• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Theoretical: If HBO did Sc-Fi what books would you want them to do

For the sex, obviously. :rolleyes:

:rofl:

I must be a prude because I don't find swearing or excessive soft porn helps any story (Ugh "Rome").

Well, I think the two things HBO can take is that they can do Risky Shows (For example, "Big Love" was a very good show for a couple of years before it jumped the shark, and you would NEVER have such a show on ad-supported TV). Another good example is Dexter, which is a good show, but needs the leeway that pay cable allows. Now for each of those type of shows, there is two or three that is just a bad idea with boobs. :p

that, and it depends on how many people subscribe to the channel, thus allowing for a show to work with less viewers. If HBO gets a million subscribers due to a show, it will more then pay its way, but a million viewers even on Stiffy will be in danger of being canceled.

The books of the Game of thrones is full of bloodshed and sex, and while popular, is not HUGE. Thus it was a ideal for HBO to make a series of it.
 
Yes, absolutely, the Gap is Stellar, except for how Morn is brought to her personality through the sexual violence.

And the sad thing is that Morn could go though the same development without the sexual violence. IIRC the author admitted in the a appendix of the first book that he has some issues. After reading the books, it becomes rather obvious that that is the case. It a real shame as otherwise it is one of the best series out there.
 
Well, I think the two things HBO can take is that they can do Risky Shows (For example, "Big Love" was a very good show for a couple of years before it jumped the shark, and you would NEVER have such a show on ad-supported TV).

I question this supposition. Most HBO shows are high concept shows, usually from show creators with track records for producing highly praised shows aka Critic Bait. I don't think HBO would do a show like Stargate which is pretty middle of the road in the quality department. As for Sci-fi, let's be honest most "intellectuals" (aka snobs) consider science fiction the nerd ghetto only good for comic book guy. The success of big budget Sci-fi films like "Thor" only strengthens this perception. I'm not saying it can't be done but I don't know any series exceptional enough (and isn't fantasy) that would attract HBO. You're best bet is an original concept show (like Dexter) and not an adaptation.

The books of the Game of thrones is full of bloodshed and sex, and while popular, is not HUGE. Thus it was a ideal for HBO to make a series of it.
I find Game of Thrones has the Rome/Deadwood problem. It tries too hard to be hip and edgy that it loses sight of the character and the plot. I bet if they tone down the sex and violence the show would be better for it.
 
Yes, absolutely, the Gap is Stellar, except for how Morn is brought to her personality through the sexual violence.

And the sad thing is that Morn could go though the same development without the sexual violence. IIRC the author admitted in the a appendix of the first book that he has some issues. After reading the books, it becomes rather obvious that that is the case. It a real shame as otherwise it is one of the best series out there.

Yup. I only read about the first 100 pages of Mirror of her Dreams (Mordant's Need Bk 1), he doesn't do anything like that (Or Lena from TCTC) to Terisa, does he?
 
I own but never read Mordant Need, and I stopped reading TCTC at the infamous point and just said "enough". It (Mordant's Need) is supposed to be lighter, but him and Piers Athony are two writers that I enjoyed at one time as a teen that as I gotten older stay away from for almost the same issue.

Apparently, that one is not totally kosher as well

From a review...

The Case For The Prosecution: Angus

While arguably it might be said that Morn is the major character of the Gap series, Angus is clearly the character that holds Donaldson’s interest the most. This, it has to be said, is a bit of a worry. Donaldson’s work shows a fascination with sexual violence which is pretty damned disturbing. He says in the Afterword that he’s irrationally sure that his readers will recognise that he is in fact Angus thinly disguised: I’m not sure why he thinks this is irrational, as his emotional involvement with Angus’s character is as hard to miss as a Klingon in an embroidery shop.

Donaldson gets my respect for continuing with this line of stuff even when he felt it was opening his darker side up for general inspection: that can’t have been easy and shows a powerful and disconcerting honesty at work. I’m surprised, however, that he talks about finding, rather than inventing, Angus in a way that had never occurred before, as this thread’s been right through his work. One can hardly miss the fact that Thomas Covenant is a rapist, and it was with heavy-duty déjà vu that I read in a review of the Chronicles that many readers were unhappy at being manipulated by the author into accepting Covenant as a hero worthy of redemption.

In Mordant’s Need, there are of course some slimy scenes between Terisa and Eremis, but those don’t set off my warning klaxons in the same way: it’s pretty clear that Donaldson feels about Eremis the way he does about Nick (he certainly seems to have something against the sexually charismatic). The scenes, however, in which Castellan Lebbick alternately hits Terisa and kisses her leap off the page with a particularly concentrated intensity, the exact same quality of which, magnified geometrically, is present in The Real Story. (Donaldson’s "confession" in the Afterword came as quite a relief: when I first started reading The Real Story, with its peculiarly vivid and unpleasant scenes of Angus either raping Morn, anticipating raping Morn or recalling raping Morn, and recognised that same quality again, I had started to think that it was my own lurid imagination going into overdrive, so it was nice to know it wasn’t just my warped mind at work.)

http://www.reviewsbygavrielle.com/gap.shtml
 
Last edited:
What part is rubbish. Critics and those idiots that follow them don't like Sci-Fi.

