h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

To my joy I found a place here at H2G2 with one of my favourite subject: SCIENCE FICTION.

I have read SF all my life. I actuallt succeeded in getting hold of two of the three books that originally got me started. By chance one of my first fantasy books was 'The never ending story' by Michael Ende. But as I see it fantasy is a sub-category to SF.

Anyway. The big stars in the SF-heaven is obviously writers like: Ursula K. Leguin, Isaak Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, Phillip K. Dick, Arthur C. Clarke and many, many others.

For many years I read books, looked at movies and found out that the really good stuff of SF was confined in textform. Ok you could also find beautifull arts in form of Chris Foss and others. But the movie part of SF was very much limided to what Hollywood thought was SF. Very few movies are based on good solid novels - unfortunately. On of my all time favourites: Dune IS. I love both the book(s) and the movie (do not forget the computer game(s) .

During my adult years other things has occupied my time and both reading and SF has taken a real beating. But in the late 2 years or so I have revitalised my youth passion of books and especially science fiction books.
By chanse I stumbeled upon a writer (David Weber) who writes several series of books. One is about the future female naval captain Honor Harrington. These books are so bloody good I can not get enough of them.

Refering to earlier postings they can be said to belong to the soft / light sci-fi part. The characters, enviroment and story is the important stuff. And D.Weber is doing a great job of it too. The details and consistency i fabulous.

On thing that ticks me off regarding SF is this:

*) How annoying is it not that science fiction books and especially movies, constantly are associated with Star Wars & Star Trek!
SF is so very much more than that. Not that I think bad of them, I like the movies too. But they represent pop-culture of the SF.
there has been so much more before them, that laid the ground on which they are able to stand on - and almost all of the predecessors (ok-many of them) are much better and not so commersially hyped.

What I do like with both star wars and Star trek is their way of showing a 'positive' future. Star trek does this very well. The message is that the future is not necessarily a collapsed, gloomy and cold human civilisation - or something like that. That is good!

But as SF goes the much newer Babylon 5 is hugly more exiting, thrilling, beautifull, human, engrossing and detailed than star trek will ever be. And while I'm on this subject: why has not anybody made a movie on Isaak Asimov's 'Foundation' triology ?

Now - I've said mine.

I agree and disagree with you, Proteus.

I am with you on many of the positive things you have said. I am not registered here more than a few minutes when I find myself in this den of iquity(cf. "iniquity"). Many pleasurable hours have I whiled with science fiction books, magazines, tv shows, movies, comic books, online what-have-you... an endless, familiar list.

Now, on to the movies. First off, how many really good movie adaptions of books can you name? Honestly? Probably limited to the number of fingers you have(I'm assuming you are not a multi-tentacled being). This is *in general*. Now, consider that science fiction is only a part of the cinema field - so realistically, the chances are not dramatically better for a science fiction adaptation to be wonderful.
That said, I actually preferred the movie Dune to the book. I think I'm the only one, but I rather thought the original dragged on so. If I knew I'd be reading religious history - well, I'd read a religious history. Sorry, Dune fans.

Re: associations with Star Wars and Star Trek. I'm sorry, but they're popular(for good reasons and bad)! Joe Generic may not *know* anything else. The hoi polloi will often only experience those things which fall into narrow, defined categories. Anything else is suspect. SF(watch out, people don't like it when you call it different things!) is broader than the popular bits, yes, but you have to start somewhere.
Before "Star Wars", would anyone really imagine such a large fan base for a movie, expanding into every media possible?
Now, I'm young yet, but perhaps because I grew up with it, I've realized how much of a phenomenon that has become. And actually, some of the things outside "pop-culture" are best left untasted. I have three words for you: "Star Wars erotica". 'Nuff said.

As to positivism in SW and S. Trek: Someone made the same point about the former, in saying how the original movie couldn't be made today. "Too idealistic" is how I may summarize her contention. However, we must look to today to see how the original ideas have been reimagined - DS9 in the Star Trek theme was less than optimistic(espionage, betrayal, heartbreak, lying/cheating - and I'm not talking about Ferengi here).

B5 is wonderful, I must concur. I wonder if Star Wars would have been just as grand if it had forbears to rely on that B5 has... just a thought.
Foundation hasn't been made yet, but I saw a rumor on one of the "news"(I use the term loosely) sites, that "Caves of Steel" was on the fast track to getting made. With a Robot story on screen, can Terminus be far behind?

Looking to the future, let's not discount other options. Film may be a bit of a dead-end. When films like "The Matrix" come out, they break some new ground - that was a better surprise to me than SW1. However, as soon as it is made, anything that uses comparable effects becomes "Matrix-like action"(recent examples of this phrase include the "Witchblade" tv-movie, and reviews of the new "Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda". And don't get me started about Battlefield Earth!
- No, I think Internet movies, or whatever evolves from that, may be a new area to look for really innovative material. Anyone else catch "Tripping the Rift"? Where else could you mix SW and Trek, a lot of comedy, and then push the boundaries?

I guess what I'm saying is that we can work to get the best product possible made, but when we're up against Hollywood expectations, it is often an uphill(both ways) battle. So be ready for some disappointments, and don't come crying to mama when 75% of the SF material out there is baby-poop.

Next?

Wow!

What a reply! Nice to find someone who likes SF.You mention many good things here.

Yes! I'm a avid reader and have been all my life. I've read many books but out of all genrers SF is the one (I think) that has left most 'garbage' behind in my mind.

As for your explanation on Star wars and Star Trek you might be right. And yes - you have to start somewhere. One can only hope that for the average jo (as you put it) the road leads to better places in good time. Star wars erotica..hm....sounds kinky :D
I suppose the light sabre has a built in vibrator.....


Had not heard about the 'Caves of steel'. If it is true I am very happy that something from Asimov is being made to film. Better than nothing. And yes..regarding Dune you're probably the only one liking the movie better than the book. But to be honest I DO like the movie too...and the game(s).

One bright thing of the upcoming future is that SF is slowly being trendy again. I suppose it will bring some good things.
Man I just have to buy some more Honor Harrington books

Thanks. I couldn't have done the reply without your original post, which really got me thinking.

Oh, and the erotica *was* kinky - perhaps too much for me. No, it wasn't the lightsaber, it was the droid... *shiver*

I've so far passed by the Honor Harrington books. One of my SF weak points is military SF. Recently, I've corrected that a bit with the "Heritage Trilogy" by Ian Douglas. It's another one of those "Oh, look, alien tech in the Solar System" things. I find that people specialize in SF sub-genres, don't you think? For me, that often leads to less "hard" SF, with leanings toward the fantastic.
That may be why I have a healthy collection of Larry Niven and R. Heinlein...

Oh...the droid. Now THAT IS kinky! A droid with vibrator or what?

I generally try not to put the books I read in to many subgenres.
But military SF - if one wants to call it by that name - is not one I have spent much attention to. Until HH that is. But to be honest I do not think anything could surpass the HH-series. It's to bloody good for that. :D

Specialize in subgenres? Well it is most likely an automatic process. I read what I like, some by choice and others by chance. If this groups titles in sub-genres so be it.

Anyway I think SF are here to stay, in my life at least. As long there are good writers....