Clarke's Rendezvous with Rama going Hollywood?

excellent by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 02:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

excellent... lets hope they dont make the rest of the Rama books into films.. they were terrible.

Re:excellent by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 04:55 · Score: 0

Yes, that book was excellent.
Of course, the movie should end the way the book did.
And any sequels should come 20 years later.
Re:excellent by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 05:28 · Score: 1, Informative

I totally agree. I've read the rama books, and while the first book was great, the rest were terrible.
Re:excellent by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 09:54 · Score: 0

I like the sequels quite a lot. They sure have a lot more commercial flavor to them, but for such a wild mix of environments and races, it managed pretty well to stick to Clarke's scientifically rigorous style. The characters were also interesting (although one-dimensional to be fair).
Re:excellent by ALpaca2500 · 2003-02-09 10:55 · Score: 1

i enjoyed all of the rama books. the later ones were not fantastic, but i thought they were all interesting.

Yeah right... by metlin · 2003-02-09 02:29 · Score: 2, Troll

Next everyone will go around raving what a wonderful work the Rama Series is, without having read a single line of the book.

Just like the way they killed LoTR. Atleast hope that like in LoTR, they mention that the movie has been inspired from the book, rather than an adaptation.

As one of my friends once said, there's just about one person who can make movies out of Clarke's books just the way they are meant to be, and that is Kubrick*.

*For those of you who do not know, Kubrick did the 2001 - A Space Odessey.

Re:Yeah right... by march · 2003-02-09 02:34 · Score: 0, Troll

there's just about one person who can make movies out of Clarke's books just the way they are meant to be, and that is Kubrick

Tell that to Clark. IIRC, towards the end of 2001, Kubrick and Clark disagreed with the direction of the movie and Clark threw his hands up and Kubrick went off in a different direction (although, it wasn't that nice of an exchange from what I remember).

It was still an excellent movie, Clark wrote a great book and Kubrick did a great job, but it just wasn't all rosey.
Re:Yeah right... by Albinoman · 2003-02-09 02:37 · Score: 0, Redundant

I guess Clarke's books will never be done right*. *For those of you who do not know, Kubrick is dead.
Re: Yeah right... by Black+Parrot · 2003-02-09 02:38 · Score: 1

> Atleast hope that like in LoTR, they mention that the movie has been inspired from the book, rather than an adaptation.

If my distant memory of the book is even approximately correct, RWR as written would make a horrible movie. You should go into this with the assumption of "inspired by" or "loosely based on", regardless of what the promotional material says.

That's not to knock the book; it's just that books and movies have different requirements.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Yeah right... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 02:42 · Score: 0

You do realize that the 2001 movie was not an adaptation of a book? That the book was an adaptation of the screenplay that Kubrick and Clarke worked on together?

But that wouldn't let you use your friend's ignorant quip, eh....
Re:Yeah right... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 02:45 · Score: 0

Just so you know : the movie 2001 was not made out Clarke's book.
Kubrick and Clarke wrote it together (or at least the beginning) and Kubrick started shooting his movie before the book was released or even written entirely.
Re: Yeah right... by R.Caley · 2003-02-09 03:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

If my distant memory of the book is even approximately correct, RWR as written would make a horrible movie.
I dissagree, I think it would make a wonderful movie. However, it wouldn't make a very commercial movie. Has a couple of action sections I suppose, biut most of it is slow revelation. Think Koyaanisqatsi with digital effects and some small amount of narrative action to tie it together.
And there is no simple minded ending. The reason I don't lik ethe other books so much is that they are all collectively an attempt to graft an ending onto RWR, which doesn't need one.
Of course, the same can be said of 2001, the problems started when Sk and ACC were trying to tie down a Holywood-palitable ending.
On the whole I think it' best if they do a Blade Runner on it. Pinch some ideas and make somethign which is a movie in it's own terms.

--
_O_ .|< The named which can be named is not the true named
Re:Yeah right... by 10Ghz · 2003-02-09 03:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Just like the way they killed LoTR. Atleast hope that like in LoTR, they mention that the movie has been inspired from the book, rather than an adaptation.

How exactly did they "kill" LOTR? Like it has been repeatedly said, books and movies are two different media. You simply can NOT make 1:1 copy of a book for the silver screen, espesially not something like LOTR. LOTR the movie (espesially the extended edition) is an excellent adaptation of the book, but it is not 1:1 copy of the book, and to expect it to be an exact copy is unrealistic. When you move a book to the silver screen the will be changes. Learn to live with it.

I see people whining about the movie-adaptation of LOTR, yet no-one give any tangible examples how it should REALLY be done.

--
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Re:Yeah right... by halflinger_n · 2003-02-09 03:25 · Score: 1

The adaptation/screenplay was (IIRC) based on a short story by Clarke called "The Sentinal".
The screenplay went much farther than the original short story, but the story was excellent to begin with.
It just goes to show what happens when a talented director and writer can do when they have less than 30 typeset pages of story and create 156 minutes of classic Science Fiction cinema.
That is the one thing that worries me about Rama... at several hundred pages there may be too much stuff in there to "easily" make a viable film. Though Fincher has done some interesting work and I would like to see how he handles it.
Re:Yeah right... by IpalindromeI · 2003-02-09 04:01 · Score: 0, Troll

How exactly did they "kill" LOTR?

I guess you haven't read the books, have you? The first movie was pretty good, but the second movie took way too many liberties. Half of the scenes were completely changed (which disfigured many of the characters), and a couple of the scenes weren't even in the book at all. I realize that movie's can rarely if ever be a direct dramatization of the book, but this is a separate issue. By changing so many aspects of the story and characters, it effectively ruins the LOTR story. It becomes some other story, which may be similar and good in its own right, but it isn't LOTR anymore. In a sense, killing it.

Apart from whether or not the movie was a good adaption of the book, I think the second movie sucked simply as a movie. It was so disjointed and jumpy. Moving between the different character groups every five minutes made me feel like I couldn't catch my breath, in a bad way. <SPOILER>It makes me wonder how they'll do the third installment since the ring gets destroyed two-thirds of the way through. I'm betting that they end it just after the ring gets destroyed, to save their precious Hollywood ending.</SPOILER>

--

--
Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
Re:Yeah right... by 10Ghz · 2003-02-09 04:42 · Score: 1

I guess you haven't read the books, have you?

I have read the books (meaning LOTR) about... 15 times or so. Add to that Silmarillion, The Hobbit, Book of Unfinished Tales (each several times) and the host of books about Tolkien, LOTR and Middle-Earth... So I would say that your guess is just flat-out wrong.

Half of the scenes were completely changed (which disfigured many of the characters), and a couple of the scenes weren't even in the book at all.

They had good reason for the changes. No huorns? Why waste time introducing yet another group of characters, that will be completely forgotten after their 15 minutes of fame are up? The movies are filled with characters as it is. And they don't really have the luxury to spend time introducing one character after another.

Aragorn falling over the cliff? It allowed them to explore the Aragorn-Arwen relationship more.

Again: books and movies are different media. What works in the book, may not work in the movie (and vice versa).

By changing so many aspects of the story and characters, it effectively ruins the LOTR story.

How exactly? The biggest complaint I have heard was the changing to Faramir, yet they had a reason for that change as well (in the book, Faramir was too strong, some ways even stronger that Aragorn. They wanted to make him more human). Besides, it allows us to see things that are only vaguely referred to in the book (Mordor/Gondor border-war).

Another change was the moving of Shelob from TTT to ROTK. In ROTK Sam and Frodo don't do much, except walk towards Mount Doom. This change gives them more stuff to do in the third movie. Also, TTT (the book) ends in a cliffhanger. People would go crazy if they had to wait full year to see how it continues.

I think the second movie sucked simply as a movie. It was so disjointed and jumpy.

That's because the book was full of scenes and it too jumped between several groups of people. Since in the movie time is something you are short of, it makes the movie a bit jumpy. I for one would wait for the extended edition of the movie. That should significantly reduce the "jumping around".

It makes me wonder how they'll do the third installment since the ring gets destroyed two-thirds of the way through.

If you are referring to the destruction of the Shire, it will not be in the movie. Why? Because the climax is the destruction of the ring. Having the Shore-thingy in the end would diminsh that climax, and the movie would not end with a bang, but with a whimper. Again, this again boils down to differences between books and movies as a media.

But hey, no-one is forcing you to watch the movies.

--
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Re:Yeah right... by Jeremy+Erwin · 2003-02-09 05:27 · Score: 0, Flamebait

But of course-- we speak of Kubrick's spiritual heir-- Stephen Spielberg.
Re:Yeah right... by Wyatt+Earp · 2003-02-09 05:59 · Score: 1

I agree.

In March of 2002 I re-read TTT and listened to the book on CD while I drove cross-country.

I personally feel that TTT was the weakest of the books and I think that the changes made in the film were all for the better.
Re:Yeah right... by topologist · 2003-02-09 06:08 · Score: 1

I have read the LOTR, the Silmarillion, the hobbit etc. in detail as well, and I think the first movie was far far short of what they could have been. I haven't been able to convince myself to see the second, but I'll probably be dragged to it by friends next week. Let me begin by saying that I thought the sets, costumes (besides Galadriel's severe case of radiation poisoning) etc. were wonderful. Ian McKellen was fabulous as Gandalf, and the fellow playing Boromir was okay, as was Sam. But the rest of the cast was a disappointment. I think a significant fraction of the film consisted of long lingering shots of the vacant expressions on the faces of Frodo and Aragorn. Oh yes, the little drowning scene near the end was..surreal to say the least. It was absolutely pointless and a waste of time..those 5 minutes worth of Sam gasping for air and Frodo with his usual horrified expression could have been put to better use. Let's see, the balrog scene in Moria. The balrog was great, it was the stuff of nightmares. But what happens then? In Tolkien's version, Aragorn and Boromir stand near Gandalf on the bridge despite his wishes and lend their support while he stares down the balrog. In the movie, Aragorn Boromir and the rest huddle back cowering, and when the balrog's whip snares Gandalf, they have a whole ten seconds to help him but Aragorn instead restrains Frodo. The movie portrays Aragorn as a coward for no reason..read the scene in the book, and you will find that this is not the case. This is one of many seemingly irrational changes. I completely agree with the removal of the willow and Tom Bombadil scenes, they didn't do much to speed the plot along. The scene at the ford of Bruinen strengthens Arwen's character at the expense of Frodo's. Frodo is seen cowering through out the movie, and his innate nobility is not shown even in Lothlorien. Okay, I can rant on and on, but for me at any rate the spirit of Tolkien's writings was never present in the movie, except perhaps in Gandalf's character. And yes, I'll do my best not to watch the second one. I think however, that this movie may do a lot of good, in encouraging more people to read the books. They are seminal works of literature in many respects. Oh, and if you haven't read the tale of Beren and Luthien in the Silmarillion, you should :)
Re:Yeah right... by 10Ghz · 2003-02-09 06:37 · Score: 1

I think the first movie was far far short of what they could have been.

I know one Tolkien-fan (I consider myself to be one as well) who was seriously disappointed with FOTR:s theatrical release. Then he saw the Extended Edition, and his opinion changed completely. He loved it and gave it 10/10 points. May I suggest that you go see the EE as well?

when the balrog's whip snares Gandalf, they have a whole ten seconds to help him but Aragorn instead restrains Frodo

Of course. After all, Frodo was the most important person of the group, and he was about to rush to the bridge (that could collapse at any minute) to save Gandalf. Of course Aragorn stopped him. They actually talk about this in the commentary of the EE. The reason they didn't rush to the bridge was that the bridge could have collapsed. The changes are not "irrational", they have very good reasons to do 'em.

I have read the story of Beren and Luthien (altrough it was several years ago).

--
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Re:Yeah right... by Ozan · 2003-02-09 06:41 · Score: 1

> But of course-- we speak of Kubrick's spiritual heir-- Stephen Spielberg.

*gasp*... please do me a favour and make use of the <ironic> tags.
Re:Yeah right... by drinkypoo · 2003-02-09 07:41 · Score: 1

Changes are one thing; Completely changing the nature of major characters, turning them (both Gimli and Faramir) into a parody of themselves and their race, is to do an injustice to the work of J.R.R. Tolkien; Both the tangible work which we have been reading and enjoying for many many years, and also the intangible thought process behind the work. The beauty of Middle-Earth is that Tolkien never gave it any treatment that made it appear to be anything other than history.
Hence; The books are intended to be a 'true' representation of the 'history' of Middle-Earth. When the movie leaves bits of it out, that's one thing; obviously there is not time to portray every event. When the movie outright changes things, it makes us angry in the same way that incorrectly reporting history makes us angry, because "that's simply not how it was." The fans, ostensibly the most important people in the moviemaking equation because without them (us) there can be no movie, are being betrayed needlessly by a poor portrayal of characters we cared about. I personally felt that the portrayal of Faramir as feeling the pain of his brother's demise and betrayal of the Ring-quest, and his triumph over the same evil in the very shadow of Mordor was one of the most moving moments in the story. The treatment he received was unjust, but more to the point, unnecessary, which is what makes Peter Jackson a fucking idiot.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Yeah right... by Selfbain · 2003-02-09 07:55 · Score: 1

Simple. They took a good book and made terrible movies. If you look at the reviews for TTT most of them can be compressed into something like.. "The special effects are great...but..." and then the reviewer generally goes on to say something about the movie that would normally be enough to give a movie a bad review. I think if it weren't for the effects, the critics would have panned the movie. And in ten years when the effects are more common place, the movie will probably be left behind.

--
Well, it has never been successfully tested.
Re:Yeah right... by *LuckySmurf* · 2003-02-09 07:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Au contraire. The omission of Tom Bombadil is one of the fatal mistakes of the movie. In the book, the Tom Bombadil episode tells us that the world is fundamentally good, and that the good was around before the evil came. It shows us that the good cannot be corrupted by the evil, as Tom is unaffected by the Ring, and that gives us hope. However, we later learn (from Gandalf, I think) that if Sauron is not defeated before he becomes too powerful, that not even Tom Bombadil will stand, and that gives the quest to destroy the ring urgency. Without Tom Bombadil, the movie is an oppressive onslaught of Evil! Evil! Evil!, loud screeches, and booming bass, with little optimism or even interest. (I think it's this way because Peter Jackson missed the point of Tom Bombadil, too, a mistake that epitomizes what's wrong with his interpretation of the story.) I don't know what it takes for something to be essential to the plot, but Tom certainly is essential to the tone and meaning of the book, and the movie does suffer for his omission.
Re:Yeah right... by 10Ghz · 2003-02-09 08:12 · Score: 1

If you look at the reviews for TTT most of them can be compressed into something like.. "The special effects are great...but..."

