, that's right - I didn't.

I'm not personally a big fan of the Wolverine, which is the character I assume you were heading for, but I am quite a fan of the Dark Knight - make of that what you will - a character that saw his family slaughtered before his eyes (depending on which version of the story is being told) and went on to fight his way to a kind of peace that can only be maintained by NEVER being the innocent man who does nothing, leaving evil to triumph. A character that DOESN'T have any superhuman powers, but puts himself on the line every day. A character that faces evil that is so multifaceted and ubiquitous that he can never win. The Dark Knight is what I consider heroic.

To me, Captain America is a two-dimensional representation of a lot of things I despise - from the assumption that just getting on with your life when the girl you like picks another guy... is somehow special, to the shallow warlike mentality, to the sickening motif of nationalism as a virtue.

It's nothing to do with adamantium claws, and everything to do with being toothless chestbeating.

The Batman is more multifaceted than Wolverine, I'll grant, but he's also more multifaceted than you grant as well. You forget that while Batman fights in the shadows and takes his licks from the police and from the criminals because that's what he has to do, you don't seem to understand that this isn't the world he's hoping will be in the future. If he had no hope for the future, he'd be indistinguishable from Rorshach. Instead, he refuses to cross a great many lines (in the movie, only one, but in the comics, he retires after he had grown so old that he'd had to use a gun defensively to stop a criminal) in the pursuit not of vengeance on the guilty but justice for the innocent. And he does it precisely because deep down, he's hoping that there's enough left of Bruce Wayne when that day comes that he can still be redeemed.

The long and short of it, then, is that he does what he does because while he has no faith in the future, he still has a glimmer of hope. And Batman is tragic precisely because he wishes with all his heart that he could have that faith and that hope restored to him. In his own universe, there is no one with a more conflicted relationship with Superman because there's no one with a better understanding of what Superman represents and a deeper desire to be Superman (not the abilities, the deep and abiding faith that by being the best of humanity, you can save humanity).

My point then about Rogers is very simple: there are few if any characters in Marvel that better epitomize what Superman is really about than Captain America. I'll grant you that he's much more nationalistic, but I think you've got a very poor understanding of both nationalism and Captain America if you think he's just some kind of washed-up jingoist. Instead, he tries to epitomize the best of what an American is supposed to be: decent, honest, straightforward, intelligent, strong-willed, and willing to fight against evil and for those who can't defend themselves. These aren't bad qualities. They're just qualities that 30 years of never-ending cynicism have divorced from our sense of what fat, stupid, lazy America is really about. Which is in some sense the same kind of pathos Captain America represents: we don't care as much about honor or decency or rightness in action and conduct as we once did, and it's precisely, just like Superman, that we so need Steve Rogers. To remind us that we know we can be more than we are, because we once were more than we are now.

Comparing Batman and Captain America, I would saay that both are fairly mythological characters that relate to different aspects of us.

Batamn is the Redeemer. He truns the darkness and the violence into something that makes the world a better place, both inside himself and in his environment.

CA is the cowboy with the white hat. The absolute good guy. The shining knight.

Each appeals to a part of us, just like Wolverine appeals to our feral and renegade side.

But Batman makes better movies.

I think you might be right - and I've really never had any interest in the stories about the 'white hats'.

Although, that said, I still find Captain America to be a little 'ID4' to stomach. I guess I just don't like saccharine.

I'm not terribly surprised that Captain America isn't big with Europeans. It's something with a very specific niche appeal, like NASCAR or the Independent Film Channel.

I've heard that they were planning a 'Thor' movie with the wrestler Triple H in the title role. I'd pay to see that movie, especially if they followed the script of Garth Ennis's Thor:Vikings graphic novel. And speaking of Norse myths, I'd like to see a quality adaptation of the saga of Weyland the Smith. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyland)

Also maybe 'King Solomon's Mines' or really anything by H. Rider Haggard, as long as they stick. to. the. book. the lack of which is what I think kills most book-to-film adaptations. Possibly also a movie about the biblical King David that is both well done by a major studio and does not star Richard Gere. Maybe get Mel Gibson to do it, considering the great job he did on 'The Passion.'

The Batman is more multifaceted than Wolverine, I'll grant, but he's also more multifaceted than you grant as well. You forget that while Batman fights in the shadows and takes his licks from the police and from the criminals because that's what he has to do, you don't seem to understand that this isn't the world he's hoping will be in the future. If he had no hope for the future, he'd be indistinguishable from Rorshach. Instead, he refuses to cross a great many lines (in the movie, only one, but in the comics, he retires after he had grown so old that he'd had to use a gun defensively to stop a criminal) in the pursuit not of vengeance on the guilty but justice for the innocent. And he does it precisely because deep down, he's hoping that there's enough left of Bruce Wayne when that day comes that he can still be redeemed.

