Warp wrote:
>   Well, that assumes that the book itself can be considered good sci-fi
> in the first place... :P

Well, sure. Obviously, there are some books that *are* considered good 
sci-fi, at least by a large number of readers. There are even books that I'd 
consider good sci-fi but which I personally didn't enjoy.

But many of the complaints I hear about "hard" science fiction, like 
complaints about Blade Runner for example, are along the lines of "that 
wasn't the same story as the book."  Not that there was anything 
particularly wrong with the story as told, but only that it didn't meet the 
expectations set by the book.

Of course, some complaints are completely valid. Like "why didn't the 
department of pre-corrections turn off the eyeball access granted to the 
fugitive murderer that used to be allowed in?" in Minority Report. A movie 
which, I'll grant, was nothing at all like the book, and indeed completely 
missed the entire point of the actual book story.

Didn't they make a Farenheit 451 movie? Was that any good? Or an Illustrated 
Man movie?

There are huge numbers of "good" science fiction books that could be made 
into decently good movies nowadays. Even some decent sci-fi I've read that 
you could make suspenseful and all that good stuff without a huge budget.

What I want to know is why virtually every monster movie is zombies, 
vampires, or werewolves? With maybe an occasional killer robot or black 
lagoon creature thrown in.  Can't a horror writer come up with a decent 
original monster?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
    that the code does what you think it does, even if
    it doesn't do what you wanted.

Post a reply to this message