Really? I must have missed those reviews. Sure there has been few bad reviews, but overwhelming majority of reviews have praised the movies.

--
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Re:Yeah right... by 10Ghz · 2003-02-09 08:20 · Score: 1

Changes are one thing; Completely changing the nature of major characters, turning them (both Gimli and Faramir) into a parody of themselves and their race, is to do an injustice to the work of J.R.R. Tolkien;

Again, they had a good reason for the changes. Why change Gimli in TTT? Without Gimli, it would have been really dark movie. They needed some comic relief, and Gimli provided it.

The purpose of the movie is to bring the books to the silver screen. And they have succeeded. But changes are necessary (yes, in characters too).

And, in the end, most people are more than happy with the end-results, Tolkien-fans included! Of course, considering the importance of the books and the scale of the movies, there are (of course) people who are unhappy with the movies. But most people are happy with the results.

Yes, there are changes. Yes, in the end those changes are needed and they have good reasons for those changes.

which is what makes Peter Jackson a fucking idiot.

And I'm sure you would have made alot better movie? For some reason, I doubt it. And you are in the minority on this case.

--
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Re:Yeah right... by Selfbain · 2003-02-09 08:24 · Score: 1

Ok reread what I said please. I said the reviewers ARE praising it but mostly for the effects. A few of them state flat out that they left Tolkien behind. Some say the movies lack humanity. Yet they will still give the movies a favourable review because the effects are pretty amazing. If it weren't for the effects however, I don't think it would be as praised as it is.

I'm also quite aware that most people don't want to hear that they're bad movies and will argue to the death with anyone who says that they are.

--
Well, it has never been successfully tested.
Re:Yeah right... by Alan+Partridge · 2003-02-09 08:27 · Score: 1

that's a pretty stupid point - 2001 DID NOT EXIST before Kubrick made it, and Clarke DISAGREED with Kubrick over the direction AND form of the story. Read "the lost worlds of 2001" if you don't believe me. OTOH, RwR is a fine work, and COULD make a great film if handled properly. Most likely, unfortunately, RwR and it's many SHITE sequels will become so kind of hideous money making sequel-a-thon and be bloody awful from start to finish.

That's Hollywood in 2003.

--
That was classic intercourse!
Re:Yeah right... by 10Ghz · 2003-02-09 08:31 · Score: 1

Ok reread what I said please. I said the reviewers ARE praising it but mostly for the effects.

I have no problems reading what you wrote. You claim that the reviewers praise TTT SFX, while thinking that the movie itself is mediocre at best. While I have seen few bad reviews, most have praised the movie, _and not just the SFX_! If TTT was just good SFX with mediocre story and acting, how could it get 97% on rottentomatoes.com? Sure all those critics would see beyond the SFX. But apparently 97% of them think that it's a _good movie_ not just mediocre movie with good SFX.

Reviews counted: 189
Fresh: 184
Rotten: 5
Average Rating: 8.6/10

184 good reviews, 5 bad reviews. Yeah, the movie obviously sucks.

--
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Re:Yeah right... by Selfbain · 2003-02-09 08:39 · Score: 1

Well actually it means that 97% of them thought it was worth at least 6/10 since thats the minimum required for it to be considered fresh. And there are several reviews just on the first page that contain 'buts' in their summary and I'm sure I could find a lot more if I checked the reviews thoroughly (one of them called it the Twin Towers... I hope that was a joke). Anyways, since only time will tell on this I'm not going to argue it any further.

--
Well, it has never been successfully tested.
Re:Yeah right... by 10Ghz · 2003-02-09 08:44 · Score: 1

Again, I fail to see how they could have given it as good reviews as they did if TTT is nothing more than a mediocre movie wrapped in some nice SFX. Looking at the summaries of the reviews, there were few that commented of the SFX, but I saw even more summaries telling how awesome the movie is.

--
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Re:Yeah right... by BTWR · 2003-02-09 08:55 · Score: 1

You simply can NOT make 1:1 copy of a book for the silver screen

Yeah you can, it's called Harry Potter and the Sorceror's/Philosopher's Stone! :-)
Re:Yeah right... by Selfbain · 2003-02-09 08:58 · Score: 1

*sigh* fine. Here's the first page as it came up.
"Not since Japanese filmmakre AKira Kurosawa's Ran have the savagery of combat and the specter of death been visualized with such operatic grandeur."
Translation: It looked good.

"Could use a little more humanity, but it never lacks in eye-popping visuals."
Translation: The effects were good... but...

Despite a quieter middle section, involving Aragorn's dreams of Arwen, this is even better than The Fellowship. There are scenes of cinematic perfction that steal your heart away."
This one I could see interpreted either way.

Then there was a review about it starting, staying and ending in the middle which I will ignore.

"While this movie, by necessity, lacks, Fellowship's heart, Two Towers outdoes its spectacle."
Translation: It looked good.

Those are the first five reviews in order.

--
Well, it has never been successfully tested.
Re:Yeah right... by BTWR · 2003-02-09 09:05 · Score: 1

sorry grammar police... Sorcerer's
Re:Yeah right... by topologist · 2003-02-09 09:12 · Score: 1

I sympathize with your viewpoint; the incidents in the old wood and the barrow downs were an integral part of the book, as was the scene where the hobbit company meets the elves singing the hymn to Elbereth. As I recall, Tom Bombadil was actually a character in another Tolkien work "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil", who was transplanted into LOTR. This is an interesting essay on the subject. The excision of this scene forced Jackson to have Aragorn to dole out the daggers of westernesse from a bag, instead of logically finding them in the barrow downs, where they were deposited by the Dunedain of the north in their war against the witch king of Angmar. However, in creating a movie, that was a self contained part of the story that was relatively easy to remove. I'm not certain what else could have been removed or shortened with equal ease. Perhaps some of the journey over caradhras, and the b-movie grade Gandalf-Saruman fight..but it's hard to say. A response to the comments about the scene with the balrog: as you say, I have not seen the extended edition. However, my objection was not to Aragorn's restraining frodo, but to his standing back when he could have helped Gandalf. Perhaps the bridge would have crumbled, but a hero would and should have taken that risk..it didn't look all that fragile to me. If you read the book, you will see that Aragorn and Boromir were close to Gandalf during the confrontation with the balrog, hence my rather vehement comments. Perhaps in the extended edition it looks different, but the movie I saw had Aragorn and Boromir, two stalwarts of the Dunedain, shrinking away from the balrog and denying Gandalf aid.
Re:Yeah right... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 09:13 · Score: 0

Nope. You can't. Sorcerer's Stone was butchered at many levels, and surprisingly at some of the great parts in the book.

Sample #1 : The great introduction with his uncle family.

Sample #2 : Hagrid's baby dragon.
Re:Yeah right... by BTWR · 2003-02-09 09:31 · Score: 1

You're being nitpicky. Anyway, in your reply, you're proving my point. You're saying that if they had the intro different and added the dragon baby, it would have been complete. You said "It simply cannot be done" - but like any slashdotter, you won't be willing to admit maybe you were mistaken.
Re:Yeah right... by t_parker16 · 2003-02-09 11:40 · Score: 1

"If you are referring to the destruction of the Shire, it will not be in the movie. Why? Because the climax is the destruction of the ring. Having the Shore-thingy in the end would diminsh that climax, and the movie would not end with a bang, but with a whimper. Again, this again boils down to differences between books and movies as a media."

you know this or you're speculating? i can't imagine that after all of the detail on the shire in FOTR, there won't even be a return to it in an epilogue or something .... :(

hey, hasn't jackson said that the end of the movie makes him cry??)
Re:Yeah right... by Jeremy+Erwin · 2003-02-09 11:42 · Score: 1

Why make it so easy?
EB: "Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?"
BA: "Yes, it's like goldy and bronzy only it's made out of iron.
Re:Yeah right... by lazarius · 2003-02-09 12:57 · Score: 1

Just a note here: remember that the Two Towers is *not* a movie in and of itself ... it is the middle section of exposition in the work that is The Lord of the Rings.

There is only one weak point of the Two Towers that I saw: Arwen. Yup, Arwen. Horrible actress, not as hot as Eowyn (not supposed to be that way) ... and just bad scenes all in all.

Now, you need to remember this: this is *not* a movie. The movie is the 9-12 hour beast that is called "The Lord of the Rings", *not* "The Two Towers". As such, it is a weaker element since it doesn't have a beginning or an end, but just a constant state of in-between.

Also, the way I tend to look at the movies is that it's a film adaptation of history ... traditionally, filmmakers have taken liberties with history, and as such, I see that this is the "Dramatic Version" of what happened and the books are the "Actual Events" edition.

So, what makes this a bad movie in your oppinion is the in-betweenness and the dramatification (not really dramatization - fiddling with the details until it's dramatic enough)? And maybe Arwen? And what they did to Gimli? or, is it the fact that most reviewers don't see this as the middle part of a movie?

Ok, this has gotten rantish, but one last question:

Can you name a movie where the middle section (after the introduction of characters etc and before climax/resolution) holds up as good as or better? Think, like, acts 2.5-3 in a Shakespear tragedy template.

MIKE

--
Beware the JabberOrk.
Re:Yeah right... by pyrrho · 2003-02-09 13:24 · Score: 1

sloppy adaptations are how myth and legend come to be, after generations and generations of adaptations.

these are not the last movies that will be created from Lord Of The Rings, in other words. There are many more to come and none will actually capture the original work, in themselves, that will motivate more to try, and the whole set of them, together, start to resemble the world tapped into by the original.

--
-pyrrho
Re:Yeah right... by Glytch · 2003-02-09 13:24 · Score: 1

I'm actually optimistic about this. Clarke's books are long and filled with detail, to be sure, but it's sort of like Lord of the Rings. Lots of description that takes a dozen pages in text, but can be conveyed visually in seconds. It might work, with competent people in charge of the project.

(But if they hire Jerry Bruckheimer, I'm gonna kill someone. Can you imagine what that halfwit would do to the story?)
Re:Yeah right... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 13:32 · Score: 0

wrong.

you were the "spelling police".

- from the Correct Word police
Re: Yeah right... by pyrrho · 2003-02-09 13:35 · Score: 1

of course it can make a good movie, after all, it's really just a love story.

just a little joke there. very little.

--
-pyrrho
Re:Yeah right... by 10Ghz · 2003-02-09 19:17 · Score: 1

Again, I fail to see how the movie could get so good reviews if it just had mediocre SFX. They are reviewing _the movie_, not the SFX. If the SFX were good, while everything else was mediocre, they would have preaised the SFX, flamed everything else and they would have given the movie poor reviews (ID4 anyone?). They did not do that, why? Could it be that it really is a good movie?

But, to amuse you:

"Peter Jackson and company once again dazzle and delight us, fulfilling practically every expectation either a longtime Tolkien fan or a movie-going neophyte could want."

"Spectacular in every sense of the word, even if you don' t know an Orc from a Uruk-Hai."

"Yes, there are some 'middle-chapter' problems, but Peter Jackson's Tolkien adaptation hasn't lost its devastating humanity, its heart-stopping cinematography or its epic sweep."

"This film doesn't change my review of the original, but it does have me eagerly looking forward to the final installment. I liked it a lot!"

"The most incredible accomplishment of Towers is that at its heart it is a transition film that lasts nearly three hours and holds the viewer's attention."

"This is one case where you can actually believe the hype -- The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is indeed even better than its predecessor."

"Yeah, these flicks are just that damn good. Isn't it great?"

"The gorgeously elaborate continuation of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy is so huge that a column of words cannot adequately describe co-writer/director Peter Jackson's expanded vision of J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle-earth."

All from the first page.

--
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Re:Yeah right... by 10Ghz · 2003-02-09 19:20 · Score: 1

you know this or you're speculating? i can't imagine that after all of the detail on the shire in FOTR, there won't even be a return to it in an epilogue or something .... :(

I know it. For starters they mention this in the commentary of the EE-edition of FOTR. I don't know how ROTK will end, but I know it will not have the destruction of the Shire

--
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Re:Yeah right... by metlin · 2003-02-10 06:12 · Score: 1

Where do I even begin..!

1] Messed up and/or omitted lots of aharacters

I don't even have to talk about the messing up the roles of the characters and they missed such essentials.

Particularly, they missed Tom Bombadil!

There is a school of thought that says that Bombadil could either be a Vala or a Maia, or perhaps something else, or something more, and what his role might be.

And that's just one character.

2] Where did the beatiful poems go in the movie?

3] And what about the fact that the movie made EXACTLY as an allegory, something that Tolkien so detested (particularly mentioned in the preface of The Silmarillion).

The beauty of middle earth is not just in one story encompassing it, its woven with history, art and some splendid characters portrayal.

I could go on and on, but basically, I for one as a long time Tolkien fan was not at all impressed with the movie, and found it to be a total sacrilege to Tolkien's works.

But then again, that's my opinion :-)

My 0.02.
Re:Yeah right... by Rakarra · 2003-02-10 10:00 · Score: 1

If you are referring to the destruction of the Shire, it will not be in the movie. Why? Because the climax is the destruction of the ring. Having the Shore-thingy in the end would diminsh that climax, and the movie would not end with a bang, but with a whimper. Again, this again boils down to differences between books and movies as a media.
Are you sure about that? Jackson mentions a few times in the director's commentary for FotR "yes, and this scene helps to set up the Scourging of the Shire in the third movie.."
Re:Yeah right... by Rakarra · 2003-02-10 10:05 · Score: 1

Again, they had a good reason for the changes. Why change Gimli in TTT? Without Gimli, it would have been really dark movie.
And perhaps it would have been a better movie in that regard. Oh, but it wouldn't have been as "Hollywoodish" a movie though.
They needed some comic relief, and Gimli provided it.
I honestly don't have a problem with any of Gimli's lines (They were great! Comic relief can be terrible when poorly executed, but in this case it was well executed), my objection is that that's the -only- side of Gimli you see in the movie. The only lines at all that he has are the "funny" ones.
I didn't like how Faramir was portrayed in the Two Towers. I realized that they needed to make changes (even in the book, he really does seem like he's too damned perfect), but in the movie he becomes less of a character, and little more than a plot device. His only purpose in the movie is to delay Frodo to getting to Mordor, nothing more. Making him more human is one thing, but he's practically a sneering villain until the final scene.

