I suggest you go find yourself a cave now and crawl in. Eat shit and die. You can read all the nonsense slow news day articles you want, but fuck off if you plan on feeling superior because of it.
Brits may also use philosopher to mean something other than the currently accepted primary, secondary or tertiary** meaning of the word "Philosopher's stone" is a whole. This refers to something specific, not Plato or Descarte's left nut, but to an alchemical concept. I recognise "philosopher's stone" the same way that I recognise "holy grail". You put these two words together, and they refer to something very specific. The kids might not know this when they start reading the book, but they'll be familiar with the concept by the end of the non-US versions.
However, if you consider that your target audience is not going to recognise what that means, you might also consider dumbing it down to something that requires (or involves) less education.
BTW, I'm not making this up, you know. The reason why there hasn't been a hollywood adaptation of a Terry Pratchett novel by now is because he walked out when the producers insisted in dumbing his work down, and he wouldn't let 'em. You can get Pratchett in book, BBC movies, cartoons, plays, musicals, videogames, etc. He'll adapt, but he won't dumb down. He has more faith in the intellects of American youth than Hollywood does.
this solaris look at that carefully folks: the contrast between the cost and the profit. some of you may be getting my point now it had a big star, a bug budget, and a big director, and it lost money. why? Just my two cents: I'm never paying for another movie directed by the guy who's responsible for Batman: Nipple Suits
Starship Troopers was a superb film on so many levels. I highly recommend getting a hold of the collectors edition and listening to the full length commentary by the directors. "Digital... real... real... digital! Digital! REAL! REAL! DIGITAL!"
if people actually read the article instead of treating this as another opportunity to publicly flaunt their indie cred. "Wath me list of sci-fi movies that show I'm so hardcore sci fi."
There goes any hope for an interesting discussion... Oh, shut up. I'm interested by the lists of movies and books sorted by sci-fi quality! I can to see if there's any in there I ought to get my hands on.
I didn't RTFA because it apparently blames Lucas for something he's not to blame for. He's got enough to answer for without making him the straw man for hollywood's fetish of asplosions and cleavage. Not, git with the obscure high-quality sci-fi, people!
I, Robot was butchered because: It was not I Robot, it was "hardwired", until someone at the studio realised they were sitting on the rights to the adaptation of a famous robot book by a famous robot author, so they rebranded their "robots on a rampage" movie with the names from a book that was written to NOT be about robots on the rampage.
I don't plan to see that movie, but I would have gone to see "hardwired". A mindless robot shoot 'em up is fun, corpse-raping a respected author isn't.
Hollywood's willingness to fund science-fiction movies that actually said something about the human condition
"human condition" what is that ? what "human condition" does Flash Gordon series contain ? Read the fucking summary again, they specifically use Flash Gordon as an example of space opera WITHOUT a reflexion on human condition. Sheesh! no you read it again. he have used flash gordon as an example of the type of sci fi that is not funded by hollywood anymore. 'When Lucas made Star Wars in 1977, he was paying tribute to a subgenre of science fiction that he loved dearly as a boy: the space opera. But although the breathless serial adventures of Flash Gordon and his ilk had their pleasures, they were often treated with tolerance, at best, by more serious science-fiction writers and readers. Nevertheless, the success of Star Wars changed the movie industry's perception of science fiction forever. As much as we love Star Wars for what it is, it nearly killed Hollywood's willingness to fund science-fiction movies that actually said something about the human condition.'
...The book was renamed first. Also, anything that lets us forget the idiocy of alchemy is dooming us to repeat it. LEARN from history, don't whitewash it. Not to mention that if you think alchemy is foolishness that ought to be ignored, you shouldn't be reading books about prepubescent wizard messiahs.
And, I checked on wiki, turns out you're right, the dumming down started with the book: "Scholastic, the book's US publisher, also "translated" the original book into American English. The spelling as well as many words and expressions were changed."
I'm not disagreeing that a good story is driven by characters, I'm just saying that Deep Impact was mindless drivel (didn't bother seeing the other one). Especially when mentioning the human condition, it was THE MOST unrealistic end-of-the-world scenario I've ever seen. People kept going to work like normal, no one thought to go for the highground until they actually saw the water coming, etc. It was one of the most boring and frustratingly absurb movie I've seen.
Rule of thumb: A page in a novel does not equate to a page in a movie script. The former is rife with detail, the later substantially lacking in it and expecting the director to pad. Indeed. You take 800 densely packed pages, and you get a scenario of less than 200 well-aerated pages.
Which is why I say you should always watch the movie before you read the book: You enjoy the flick, then enjoy the book even more. If you go the other way around, you enjoy the book, then the movie lets you down.
Your example sucks. The title "sorcerer's stone" versus "philosopher's stone" has nothing to do with intelligence of the audience, but rather language usage. In the USA it was changed to sorcerer because we don't typically use the word philosopher to mean something other than the likes of Kant. The Brits, on the other hand, consider philosopher in both respects. Nothing to do with intelligence. lol: "we don't know what words mean, but we still t3h smart!"
