Saddam Hussein is dead.

[Jesusabdullah]

That's true, but it's mostly because the movie adaptations sucked and not so much a consequence of the quality of the original stories (I think). Plus, from what I've seen most of those movies have drastically different plotlines. For example, in "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" (the basis of Total Recall), the main character never leaves Earth. Like, the first half of the short story is the same as the first ten minutes of the movie, but from there they have little in common. The Minority Report stories were also similarly different, though not to the same degree--also, I thought the movie was at least decent if not good.

That reminds me, I hear they're making/have made a movie out of Paycheck. Is it/will it be any good? I think I saw a poor review of it somewhere, but the story was so good that I really hope the review isn't on the right track.

Oh, and the original Terminator, iirc, was decent for what it was. It's been a long time since I've seen it.

[Rock_dash]

Dude, Paycheck came out four years ago.

[Jesusabdullah]

Really?

...was it good?

[Rock_dash]

Really?

...was it good?

Haven't the foggiest.

[TRI]

Well... I dunno if it was good but it wasn't popular.

Also, even if Schwarzenegger made some decent movies he lost all whatever
shred of credibility he may have had with me when he got into politics.

[[AOD]]

Paycheck was an 'okay' sort of movie, but it became part of a VERY long list of works that utterly mangled Phil Dick's magnificent works. The only film that did justice to the philosophical depth and evocative atmosphere of PKD's writing was "Blade Runner", and it had just about nothing in common plotwise (like all of the movies based on his writing) with the original book, other than that it had 'androids'.

@~AOD

[TRI]

I've heard Screamers was a decent adaptation, and Impostor handles the themes and moods well enough... it just wasn't all that entertaining in the end. Truthfully part of that was the source material: Impostor is a very short short story so the plot was pretty simple.

Scanner Darkly seems to have gone over well but I haven't seen the movie or read the book so I dunno how they compare.

[McDuffies]

I was thoroughly dissapointed in Scanner Darkly, I had faith in Richard Linklater, but I guess that's what you get when a fan does the adaptation. "Screamers" was a rather mediocre SF, it's obvious that they just abused the premise to pack in as much violence as they could. I thought it was rather poor.
I actually don't think "Total recall" was all that bad. I think it was one of Verhoeven's better American flicks, but granted most of good things were drained from Dick's ideas.
"Blade Runner" was a milestone film but I think that it, too, cheapened and romanticized ideas from the book. It made them sentimental, specially near the ending. I've heard that the happy ending was producer's decision that Ridley Scott was unhappy with, but still the "oh my god robots are more human than humans!" conclusion is too simplified for me. Generally, I think that the film is impressive to watch on tv screen, but on smaller screen, tv or computer, many of qualities of it aren't noticeable anymore. Much better than Total Recall, though.

The thing is, you know how Hollywood searchs for all possible sources of ideas, how studios buy rights for most of books as soon as they're published and regardless of whether they plan to film them soon or not. Dick is stuck in an unfortunate root where some of films by his books have turned out succesful, and in general his themes are such that if you take out the subtext you get content for a standard assembly-line sf. There's a lot of his novels made into films that you've never heard of, and a lot of them yet to be made, unless unsuccesful "Scanner darkly" discourages producers.
I don't think Dick's books are very filmable, they most often talk about psyche, about desintegration of a person, and this desintegration is only manifested in outter world. Much easier and more filmable approach is to have the world desintegrating and character standing heroically in the middle of it, so that's what most of filmmakers go and that's why those films just cheapen the point of the book.
"Vanilla Sky" is made after Spanish "Open your eyes" which is, supposedly, loosely based on "Ubik". "Ubik" is an excellent book and Cameron Crowe is an excellent director, but the content is just so ethereal that when you make it all physical in a film, it looks unconvincing.

[TRI]

You pretty much said it: they're both easy to turn into movies but practically impossible to turn into accurate movies, either in story or in subtext.