Ok, reality check... by march · 2003-02-09 02:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

The trilogy was awesome, and I hope the movie is on par with Clarke's 2001!"

First of all, I, too thought the trilogy was good. But, as with most trilogies, it got worse as it went on. And, as with _2001: The Movie_, it paled in comparison to the book, especially when Kubrik and Clark started to disagree towards the end.

I am hoping that this will be a great movie, just like I am hoping that the Matrix II will be great. I can only keep my fingers crossed and my hopes not too high to minimize the disappointment.

Re:Ok, reality check... by albino+eatpod · 2003-02-09 02:33 · Score: 1

Actually, it's not a trilogy. There's "Rendevous with Rama", "Rama II", "Garden of Rama", and "Rama Revealed". The last book in the series goes a bit over the top, but is still on par with the rest of the series, and covers everything you could want to know about what the Rama ships are.
Re:Ok, reality check... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 02:44 · Score: 0

2001 was written by Kubrick and Clarke together. The movie was the initial product, and the 2001 novel was a byproduct of the movie -- it was an adaptation of the screenplay that Clarke wanted to do for himself.

Please stop being ignorant.
Re:Ok, reality check... by uncleFester · 2003-02-09 02:52 · Score: 1

But, as with most trilogies, it got worse as it went on.

Could that be because there was less Clarke as they went on?

I have a number of Clarke books, both solo and co- works.. and like the solos better. Only exceptions were the Rama books (I WANTED to like them) and The Trigger.

.. and the stretching out of the 2001 series, though I thought the last one was a rather weak grab at more dollars.

-r

--
-'fester
Re:Ok, reality check... by Horizon_99 · 2003-02-09 02:54 · Score: 1

Of course it is, it's a trilogy of four just like the odyssey trilogy. QED
Re:Ok, reality check... by actor_au · 2003-02-09 03:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

..especially when Kubrik and Clark started to disagree towards the end.
The reality was that Clark wanted it on one of Saturns moons(for the life of me I can't remember which one) because it had the unique trait of being brighter when seen from differant sides of Saturn and having an unexplainable black dot in the very center of it or something which was meant to be TMA-2(forgive me please for every error in that sentence I haven't read the book in a very long time) Kubrick wanted it on Jupiter because making Saturn out of models and making it look real(non-tacky) would have been very expensive and couldn't have worked anyway and that a floating TMA-2 would have been more visually impressive against the backdrop of Jupiter.
It wasn't so much a disagreement, the two were good friends based on most accounts, as an understanding that the two mediums would have to be differant to portray the vision that they each had.
The follow-up books(2010, 2061 and 3001) were pretty good although the 2010 movie wasn't as good as it could have been (the Russians wern't as human as the books made them out to be, instead portrayed as near robots, curse you cold war, curse you).

--
Read Errant Story.
Re:Ok, reality check... by moonbender · 2003-02-09 03:16 · Score: 1

IMHO, the original 2001 was different. It was, in a way, more than just a movie. Which made it kind of hard to watch for some people, while being very interesting for others (like me). The sequels very "just" normal sci-fi flicks, which is not a bad thing at all, since IMO they were rather good sci-fi flicks.

On a sidenote, I think the recently released Solaris was, at least, trying to be different. Obviously, whether it succeeded or not is a matter of taste, and IIRC there was a large discussion about it here on Slashdot. I missed that, though, not having seen the movie at that point I didn't want to be spoiled. I must say I liked it a lot, after I gave it some time. Extremely moody film, with a fantastic soundtrack. However, as with 2001, I can see many people absolutely "not getting it" - and I mean that in an absolutely neutral way.

--
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Re:Ok, reality check... by march · 2003-02-09 03:29 · Score: 1

Maybe the newspaper article I read (some 15 years ago now) was "spicing" it up a bit, but even now, a search on the web seems to confirm that Clarke had no idea what Kubrick was doing with the end of the movie.
Re:Ok, reality check... by erpbridge · 2003-02-09 03:52 · Score: 1

Could it be a trilogy, just like the Hitchhiker's Guide trilogy (which I think is 5 books)?
Re:Ok, reality check... by IpalindromeI · 2003-02-09 04:04 · Score: 1

Similar to Adam's five book Hitchhiker trilogy. :-)

--

--
Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
Re:Ok, reality check... by metlin · 2003-02-09 07:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

The Movie was different, and it echoed different sentiments, in a very different way.

You should see this run-through on the movie.

Very neatly done, provides insights into certain parts of the movie that are a little puzzling.
Re:Ok, reality check... by Ajaxamander · 2003-02-09 07:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

First of all, I, too thought the trilogy was good. But, as with most trilogies, it got worse as it went on. And, as with _2001: The Movie_, it paled in comparison to the book, especially when Kubrik and Clark started to disagree towards the end.

Now, back when I read a lot of Clarke, one of his essays was about the inception of 2001. It was designed as an elaboration on one of his earlier short stories "The Sentinel" (about the black Monolith) I forget which short story collection it was in, it wasn't "Tales from the White Hart" but the another one. Anyway, when Kubrick and Clarke sat down to write 2001, (yes, they both co-authored both works, according to Clarke) they decided that Clarke would take full billing on the book and Kubrick would take full billing on the movie, so it's not like they got in some big argument about the end. Then Clarke decided that since the movie was more well known than the book (go figure) that 2010 would be a sequel to the movie instead of the book.
Re:Ok, reality check... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 08:51 · Score: 0

Well, it seemed to work out. The monoliths turned Jupiter into a small star to get Europa out of the ice age. Supposedly the gas giants are not far from being stars.

Jupiter, being the most star-worthy of the planets, and Europa one of the most life-worthy in the Solar System, I think this was a good decision, and plays well through the rest of the books.
Re:Ok, reality check... by leandrod · 2003-02-11 05:58 · Score: 1

> it paled in comparison to the book

You are kidding, right? The book is ridiculous, espousing a naïve Scientificism that had already been discredited some twenty to thirty years before in CS Lewis' Space Trilogy, especially the first and the final ones, Out of the Silent Planet and That Hideous Strength. The only reason the movie looks better is being amazingly beautiful and not saying much.

--
Leandro GuimarÃ£es Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin

John Lennon Is My Cousin by Acidic_Diarrhea · 2003-02-09 02:30 · Score: 3, Informative

"Revelations is in heavy rewrites with "Panic Room" director David Fincher on "Rendezvous with Rama." Morgan will star in the Arthur C. Clark (author of "2001: A Space Odyssey") sci-fi epic. Bruce McKenna is revising his own first draft with David. Revelations is currently awaiting the approved "Fincher draft" before going out to financiers.
Rama will be ground breaking and possibly even record breaking in its digital effects. That is why we're taling to "all the usual suspects" for special effects bids. We are also in serious negotations with Intel to become a major technology partner in the making of Rama."

More info can be found here.

--
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.

Re:John Lennon Is My Cousin by malducin · 2003-02-09 08:35 · Score: 1

I don't know, but isn't this whole news like very old news? That site linked about the Revelations website, I think I saw it like 2 years ago. It was going to be done by Fincher before he even took Panic Room instead. Morgan Freeman went to do Sum of All Fears and Dreamcatcher among others.

There was also a Morgan Freeman video somewhere, where he was at an Intel conference where they presented some test VFX for the film, done by Grant Boucher (from now defunct Station X Studios). They wanted to build their own inhouse VFX dept. (like what was done with Pitch Black, though thta eventually turned to Double Negative) using Intel machines, which I thought wasn't a good idea. Why not get bids from pros and let hem do the work and use what they want, instead of spending more money trying to setup your own?

Fact is Rendezvous with Rama is in development hell or limbo. If it gets done the earliest would be 2004 and I seriously doubt that. Fincher apparently is all set to direct Lords of Dogtown, a skateboarding pic, so he wouldn't be available until late 2003 to do Rama. I believe Morgan Freeman is also doing other movies instead. This movie is long ways off to be actually made.
Re:John Lennon Is My Cousin by Hast · 2003-02-09 09:46 · Score: 1

That's interesting. David Fincher is one of my favourite current directors. Although I haven't seen Panic Room (it doesn't seem all that good to me) both Se7en and Fight Club rank very high on my list of favourite movies.

Awesome! by CvD · 2003-02-09 02:30 · Score: 1, Informative

OMG! This is my favorite SF book! I've read it many times and still every time I really enjoy reading it. There are some very spectacular scenes that can be done very well screen. I hope they do a good job of it.

If you haven't read it yet, do so.

Cheers,

Costyn.

--
The Official Steve Ballmer Webpage

Re:first? by jxliv7 · 2003-02-09 02:30 · Score: 1

And Arthur C. Clarke is a great s-f writer, one of the best IMHO.

Fantastic by albino+eatpod · 2003-02-09 02:31 · Score: 1

Amazing, I really hope they can pull off the suspense and shear "can't put it down" feel of the book - I think I finished this book in a day because it was so good. I wonder if they plan to do the whole series, because although I found the first one to be a very good read, the next books were better IMHO. If they leave the ending of the film the way it is in the books, I guess they'll have to do the sequels.

I see they're planning theme parks and computer games based on the books - I'm not entirely sure how that will work, could be a bit tacky.

Not Like LOTR..... by SeanMac · 2003-02-09 02:31 · Score: 1

Because, you don't have to change Clarke's writing style to make an entertaining movie- he's not detail-orientated on *quite* the level of good ol' John Ronald Reuel.

Excellent news! It was an awe inspiring book... by Wonderkid · 2003-02-09 02:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

Rendezvous with Rama demonstrates Clarke's immense spacial imagination and intellect. It will take the same kind of skills that were required to bring Lord Of The Rings to the big screen in order to carry across the immense visual scope of Rendezvous. Let's just hope it is not Hollywoodized and turned into an explosion fest. We should leave the theatre wowed and satisfied, not fattened.

--

O'WONDERWe're working on it.

Re:Excellent news! It was an awe inspiring book... by Gudlyf · 2003-02-09 03:28 · Score: 1

It's very hard to believe that they'll be able to capture the sheer awe one has when reading this book, just imagining what Rama looked like by Clarke's descriptions. To put this in a movie, you'd have to be damn carefull not to lose that, or really it'll just fall flat. There are no explosions, no real love interests. Look at slide 6 from the mentioned site. That sure doesn't give me the sense of awe I got when I read the book.
The way I see it, they'll wind up playing up on the big bad Hermians (cue sinister music), and throw in a bunch of details we didn't see (at least in the 1st book) of the two wives of Captain Norton (i.e., "insert love interest(s) here"). Otherwise, the only people who will bother to go see this movie are the ones who read the book. I mean, what would they put in a trailer that would not only draw people to go see it, but not ruin the awesome spectacles once would witness by actually going to see the movie?
Oh, I also found a script review while doing some Googling, which seems to have a bit more information.

--
Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.

Sounds like a mix of R with R and Rama II by wass · 2003-02-09 02:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

Hmmm, sounds like they are mixing Rendezvous with Rama and Rama II. Potential Spoiler but nothing you won't see on the back of the flap.

.

In the first book, astronauts visit Rama, but are only taken several AU through the solar system. They explore the ship, but must leave Rama before it's course takes them straight through the sun (IIRC).

In Rama II, then Rama returns to Earth, this time taking some humans with it on an interstellar journey that spans the next 3 books (which degrade in quality in each subsequent book).

So, if the astronauts are really taken across the universe, as the poster has suggested, it sounds like this movie will be a mix of several of the Rama books (or at least with many more creative liberties).

Or some purist will say that a trip of only a few AU within the solar system is still technically a trip around the universe.

--

make world, not war

Re:Sounds like a mix of R with R and Rama II by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 02:44 · Score: 0

Technically I'm taking a trip around the universe while sitting at my computer. And I didn't think I'd get anything done today. Ha!
Re:Sounds like a mix of R with R and Rama II by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 03:34 · Score: 0

I was wondering how they'd get the obligatory woman into the film - Nicole des Jardins is a great character, but I can't see political correctness allowing the first book to be filmed without a single sympathetic female character.
Re:Sounds like a mix of R with R and Rama II by i · 2003-02-09 03:58 · Score: 1

Re Rama II: Wrong! It's not the original Rama that returns, it's a second Rama-vehicle that visits the Solar system. ("They do everything in sets of three".)

--
Mundus Vult Decipi
Re:Sounds like a mix of R with R and Rama II by Matey-O · 2003-02-09 05:43 · Score: 0, Redundant

In Rama II, then Rama returns to Earth, this time taking some humans with it on an interstellar journey that spans the next 3 books (which degrade in quality in each subsequent book).
I'm glad I wasn't the only person to think that.

--
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
Re:Sounds like a mix of R with R and Rama II by wass · 2003-02-10 06:15 · Score: 1

Wrong! It's not the original Rama that returns, it's a second Rama-vehicle that visits the Solar system.
Actually, that's open to interpretation. While it was the same Rama that visited Earth the 2nd and 3rd times, and extrapolating backwards (taking into account the groups of 3, it implies that it is highly likely the 2nd Rama was also the same as the 1st.

--
make world, not war

Lord of the Rings Model by colinemckay · 2003-02-09 02:33 · Score: 1

The movie is a Good Thing, but I wish they had used the LOTR model, and filmed all the books at once! Expense would have been minimal, since there would be a _lot_ of post production to generate the full background sets.

I think that a good chunk of the box office for LOTR came from people who found out that they would be getting all three books, and not just a first film teaser.

Oh well, here's hoping that the film does well, and the sequels get made anyway.

Re:Lord of the Rings Model by fuctape · 2003-02-09 04:12 · Score: 1

Almost all of this film will be done in ground-breaking CG, and I doubt the other two films will be done, according to Fincher.
Re:Lord of the Rings Model by IpalindromeI · 2003-02-09 04:19 · Score: 1

I think that a good chunk of the box office for LOTR came from people who found out that they would be getting all three books, and not just a first film teaser.