The long and short of it, then, is that he does what he does because while he has no faith in the future, he still has a glimmer of hope. And Batman is tragic precisely because he wishes with all his heart that he could have that faith and that hope restored to him. In his own universe, there is no one with a more conflicted relationship with Superman because there's no one with a better understanding of what Superman represents and a deeper desire to be Superman (not the abilities, the deep and abiding faith that by being the best of humanity, you can save humanity).


Batman does what he does because he's driven by a number of factors.

His own demons constantly have him trying to right the one wrong he can never right. His mission is hopeless, and deep down, he knows it. But still, he's driven by it.

That's the thing I love about the Batman - he's fighting his own demons. He wins some of those fights, and he loses some.

He's also driven by the fact that no one else can do what he does. He does what he does precisely SO that no one else will HAVE TO do what he does. While his central focus could be argued as selfish, he's not a bad man. His selfishness is both pragmatic and giving.

And deep down, he does what he does simply to take a stand against bad men. Not just because of his own losses, not just because he feels the call of the vigilante... but because he just can't sit by and let bad things happen to good people.

The Dark Knight is all about complexity and conflict. He is hope and hopelessness. He's redemption... and a redemption he knows he can never have. And, maybe most importantly - he's JUST a man... and that makes him 'only human', but it also makes his work so much more special, so much more meaningful.



My point then about Rogers is very simple: there are few if any characters in Marvel that better epitomize what Superman is really about than Captain America. I'll grant you that he's much more nationalistic, but I think you've got a very poor understanding of both nationalism and Captain America if you think he's just some kind of washed-up jingoist. Instead, he tries to epitomize the best of what an American is supposed to be: decent, honest, straightforward, intelligent, strong-willed, and willing to fight against evil and for those who can't defend themselves. These aren't bad qualities. They're just qualities that 30 years of never-ending cynicism have divorced from our sense of what fat, stupid, lazy America is really about. Which is in some sense the same kind of pathos Captain America represents: we don't care as much about honor or decency or rightness in action and conduct as we once did, and it's precisely, just like Superman, that we so need Steve Rogers. To remind us that we know we can be more than we are, because we once were more than we are now.

Ah - you did it yourself... Captain America stands for "the best of what an American is supposed to be", and apparently you don't even see where the problem is, with that.

Batman does what he does because he's driven by a number of factors.

His own demons constantly have him trying to right the one wrong he can never right. His mission is hopeless, and deep down, he knows it. But still, he's driven by it.

That's the thing I love about the Batman - he's fighting his own demons. He wins some of those fights, and he loses some.

He's also driven by the fact that no one else can do what he does. He does what he does precisely SO that no one else will HAVE TO do what he does. While his central focus could be argued as selfish, he's not a bad man. His selfishness is both pragmatic and giving.

And deep down, he does what he does simply to take a stand against bad men. Not just because of his own losses, not just because he feels the call of the vigilante... but because he just can't sit by and let bad things happen to good people.

The Dark Knight is all about complexity and conflict. He is hope and hopelessness. He's redemption... and a redemption he knows he can never have. And, maybe most importantly - he's JUST a man... and that makes him 'only human', but it also makes his work so much more special, so much more meaningful.

And yet, I believe it was by Batman's own admission that Superman was the most human of all the Justice League, and heaven help them all if Supes ever forgot that.

I suppose ultimately we'll have to disagree, if for no other reason than because apparently we'd go over whether Batman is a better moral fable than Superman till Ragnarok, but what irks me from the tenor of your posts is that you don't seem to consider Superman to be a moral fable at all; just something you tell your kids along with eating their Wheaties and brushing their teeth, and real adults realize Batman had it right all along. I disagree with this premise, because I see the two as alike on the alienation axis (Superman if not more so. . .his greatest wish is that he could be nothing more than Clark Kent, because then he wouldn't be alone and he really could live with Lois), but Superman is also a god who nevertheless refuses to let his incredible power corrupt him. He faces temptations that no other superhero faces, and I deeply suspect that you and we don't appreciate Superman not because he's childish but because you've stopped believing that in what Superman really represents: the axiom that absolute power corrupts absolutely is not in fact true, if we choose otherwise.


Ah - you did it yourself... Captain America stands for "the best of what an American is supposed to be", and apparently you don't even see where the problem is, with that.

Apparently not. At it's core, "Good American" is no different than "Good human being" with a sense of national pride attached. And there is no reason why national pride need be considered a bad thing; every country needs some degree of nationalism to remain extant, and America in particular has done some amazing things and attempted through large portions of its history to embody amazingly poignant truths about the human condition and press for human betterment. Where we've failed in the past, we've improved, and where we fail today, our children will improve on our mistakes. Where jingoism was once the only form of patriotism, it's really the American experiment in living in accord with principles of law that allows the better form of patriotism to even happen.

As Captain America once said in the wake of Watergate: "I'm loyal to the Dream." If you feel that such a thing is somehow faulty, then I guess you have my sympathies, but I fail to see how that's somehow bad judgment on my part. I've been known to be wrong, but I don't think I'm wrong here.

