Which book would you like to see made as a Film?

[Connavar]

Yeah Black Man would be a hardcore, stand alone version of Kovac books. Hollywood would typically give it to Will Smith and make Marsalis a hero, not amoral assasin im sure

Thats why books like Morgan SF is more vivid,visual than SF films in hollywood. They would get ruined by hollywood unless its brain dead as Transformers.....

[Varangian]

David Gemmell's "Legend" would look pretty darn good on the big screen!

[Metryq]

Originally Posted by LadyLara

But as (2001: A Space Odyssey) stands at the moment the choice is either a rather dry novel, or an incomprehensible art flick.

"I believe that an artist should always leave some free space for interpretation, giving only some hints on the story behind it—completely self-explaining art has a tendency of being boring, because it doesn’t involve the viewer’s mind to complete the puzzle."

[CyBeR]

I'd actually love to see some really fast paced Sci-Fi get turned into either a series or a full fledged film. We really aren't getting enough FUN Sci-Fi into cinemas these days and it's a darn shame.

I'd love to see Retribution falls by Chris Wooding turned into a film. It's fun, great characters that would translate well to the big screen and a heap of fun in action.

Aside from that, I'd love to see a well made Dune film at long last. No, the Hallmark ones aren't that satisfying, and nor are the classic ones.

And I have to echo Metryq's idea: I really don't think there could be anything to be gained out of a "dumbed down" remake of 2001. At best, what I believe would be a rather good idea is a story inspired by 2001, film and book, but that can go strange new places instead of trying to recapture the original's lightning.

[LadyLara]

Originally Posted by Metryq

"I believe that an artist should always leave some free space for interpretation, giving only some hints on the story behind it—completely self-explaining art has a tendency of being boring, because it doesn’t involve the viewer’s mind to complete the puzzle."

It depends if you want your film to tell a story or if you want it to be a moving abstract painting I suppose. Also, does that mean you think the book is pointless?

[LadyLara]

Originally Posted by CyBeR

And I have to echo Metryq's idea: I really don't think there could be anything to be gained out of a "dumbed down" remake of 2001. At best, what I believe would be a rather good idea is a story inspired by 2001, film and book, but that can go strange new places instead of trying to recapture the original's lightning.

Well I never said it would be a widely-held opinion but I do object to the term "dumbed down" just because I would like a version to be a lot closer to the book than the film.

[mike1366]

The Hyperion books by Dan Simmons could be amazing films, if they were done well. According to IMDB, the first one is in pre-production for a 2013 release.

[clovis-man]

Originally Posted by mike1366

The Hyperion books by Dan Simmons could be amazing films, if they were done well. According to IMDB, the first one is in pre-production for a 2013 release.

And Rendezvous With Rama has been a targeted film project for decades. The rights were purchased shortly after the book's release. IMDB now calls it for 2013 also. Pshaw! And monkeys..............

Hyperion could be visually stunning, but I have no confidence in anyone getting it done right or done at all.

[Metryq]

Originally Posted by LadyLara

It depends if you want your film to tell a story or if you want it to be a moving abstract painting I suppose. Also, does that mean you think the book is pointless?

Not at all. One might see the book as a classic example of the British understatement. Clarke wrote about very fantastic things in a dry, unpoetic way. Carried too far, that can be a curse. In the sequel 2063: Odyssey Two Clarke reduced the monolith, an awe-inspiring enigma, to a mere computer that Mankind tries to short circuit with a software virus. I also noted that books and movies are different media with different "languages."

Is Gattaca merely a cautionary tale about genetic bigotry simply because that is what the plot spells out?

Is The Sky Crawlers about high-tech reincarnation and oppressive fate handed down from evil corporations?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-cpojkILO0

[LadyLara]

I don't think being unambiguous about what's actually happening on a basic narrative level detracts in any way from looking for deeper meanings or picking up on broader general themes. If anything, if you're struggling to just work out what's actually going on and why, then you're less likely to be thinking about what it all actually "means".