I doubt it. Many people didn't even know that such a story existed before the movies. And many more didn't know that all three movies had been done at once, or that there would be three movies.

--

--
Promoting critical thinking since 1994.

I was more interested in the first link... by jb_02_98 · 2003-02-09 02:33 · Score: 1

Its nice to know that linux is getting some light when it comes to rendering. That is what I use it for (I use Blender as a hobby).

Book? by NineNine · 2003-02-09 02:33 · Score: 1

A book, huh? Who would've guessed? All of these years, I just thought "Rendezvous with Rama" was a really good early adventure game.

Re:Book? by sparkhead · 2003-02-09 02:49 · Score: 1

I remember playing this game on my good ol' Commodore64. And yes, that was before I read the books.
The DOS version is still available at the-underdogs. Amazing how a 200KB game could keep one engrossed for hours on end. Heck, the Infocom IF games were a lot smaller than that.
Re:Book? by oniony · 2003-02-09 07:28 · Score: 1

Really good? That game was the most annoying thing I ever played. I absolutely loved the books (well, the first and last), and bought the game without a second thought when I heard about it. But it really was dreadful...movement was between a set of pre-rendered scenes and navigation was very confusing, the puzzles were trivial and involved moving back and forth with objects -- nothing like you'd expect on Rama.

--
Powered by onion juice.
Re:Book? by PurpleBob · 2003-02-09 10:24 · Score: 1

It sounds like you're referring to the Windows game, not the early text adventure. That thing was the most horrible game I've ever played.

--
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota

Been in production for a long time.. by Ndr_Amigo · 2003-02-09 02:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

I first remember looking at the site and reading about this project at least four years ago. While it's something going ahead, and four years is probably an acceptable time for developing the technology to create such a world (the technology has been demonstrated at various trade shows many times).... I can't help but wonder what/if the final result will look like.

I could easily manage a production plauged by the same problems as Duke Nukem Forever - constantly changing base platforms to keep up with advances in technology. And given the huge leap in CG capabilities over the last four years, I also have to wonder how the Rama team has dealt with it. Hmm, a interview with Morgan's crew would be intresting :)

Re:Been in production for a long time.. by agentkhaki · 2003-02-09 07:38 · Score: 1

I'll chime in with a 'me too' effort here. I remember seeing the site, as well as a demo they'd done at sigraph several years ago, and then heard nothing more about it.

--
Ack!

I loved this series... by happyhippy · 2003-02-09 02:35 · Score: 1

..but I fear a movie adaptation will turn it into another Mission to Mars farce.

How much you want to bet theyll add in a couple of explosions and a love interest to get bovine america to watch it.

Re:I loved this series... by asreal · 2003-02-09 04:19 · Score: 1

Bovine America huh? Good thing you aren't part of the masses. Good thing you aren't duped by that.

Have you ever met anyone who claims to be part of the masses? 'Yep, my thoughts don't matter, I'm just a part of the masses. We've got them avant garde folk over on slashdot to look after us.' No? Maybe it's because there -are- no masses.

Go and talk to non-geeks about romantic comedies or movie stars. You'll find that they know the plot will be predictable. They know the formulas. They know that celebrity-watching is pointless. But a lot of them do it to some extent anyway. Maybe there's something to that. Maybe they get the same kick out of watching Julia Roberts and Brad Pitt fall in love that the geek scene gets out of watching Star Wars frame by frame to pick out continuity errors.

Try and find a copy of Watching Dallas by Ien Ang. It make for pretty interesting reading and explains how people actually watch television and movies and pretty much debunks the concept of 'masses'.

--
What Future?
Re:I loved this series... by Gudlyf · 2003-02-09 06:10 · Score: 1

How much you want to bet theyll add in a couple of explosions and a love interest to get bovine america to watch it.
Sure sounds that way from this script review:
"One thing that did take me by surprise is the amount of action contained in the script, especially the second half. Once Norton and his crew start venturing deeper into Rama and into the southern hemisphere things start really happening. There seems to be more opportunity for the movie to have action sequences than I remember from the book's story arc, but I write that off as part of the financial necessities of adapting a novel into a mainstream cinematic story."

BLEH!

--
Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.

bah by nomadic · 2003-02-09 02:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

I just don't understand the mentality of "wow, that was a great book--they should make a movie of it!". Does anyone truly think that it won't be changed drastically to get on the screen? I mean, hell, there weren't really any bad guys, so they're probably going to add some.

Another 2001: A Space Odyssey would be great, but I doubt it's going to be anything like that. That movie came out during that tiny window between the bland, silly, middle-american movies of the 40's, 50's, and 60's, and the soulless blockbusters of the 80's. Right now the chances of a decent, introspective, philosophical sf book being faithfully copied to the big screen is close to nil. Probably just be focus-grouped into mediocrity.

Re:bah by fuctape · 2003-02-09 04:15 · Score: 1

Not at all -- Fincher and Freeman both love the book and took on the project as an attempt to do the book justice. No explosions, no bad guys, just the excitement and mystery of exploring the incredible ship.
Re:bah by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 05:23 · Score: 0

2001: A Space Odyssey was released in 1968, not in the seventies.
Re:bah by Alan+Partridge · 2003-02-09 09:45 · Score: 1

that's what these fucking twats ALWAYS say - they've only got to get yuou into the cinema on the opening weekend, after all - then it's just gravy...

--
That was classic intercourse!
Re:bah by monoqlith · 2003-02-09 18:09 · Score: 1

I don't think you see the point. The mentality is not "wow, that was a great book, they should make a movie out of it!" but, "wow, that book has amazing filmic qualities, we could make a great audio-visual adaptation of it!" Sometimes these two conclusions are coincident, sometimes not. You cannot criticize movies for changing their source medium - read: movies are NOT books. movies are movies. They must sustain themselves on the qualities of their own medium - not the book's. The only aim of the adapted film is to keep the theses, spirit, and thematic conclusions of the book in tact. This is being "faithful!"

The site looks fake.. by chrisseaton · 2003-02-09 02:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Am I the only one who thinks the site looks like a fake? Hardly a typical movie site - complete with clip art navigation buttons and cheap looking posters.

Re:The site looks fake.. by SWicklund · 2003-02-09 02:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

I noticed the site looked a bit cheap too. It doesn't look like a site intended for future audiences, but one setup as a pitch to financiers ("future revenue streams?")
Looks like this one is very early in the production stage, if financed at all...
Its been a while since I read the book, but as I recall, its not exactly action packed. The best part about the book is its suspense, and the growing desire to satisfy ones curiousity about what is in the object, and then where it came from. Fairly hardcore Sci-Fi, I can't see it becoming a blockbuster type success.
Re:The site looks fake.. by dubbayu_d_40 · 2003-02-09 03:04 · Score: 1

This must have been the pitch. This /. article may in fact be part of the pitch. I doubt they have money yet.
Interesting idea, using traffic to the concept site to quantify demand...
Re:The site looks fake.. by chrisseaton · 2003-02-09 03:33 · Score: 1, Interesting

And what's more, slide 3 says it will be out "christmas 2003" and slide 6 says "october 2004". This must be bollocks.
Re:The site looks fake.. by trikberg · 2003-02-09 04:16 · Score: 1

Not necessarily. I first heard about it in the fall of 2002. I think it was about the time that David Fincher got involved.

IMDb seems to agree with me.

--
This post is free (as in cheese in a mousetrap).
Re:The site looks fake.. by fraudrogic · 2003-02-09 04:20 · Score: 1

It doesn't say christmas 2003 or October 2004. Did they update the site when it got slashdotted?

--
I only mod up parents of "mod parent up" posts...
Re:The site looks fake.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 04:36 · Score: 0

Dude, that's not clip art navigation buttons. That's a powerPoint HTML generation from PowerPoint 97.

Whilea movie for Rendevous with Rama would interest me, if their idea of an official site is merely a PowerPoint file converted to HTML... I'm not excited about it's chances of actually being made.
Re:The site looks fake.. by jared9900 · 2003-02-09 05:15 · Score: 1

It does say christmas 2003, but it doesn't say october 2004. just opening 2004
Re:The site looks fake.. by Fastolfe · 2003-02-09 06:03 · Score: 1

Neither was Sphere, but I thought Sphere did fairly well and was pretty good to the book.
Re:The site looks fake.. by ruprechtjones · 2003-02-09 06:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

I've worked on these kinds of pitches before (although never on the interweb).

When the artists put these pitches together, they usually add some kind of "coming soon" date, both to make the poster look more genuine to potential investors, and to show that yes, there is a release schedule planned. Some material will even have the full credits at the bottom, despite the fact that nobody's been signed to the crew yet. I always add my own name to "Senior Directing Producer" or some such nonsense.

But no, this site is not bollocks. The biggest message it shows is Freeman's dedication to the project, to those who are interested in writing checks.

--
Kip Hawley is an idiot.
Re:The site looks fake.. by chrisseaton · 2003-02-09 10:45 · Score: 1

Well, it looks like Freeman himself did the graphics. Perhaps he should have hired an artist like you describe.
Re:The site looks fake.. by Prune · 2003-02-09 11:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

This site has not changed for at least a year (when I first saw it), probably more. I loved the book, but I'm afraid this movie might be vaporware.

--
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Re:The site looks fake.. by ruprechtjones · 2003-02-09 13:11 · Score: 1

heh heh I agree, the graphics are not that great. My guess is, they are spending as little as possible on this until an investor (maybe Paramount) steps up. It pains me to see "pitches on a budget", but that's the nature of the beast.

--
Kip Hawley is an idiot.
Re:The site looks fake.. by EuroChild · 2003-02-09 17:51 · Score: 1

The site has been around for at least a year. the movie's been in pre-production for quite a while. one version of the script has already been written and apparently what has been done is top quality. The characters have been given a bit more depth than those clarke created, but from what I understand the movie is just based on the first book. It makes sense because if it's successful they can still make a sequel and if it's a flop, it still has a good ending. Some good information and links can be found at "Gregs previews" at yahoo movies.

--
Does this make my brain look big?

On par? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 02:36 · Score: 0

I hope the movie is on par with Clarke's 2001!

You mean incomprehensible and boring?

Re:On par? by Substation8 · 2003-02-09 04:19 · Score: 0

It was neither incomprehensible nor boring to many. That you found it so is an indication of your limitations.

mass-market merchandising by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 02:36 · Score: 0

I can't wait to get some of that mass-market merchandising

Rendezvous with Repost by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 02:37 · Score: 0

I liked it the first time around too!

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/01/16/1752 01

Ahhh...it sounds ok by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 02:38 · Score: 0

But what I'm really waiting for is a movie adaptation of Dan Simmon's Endymion series .

Re:Ahhh...it sounds ok by Clock+Nova · 2003-02-09 04:41 · Score: 1

Actor Leonardo DiCaprio (Titanic, The Gangs of New York) is interested in the role of "Raul Endymion" in the movie adaptation of Hyperion

Noooooooooooooo! Please, please, please, don't let Leonardo ruin one of my favorite SciFi series of all time! God, no.

Personally, I see DiCaprio as a poor man's Matt Damon. Anything he can do, Damon can do better.

--
There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
Re:Ahhh...it sounds ok by Clock+Nova · 2003-02-09 04:45 · Score: 1

Hmmm. Just thought of this. I believe that Raul Endymion does not appear until the third book, "Endymion." I sincerely hope they're not trying to cram all four books into one movie. Its says on the site "one or three movies." God, let it be three.

--
There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
Re:Ahhh...it sounds ok by ruprechtjones · 2003-02-09 06:54 · Score: 1

"I see DiCaprio as a poor man's Matt Damon."

heh heh, off-topic but the funniest thing I've read in days.

--
Kip Hawley is an idiot.

What about Ringworld by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 02:43 · Score: 1, Interesting

Rama was incredibly cool and mind-opening when I first read it. It could be a cool movie, but I think a lot of it was trying to imagine what it would look like. Moving to the screen means instead of my view I will see someone else's view. I hope it is good.
On the other hand why has no one yet made a movie of Ringworld? Rama was the most complicated thing I could imaging until my concepts and mind were blown by Ringworld (Actual I read book #2 first - Ringworld Engineers).

I heard once that there was a plan to make it into a movie back in the early 80's but it would require so much CGI (Like 2/3's of the movie) but at the time, the technology was not there, and the cost was too high.

But now, the CGI part could probably be done in someone's home. The main cost would now be the normal filming parts.

Re:What about Ringworld by shadowj · 2003-02-09 03:52 · Score: 1

Apparently a Ringworld movie is in development, though nothing has been heard about it since the end of 2001.

--
--Larry
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence

Dang, I had this domain ... by adzoox · 2003-02-09 02:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

This was one of the domains I registered in 1997 and I let it expire in 2000 when movie theaters started things like www.rendezvouswithramathemovie.com and www.sony.com/rendezvous

This is truely a great series - only thing is I think the world is almost at war and different countries are fighting over commodities during the process of the book on earth. Is that correct? This could be a politically incorrect move, such as the movie "Collateral Damage" and World Trade Towers in the SpiderMan Trailer.

--
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny

Re:Dang, I had this domain ... by Sheriff+Fatman · 2003-02-09 03:12 · Score: 1

Something that I think every time I'm watching the trailers in the cinema and see the www.sony.com/movie or www.something-the-movie.com - why the hell isn't there a .movie TLD? Think about it. Every film that comes out these days has an official website. Every film (with isolated exceptions, typically decades apart) has a unique name, to avoid confusion with competing movies. Mainstream movie titles are almost invariably short, snappy and memorable - ideal domain names, in other words. And it's not like the people behind these official sites are short of cash - the domain registrars could charge *serious* money for official .movie domains and it would be a drop in the ocean compared to Arnie's salary. Set up .movie, restrict applications to genuine, official promotional websites to keep the fanboys out, and charge (say) a couple of grand each. Instant revenue for ICANN, and a little less confusion for the rest of us.

Granted, this post is inversely relevant to the thread, since 'Rendezvous with Rama' has a sufficiently distinctive title to avoid the problem... and judging from the site that's up there at the moment, I think these guys probably blew their entire promotional budget on one Powerpoint license... but I can't believe I'm the only person in the world who thinks .movie is a good idea. Better than .museum, that's for sure (for the record, a Google search for 'museum' doesn't return a SINGLE .musem domain within the top 100 search results... nice going, ICANN.)

