Dune - The Book and the 1984 film *spoilers for both*

I totally don't agree. The mini series Paul, Duke Leto, and jessica were much better than the movie characters (the movie Jessica in particular was just bad). I felt like most of the actors in the movie were trying with what they had, but none of them were anywhere near as good as the mini series actors (except Patrick Stewart and Brad Dourif, who I think could have played their parts well with the way they were written in the mini series). The mini series was amazing from beginning to end, and did absolutely everything, from writing to acting to effects, better than the movie. Its one of my favorite live action sci fi things ever. I won't convince you that its good, just like you'll never convince me that the Dune movie is anything more than the worst sci fi adaptation I've ever seen, so I don't want to argue about it.

As for I, Robot I thought about reading it. I looked through it, saw that it doesn't actually follow the story of the movie, and then decided against it. It looked like a book I'd have to drop after 20 pages from pure boredom. I'm predisposed against reading "classic" sci fi authors anyway. I don't like a lot of the style of writing of older sci fi books, or just books in general (The LOTR books are about as old as I can read, and even then they're an exception, anthing older than Dune is generally not something I enjoy reading). Authors like Ray Bradbury, Arthur C. Clarke, Issac Asimov, etc are all authors I'm sure were good for their time but I wouldn't read anything they did unless I had no choice. Its just not a type of writing that I feel holds up.

 

I think the miniseries has the better script, though that's only because it has more time. Absolutely everything else is better in the Lynch movie though. Direction, cinematography, effects, music, costumes, atmosphere, set design.. all of it.

WTF!

WTF!

WTF!

WTF!

 

I, Robot is just a collection of short stories exploring the implications of the Three Laws. The movie did that as well, so I felt it adhered to the spirit of the book if not its plot(s).

 

I've just never been able to get into most books older than Dune, and even then Dune is pretty old when it comes to books I like. Not as old as the LOTR books obviously, but outside of LOTR and the older Dune books I don't read much older than the 80's, and even then most of my reading is late 80's to present day. Before that, most books just aren't written in a way I like, even if they had premises I might have enjoyed from more modern authors.

 

Given how reading has falling out amongst the developed world, I'm sure it's a shared sentiment somewhere. He is just articulating the sentiment that a movie or tv show with a strong video equivalent delivers the same stimulation as a book would, but with less time consumption.

 

I'm genuinely too poor to afford video game consoles so reading is my main form of escapism from this dystopian world. The classic science-fiction authors are my favourites, so I feel protective of them. Wonder what he thinks about Heinlein?

 

Careful saying that here; DalekJim and I once expressed that sentiment and got told in no uncertain terms that there most certainly is not a lack of reading in the public.

 

You have to wonder who's hand is up who's ass?

 

I actually love to read. I read a lot, I don't know how my dislike of older styles of writing = not a reader, but I am an avid reader, I just have my likes and dislikes. Right now I'm going through a Dune series reread, this time in chronological order of the books (minus the Butlerian jihad books or the Bene Gesserit ancient history book) and i'm up to The Winds of Dune. I prefer sci fi and fantasy books, and specific non fiction (a lot of maritime non fiction, stuff like naval warfare and history).

Now, i don't read many "snobby" books (I'm a huge fan of star trek and especially Star wars novels, and i'll defend most of them as well thought out books and not just mindless action stuff that some people label them) but even though I'm not a fan of most "classic" sci fi/fantasy books I do read a good amount of books. Its rare for me to go outside specific franchises anymore, but I do sometimes and it usually works out. That said, I'll try out a lot of modern stuff, but if its a sci fi/fantasy book pre 80's, I'm probably not going to read it. I just don't like how most books were written before then.

Thats nothing against old authors, I just find the prospect of reading an Arthur C. Clarke or Issac asimov novel to be very unappealing. Their sci fi is old school stuff, its not what I want. A good example of that, to me, is the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. I know its a popular book/movie, but the movie bored me to tears (and really confused me outside of the man vs. evil AI story, but even that wasn't too interesting). Since thats so popular, and its what I consider to be old school sci fi, I'm pretty sure almost all the sci fi around that time and before is just not for me. I'm not saying stuff like that is bad, just that its not something I enjoy. All sci fi is obviously not alike, but when I think of older sci fi novels and writers, I think of 2001 and have no desire to read any of it.

I enjoy video games (and i don't have much money, I got a PS3 because of an influx of money from relatives when I graduated High School several years ago) but I can understand noty being able to afford that stuff. Still, even though I enjoy that, I still enjoy reading as much as I like video games or television/movies.


Also, in case it was directed at me, I've never heard of Heinlein. I had to look him up on wikipedia (I'm assuming you're talking about Robert A. Heinlein, who wikipedia says was a sci fi writer). The only thing he's written that I've heard about is Starship Troopers, and I only know that because of the lame movie.

 

They should have filmed Harlan Ellison's I, Robot script instead of that think with Will Smith.

 

You are missing out on so much but you have pretty much made up your mind so no effort to dissuade you.

Edit:
Oh.. and that you elevate Star Wars and Star Trek novels (which i also love but consider to be mostly mediocre, action adventure writing you can read casually on a train) to be the same league or better than classics by Clarke or Asimov is very telling.. at least to me. Why not risk something and actually read one of their books fully with an open mind (personally i recommend the original Foundation trilogy by Asimov).. it something else than reading how an XWing does a special maneuver and then blasts a Tie Fighter for the xth time.

And damn.. did try to persuade you. Oh well..