You don't typically use the word philosopher. You don't typically know what words mean... but you're smart, WAY smart! Smart like a rock!
Science Fiction doesn't have to occur in space. For example, novels where it doesn't: Brainwave, The Caves of Steel, Blood Music, Queen of Angels, The Demolished Man, Fahrenheit 451, Childhood's End, Camp Concentration, Permutation City, Beggars in Spain, and a thousand other novels. There are some relatively legitimate reasons why you would want to set it in space, though: you want to depict a possible future, and you believe that having people in space will be an important part of that future, or you believe that, for things like first contact, colonization, or isolation stories, that space is the best place to depict those ideas. Ah-hem.
It wasn't dumbed down everywhere. In the UK and Canada, it was still the philosopher's stone. Note that this in no way counters the argument that Hollywood dumbs things down, since "Hollywood" in the case can be used as a label for the U.S. movie industry. I know, I was just avoinding the jingo mod-downs:)
do not do justice to the depth of the books It is not possible to dig 800 pages deep in two hours. Rule of thumb: A page from a scenario is a minute of screen time.
Oh and Star Wars says nothing about the human condition? Are you kidding? "You killed the younglings?:'(" "I did it because I love you, now CHOKE, bitch!"
It says something about human condition allright, it says that when someone in hollywood who's rich and powerfull looses their mind, no one bothers to tell 'em.
The best recent "cerebral" Sci-Fi movie has been the Solaris remake with Clooney. Oh come on! Gattaca, Pi, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind... anything but a remake!
"2001" was understandable only if you'd read the book. Well, by understandable, I mean, all the nuances and the undercurrents. No no, no. Not just nuances and undercurrents, the movie makes no fucking sense unless you read the book. The half hour acid trip at the end makes perfect sense if you apply the word "stargate" to the jupiter monolith, but no one who saw the movie without outside explanations understands that last bit. Not that there's anyting wrong with that, it's contact with superior intelligence, it's supposed to be confusing to our feeble simian minds. But the book and movie were made together, and are supposed to go together, it was an artistic experiment.
Science Fiction, hell. Star Wars (And Jaws, was it?) changed the way the production studios looked at film. The amount of money involved got so much bigger suddenly that it overwhelmed the vestigial idea that movies ought to be pieces of art. It's similar to the move in publishing over the last half-century, away from a climate where your goal, when looking at a book, is to decide whether it ought to be published because it's well-written or well-crafted or has an important message, towards a climate where you decide how many dollars it's going to rank in according to a simple formula or two. *sigh*
Victor Hugo was paid by the word. There was no point in times past where lofty goals surpeceeded profit in motivations for industry. Printers weren't less greedy, teens didn't have less sex, etc.
Hollywood's willingness to fund science-fiction movies that actually said something about the human condition
"human condition" what is that ? what "human condition" does Flash Gordon series contain ? Read the fucking summary again, they specifically use Flash Gordon as an example of space opera WITHOUT a reflexion on human condition. Sheesh!
As fun as it might be -- George Lucas is not the ultimate reason for this. The ultimate reason is that the major film studios are afraid to innovate and want every film to be a sure thing. He didn't make hollywood that way. Definatly. The author really needs to go watch Logan's Run if he wants to see what Hollywood sci-fi was like before Star Wars (it's a laughably bad movie with an interresting story and it got two Oscar nominations).
The sci-fi genre was dead in hollywood before Star Wars made a gazillion bucks and motivated producers to fund some. The fact that intelligent sci-fi is hard to find is not Lucas' fault, it's because all Hollywood movies are dummed down to please the lowest common denominator of movie goers. Don't believe me? As yourself, is Harry Potter's first adventure about a philosopher's stone, or a less intellectually-taxing "sorceror's" stone? That's right: dummed down.
Why is it that whenever a woman does anything noteworthy the first response here on slashdot is whether or not she is hot/doable/marryable, etc. What is wrong with you people? They're lonely?
Imagine how these women feel if they read slashdot. Imagine if they ever discussed the looks of any scientist/politician/firemen? How dare these women discuss the looks of firefighters? What's wrong with them? Imagine all the training to fight fires and women discussing your muscles? They should put a stop to it RIGHT NOW.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't particulary need a Pratchett hollywood movie, the BBC's "made for TV" Hogfather was awesome, I hope they make more.
What they lack in budget they more than make up for in authenticity and smarts.
I recognise "philosopher's stone" the same way that I recognise "holy grail". You put these two words together, and they refer to something very specific. The kids might not know this when they start reading the book, but they'll be familiar with the concept by the end of the non-US versions.
However, if you consider that your target audience is not going to recognise what that means, you might also consider dumbing it down to something that requires (or involves) less education.
BTW, I'm not making this up, you know. The reason why there hasn't been a hollywood adaptation of a Terry Pratchett novel by now is because he walked out when the producers insisted in dumbing his work down, and he wouldn't let 'em. You can get Pratchett in book, BBC movies, cartoons, plays, musicals, videogames, etc. He'll adapt, but he won't dumb down.