</RANT>

--
-- Open Source: It's mad, but you don't have to work here to help.

Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 02:47 · Score: 1, Interesting

Finally! About a year ago I first read the Ranma series, I was a Freshmen in High School, I'm a sophmore now. I loved the Ranma Trilogy, so I went online to see if I could get a copy of the whole series. (I had found all three books in my school library.) I came across a news article describing a director in hollywood (I can't remember the name) looking to create a Ranma movie.

It's really great to know the guy succeeded, I can't wait to see the movie. However, (it's ironic that I'm a sixteen year old telling some of you who don't know any better) A book and a movie are not the same things. In a book, you create your own image of the story, the movie will be a interpretation of the Director's Image. NOT YOURS. Don't expect the movie to fit your own interpretation.

Addressed To Any Who Bitch:

So sit down, shut the hell up, if you could do it better yourself, get off your fat ass and do it.

Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 03:38 · Score: 0

Ranma movies?
that's not new...
Re:Finally! by Noehre · 2003-02-09 08:34 · Score: 1

I remember when I was an idealistic youngin'. Those were the days.
Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 08:42 · Score: 0

Ranma is a japanese comic book. Rendezvous with Rama is the book that is being made into this movie.

The last slide... by Mister+Black · 2003-02-09 02:50 · Score: 1

The last slide from the link is the best:

Additional Revenue Streams
* RAMA theme park and rides
* IMAX movie
* RAMA-based video games
* Mass market merchandising
* RAMA collectibles

I can't wait to get a RAMA the coloring book or RAMA the flame-thrower!

--

You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.

Re:The last slide... by jayspec462 · 2003-02-09 03:17 · Score: 1

Ah! So *that's* why the second book was entitled, "Rendezvous with Rama II: The Search for More Money."

--
$comment =~ s/($verb)\s+($noun)/IN SOVIET RUSSIA, $2 $1s YOU!/g;

Let's hope... by CoderByBirth · 2003-02-09 02:51 · Score: 2, Informative

...they don't film the last three books.
That Gentry Lee dude is one perverted mother.

The essential info by ThesQuid · 2003-02-09 02:52 · Score: 4, Informative

Director: David Fincher
Starring: Morgan Freeman

Morgan Freeman owns the rights to this book, and has been keen to do it for a number of years. He's the one who approached Fincher about doing it. And scuttlebutt is that Moebius is doing the conceptual art.

Lots of info can be found here

Re:The essential info by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-10 08:45 · Score: 0

They're waiting for you, Morgan. In the _movie_, theatre.

I loved the book, but... by squarooticus · 2003-02-09 02:53 · Score: 1

...does anyone else agree that this is going to make the single most boring movie ever? Perhaps even more boring than that French film with the woman eating sugar from a bag for 20 minutes? The one with the most boring lesbian sex scene ever? (They made lesbian sex BORING! Good lord!)

--
[ home ]

Re:I loved the book, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 03:05 · Score: 0

Where's the link to the Amazon.com DVD database, you insensitive clod?

Some of us like BORING lesbian sex!

I hope the movie isn't on par with the book. by analog_line · 2003-02-09 02:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Because the book was only mediocre. The second two followed Arthur C. Clarke's general method of piling pointless philosophizing on top of boring exposition, killing off everything that made the originals any good. I can't even go near 2001 after reading the idiotic tripe that was 3001. The last two Rama books (especially the last one) were truly buffalo chips.

Unless they do a completely bangup job and completely ignore the book, I will be staying FAR away from this one. Oh, and Kubrik's dead. No one else on this planet could do 2001 as well as he did. Get over it.

Re:I hope the movie isn't on par with the book. by kzinti · 2003-02-09 03:57 · Score: 1

The Rama series is simply a case of a Big Name milking sequels for all they're worth. Rendezvous With Rama was a fascinating adventure, but the sequels sucked serious donkey - as did pretty much anything Clarke cowrote with Gentry Lee. One of the sequels, and my memory has blessedly let me forget which one, is the most depressing thing I have ever read in my life! It was even more of a downer than Greg Bear's Forge of God, which at least left me with a little hope in my heart. You call the Rama sequels buffalo chips? That's being extremely kind.

"The Ramans do everything in threes." Clarke should have stopped at one.

--Jim
Re:I hope the movie isn't on par with the book. by carsont · 2003-02-09 03:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

Personally, I thought the first book was quite good, and it was the later ones (which were written MUCH later and with a co-author), that started throwing in bullshit.

The first book was just human scientists exploring a mysterious abandoned spacecraft; the subsequent books abandoned the tone of scientific investigation and built up Rama to cosmic significance until the authors had no choice but to show us the ridiculous "revelation" we get in the last book.

I think the movie could be good if it followed the tone and content of its namesake, Rendezvous with Rama. That certainly wouldn't be the Hollywood thing to do, though.

--

Ubi dubium, ibi libertas.
Re:I hope the movie isn't on par with the book. by Jeremy+Erwin · 2003-02-09 05:36 · Score: 1

It was even more of a downer than Greg Bear's Forge of God, which at least left me with a little hope in my heart.

Downer? Why would you say that? I think Bear took the Alien Invasion theme to its logical conclusion. Anvil of Stars might cheer you up, though.
Re:I hope the movie isn't on par with the book. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 05:42 · Score: 0

Clarke wrote some excellent SF, most at the start of his career. The output of any number of writers easily surpass his works of the last quarter century. For example, James P. Hogan's "Two Faces of Tommorrow" would make a much better movie of this type.
Re:I hope the movie isn't on par with the book. by kzinti · 2003-02-09 06:17 · Score: 1

I'm not saying Bear did a bad job - just the opposite, it was a good book. I just found it enormously depressing that my home world got destroyed, even though Humanity did manage to survive. It's just hard to cope with the destruction of good ol' terra firma. (Well, I guess that depends on the author's purpose - it was funny in Hitchiker's Guide.) I recognize that this is a highly personal reaction.

I read Anvil of Stars. Nice sequel. I think it would have been fun to be one of the Peters.

--Jim

In development since 1997. by ---- · 2003-02-09 02:59 · Score: 2, Informative

I've been following the production and rumours of this movie since 1997.

See Corona Coming Attractions for Rendevous with Rama for more details (*cough*rumours*cough*).

Some of the highlights
April 6, 2001 - "On 4/4/01, Morgan Freeman and Lori McCreary appeared onstage in Chicago at Comdex (for an Intel presentation) to show the audience samples of the computer-generated cylinder-world and the spider-like monster. They can rotate it and zoom in from hundreds of feet in the air. Freeman crossed his fingers and said it would be released in 2003."
February 18, 2002 - You can read the full review of the Rendezvous With Rama screenplay by clicking here.
July 22, 2002 - ZDNet Article about I.L.M. switch from RISC to Intel, and their work on the Rendezvous with Rama movie.

Old news... by Caduceus1 · 2003-02-09 03:07 · Score: 1

Gads, this is old news. Most recent new I am aware of is that Paramount has first dibs on anything Morgan's company (Revelations Entertainment) develops, and that was last November.

--
rm /dev/mem
Sci-Fi Storm

Re:Old news... by Telecommando · 2003-02-09 03:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yes, it was even on /. back in
2001
Isn't it supposed to be done by now?

--
Beta sux! Join the Slashcott! http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4760465&cid=46173047

I'm hoping that this is not offtopic... by Spock+the+Baptist · 2003-02-09 03:11 · Score: 1

The Sci-Fi movie that I'd like to see is an adaptation of Larry Niven's "Ring World." After seeing the preview of Halo some years back at Macworld, I've always thought that the potential for the FX for Ring World is quite high. I believe that done right the visuals in such a movie would be completely stunning.

--
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian

Re:I'm hoping that this is not offtopic... by CapnRob · 2003-02-09 04:52 · Score: 1

"Ringworld." Not "Ring World." Hope this helps.
Re:I'm hoping that this is not offtopic... by fgb · 2003-02-09 05:03 · Score: 1

I always thought "A Gift from Earth" would make a really good movie.

When will people learn? by TheRaven64 · 2003-02-09 03:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

The things that make a good book are not the same things that make a good film or TV series. How many good film adaptations of books can you name? How about the other way around? The same goes for Film / TV crossovers. Books thrive on deep character development, usually involving an insight into the character's mind. Films relly more on the 'Wow Factor'.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

Re:When will people learn? by RetroGeek · 2003-02-09 06:20 · Score: 1

How many good film adaptations of books can you name?

Right.

I love "Starship Troopers", the book, but the movie sucked big time.

--

- - - - - - - - - - -
I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
Re:When will people learn? by Mzilikazi · 2003-02-09 06:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

After seeing lots of beloved books turn into really horrible movies, I did finally come up with a case in which I felt the movie was better than the original book, namely "High Fidelity".
I'm probably going to get flamed to hell for saying that, but since music was such an important part of the story, actually getting to hear it made a big difference. (I do think that a hypothetical radio drama based on the book and set in London would be the ideal version, but I'm quite happy with the movie.)
I agree with the parent post, that good science fiction novels don't make for good movies, and vice versa. Most of the best literary science fiction is too complex or too introspective to make for a good 2-hour movie. Likewise, I don't think that "The Matrix" would have been very enjoyable in novel form.
Cheers,
Mzilikazi

--
Random Musings at Rum Smuggler
Re:When will people learn? by Selfbain · 2003-02-09 08:04 · Score: 1

The movie was almost completely disconnected from the book. If they hadn't given it the same name no one would've even made the connection.

--
Well, it has never been successfully tested.
Re:When will people learn? by Selfbain · 2003-02-09 08:07 · Score: 1

Uhm.. Silence of the Lambs? The Godfather? Unless you mean SF only.

--
Well, it has never been successfully tested.
Re:When will people learn? by harlows_monkeys · 2003-02-09 10:03 · Score: 1

How many good film adaptations of books can you name?
Well, it's not a whole book--just a quarter of one, but I thought Stand By Me was actually better than the original story (The Body).

This is "news" from 1997! by ToastyKen · 2003-02-09 03:12 · Score: 1

As you can see from this Corona entry, this project came into existence 6 years ago! And that C|Net article didn't seem to have any news, really. It just said that Morgan Freeman's working on it, which was already the case 6 years ago... And according to Corona, they still only have an exploratory deal so far with Paramount.. certainly no go-ahead yet, thus, no real news.

That site has been up for like 3 years... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 03:15 · Score: 1, Interesting

...and it hasn't changed since.

From http://www.hsx.com by sbillard · 2003-02-09 03:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

From Hollywood Stock Exchange

Rendezvous with Rama
Symbol: RRAMA
Status: Active
Genre: Sci-Fi
Phase: Development
Price: H$23.04 Change: 0 Volume: 1,801,012
Gross: $0

Based on the book by Arthur C. Clarke, Rendezvous with Rama is the story of a gigantic alien spaceship named Rama which entered our Solar System in the 22nd Century. No one knows where this mysterious craft came from. Earth decides to send out an exploration team to the advancing vessel to determine its intentions. Once onboard the spaceship, which is in the shape of an immense cylindrical tube, the explorers observe a self-contained world, less one thing-living beings. It seems to be abandoned-or so they think. Director David Fincher and Morgan Freeman are attached to the project.

HSX is a play-money stock exchange of prospective movie projects set up like NYSE stocks. They also offer mutual funds of varios portfolios, (star) bonds if you want to invest in "J Lo" or Rodney Dangrefield or Tom Berringer. Long, Short, Buy, Cover. Options too. It's focus is the movie industry. There is another "market" for the music industry. I know we all dislike the MPAA and RIAA for their shortsighted efforts at futile legilation, but this site is fun to kick around once a day - or week - or whatever.

BTW - I'm invested in a Phillip K. Dick story.
Again from: Hollywood Stock Exchange

Paycheck is a thriller based on a story by Philip K. Dick. After an engineer agrees to have his memory erased after working on a top-secret project, he decides to stick around and piece together the mystery. John Woo directs the film scripted by Stuart Hazeldine and Dean Georgaris

I'm not completely sure the name of the story is indeed "Paycheck". I've only read a handuful of Dick's work and some short stories, but some movies based on his stuff make up at least 2 of my all-time top ten favs: "Bladerunner" and "Total Recall".

Re:From http://www.hsx.com by sbillard · 2003-02-09 03:18 · Score: 1

Are there an existing movies based on Arthur C. Clarke's work?
Re:From http://www.hsx.com by sbillard · 2003-02-09 06:50 · Score: 1

Aside from the obvious "2001: A Space Oddesey" (sp?)
I hate to admt I am not familiar with Clarke's works.
Re:From http://www.hsx.com by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 08:25 · Score: 0

Never heard of a PKD story called "paycheck" but it does sound a bit like PKD's

"We can remember it for you wholesale"

But that was turned into "Total Recall". Which in I have to say was ultimately disappointing. Total Recall 2070 the series based on the film (but seemed to be more like "Blade Runner" was much much better.

But books turned into films are ultimately disappointing.
Re:From http://www.hsx.com by DoomHaven · 2003-02-09 10:06 · Score: 1

The short story is indeed called "Paycheck". A copy of the story is in a Dick anthogoly called The Phillip K. Dick Reader (ISBN 0-8065-1856-1). The anthogoly contains other short stories such as "We Can Remember It for You Wholesale" (the basis for Total Recall), "Second Variety" (basis for that piece of drek Screamers), and "The Minority Report", which the recent movie is based on.

Here is a brief summary of the short story: an engineer named Jennings is leaving the Rethrick Construction Company, which he has been a contractor for for two years. Two interesting parts of the contract: he has to have his memory erased before he leaves so he cannot tell anyone what he did; and instead of the $50 000 payment for work, he can opt to be paid in an alternative fashion. Jennings, fresh from the memory wipe, is surprised to find that he took an alternative payment of meaningless junk (a cloth sack that contains a code key, a ticket stub, a parcel receipt, a length of fine wire, half a poker chip, a piece of green cloth and a bus token) instead of the cash. Jennings is soon on the run from the government that is very eager to learn what goes on inside Rethrick. Jennings must use the items he gave himself to elude capture and piece together the puzzle of what he did at Rethrick and why the government is after him.