All of it was rubbish.

There is a professor in my own department who has contributed two chapters to an edited collection on Harry Potter and History, and is herself editing a volume on The Hobbit and History.

There is another professor, upstairs, in the Political Science department, who teaches a course on politics and science fiction, and who is editing a volume on Shrek.

Intellectuals--real intellectuals--take fantasy and science fiction as seriously as any other type of popular culture. J. R. R. Tolkien was Rawlinson and Bosworth Professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford University.

In fact, intellectuals are much more respectful toward popular culture than anti-intellectuals are toward high culture. When was the last time you read a novel by Zola, or a poem by Byron, or listened to classical music, or watched an arthouse film, or even went to an art gallery?

The biggest snobs in our society are the reverse snobs, and the biggest elitists are the anti-elitists--people who think being lowbrow makes them better.

I don't know you, but judging from your sneering talk of "intellectuals aka snobs," it certainly sounds to me like you fall into that category.

ETA: I forgot to add that the colleague I mentioned above has also published work on nuBSG, and approached me about contributing to forthcoming volumes in the same series about Star Trek and Star Wars. Unfortunately, I couldn't think of anything significant to say on either subject. :(
 
Last edited:
Well, I met english professors who think Dune is great...but that is almost fantasy....outside of that and one that liked Childhood End, most of them despise Science Fiction.

I think if you asked, you'd discover that what they despise is bad science fiction. Or bad genre fiction, period.

And rightly so. Most genre fiction is crap, which is enjoyed by its readers for non-literary reasons, despite its conspicuous lack of literary merit.

And I say that as a fan of several types of genre fiction--science-fiction, fantasy, crime, detective, and horror.
 
Intellectuals--real intellectuals--take fantasy and science fiction as seriously as any other type of popular culture. J. R. R. Tolkien was Rawlinson and Bosworth Professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford University.

First of all calm down. In no way did I imply that people who liked popular Sci-Fi or fantasy were stupid. My attacks were solely to pseudo intellectuals who make up most of the TV and movie critics in our society. My point is most of original programming from cable seem designed directly to attract the notice of these pseudo-intellectuals aka Critic Bait.

The biggest snobs in our society are the reverse snobs, and the biggest elitists are the anti-elitists--people who think being lowbrow makes them better.
Well you described the dark side of Sci-Fi fandom but this is certainly not me.

As for your questions. I've never read Zola but I did read a book on the Dreyfus affair (I have tried to read Proust). I hate Lord Byron, I much prefer our native poets like Robert Frost. Last week I was part of a fund drive to support public radio, one of them being a classic radio station. I went yesterday to our local art museum which was doing an exhibition on mid 18th century furniture (Stickley furniture is made in my neck of the woods). Last weekend I watch Werner Hertzog's "Cave of Forgotten Dreams". I plan to see "Troll Hunter" when it comes around.
 
People usually tell me I'm a snob for reading Science Fiction. I tell them I'm not a snob; I'm an elitist.
 
I don't think HBO would do a show like Stargate which is pretty middle of the road in the quality department.

You're best bet is an original concept show (like Dexter) and not an adaptation.

Err, are we ignoring that Stargate started on Showtime, or is that considered a different animal?

And Dexter is an adaptation.
 
Err, are we ignoring that Stargate started on Showtime, or is that considered a different animal?

And Dexter is an adaptation.


Wow I didn't know that Dexter was based on a novel. As for Stargate, the thread tittle saids HBO not Showtime. HBO is known for it's "higher quality" (though they do have plenty of T&A show).
 
I should be more careful about writing "flip" comments-geez, two pages of debate.....

I think , if HBO is doing a project, it requires someone with knowledge of the genre to get through the chaff and single out the truly special parts that rise above the rest. Sadly, this would mean NOT necessarily defaulting to Dick which is all the Hollywood machine seems capable of. Several of us suggested The Moon is a Harsh Mistress-and that might work, but how about The Rolling Stones? What about Jack Finney's Time And Again? Ken Grimwood's Replay? Or Jack McDevitt's stories, like Chindi? Or the Dorsai saga-which practically screams to be adapted for the screen? The material is out there-it's just a shame that too much of the Hollywood machine thinks alien invasions are the heart of science fiction. I mean, The Garden Of Iden would make a beautiful movie, as would Pavane. And if they wanted to do a 2-3 night "event" how about Santiago by Resnick?
 
I love McDevitt-- in fact I think I suggested Priscilla Hutchins-- and either one of his series could be HBOified and still retain the imagination and intelligence at their core.

Another good possibility would be the Pern books.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top