Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ridley Scott Returns to PKD

timothy posted about 4 years ago | from the hard-to-get-right dept.

Sci-Fi 99

Krau Ming quotes from a report at Sneakpeek.ca "Ridley Scott's Scott Free Productions will produce a 4-hour TV adaptation of author Phlip K. Dick's The Man in the High Castle, based on a script by Howard Brenton. The original 1962 novel was a science fiction 'alternate history' that won a sci fi Hugo book award in 1963. Premise of the book, about daily life under totalitarian Fascist imperialism, occurs in 1962, fourteen years after the end of the Second World War in 1948. The victorious Axis Powers, Japan and Germany, conduct intrigues against each other in North America, specifically in the former US, which surrendered to them, after the Axis conquered Eurasia and destroyed the populaces of Africa." Adds Krau Ming: "Hopefully this will fall in the category of well-done PKD adaptations (though I'll leave it up to the slashdotters to determine which of the previous movies should be categorized as such)."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | about 4 years ago | (#33844806)

but isn't PKD the author who has the most works that have been translated to the silver screen? I love hisa work and I'm glad to know that yet another of his novels/short stories/novellas is being translated.

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (3, Informative)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | about 4 years ago | (#33844812)

In fact, to reply to my own post... I just found this list of PKD works that have been translated into films [philipkdick.com] .

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33845844)

Here's a summary of the movies from a Slashdotter. You're welcome.

----

Blade Runner (1982) Based on "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" - Blade runner is a horrible piece of Sci-fi. Unbelievable premise. Poor lead actor. Lacks any symbolism or deeper meaning.

Screamers (1995) Based on "Second Variety" - Quite possibly the most thrilling piece of Sci-fi since Ridley Scott did Alien. Totally plausible plot. Dark, brooding imagery keeps the viewer on the edge of their seat the entire time.

Total Recall (1990) Based on "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" - Now here's a real gem of Sci-fi. Examines the human condition, and what it means to be a person. It makes you think about deeper concepts, such as Plato's "Allegory of the Cave". Presents a fresh view of the future on terrestrial mars. Scientifically accurate representation of its atmosphere and exposure to the Martian climate.

Confessions d'un Bario (French, 1992) Based on "Confessions of a Crap Artist" - C'est terrible. Pourquoi? Je ne parle pas francais. Il est tres dificile, mon frere!

Impostor (2001) Based on "Impostor." - If you haven't seen this one, you need to see it now. It puts to shame "Moon" and "The Man From Earth". It's quite possibly Gary Sinise's best performance since Snake Eyes or Albino Alligator.

Minority Report (2002) Based on "The Minority Report." - An absolutely horrible sci-fi action flick. Silly weapons, unrealistic vehicles, boring plot. Totally predictable. The only good thing to come out of this movie is the phrase "minority report u.i." Tom Cruise's computer interface shows a realistic, futuristic, non-fatiguing way to interact with several data sets.

Paycheck (December 25, 2003) Based on "Paycheck." - Now this movie was a tour-de-force of style and substance. It meshes time travel, paradoxes, and the charming character of Ben Affleck. He is pretty much the Batman of the future; he has a tool for every single encounter that he comes against. Einstein or Hawking would give this movie two thumbs up (if they could). Go watch it now.

A Scanner Darkly (July 7, 2006) Based on "A Scanner Darkly" - Stupid plot. Basically stole the rotoscopped effect from a movie released later, "Waking Life". You should skip it; there's no substance to it.

Next (April 27, 2007) Based on "The Golden Man" - If you thought Paycheck was good, then you will "bust a nut" over this film. It has all of the slam-dunk elements in a blockbuster: Magicians, Terrorists, Time Travel, Government Super Soldient Experiments, Excessive Capitalization, and Gambling. Oh did I mention there was time Traveling?

So, to sum it up

[avoid] Blade Runner
[avoid] Minority Report
[avoid] A Scanner Darkly
[avoid] Confessions d'un Bario

and....

[go see] Screamers
[go see] Total Recall
[go see] Imposter
[go see] Paycheck
[go see] Next.

You're welcome

one more (1)

ChipMonk (711367) | about 4 years ago | (#33846290)

Radio Free Albemuth [radiofreealbemuth.com] is due for release before the end of the year.

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (4, Informative)

Teancum (67324) | about 4 years ago | (#33846498)

For myself, I loved Blade Runner. It was a little ahead of its time and is much more cerebral than a typical "SciFi" movie, but it certainly is at the top of nearly any list of best movies I can cite. The groundbreaking effects and ideas expressed in the movie have been copied by many subsequent films enough that some things look cliche because you've seen those other movies that came after Blade Runner. IMHO it was also one of Harrison Ford's better roles, but I suppose that you can form your own opinion about that actor and his work. Harrison Ford has been one of Hollywood's most "bankable" actors as he is in films that have a combined gross take in the billions of dollars. Perhaps that is why he is hated but the roughly billion or so people who have seen at least one of his movies might beg to differ on that point. This film is certainly more "hard SF" than "SciFi", which perhaps is the problem with the above reviewer.