It is a very good story, as is most of the literature in the Reader and I would highly recommend the book to anyone.

--
"Don't mind me cutting myself on Occam's Razor"

Saw the site, it looks like many books by wass · 2003-02-09 03:17 · Score: 2, Informative

Begin Spoiler
The sequence of slides shows what roughly look like the Octopods, so it seems this movie will span several of the books.
End Spoiler

The first book is the best IMHO, but is mainly hard sci-fi, and would make a movie that would probably please geeks, but definitely not the general public. Though the plots are vastly different, a movie made of the first book would remind me of the movie Andromeda Strain. In this movie, lots of cool science is done (in a cool high-tech secret lab). But I bet most people not interested in science thought the movie was mostly boring. I envision a movie based on the first book only to be like this.

Going into parts of books 2,3,4, then adding some fantasy flightsy kind of stuff, it'll he more in line for an actual movie plot that Joe Public would be used to and possibly enjoy.

BTW, you should read RWR regardless of this movie. It's a pleasant read, and goes quite quickly. In fact, it's one of the two books that I've read in a single day (the other being the first book of Hitchiker's Guide).

--

make world, not war

Re:Saw the site, it looks like many books by Pig+Hogger · 2003-02-09 03:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

The sequence of slides shows what roughly look like the Octopods, so it seems this movie will span several of the books.
duh ? On which side you see octopods? Slide 8? Can't you count to three? This is obviously one of those roving spider-cameras "biot" they catch in Rama-I...
Re:Saw the site, it looks like many books by xA40D · 2003-02-09 07:59 · Score: 1

Andromeda Strain... most people not interested in science thought the movie was mostly boring.

The Andromeda Strain has to be one of my all time favourite SF Movies. Last time it was on I managed to get my wife to watch it - she was pleasantly suprised.

Now you've pointed it out the similarities with RWR are blindingly obvious. It's just a shame that the other three books contain the kind of "sexy SF" Hollywood goes for. A film of just the first book would indeed be awesome.

In fact, it's one of the two books that I've read in a single day (the other being the first book of Hitchiker's Guide).

It's one of three books I've read in a day too. As is HHGTTG. The other is Robert Heinlein's Citizen of the Galaxy.

--
Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
Re:Saw the site, it looks like many books by wass · 2003-02-10 06:20 · Score: 1

ya know, you're right. I jumped on that too fast. I usually like not knowing too much about a movie, so I skimmed those slides, and thought I saw those octapods. Their heads looked like how I envisioned the octpods from the books, though. forgot about those spider-bots...

--
make world, not war

Well I guess your an optimist by sielwolf · 2003-02-09 03:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

and I hope the movie is on par with Clarke's 2001!"

Yeah and why shouldn't every contemporary drama be on par with Citzen Kane and every epic be on par with Lawrence of Arabia? I'm sorry but constant comparison to other excellent movies has buried more than a few dozen movies.

In truth all great movies are usually done out of a desire to make a film unlike any other. If you end up using another movie as a measuring stick, you end up with something that's derivative. So it would be best to get off of Fincher's back and let him make a movie instead of living up to another one.

(And I'll ignore the fact that it was Kubrick's movie based off of Clarke's book).

--
What is music when you despise all sound?

Re:Well I guess your an optimist by ralphclark · 2003-02-09 06:25 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually Clarke's novel of 2001: A Space Odyssey was based on the movie screenplay (which was in turn inspired by one of Clarke's short stories The Sentinel). It's the only example I can think of where a significant novel resulted from a film rather than the other way round.
Re:Well I guess your an optimist by sconeu · 2003-02-09 16:27 · Score: 1

My understanding (according to The Lost Worlds of 2001) was that Clarke wrote the screenplay and the novel simultaneously.

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.

Wow, dude.... by inode_buddha · 2003-02-09 03:44 · Score: 1

Taco, you just made my day! I remember when 2001 first came out as a book, then a movie. It blows my mind just as hard now as it did back then (tho it may help to read the book first...)

Anyway, I just checked out the website for the mavie; it has to be one of the classier designs I've seen, no doubt. Bummer I'll have to wait another year for the movie.

Strangely enough, I was downloading a copy of Strauss' "Also Sprach Zarathustra" while you were in the middle of posting this story.

BTW, does anyone here know if Mr. Clarke is alive or dead? Last I heard, he said he was alive and well in Sri Lanka, writing 2010 on a Kaypro 2 running CP/M 80.

--
C|N>K

the book by m1chael · 2003-02-09 03:45 · Score: 0

is really good (hell the whole series is cool) but i have trouble seeing how they make a movie out of the first book. unless its going to be a special effects fest (i would love to see rama) not much action really happens. im not dissing rama but in the book you read about the experience of the 'explorers' but once you see the imagery on screen then what?

--
I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.

Ow. by Pig+Hogger · 2003-02-09 03:51 · Score: 1

Well, let's at least hope that A.C.C. will live long enough to see the movie...

Yet another book ruined by Hollywood? by Snaller · 2003-02-09 03:56 · Score: 1

Just asking, since they always seem to think "oh, this book would make a good film, as long as we just change the story, the characters, and the plot"

--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating

One thing they have to change. by Treeluvinhippy · 2003-02-09 04:05 · Score: 1

Outstanding novel except for one aspect, the stairs! For those who haven't read the novel on the north pole of rama is the entrance with three very very very very very very long flights of stairs.

--
>

I hit submit by mistake by Treeluvinhippy · 2003-02-09 04:08 · Score: 1

Well anyways in the novel everytime a crewmember of the Endevour climbed up or down these stairs Clarke would go on about how tiresome, the difference in gravity at the bottom and top, also how awe-insipiring they were.

He did this almost everytime a character went up and down!

--
>

Re:I hit submit by mistake by sconeu · 2003-02-09 16:50 · Score: 1

Yeah, but sliding down the bannister was the funniest scene in the book!

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.

Not a trilogy by KingPrad · 2003-02-09 04:13 · Score: 3, Informative

There were 4 books....I read them several times:

Rama

Rama II (Rendezous with Rama I think)

Garden of Rama

Rama Revealed.

I think that's the order...

--
Stop the Slashdot Effect! Don't read the articles!

Re:Not a trilogy by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 06:23 · Score: 0

It's the first one that's called "Rendezvous with Rama", else you got it right.

I also read all of them and in my opinion Rama II is by far the best, Rama Revealed was a bit dissapointing. On the whole the adventures taking place in these books are astonishing and well worth the read. I'm looking forward to see the insides of Rama on the big screen.

Rama made into a movie by Hollywood? groan! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 04:23 · Score: 0

Im sure it will sux eggs SO bad...Hollywood hasnt made a good movie in decades...too bad these are terrible news....another good idea fu!@#$)%* by Hollywood

Old news or I'm crazy? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 04:28 · Score: 0

I *swear* I saw a teaser-type trailer for this at the cinema a couple of YEARS ago! I was kind of excited then, but since nothing came out of it I'd thought it'd went straight to video or just so completely sucked that the idea was dropped.

A series I'd love to see on the big screen... by Robber+Baron · 2003-02-09 04:28 · Score: 1

...is Stephen Donaldson's Gap series, especially the 3rd and 4th books. Actually, anything by Donaldson would be great. Of course we've got about a snowball's chance in hell of ever seeing that come to fruition.

Maybe that should be the subject of a Slashdot poll? SciFi books we'd like to see on the big screen?

--

You're using her as bait, Master!

Re:The site may be but... by op51n · 2003-02-09 04:44 · Score: 1

I read about this project about 2 and a half years ago. It's Fincher and Freeman's production company doing it. And as I say, has been around in the works for aaaaaaaaaaages. I was just thinking about it again the other day, for while I don't really like Clarke's writing style and thus don't read much of his stuff, I do think Rama could make a great movie, and feel that if Fincher has anything to do with it, it really oughta. Let alone the effects work. That's how I had come across the info in the first place, just cannot remember what struck me about it being so positive. oh well...
Back to extreme pain now...

I love Clarke, but... by tuxlove · 2003-02-09 04:59 · Score: 1

...ever noticed how his most popular books are all about smooth black geometric shapes floating through space?

;)

Re:I love Clarke, but... by sconeu · 2003-02-09 16:53 · Score: 1

Rama was gray, not black. And it had a splotch on the side, as if it was impacted by something. That's what gave it a light curve.

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Re:I love Clarke, but... by tuxlove · 2003-02-09 20:28 · Score: 1

Okay, ruin my fun. So, I guess he writes stories about dark objects that were once geometric, but might or might not have been damaged and/or marked.

Trilogy? by Akoman · 2003-02-09 05:00 · Score: 0

So what was that fourth Rama book I read?

Re:Trilogy? by fgb · 2003-02-09 05:14 · Score: 1

It's a bit like the Dune Trilogy (6 books) or the Foundation Trilogy (at least 7 books).

Larry Nivens Ringworld by tinomeinen · 2003-02-09 05:02 · Score: 1

and Asimovs Foundation

how to make money out of crappy books... by thanasakis · 2003-02-09 05:09 · Score: 1

1.Write a trully original book, say like RWR.
2.Write a couple of *cpappy* sequels that everyone wants to read just to find out what happens at the end.
3.???
4.profit!!!

(???=make a movie)

I stopped rama after the third book. Ever since, I keep having nightmares where a fleet of blood-thirsty klingons decloack out of nowhere and blow the blody ship to pieces...just for the fun of it..

Wait a minute... by fgb · 2003-02-09 05:12 · Score: 5, Funny

Wasn't this movie already made. I swore I saw the Rama spacecraft in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. It was looking for whales ;-)

Terrible other Rama books by ackthpt · 2003-02-09 05:27 · Score: 2, Informative

I just finished Rw/R and liked it. It did feel like one of those stories which should never have a sequel, but you know the publisher and book agent will twist an arm out of a socket to get one or three.

BTW, this article is a Dupe from Jan. 16, 2001 Perhaps it just doesn't have much priority on the rendering farm. I think it'll make for a very dull movie, though the graphics will make for some extraordinary eye candy.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

Rama series is THE best by Nicodemus · 2003-02-09 05:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

Am I the only person that thinks that the entire series is awesome? I enjoyed the first book for it's technicality and vision, but let's face it... characters are not Clarke's strong point. The following trilogy, however, have the best characters and aliens in any SciFi I've ever read. They are fully realized, have very different personalities, and are very believable with plenty of flaws. Just look at Wakefield and Des Jardins for very good examples. Hell, even O'Toole isn't perfect. I've read everything that Gentry Lee has put out so far, and it's all top quality stuff, especially if you love good characters. The combo of Clarke and Lee is definitely the BEST combo I have ever seen. Clarke does the technical SciFi type stuff, and Lee adds the human touch.

I'm beginning to wonder if people who didn't like the series are the type that think Star Trek and Star Wars are SciFi, and are really only happy with Pop SciFi or mech anime. For those of us that actually enjoy literary tales, the whole Rama series is breath taking. The rama series is always the first books I recommend to anyone, followed closely by George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire. So if you're on the fence on whether to read this series, do so. I've even gotten several females to read it that aren't into SciFi and they all ate it up ravenously.

Nicodemus

Re:Rama series is THE best by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 08:47 · Score: 0

Disclaimer 1: I worked on the Exploring the Planets project with Gentry. Hmmmm... that link to the distributor doesn't seem to work any more.... another tragedy of the bust? Oh well.....

Disclaimer 2: I have never read a page of the Rama series.

Gentry is one of the most interesting people I have ever met. IIRC, undergrad BA in literature, followed by MS in math/physics from MIT a year later. He is currently Chief Engineer for the Planetary Flight Systems Directorate at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He knows his science and cares deeply about people. By far, the best boss I have ever had, I walked away from a position with better pay, benefits and less responsibility to work with the group he was putting together. It is one of the best decisions I have ever made.
Re:Rama series is THE best by tentoesofterror · 2003-02-09 11:48 · Score: 1

I completely agree. The entire series was great. I'm really not sure why some people hate the sequels so much.
Re:Rama series is THE best by cwj123 · 2003-02-09 12:56 · Score: 1

No your not the only person. I **HEAVILY** enjoyed the entire series and have read it around 5 times so far. I'd definatly have to agree with you in the fact that it's a great story with amazing characters, and the ending gets me every time. Always the first series of books I recommend to people.

--bgmncwj
Re:Rama series is THE best by alienmole · 2003-02-09 15:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Clarke does the technical SciFi type stuff, and Lee adds the human touch.
Eewwww. Gentry Lee is an awful author, who when not teamed with someone like Clarke, belongs in the romance novel section. I once read about a classification supposedly used in the publishing industry called S&F - nothing to do with SF, it stands for shopping and fuc****, which hardly needs much further description. Anyway, Gentry Lee could be a master of that genre, and IMO, it spoils any book he's involved with.
I loved the first Rama book though.
Re:Rama series is THE best by pxpt · 2003-02-10 01:16 · Score: 1

The combo of Clarke and Lee is definitely the BEST combo I have ever seen. Clarke does the technical SciFi type stuff, and Lee adds the human touch.
Sorry but I strongly disagree with you. Gentry Lee written stuff is awful. So called 'characterisation' is a swift descent into smushy banality that add little or nothing to the overall story. Gentry would be better off writing for Mills and Boon (smushy romantic novel publishers). Sorry to be so negative but I feel I am justified in this case. All my friends who read Sci-Fi agree with me (including all the members of my local Sci-Fi group).

Stuck in Development Hell by jcoleman · 2003-02-09 05:31 · Score: 1

Freeman has been pitching this for a long while. here is a link to more information about the long history of bringing this to the big screen:

http://www.corona.bc.ca/films/details/rama.html

Please edit submissions where applicable!! by Havokmon · 2003-02-09 05:59 · Score: 1

Doug writes "Arthur C Clarke's Rendezvous with Rama is being made into a movie!

Shouldn't "Rendezvous with Rama" be in quotes, or Italicized, or bolded or something?

I was wondering who Rama was, what point she was Mr Clarke's love interest, and what made a quickie between an old author and an Egyptian interesting enough to be a movie..

--
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)

Re:Please edit submissions where applicable!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-12 04:31 · Score: 0

Rama is an Indian (as in from India) incarnation of God.