Although I still wouldn't mind taking a crack at making a Ubik graphic novel.

[McDuffies]

There are directors who are very good at filming mental states. One I can think of is Terry Gilliam. The other I can think of is Abel Ferrara. Nicholas Roeg comes to mind too, if he's still alive. What's impossible for one director is a speciality for the other.

[Rkolter]

Total Recall was a curious flick.

On one hand, the science was appalling. A planetary core made of ice? Just thousands of feet below the surface? And something that boils that ice away, and it makes the atmosphere of the planet, in minutes?

Blah.

Not to mention the effects that happen when you get out into Mars' atmosphere, nor that they magically disappear when the atmosphere changes.

But on the other hand, that is EXACTLY the kind of stuff you'd expect to find in a dream.

So, was Total Recall actually reality, or was Total Recall actually an induced fantasy?

I liked it.

[Joel Fagin]

Total Recall was a curious flick.

On one hand, the science was appalling. A planetary core made of ice? Just thousands of feet below the surface? And something that boils that ice away, and it makes the atmosphere of the planet, in minutes?

Blah.

The book has the more thorough explanation that was cut from the movie. The water vapour was only step 1.

- Joel Fagin

[McDuffies]

Your eyes don't pop out like that in vacuum either, right?

[Rusty Knight]

That depends on weather it's a vacuum cleaner or the vast vacuum of quantum foam that we call space.

[Rkolter]

Your eyes don't pop out like that in vacuum either, right?

Correct. Even in pure vacuum, your eyes wouldn't do that. And Mars is not close to a pure vacuum.

That depends on weather it's a vacuum cleaner or the vast vacuum of quantum foam that we call space.

*slaps Rusty Knight*

You fail at science.

[Rusty Knight]

That depends on weather it's a vacuum cleaner or the vast vacuum of quantum foam that we call space.

*slaps Rusty Knight*

You fail at science.[/quote]Just don't tell the science teacher...

[Rkolter]

That depends on weather it's a vacuum cleaner or the vast vacuum of quantum foam that we call space.

*slaps Rusty Knight*

You fail at science.

Just don't tell the science teacher...

Your science teacher is WRONG. Now I have to educate you.

1) vacuum cleaner vs. vacuum of space

There is no difference between the vacuum a vacuum pump makes, and the vacuum that exists in space. Well, there is a difference - humans can make a better vacuum.

2) vacuum of quantum foam

Your teacher is at least marginally on track here. Vacuum energy - the energy of the ground state of our universe, also called zero-point energy, is the result of virtual particle pairs appearing and annihilating.

This is not however, the same thing as the vacuum of space. The vacuum of space is a vacuum for the same reason that a chamber evacuated of atmosphere is a vacuum. Vacuum energy, and a general lack of matter are not the same thing, even if they use the same word.

3) ... that we call space.

This is simply wrongheaded thinking unless your teacher has perfected the grand unified theory. Vacuum energy is not space (although it may be creating new space...).

While we say space is a vacuum, what we mean is that one characteristic of space is that it is for the most part, devoid of matter. One characteristic, not the only characteristic. You can say Space is a vacuum.

You cannot say This vacuum, which we call space. This is because space has characteristics other than merely being generally devoid of matter.

For a more readily understandable example, consider this:

"This container is empty." (Space is a vacuum).
"This emptyness, which we call a container..." (This vacuum, which we call space)

You have been pwned by science.

[Nervous Spy]

1) vacuum cleaner vs. vacuum of space

There is no difference between the vacuum a vacuum pump makes, and the vacuum that exists in space. Well, there is a difference - humans can make a better vacuum.

Exactly. For, in fact, the vacuum of space was created with a vacuum cleaner!

[ShineDog]

LIES.

I put the vacuum cleaners hose against my eye and it sucked it out.

[Rkolter]

LIES.

I put the vacuum cleaners hose against my eye and it sucked it out.

... can I have it? I mean, if you're not using it anymore...?