No, because I don't want to sully this forum, and I don't want to give him any free advertising.
But you'd be doing a public service for your fellow board members, by helping us to avoid something so horrid!

No, because I don't want to sully this forum, and I don't want to give him any free advertising.
Will you pm the name & title? I’m interested in knowing what & who, but will definitely not be buying it, since my TBR pile already numbers over 10,000.No, because I don't want to sully this forum, and I don't want to give him any free advertising.
Or fellow Board members might buy the damn thing out of the same sort of morbid curiosity that causes people to look at train wrecks of the more literal sort. (I'm firmly convinced that roughly half the overwhelmingly positive reviews I've seen in online bookstore web sites [and the two "thumbs-down" ratings given to my own negative, but far from scathing, review] are from friends -- or maybe even sock-puppets -- of the author, roughly half are from people who own -- and are willing to be seen in public wearing -- red MAGA baseball caps, and those who don't fall into either category haven't enough sense to see the gaping plot holes and broken author-reader contracts.)But you'd be doing a public service for your fellow board members, by helping us to avoid something so horrid!![]()
The remarkable thing is that while the TMP novelization was hardly in the realm of great literature, it's still quite good, especially given that Roddenberry hadn't written a novel before, and hadn't written much prose fiction in years. Indeed, it was a good deal better (or at the very least, better Star Trek) than most of the Bantam-era novels, even those by seasoned authors.
I contrast it with another "first novel," marketed as science fiction, that I fervently wish I could un-read. It is so unspeakably bad that I will not mention the title or author, only that I am truly amazed that it ever made it into the bookstores, let alone that both a sequel and a prequel managed to do so as well.
Or fellow Board members might buy the damn thing out of the same sort of morbid curiosity that causes people to look at train wrecks of the more literal sort.
Enjoyed the book - grabbed me right from the first paragraph. The movie was also good and a surprisingly (mostly) faithful adaptation of the book. FWIW, I read the book before the movie happened and was already picturing Matt Damon as Whatley. His follow-up Artemis was pretty good, too.I couldn't stand reading "The Martian." Made for a good movie, though.
For me it was the opposite. I really enjoyed the novel, but the movie was very meh.I couldn't stand reading "The Martian." Made for a good movie, though.
Artemis is a pretty damn good book.His follow-up Artemis was pretty good, too.
A question for @Christopher though. Was writing Ex Machina easier or harder to write and incorporate the TMP novelization in your work?
Looking back with the passage of time, is there anything you can say that you could have done differently, would have done differently in your book?
Where you restricted by Pocket's editors in any way? Where there concepts you wanted to use but couldnt?
But I still stand by my opinion that movie novelizations should NOT disappear just because you can own the movie now in many forms faster than ever before. Novelizations are important process to explore thoughts, feelings, motivations and deleted scenes and deleted concepts not seen in other media.
Problem is these days a lot of studios are forbidding novelizations from embellishing on things like that and are requiring them to stick to the script and nothing else. A silly rule, IMO, since it pretty much destroys the only real relevance a novelization can have in the modern world where movies are usually available on home media within six months of theatrical release.But I still stand by my opinion that movie novelizations should NOT disappear just because you can own the movie now in many forms faster than ever before. Novelizations are important process to explore thoughts, feelings, motivations and deleted scenes and deleted concepts not seen in other media.
Liked for the Funky Flashman reference. #Excelsior!And, on-topic, the synopsis sounds a bit like if someone were doing a Funky-Flashman-style parody of Roddenberry's trashier dramatic interests and philosophical self-aggrandizement.
Considering how serialized TV and movies are nowadays, the studios maybe don’t want any contradictions at all with any future movies that fans might think were in the movie. I remember reading the “Home Alone 2” novelization in the late-90’s and the author had the hair cutting lawnmower scene, and then I saw “Home Alone 3” and the movie used the same scene. It didn’t contradict but at the same time the movie was reusing a scene.I don't really understand why most of the studios won't let the authors include extra content in the novelizations these days, it really defeats the whole point of even doing them.
One I have bought but haven't read yet that I'm very curious about is Suicide Squad. From what I've seen, it's apparently based on an earlier version of the movie/scrpt than one that ended up in theaters, so it's pretty different from the final movie.
Which is still kind of weird, since Rey and Poe are standing next to each other at the end of TFA when they all look at the map.Which is already something the new Star Wars movies have had a brush with. The novelization for The Force Awakens includes Rey and Poe meeting each other, but then in The Last Jedi, we get a scene in the movie itself where Rey and Poe meet making it clear they hadn't met before.
Which is still kind of weird, since Rey and Poe are standing next to each other at the end of TFA when they all look at the map.
Considering how serialized TV and movies are nowadays, the studios maybe don’t want any contradictions at all with any future movies that fans might think were in the movie.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.