A Conversation for Science Fiction - Some Hard, Some Soft

True Science Fiction

Post 21

Dark Side of the Goon

Nope, I think the main problems with Dune were twofold.

Firstly, there's no way to film those bits of internal dialogue that appear in italics in the book. Some of those passages are very long, convoluted and strange. They work better if you read them.

Secondly, Lynch had a series of 2nd unit directors lined up to film sequences that were to be incorporated into the whole film. And not just one 2nd unit director, but (reportedly) aboyut a dozen. Lynch was so displeased with the work that he apparently left most of it on the cutting room floor. Even then, the movie is epic in length and needed to be cut for those of a shorter attention span.

Also, I think Dune stands as hard sf, as long as you don't mind xenoecology as a science.

True Science Fiction

Post 22


Frank Herbert originally wanted David Lynch to film Dune as a mini series for television to include more of the book.

True Science Fiction

Post 23

R. Daneel Olivaw -- (User 201118) (Member FFFF, ARS, and DOS) ( -O- )

Good Point. It is very annoying to have Fantisy and soft "science fiction" grouped with hard science fction. THe problem is that most bookstores aren't run by science fiction readers and they wouldn't know the difference.

True Science Fiction

Post 24

R. Daneel Olivaw -- (User 201118) (Member FFFF, ARS, and DOS) ( -O- )

I agree, the inconsistancies in the Foundation books are irretating, but they aren't surprising, considering the fact that Asimov always said that he wrote for fun and that it was too hard to be consistant with such a long work. Anyway, the Foundation books are a lot more consistant than the Robot short stories. There are several inconsistant stories about the invention of the hyperspatial jump by robots that directly contradict each ther, for example. I guess that consistancy iis a matter os style and that Asimov didn't care about it. Still--Asimov's books are among the best SF ever written.

True Science Fiction

Post 25


Hi 201118 (or can I call you 2?)

Your experience of this site will be considerably enhanced if you put something, anything, on your personal space. Just a simple "hi" will do for starters, and that will allow an ACE (an Assistant Community Editor) to pop along and tell you all about useful links and other guff like that. Just edit your personal space and put whatever you like in there.

You could also click my name or this number U114627 to go to MY space for a taster of a few of the things you can do with your space. Welcome to h2g2, I hope you have as much fun with this site as I have...


True Science Fiction

Post 26

Fruitbat (Eric the)

Hi Steve,

I, too, have a copy of that monumental work for a visual medium. Did you do as he requested and send the letter to Warner Bros., asking them to make the film from his script?

That script ought to stand as an example of 'how to do it' for anyone looking at adaptations: the level of invention, how the ideas and characters were incorporated into the narrative what was left out and what was added.

You may've guessed that I'm a huge Harlan fan. He's always insisted that he's a Writer; he won't wear the title of speculative fiction writer, although he prefers to use that moniker over 'science fiction'.

He's also got a Law of Movie Marketing: "Philistinism makes lucid copy for dolts."

That says it all, really.


True Science Fiction

Post 27

Fruitbat (Eric the)

Hi R. Daneel,

If I remember well, Asimov was put up to the job of doing the Foundation story by the editorial legend John Campbell. The whole thing was based upon the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, which is one reason for the inconsistencies.

(Campbell also did something similar to Robert Heinlein, who really didn't want to do the story which resulted, either. Can't remember which one that was, except that 'Fifth Column' keeps coming to mind. I'm sure someone'll correct me on both of these.)


True Science Fiction

Post 28

Steve K.

No, I didn't write Warner Bros., and I feel a little guilty. I certainly agree that the script is WAY above the norm for Hollywood. I consider Harlan Ellison in the same league with the Coen brothers, (I think they write their own screenplays) and to me, that is high praise. "Oh, Brother, Where Art Thou" is probably the best movie I've seen in years. And for once, I may not be alone ... the soundtrack got the highest awards in the industry. But Ellison and similarly intelligent writers have a handicap - the average movie viewer would not understand his Law of Movie Marketing. IMHO.

Oh, and on adaptions ... Ian MacKellen (sp?)in "Richard III". A reviewer said, "It MOVES!" Boy, does it ...

Key: Complain about this post