He has more faith in the intellects of American youth than Hollywood does.
look at that carefully folks: the contrast between the cost and the profit. some of you may be getting my point now
it had a big star, a bug budget, and a big director, and it lost money. why? Just my two cents: I'm never paying for another movie directed by the guy who's responsible for Batman: Nipple Suits
Fantasy is fun, but it's not science fiction.
Verhoven's commentaries are always priceless
There goes any hope for an interesting discussion... Oh, shut up. I'm interested by the lists of movies and books sorted by sci-fi quality! I can to see if there's any in there I ought to get my hands on.
I didn't RTFA because it apparently blames Lucas for something he's not to blame for. He's got enough to answer for without making him the straw man for hollywood's fetish of asplosions and cleavage. Not, git with the obscure high-quality sci-fi, people!
I don't plan to see that movie, but I would have gone to see "hardwired". A mindless robot shoot 'em up is fun, corpse-raping a respected author isn't.
"human condition" what is that ?
what "human condition" does Flash Gordon series contain ? Read the fucking summary again, they specifically use Flash Gordon as an example of space opera WITHOUT a reflexion on human condition. Sheesh! no you read it again.
he have used flash gordon as an example of the type of sci fi that is not funded by hollywood anymore. 'When Lucas made Star Wars in 1977, he was paying tribute to a subgenre of science fiction that he loved dearly as a boy: the space opera. But although the breathless serial adventures of Flash Gordon and his ilk had their pleasures, they were often treated with tolerance, at best, by more serious science-fiction writers and readers. Nevertheless, the success of Star Wars changed the movie industry's perception of science fiction forever. As much as we love Star Wars for what it is, it nearly killed Hollywood's willingness to fund science-fiction movies that actually said something about the human condition.'
...The book was renamed first. Also, anything that lets us forget the idiocy of alchemy is dooming us to repeat it. LEARN from history, don't whitewash it. Not to mention that if you think alchemy is foolishness that ought to be ignored, you shouldn't be reading books about prepubescent wizard messiahs.And, I checked on wiki, turns out you're right, the dumming down started with the book: "Scholastic, the book's US publisher, also "translated" the original book into American English. The spelling as well as many words and expressions were changed."
I'm not disagreeing that a good story is driven by characters, I'm just saying that Deep Impact was mindless drivel (didn't bother seeing the other one). Especially when mentioning the human condition, it was THE MOST unrealistic end-of-the-world scenario I've ever seen. People kept going to work like normal, no one thought to go for the highground until they actually saw the water coming, etc.
It was one of the most boring and frustratingly absurb movie I've seen.
Which is why I say you should always watch the movie before you read the book: You enjoy the flick, then enjoy the book even more. If you go the other way around, you enjoy the book, then the movie lets you down.
You don't typically use the word philosopher. You don't typically know what words mean... but you're smart, WAY smart! Smart like a rock!
Brainwave, The Caves of Steel, Blood Music, Queen of Angels, The Demolished Man, Fahrenheit 451, Childhood's End, Camp Concentration, Permutation City, Beggars in Spain, and a thousand other novels. There are some relatively legitimate reasons why you would want to set it in space, though: you want to depict a possible future, and you believe that having people in space will be an important part of that future, or you believe that, for things like first contact, colonization, or isolation stories, that space is the best place to depict those ideas. Ah-hem.
Note that this in no way counters the argument that Hollywood dumbs things down, since "Hollywood" in the case can be used as a label for the U.S. movie industry. I know, I was just avoinding the jingo mod-downs
"I did it because I love you, now CHOKE, bitch!"
It says something about human condition allright, it says that when someone in hollywood who's rich and powerfull looses their mind, no one bothers to tell 'em.
Gattaca, Pi, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind... anything but a remake!
Not that there's anyting wrong with that, it's contact with superior intelligence, it's supposed to be confusing to our feeble simian minds.
But the book and movie were made together, and are supposed to go together, it was an artistic experiment.
Victor Hugo was paid by the word.
There was no point in times past where lofty goals surpeceeded profit in motivations for industry. Printers weren't less greedy, teens didn't have less sex, etc.
"human condition" what is that ?
what "human condition" does Flash Gordon series contain ? Read the fucking summary again, they specifically use Flash Gordon as an example of space opera WITHOUT a reflexion on human condition. Sheesh!
The sci-fi genre was dead in hollywood before Star Wars made a gazillion bucks and motivated producers to fund some. The fact that intelligent sci-fi is hard to find is not Lucas' fault, it's because all Hollywood movies are dummed down to please the lowest common denominator of movie goers.
Don't believe me? As yourself, is Harry Potter's first adventure about a philosopher's stone, or a less intellectually-taxing "sorceror's" stone?
That's right: dummed down.
How dare these women discuss the looks of firefighters? What's wrong with them? Imagine all the training to fight fires and women discussing your muscles? They should put a stop to it RIGHT NOW.