It's also rather ironic that you're now saying that books and films are different media with different languages, after you used a quote about a painting and applied it to a film

Incidentally, in 3001 (which I think is the book you're referring too) Clarke himself altered the original dates so that the first film/book took place in the 2030s and not 2001, so I don't think it would be too disrespectful to do that in any putative remake, although I still think simply not mentioning any dates would be the best way.

[Metryq]

Originally Posted by LadyLara

It's also rather ironic that you're now saying that books and films are different media with different languages, after you used a quote about a painting and applied it to a film.

Perhaps you mean non sequitur rather than ironic. And the quote said "artists" and "art," which is a generalization I find applicable to books and movies. The quote said nothing about paintings.

What's ironic is that Thus Spake Zarathustra in the soundtrack to 2001 suggests the intuitive leaps that are the hallmark of human intelligence and the elusive goal of A.I. programmers, yet you seem to be arguing against those very connections in the telling of the movie.

It's been a long time since I read the 2001 sequels, so the virus attack on the monolith may well have been 3001. (I said "2063" previously, but the book is "2061.") Whichever book it was, I can't believe a technically oriented writer like Clarke would use such a gimmick—coincidentally at the same time a silly Hollywood movie did.

[clovis-man]

Originally Posted by Metryq

What's ironic is that Thus Spake Zarathustra in the soundtrack to 2001 suggests the intuitive leaps that are the hallmark of human intelligence and the elusive goal of A.I. programmers, yet you seem to be arguing against those very connections in the telling of the movie.

Nietsche's influence on Strauss and in the formulation of "Also Sprach Zarathustra" got a little warped in the translation. Staruss was mostly interested in what he saw as Nietsche's upholding the status of the artist in a post-metaphysical world and in (of all things) predestination. Some of the most striking of the music was designed to expose man's unfortunate dependence on sentimentality. It backfired, because the music itself inspired sentiment.

As far as Kubrick was concerned, I think he was simply drawn to the dramatic effect of the first bars. He used Khachaturian's "Gayne" to good effect also, but there was no relation to the actual theme of the ballet from which the music was lifted.

[Metryq]

Thanks, Clovis-Man. Have you heard Alex North's original score? The studio arranged it, Kubrick just nodded his head and said thanks, then used the music he wanted. Thankfully.

[LadyLara]

Originally Posted by Metryq

It's been a long time since I read the 2001 sequels, so the virus attack on the monolith may well have been 3001. (I said "2063" previously, but the book is "2061.") Whichever book it was, I can't believe a technically oriented writer like Clarke would use such a gimmick—coincidentally at the same time a silly Hollywood movie did.

It's true, I don't really like any of the sequels as I don't think they have very much to say, I think they were just vehicles for Clarke to let his imagination run on things like Jovian life, comet-mining (or whatever was going on in 2061) and space elevators and other things like that. But then most of his writing seems to be more about putting a scientific idea across than actually telling a story. I do think turning the monoliths just into big computers was a bit rubbish in 3001 too.

But anyway, all I was saying was that, in my ideal world, I would like to see a film made of the book. If you can imagine that there never was a film, and that it was simply the book written in the 60s, then it's prefectly feasible that someone would pick up the rights and make a film of it now, and that that film would be very different to the one that was made. And as writing of the book was integral with the making of the original film then making something that was stylistically closer to the book would in no way be "disprespectful" to anyone or anything. Kubrick made his film the way he did for a reason and that's fine by me, but there's room for a different stylistic take on the story, as the book proves, and I would like to see it.

[Abernovo]

So many books could be made into good films, if the studios had the guts to stick to the spirit of the books.

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein

The Book of Skulls by Robert Silverberg

and just as a suggestion, an Edwardian version of The War of the Worlds by H G Wells. Personally I'd find it more interesting than the two 'updated' versions made by Hollywood that pretty much only shared a name with the book.

Iain M Banks Culture novels could make good films too. Problem is a lot of Hollywood execs don't seem to respect viewers' intelligence and class a lot of books like Culture as too 'cerebral'.