'Mary Shelly's Frankenstien', with Kenneth Branger and Robert Denero, is very, very close to the book.
omg, but that was truly awful. Kenneth Braghnar hams it up so much in the movie it becomes a farce. The bit where he strides back and forth flipping switches and tearing his shirt off is so camp! And I'd love to have his cleaner who cleaned up the entire mess he made that night he made the monster so thoroughly that by the morning when he awoke everything was spotless.
Plus the entire movie appeared to be nothing more than a chance for everyone involved to try out their, "NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!" yells. I swear, every single actor in that movie had a scene where they yelped.

Alright... :(

...War and Peace. :D
Too late, the Russians did a brilliant job of that 40 years ago:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063794/

8 hour running time. As close to the book as you're going to get. If, in the book, it mentioned 120,000 soldiers fighting then that's what the filmmaker had on screen. Honestly. They did have 120,000 extras for the movie!

It cost $100 million to make - and that was in 1967 Russia. That's $700million now, and I'm not sure whether that's just inflation or if it also takes into account the difference in costs between Russia and the USA (+ also paying for all those extras, who were mostly Red Army so doing it for free).

And yet, I believe it was by Batman's own admission that Superman was the most human of all the Justice League, and heaven help them all if Supes ever forgot that.

I suppose ultimately we'll have to disagree, if for no other reason than because apparently we'd go over whether Batman is a better moral fable than Superman till Ragnarok, but what irks me from the tenor of your posts is that you don't seem to consider Superman to be a moral fable at all; just something you tell your kids along with eating their Wheaties and brushing their teeth, and real adults realize Batman had it right all along. I disagree with this premise, because I see the two as alike on the alienation axis (Superman if not more so. . .his greatest wish is that he could be nothing more than Clark Kent, because then he wouldn't be alone and he really could live with Lois), but Superman is also a god who nevertheless refuses to let his incredible power corrupt him. He faces temptations that no other superhero faces, and I deeply suspect that you and we don't appreciate Superman not because he's childish but because you've stopped believing that in what Superman really represents: the axiom that absolute power corrupts absolutely is not in fact true, if we choose otherwise.


I didn't say anything about Superman?

I'm not a big fan of Superman, because he's just too much. He's a deus ex in ugly tights. That's not a story. That's an excuse.


Apparently not. At it's core, "Good American" is no different than "Good human being" with a sense of national pride attached. And there is no reason why national pride need be considered a bad thing; every country needs some degree of nationalism to remain extant, and America in particular has done some amazing things and attempted through large portions of its history to embody amazingly poignant truths about the human condition and press for human betterment. Where we've failed in the past, we've improved, and where we fail today, our children will improve on our mistakes. Where jingoism was once the only form of patriotism, it's really the American experiment in living in accord with principles of law that allows the better form of patriotism to even happen.

As Captain America once said in the wake of Watergate: "I'm loyal to the Dream." If you feel that such a thing is somehow faulty, then I guess you have my sympathies, but I fail to see how that's somehow bad judgment on my part. I've been known to be wrong, but I don't think I'm wrong here.

Good American is not the same as 'good human being'. Good American implies there's something special and significant about being an American... it's exactly the opposite of 'good human being'.

Captain America is Aryanism for Americans.

omg, but that was truly awful. Kenneth Braghnar hams it up so much in the movie it becomes a farce. The bit where he strides back and forth flipping switches and tearing his shirt off is so camp! And I'd love to have his cleaner who cleaned up the entire mess he made that night he made the monster so thoroughly that by the morning when he awoke everything was spotless.
Plus the entire movie appeared to be nothing more than a chance for everyone involved to try out their, "NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!" yells. I swear, every single actor in that movie had a scene where they yelped.

HERESY! Never speak ill of Kenneth Brannagh strutting around being camp!!!

I didn't say anything about Superman?

I'm not a big fan of Superman, because he's just too much. He's a deus ex in ugly tights. That's not a story. That's an excuse.
You're just jealous because you don't have super knitting powers.
Captain America is Aryanism for Americans.
Don't forget the bigger tits. For some reason, most people who draw him feel the need to give him some serious man melons, and I don't mean he gets a lot of fruit.

HERESY! Never speak ill of Kenneth Brannagh strutting around being camp!!!
How would you describe it then?
I can't think of a more apt word than 'camp'!

How would you describe it then?
I can't think of a more apt word than 'camp'!

It's a fitting word... but you say it like it's a bad thing! Kenneth Brannagh being camp is just dreamy.

It's a fitting word... but you say it like it's a bad thing! Kenneth Brannagh being camp is just dreamy.
ah...okay. I'll leave you to your dreams then.

I want to see one day in the life of Ivan denisovich made into a movie.

Agreed...

Also would like to see a Crichton book made into a movie...
I know, supposedly its been done already, but I've read the books so I know better...

agreed...

Also would like to see a crichton book made into a movie...
I know, supposedly its been done already, but i've read the books so i know better...

holy shit youre still here!

Yep, I disappeared for a while and probably will again (my work schedule has been crazy lately) but I'll still pop in now and again