Rama Good, Sequels Bad by handy_vandal · 2003-02-09 06:08 · Score: 1, Informative

Rendezvous With Rama was a great book.

The sequels sucked so bad, I can't tell you how bad.

--
-kgj

Re:Rama Good, Sequels Bad by ppanon · 2003-02-09 06:52 · Score: 1

For some reason I used to feel compelled to read a series to find out how it ended. This made me slog through the Piers Anthony "Incarnation of Immortality" series and F. Saberhagen's interminable Book of Lost Swords series. The latter seems to have cured me. I only made it through 1 or 2 of the RwR sequels.

--
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Re:Rama Good, Sequels Bad by 3dr · 2003-02-09 09:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

The sequels sucked so bad, I can't tell you how bad.
Somewhat true. The initial work was classic Clarke -- cut to the chase, no-nonsense, present the story. I don't think I've read more bloviated prose than Gentry Lee's additions in the sequels.
Although terse, Clarke's approach is very effective. He cleanly gets across the main ideas and issues in the story, and lets your imagination take it from there. Lee's approach was to stifle through belabored description that last, important part of good sci-fi: your imagination's interpretation/expansion.
I wouldn't say the later novels outright suck. They don't, and there is several good ideas in the later books. But skipping 20-30 pages at a time becomes routine with no lost content as one will see.
Re:Rama Good, Sequels Bad by CaptainCap · 2003-02-09 17:40 · Score: 1

I checked the first sequel, Rama II, out of the library, and after finishing it, a month later checked it out again. I had totally blanked out the experience, the book was such crap.

Gentry Lee is a total turd of a writer.
Re:Rama Good, Sequels Bad by Grab · 2003-02-10 02:13 · Score: 1

Great? Come off it, it's almost the classic example of how not to write science fiction.

It was a very believable story of how to deal with a huge alien spaceship. However Clarke was apparently under the impression he was writing a thesis instead of a book. My first thought on finishing the book was "I never realised raiding a kilometer-long alien spaceship would be this damn boring!" Every nut and bolt was carefully described, but the story of what happens to the people, how it affects them, all that would make it a good/great book - missing, utterly absent.

Plus the truly horrible final paragraph tacked on so that he could get a sequel out of it. Even Enid Blyton would gag at the tackiness of that.

Clarke's writing is much like Asimov's: both have/had amazing concepts for hard sci-fi stories; however both have/had distinctly average writing abilities.

Grab.

Imperial Earth is the way to go by Rents · 2003-02-09 06:20 · Score: 1

Really, I don't think Rendezvous with Rama is such a good book and I don't see a good movie out of it. I'll guess we'll have Morgan Freeman in Perera's role and a Brad Pitt / di Caprio / whoever looks good on a magazine starring as the guy with the 'aerial bicycle' (can't remember the name of the caracter now), or something equally dull.

And 2001 - A great movie by a great director, but somehow disappointing compared to the book, which is far easier to understand and has incredible parts (such as when HAL go crazy kills the crew) that were changed in the movie (for worse imho).

Anyway, the Clarke book I'd like to see on film is Imperial Earth. I is not the usual action-packed sci-fi, but perhaps the time would be right now after Soderbergh's Solaris. And it wouldn't take a ridiculous amount of technical means to make it believeable, unlike Rama.

And while I'm at it, when will someone in Hollywood decide to remake BladeRunner, making it closer to PKD's book? Or PKD's The Man in The High Castle? Or Asimov's Foundation trilogy (got to employ those people after LoTR pt3 comes out)? Discuss.

Lamest book read in years by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 06:34 · Score: 0

I didn't even know there was a trilogy. I read the first book a few years ago, and still remember vividly how utterly disappointed I was with it. After reading to the end, I set it down and thought, "what the hell, _nothing_ really happened!" What a waste! After all that writing, the characters still knew pretty much nothing for all there 'adventures' on the mysterious space craft. It was still a total mystery. Needless to say I would never bother reading any more books along that series given my experience with the first.

Series Addiction Disorder by handy_vandal · 2003-02-09 07:14 · Score: 1

I had the same problem with the Dune books: I kept reading the next one in the series, and the next ... long after I'd stopped enjoying them.

--
-kgj

Re:Series Addiction Disorder by B'Trey · 2003-02-09 08:13 · Score: 1

I thoroughly enjoyed all six of Herber's Dune books. The new ones, collaborations between Brian(?) Herbert and someone else who's name escapes me at the moment are horrible. They aren't quite as bad as the RwR sequels, however. Not only was the writing weak, but the plot was ridiculous and obvious patchwork. Nothing in the original RwR hints at the blather that happens in the sequels. Reading them was a complete and utter waste of several hours of my time.

--
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

Yeah right... by *LuckySmurf* · 2003-02-09 07:17 · Score: 1

How, exactly, do the _LoTR_ movies "kill" the books? Does giving them more mainstream popularity diminish them in some way? I am the first to be disappointed by the way the _LoTR_ movies discard the charm of the books by making the tone sinister and the pace frenetic (not to mention the "modern" dialog, mama mia!), but they can't harm the books. As for _2001_, that movie inspired me to start compiling a list of movies that at pretentious bullsh*t. It's one of the few movies I've ever seen that feels twice as long as it is. Ick. For those of you who do not know, Kubrick also did the _Dr. Strangelove_, _A Clockwork Orange_, and _The Shining_, next to which _2001 - A Space Odessey_ [sic] is unwatchable.

Duplicate Story again by robinw · 2003-02-09 07:21 · Score: 1

Seriously, guys, if you search Slashdot for the word "Rama", it's the first result that comes up (besides this newly posted story.)

Here is the original thread. Interestingly enough, the web site has not changed since 2001, the original time it was posted. If anything, today's story should be about how long some movies stay in development hell before ever being made.

I think before any story is published, they should have the slashcode automatically search the site to see if there's a similar story. Because this kind of thing could have been caught really easily.

-RW

Garden of Rama by oniony · 2003-02-09 07:23 · Score: 0, Troll

Actually, Rendezvous was amazing, the next two were very poor and added nothing new to the experience, apart from the emotions of a set of astronauts. Garden of Rama, however, was as fantastic (well, almost) as the first book. It rekindled the spark that somehow went amiss after Rendezvous.

I think they should make Rendezvous into a movie, and merge the ideas of the next three books into a sequel.

--

Powered by onion juice.

Re:Garden of Rama by iJed · 2003-02-09 12:50 · Score: 1

I can't agree here. While its been a few years since I read all the Rama books, I thought the last book was the weakest of them all. I do agree however that the first book was great.
Re:Garden of Rama by CaptainCap · 2003-02-09 17:50 · Score: 1

Garden of Rama was one of the "next two [which] were "very poor and added nothing."
The fourth and last book, which was so fantastic that you forgot the title, was Rama Revealed.

Where it was revealed that, well absolutely nothing was revealed except that, according to Lee Gentry, God has something to do with the mysteries of the universe.
Re:Garden of Rama by oniony · 2003-02-17 11:23 · Score: 1

Hmm, well my memory is not what it was. I'm just surprised I made it through the middle two to even get to 'Revealed'. Maybe my expectations were set so low at that point that anything would have been good.

--
Powered by onion juice.

Re:What about Ringworld (mental arithmetic) by Ella+the+Cat · 2003-02-09 07:30 · Score: 1

Rendering Ringworld to 1/10 mm resolution is within the dynamic range of a C double's 52 bit mantissa - true or false? (go on, work it out)

Auteur theory by NBarnes · 2003-02-09 07:34 · Score: 1

I'd like to quibble with describing 2001, the movie, as Clarke's. I like Clarke's work, but, as the epigram goes, '2010 showed that Arthur C. Clarke had no idea what Stanley Kubrick did to his nice little SF story.'

2001, the movie, was nobody's but Kubrick's.

Awesome by sujan · 2003-02-09 08:01 · Score: 1

I just love Clarke's books. I just hope it is as good as 2001 given the technology available today and all. This movie should best another milestone in terms of space visuals just like 2001 did 39 years ago. The story in its entirety is awesome so I just hope the directors/screen writers wont have to cut many sections. Just like Kubrick, I hope the director is immensely genius as well. 2010 sucked really bad, but I am still awaiting other space odysseys (2060 and 3001).

Rama theme park? by joebeone · 2003-02-09 08:05 · Score: 1

What's this crap about a Rama Theme Park and Rama Collectibles?

Childhood's End... by Selfbain · 2003-02-09 08:09 · Score: 1

..was the best book by Clarke I ever read. That's a book they should make into a movie. The ending is one of the creepiest endings I've ever seen an author put forth.

--
Well, it has never been successfully tested.

2001: too much Kubrick, not enough Clarke by anon+coward · 2003-02-09 08:14 · Score: 1

Here's hoping Fincher does a much better job than Kubrick did with(to) 2001, which I found visually stunning and conceptually vacant. It was as if Kubrick raped the plot for all the FX opportunities and then threw the rest away (establishing a precedent still thriving in Hollywood to this day). I have heard Clarke was so disappointed with the result that he wrote and published the novel after the movie came out just so his version of the story would get out. To prevent the necessity for such actions on the part of authors, let's support directors who appreciate and illustrate stories with both a gross and fine conceptual structure (e.g. Harold Ramis, GROUNDHOG DAY).

Re:2001: too much Kubrick, not enough Clarke by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 17:34 · Score: 0

Groundhog Day is one of the most underrated films of all time. Very thought provoking, it is much more than a comedy, and is probably the best film popularization of Existentialism.
Fincher has shown lots of promise with "The Game" and "Fight Club", but the rest of his efforts have been really sub-par. So it could go either way.
Another Fincher effort that is very much worth looking forward to is Hardboiled, which is, visually, possibly the most stunning comic book ever. It also has a very Phil Dickian plot, which is a great plus. More info on the comic can be found here

Starring Morgan Freeman? by scaryjohn · 2003-02-09 08:20 · Score: 1

While I like Morgan Freeman, and think he's done well in every movie i've ever seen him in... I can't see him as the captain of the Endeavour. As far as sci-fi goes, hasn't he been totally typecast as the government agent reluctantly tasked with the butchering of thousands of Americans for some greater good?

When I read through Rama, I pictured the captain as being the last great astronaut, fresh from the set of 2001. Another Dave Bowman Frank Poole, or Lone Star (without the gravel in Bill Pullman's throat).

Or do they think the star of the movie will come from some other role?

--
One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.

Rama Sequels = maximum waste of time by handy_vandal · 2003-02-09 08:25 · Score: 2, Informative

Quite right -- my Dune comparison was off-target.

The original Rama was excellent, the sequels sucked horribly.

The original Dune was excellent, the sequels didn't all suck horribly. Come to think of it, the second was the worst of the lot. (Pressure on Herbert to publish in haste?)

Nonetheless, the original Dune stirred me in a way the sequels didn't.

--
-kgj

Re:Rama Sequels = maximum waste of time by slashdot_commentator · 2003-02-09 17:05 · Score: 1

nope it was Children of Dune (3rd book) that really sucked.

--
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon

Degrade in Quality (spoilers) by lucasw · 2003-02-09 08:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

...interstellar journey that spans the next 3 books (which degrade in quality in each subsequent book).

It's dirty old sf-writer effect at it's worst:

Female Protagonist: Hey grandpa, you and me and my sister have to repopulate the human race!

(I'm not making this up- I thought only the Old Testament could get away with this stuff)

Does this malady afflict other genres? It's not that I'm completely uncultured, it's just that I tend not to exhaustively read every book good-or-bad by of a given author outside sf.

Although, most of the worst books were co-written with Gentry Lee, perhaps we can blame it on him.

Re:Degrade in Quality (spoilers) by wass · 2003-02-10 06:17 · Score: 1

Actually, when they were describing her attempts at intercourse with the old man, and tricks to arouse him, I had to skim thru that as quickly as possible.
Shudder.

--
make world, not war

Good book, but can it make the transition? by SetarconeX · 2003-02-09 09:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm not going to deny that this is one of the all time greatest sci-fi novels. It is. I absolutely loved this book.

What I worry about is that it's the type of sci-fi which mostly revolves around characters who spend most of the story simply gawking in awe and wonder at whatever they stumble across. In a book, this is alright, as the author can stop and explain in detail what a character's looking at and why it's important. However, this is exactly the sort of thing which creates lousy sci-fi movies.

2001 is possibly the only movie ever to make this sort of extended gawking interesting. I might hear some objections, but I thought the first Star Trek movie came pretty close to pulling it off too. More recently, however, we've seen movies like the Solaris remake and Mission to Mars do this in exactly the WRONG way.

I'm going to have to say I'm going to wait for this one with nervous anticipation. There's so many ways this movie can go completely wrong, yet, somehow I still want to see them make the attempt.

I mean, what if they do it right?

It'll be damn cool, that's what.

--
"Isn't that the sweetest little well-balanced undergraduate-level philosophy of life."

Lee was the problem by handy_vandal · 2003-02-09 09:20 · Score: 1

"Lee's approach was to stifle through belabored description ..."

That's the big problem, right there.

--
-kgj

Arthur C Clarke's status by Indy1 · 2003-02-09 09:42 · Score: 1

He is alive and well last i heard. And he ditched the Kay pro way long ago, he wrote 3001 on a ibm thinkpad.

--
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!

Re:Arthur C Clarke's status by inode_buddha · 2003-02-09 11:20 · Score: 1

Thx for the info, the Thinkpad makes sense. It's a lot lighter than the Kaypro, (I have a Kaypro myself) and he's not getting any younger.... neither am I. 3001 is actually news to me; I lost track completely after 2010, so I guess that now I will have to find a copy.

--
C|N>K

Rama? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 10:07 · Score: 0

Isn't that that person who changes gender all the time when put in water of different temperatures? :)

Election was better as a movie by Goonie · 2003-02-09 10:32 · Score: 1

Election was a much better movie than it was a book, IMHO. The simplified ending is much more delicious, and Tammy Metzler's campaign speech has much more impact when delivered than when read.

If you haven't seen it, do yourself a favour and rent the DVD and spot the parallels with the 2000 election (though they're coincidental, the movie was made in 1999).

--

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)

Bitterness by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 11:29 · Score: 0

Someone mustve been a little bitter about me making a joke about the last post, or Kubrick. Kinda lame in a way. I hate it when people think there is only one person on a planet of 6 billion capable of something.