 

There are plenty of very good Star Trek novels, and the Star Wars Expanded Universe books are more interesting than the movies. I've given up on them now though so I can focus on catching up with more interesting literary works.

When I was a little kid, the Star Wars EU helped me get in to reading.

 

I am begining to get the impression that to science-fiction fans below a certain age nothing exists unless it is on TV, a movie, a video/computer game, or adapted from one of those things. The whole literary side of the genre seems to be fading into obscurity. I hope I am wrong about this.

 

Yes, because all star wars books are about random jedi/x-wong battles

Star wars novels have created a lot of characters never in the movies that are some of my favorites in any media, and some of my favorite books ever. If i was alone on a desert island and could only take one book series, it would be the Star Wars: Republic Commando books, even over the Dune series and LOTR. Thats not saying I think its a higher quality neccesarily, but if I ever had to list my favorite books, with my favorite characters, SW: RC is on the short list (which also has LOTR and Dune). Including stuff by Timothy Zahn or Michael Stackpole/Aaron Allston's X-Wing series, a lot of my favorite novels are Star wars, and I'll defend them against all book snobs

I honestly don't want to argue about this. I'm fine with people looking down on Star wars books. I know I'd rather read a Karen traviss or timothy Zahn Star Wars book over any of the snobby "classics", so I get it from the other perspective. I can't (and won't) argue the signifigance of people like asimov, Clarke and Bradbury. At the same time, I'd personally put my favorite SW authors over any of them when it comes to what I think makes an entertaining read. I don't want to read sci fi novels about random robots and their three laws (which I thought were extremely stupid, but thats just coming from the I, Robot movie, maybe they're better thought out/less stupid in writing) or books about some guy inventing BS "psychohistory" (I half thought the Foundation wikipedia page was a joke when I just looked it up, I don't think I could invent a less interesting concept for a book if I tried). I don't read sci fi to read about stuff like that. I like interesting characters, and I somehow doubt characters matter much in a collection of short stories like I, Robot, or in stuff like the story of a man, an evil AI, and for some reason both monkies and space fetuses (which may have just been on the movie version, but like I said, when I think of snobby sci fi, I think of 2001). I'm not saying those aren't classics or that they're bad, I'd just take the worst Star wars book over them any day of the week.

 

I've read a few Star Trek novels in my time, even the much heralded "A Time to..." series. For the most part they've been pretty good, but the writing has never approached anything that I'd even consider "hard scifi."

I had better luck with the Star Wars EU, namely the Timothy Zahn trilogy, they seemed pretty dense to me...than again I was 11 when I read them

 

Listen.. i love the Star Wars books for what they are, i have started with the Zahn Thrawn trilogy back when they were originally released up to the multi-book New Jedi Order series which was awesome in its scope.

However what irks me the most in your postings is the constant referral to "snobby books" which in turn makes you sort of a snob too. You constantly deride old classics by putting them down without ever having actually read any of them to form a grounded opinion. You get so defensive because you like your Star Wars and Star Trek books and assume that everybody who's a fan of classics automatically thinks less of you because you like those books.

Try to keep an open mind and maybe invest a week or so to read one of those snobby books.. it might change your mind.

 

Just for myself, when it comes to non tv/movie/video game based sci fi, outside of obvious stuff like Dune, I happen to love Mike Resnick's Starship series, 4 great books not connected to outside media. For fantasy, I really enjoyed John Ringo's two Special Circumstances books, Neil Gaiman's Good Omens, and The Once and Future King. Besides that, a lot of the stuff I like is atleast somewhat connected to outside media, like The Dragonlance books, which are connected to D&D but is still a world created by the authors or John Ringo's Troy Rising trilogy which is apparently somewhat barely related to some outside story.

That said, looking at my list of books I've read (which isn't complete but is fairly comprehensive), I really haven't read that many sci fi or fantasy that are completely unconnected to anything but themselves. Then again, its hard to know whats good, and I usually have books I actually know I'll want to read taking up my time, instead of possibly wasting time on books of unknown quality.

 

I'm young by this forum's standards, and I care much more about literature than I do almost anything else. I'm a writer, and have been working on my first novel all summer. In my off-time, I've been reading the works of Robert A Heinlein, who has become my favourite author.

Movie science-fiction is by and large terrible. I'm a huge Star Trek fan, but most of the films are mediocre at best.

 

I get a bit defensive, but to be fair a lot of people are pretty harsh on the SW/ST books. As for the "snobs" comments, I'm not trying to insult people. I've never said the classics were bad, just that they don't interest me at all. But, when people start talking about how SW/ST books are just generic action (which is wrong 90% of the time) and how a bunch of authors older than my parents are the better writers because....they're old, I guess, it gets on my nerves. I'm fine with people liking what they like, I just happen to not have any desire to waste my time reading books from authors I know never wrote stuff I would like, and being an old sci fi author does not automatically make the perosn's work awesome or something everyone would want to read. Its like I said, 2001 A space Odessey is my benchmark. It was super long, slow, and nonsensical. Its also considered a masterpiece. It seems to be a representative of those kinds of books/sci fi stories of that era, and I have no desire to read anything remotely like that movie.

Well, the Abrams movies are terrible, but ST 2, 6, First Contact, 3, and 4 are pretty good (in that order, and ST II is my favorite movie ever).

 

The first 2 Star Trek movies are really good, it's rare I can be arsed watching any of the rest though. I'd rather just watch a random episode.