Re:Bitterness by pyrrho · 2003-02-09 13:18 · Score: 1

because then it could be possible to be an individual in a world where obviously individuality should not play a role?

--
-pyrrho

SPOILER! The problem I had with the "sequels" by wowbagger · 2003-02-09 11:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

SPOILER WARNING - if you have not read the so-called "sequels" to RwR, and you do not wish to have the surprise spoiled for you, read no further. However, the advice "read no further" can far better be applied to the sequels themselves.

In RwR, the sense of wonder was everywhere - here's this BIG HONKING SHIP, build by somebody for some reason we don't know. All we can know is that whoever they are, they put a lot of work into this ship. You felt awed.

Fast forward through the sequels - the ship was Created By The Hand Of God HimSelf as part of A Grand Experiment To Celibrate His Greatness. To me, that takes the wonder out of it - for mortal beings to build Rama would be impressive, for God to miracle it into existance is trivial. All the wonder went out of it, right there.

Furthurmore, the "three-ness" of Rama was intrinsic to the first story - the folks who build Rama did everything in threes, with trilateral symmetry. Why? What does it mean?

Nothing, we find out in the sequels. It was just made that way for the purposes of the experiment.

No, if you are given the choice between reading the sequels or ramming red hot forks into your eyes.... Make sure they are at least red-hot - that way the pain doesn't last as long.

--
www.eFax.com are spammers

Re:SPOILER! The problem I had with the "sequels" by CaptainCap · 2003-02-09 17:55 · Score: 1

You summed it up perfectly.
Re:SPOILER! The problem I had with the "sequels" by cat_jesus · 2003-02-09 23:06 · Score: 1

Furthurmore, the "three-ness" of Rama was intrinsic to the first story - the folks who build Rama did everything in threes, with trilateral symmetry. Why? What does it mean? Nothing, we find out in the sequels. It was just made that way for the purposes of the experiment.
I liked the fact that it didn't really mean anything. It's not that the "threeness" was intrinsic to the story so much as it was important to the characters. Humans have a tendency to assign meaning even if there is none and this was a very good example of our tendency to do that.

What they should do to pull off a RAMA franchise. by YinYang69 · 2003-02-09 12:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

Let me say that I, for one, enjoyed the Rendezvous with Rama series far more than I have the 2001+ series by Clarke. However, I also feel that Gentry Lee's presence in the writing process both added to and took away from the series. The new-tradition of Arthur C. Clarke books are "don't fuck around and tell the story event to event". Its been his style all along but these days, it seems to me, he's become a lot more Spartan in his storytelling.

Gentry Lee's style added an additional human element to a lot of the sequels that were not to be found in the original. However, Lee also filled the books with a lot of bullshit that no one really found interesting, either. :) And the plot twists in the series (Rama II and on) were not to my liking (or many other people's liking). In my estimation, Lee took away more than he added to the mix.

That said, I realize they've only announced the first movie. It's a risk (it's not as popular as Clark's other movies and the last one--that I'm aware of, Deep Impact--based on Hammer of God was completely eclipsed by the inferior Armageddon), so the Movie Studios aren't going to risk a three or four movie deal and blow the first one to hell.

That said (if the first movie does well), Hollywood should do the following with the movies in order to have a most successful investment.

Hollywood needs to make the first movie true to the heart of the first book. The book is a classic. And it seems that they are off to one hell of a start with the cast. They need a true script and complete the arc of the story as much as possible with the first movie. Add a little crap-Hollywoodness to it, and they will have a successful start.
"The Ramans do everything in threes." That was the last thought that Clarke left us with the book. And then he forgot the whole damn thing until people started complaining that they weren't seeing sequels. And he came back to the table thinking, "Thats a hell of an idea!" So what's he do? Come out with three more books (not two, as it would suggest). So Hollywood should correct this grievous error and pull a LOTR-butchery.
- Yes dammit, I think LOTR movies became butchered in the 2nd movie. However, some may argue that it was to the good of the whole. I disagree on it mostly. However...
- It can only be to the benefit of a Rama series to order it logically in a 3-movie deal. Three visits by the alien ship, three movies. Three reactions. Three plots. The books are, to some extent, already charted out this way. Due to the fleshing out process of Lee's and Clarke's writing, they felt that their storylines were too large for two additional books, so they arrived to the conclusion of three. This worked out for the books just fine (though I don't like them as much), but the movies are going to cut out a lot of the bullshit anyway, and with some stealthy cutting in the script area, they can come together quite nicely in the trilogy vein.
Finally, they need continuity. Which destroys much if not all of the latter books. In the books, the first ship comes in the year X (can't remember offhand, and I ain't looking it up). The 2nd ship comes X+150 years later. Holy God. Buuuut, the 3rd ship comes only 30 years or so later. That continuity is crappy. It works for the books, but not for a movie. Unless you're working in the horror genre, and you're not. You're going to need repeat actors in order to mesh the movies together intelligently movie-style. This destroys much of the future storylines in the additional books, but people will think it sucks if not done this way.

Ah well... forgive my not-very-well-put-together rantings. I'm thrilled to death about the whole thing. I can't wait for it. Can't wait, can't wait, can't wait.

Count Chocula Is My Cousin by Acidic_Diarrhea · 2003-02-09 12:10 · Score: 2, Funny

Panic Room was surprisingly enjoyable. When I first heard the premise I thought to myself, "Holy shit, Jodie Foster and some little kid trapped inside a room for two hours annoying the shit out of me? Jesus Christ, this is going to get old really quickly." I was all set to shit my pants in protest but as the credits started to roll I realized that I had not soiled myself. While the little girl in the movie did annoy me, my level of annoyance never rose so high as to warrant a fecal matter bombing. So I'd suggest you see it.

And both Seven (don't call it "Se7en", that pisses me off) and Fight Club were very good. If you enjoyed Fight Club, you should read "Choke" and "Survivor" by the same author - but you might want to consider avoiding "Invisible Monsters." You have to be ultra-intelligent like myself to properly enjoy "Invisible Monsters" and, without the ability to test you, I can't say one way or the other as to how intelligent you are. Oh, and in that vein "American Psycho", "Less than Zero", and "The Rules of Attraction", all by Bret Easton Ellis are also some books you might enjoy. Don't go to movies. They're bad for you and usually lead to pants-shitting.

--
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.

Re:Count Chocula Is My Cousin by rv23 · 2003-02-10 09:20 · Score: 1

Stay home and watch this great video: Tough Clamp: Develop Your Sphincter Muscle in 21 days. Its hosted by those TV movie critics. Now I know why.

I would LOVE to see a Rama movie! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 12:20 · Score: 0

But one would be enough. _Childhood's_End_ is definity another great novel that could be done except that everyone would say that it is full of cliches not realizing that Clarke INVENTED those cliches back in 1952. _Against_the_Fall_of_Night_ was the first science fiction novel that I ever read. Clarke's reworking of it would also be a Great Movie - "The City and the Stars" except that it would probably alienate the mainstream. And again, so many people have used Clarke's ideas, they would not realize they were original with him. Still, there are few movies set in 1,000,000,000 A.D.

I just hope of them is made would Arthur C. is still breathing. And they could have a special showing in Ski Lanka for him.

this is not news by DCZX · 2003-02-09 12:48 · Score: 1

This movie has been in production for some time. I think I first went to the website 2 years ago. I wonder if it will ever get off the ground.

LOVED RwR! But will it keep the theme... by Komarosu · 2003-02-09 13:22 · Score: 1

I loved RwR...amazing book and the Rama II was another excellent book...from there it went downhill

I'm interested in how they will do this, to us Rama fans out there the game gave a insight into the Rama II book and it was very good imho (Richard Wakefield just sticks in my head, they casted a very good person to play him in the game...and ACC makes a apperance :) )

Now when i re-read the books the images of the game stick...and i think the aliens and surroundings were authorised by ACC too so...will they stick to it?

--

"What do you mean you have no ice? Do you expect me to drink this coffee hot?" - Random Customer, Clerks

don't expect another 2001 by Pup5 · 2003-02-09 13:48 · Score: 1

the relevant name there is Kubrik, not Clarke.

that and the Rama story bites. even when compared to another relatively boring Clarkesque story like 2001:A Space Odessey. i think the satelite thing was a fluke. maybe he was chosen to reveal a piece of Roswell technology as his own.

no, Kubrik was the real creator. RIP.

Rendezvous with Ranma? by Glytch · 2003-02-09 13:54 · Score: 1

Please, no. That awful 2001: A Ranma Odyssey fanfic was bad enough.

(I only wish I were kidding. This atrocity exists. The Tendo sisters as the science team in hibernation? And don't even get me started on the stowaways...)

Wait a sec... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 15:23 · Score: 0

Didnt Sierra make a movie on this already?! I could swear I had a 3 CD version of it (was morgan freeman in it too?! )

The trilogy was awesome... by taustin · 2003-02-09 15:45 · Score: 1

The trilogy was awesome",

Was that by Doug, or Duhg? The trilogy was the worst piece of shit ever put on paper. Gentry Lee should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity for it.

The Peace War / Marooned In Realtime by dexter+riley · 2003-02-09 15:49 · Score: 1

by Vernor Vinge. Two of the best SF books I've ever read. The technology of 'bobbles' (impenetrable, indestructable stasis fields if you haven't read the book) opens up some great possibilities. The first book is an exciting David v. Goliath fight that would work great on the big screen, and the second has the Singularity, the exploration of the galaxy, and a murder mystery to beat Columbo hands down. But who do we get to play Della Lu...?

Stainless Steel Rat first!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 15:52 · Score: 0

Rama's OK, but here's my vote, I would rather first see a film treatment of Harry Harrison's "Stainless Steel Rat"!!

Children of Dune by handy_vandal · 2003-02-09 17:35 · Score: 1

Children of Dune ... that's the one where Duncan Idaho clones try to kill the big worm? Or was that the fourth book?

Forgettable either way, I guess.

--
-kgj

Re:Children of Dune by slashdot_commentator · 2003-02-09 18:36 · Score: 1

Not the 3rd book. Didn't bother to read beyond the 3rd. The third had the sister of Muaddib taking over. Then tried to do something blasphemous that eventually either destroyed her or her government. The only cool aspect of the book was the Bene Geserit and other factions scheming to take her down, but the story was mostly told from the viewpoint of Aliyah(?). It was so bad, boring, and read over twenty years ago, I don't remember it.

--
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon

I Blame Gentry Lee by handy_vandal · 2003-02-09 18:07 · Score: 1

I too blanked out most of Rama II ... except the part about where the woman and the man, umm, have intercourse -- because it's supposed to be a love scene but instead it's this (yawn) clinical analysis of their behavior.

That, and the page after page of irrelevant Eleanor of Aquataine junk.

I blame Gentry Lee. Not that Clarke is capable of writing a proper love scene ... but God! God save us from Gentry Lee!

--
-kgj

I smell a troll by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 18:09 · Score: 0

Best boss you ever had, passed up money to work for him, one of most interesting people you've ever met, but you've never read a single page of the Rama books that he wrote?

Pee-eew

Man you guys need to start doing some research by dragontooth · 2003-02-09 18:17 · Score: 1

There are four, yes count them four, books in the Rama series...Rendezvous with rama, Ramma II, Garden of Rama and Rama Revealed.

Isn't this supposed to be some sort of news site?

--
"Laugh, and the whole world laughs with you. Cry, and they still think its funny." - Mr. Boffo

Fight Club Rocked by handy_vandal · 2003-02-09 18:18 · Score: 1

From the trailer, I expected Fight Club to be the kind of Brad Pitt vehicle I don't bother watching.

A friend convinced me to give it a try -- and she was right! I was very pleasantly surprised -- a witty, allegorical tale, well told.

--
-kgj

Project Phase: Development Hell. by 1u3hr · 2003-02-09 20:01 · Score: 1

I don't know, but isn't this whole news like very old news?

Yes, see the Coming Attractions Rama page, which has rumours back to 1997, and lists it currently with "Project Phase: Development Hell."

I wants Thomas Covernant... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 20:06 · Score: 0

...the first trilogy. The obvious drawback being the similarities with LOTR though.

Peder

Asimovs foundation by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-09 20:13 · Score: 0

I second that but... ...in order to get the fullest of Foundation you'd have to film every Asimov book since they all connect. That'd be like ten or so films (or one supercondensed. Thank God Peter Jackson did manage to get funding for three films. At one point it looked as if he'd have to condense the three books into one film).

Peder

Corrections... by cythraul · 2003-02-10 00:30 · Score: 1

I hope the movie is on par with Clarke's 2001!

A word: Kubrick

Also, two other words: Gentry Lee

Good day

You can by it already :) by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-10 02:56 · Score: 0

have a look at this:

http://www.unilever.lv/ourb_rama.html

I wanna see the bird-dudes, and the SPIDERS by A55M0NKEY · 2003-02-10 03:28 · Score: 1

Eggs

--

Eat at Joe's.

Clarke's Childhood's End by A55M0NKEY · 2003-02-10 03:49 · Score: 1

I wanna see the DEVILZ yeah yeah DEVILZ with no TP for their BUNGHOLES

--

Eat at Joe's.

This almost looks fake by dangerweasel · 2003-02-10 03:53 · Score: 1

I mean, how many other lovie web site have an item titled "Other revenue streams"? That is more for the back-end, production/marketing teams, and not the general public. It is like putting up a web site that says "even more way we are going to seperate people and their money."

You think Ringworld is big ? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-10 08:07 · Score: 0

Pah, ringworld is small stuff - what you need is concentric dyson sphere's completely englobbing the sun - try Colin Kapp's Cageworld series :

Search for the Sun

- that's the first in the series. I remember reading them a long time ago - not exactly great SF of Rama/Ringworld quality, but worth a read for some neat concepts.

Last Post! by alpg · 2003-02-23 19:00 · Score: 0

There is a building with four floors. On the first floor, there
is a convention of architects. On the second floor, there is a
vinyl manufacturing plant. On the third floor there is a fast food
stand, and on the fourth floor there is a library.

Q: What would happen if a librarian traveled down in a small
elevator with one other person from each floor?
A: The elevator would be full.

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...

Slashdot Mirror

Clarke's Rendezvous with Rama going Hollywood?

266 comments