As for Total Recall, I thought it was a fun diversion, but as for realism I thought it was absolutely stupid and highly inaccurate. "Scientifically accurate depiction of exposure to the Martian atmosphere".... hardly. It looked cool on film I suppose but it really didn't work very well. FYI, you can survive on Mars with mostly a pressure suit and an oxygen mask. Parts of the surface of Mars have the same atmospheric pressure as the top of Everest. Really, it isn't nearly as bad as depicted in the movie. The lead actor is the now governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger. If you know his work, it sums it up pretty well. Perhaps one of the more cerebral roles for the governator, but there is still a pretty high body count by the time the movie is done. He also has more dialog in this movie than Terminator, but almost any movie would qualify in that regard and doesn't say much and is perhaps one of its flaws too. It is a movie to watch with your brain put into neutral merely to enjoy the film as an action thriller, not for any scientific accuracy if you really know anything about this stuff.

Minority Report stars Tom Cruise as the lead. If you've seen "Mission Impossible" (1 or 2, it doesn't matter), it is essentially the same movie in a slightly different setting. Tom Cruise portrays the cocky punk that he has been in most of his movies and this isn't even really his best role either. There is more that is redeeming than just the data search user interface with the computers that he is using (running Hollywood OS, of course). The stuff that Phillip K. Dick wrote in is certainly thought provoking including the whole concept of arresting people who merely show the potential of committing a crime. If the Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] entry is to be believed, it was originally supposed to be a sequel of Total Recall, to be also starring the Governator as the lead actor instead of Tom Cruise. Thank goodness that script was lost and that plan abandoned. While not a horrible film, this film doesn't really inspire me either so I wouldn't say to avoid this film but also don't go out of your way to watch it either. If it comes up as something on TV or you have a friend who has it on DVD and you have a couple hours to kill with nothing better to do, there are worse ways to spend those two hours of your life.

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (2, Informative)

mpsmps (178373) | about 4 years ago | (#33847938)

As for Total Recall, I thought it was a fun diversion, but as for realism I thought it was absolutely stupid and highly inaccurate. "Scientifically accurate depiction of exposure to the Martian atmosphere".... hardly. It looked cool on film I suppose but it really didn't work very well. FYI, you can survive on Mars with mostly a pressure suit and an oxygen mask. Parts of the surface of Mars have the same atmospheric pressure as the top of Everest. Really, it isn't nearly as bad as depicted in the movie.

Your complaints about the movie's scientific accuracy would be more compelling if you were more accurate than the movie was. Air pressure on Mars is less than 10 millibars. Air pressure at the top of Mt. Everest is about 300 millibars. Not remotely "the same atmospheric pressure".

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (1)

Teancum (67324) | about 4 years ago | (#33848806)

The question here is.... where is the pressure on Mars at 10 millibars? At the bottom of Hellas Basin and Valles Marineris it can certainly approach a couple hundred millibar of pressure. At the top of Olympus Mons? Yeah, that is almost out of the Martian atmosphere. The elevation differences on Mars are much more pronounced than even on the Earth. Even on the Earth there are pressure differences... like say the air pressure is approaching 1000 millibars at sea level with even higher average pressure in places like Death Valley and the Dead Sea.

That is hardly the only scientifically inaccurate thing in the Movie, and besides your eyes won't jump out of the eye sockets like was depicted in the movie. It gets worse still. If you want to see a fairly accurate depiction of what you can do in a vacuum in terms of human physiology and human reactions while exposed briefly to space, Titan AE does a much better job in the scene where the hero cracks the cockpit window and propels himself with a fire extinguisher into the cargo hold of another spacecraft. It is something survivable.

Seriously, Mars is much more exotic than depicted in this movie and there were a great many other things that were simply idiotic like how the group of Martians had their "air cut off" by simply shutting down some fans. Let's get real here. You might suffer from CO2 toxicity but passing out after a minute of having the O2 supply cut off? Let's get real.

My point is that the scientific accuracy in the movie is simply non-existent in this movie, including that wild scene attempting to depict human physiology in a vacuum. It wouldn't happen that way and was done deliberately with dramatic license to heighten the impact. I'm not saying that being exposed to a vacuum would be a bed of roses either, but Arnold screaming his head off for a minute is not something that would be happening on the surface of Mars if he were shoved out of an airlock without a pressure suit or spacesuit.

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (1)

mbone (558574) | about 4 years ago | (#33849380)

The surface pressure in Hellas is nowhere near 200 mbar. If you disagree, please provide a reference from the scientific literature.

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (1)

mpsmps (178373) | about 4 years ago | (#33850016)

The question here is.... where is the pressure on Mars at 10 millibars? At the bottom of Hellas Basin and Valles Marineris it can certainly approach a couple hundred millibar of pressure.

At the bottom of Hellas Basin, air pressure is 11.5 millibars [wikipedia.org] . You might want to consider the saying that "when you're in a hole (e.g., the Hellas Basin), you need to stop digging."

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (3, Interesting)

jgrahn (181062) | about 4 years ago | (#33847980)

As for Total Recall, I thought it was a fun diversion, but as for realism I thought it was absolutely stupid and highly inaccurate. "Scientifically accurate depiction of exposure to the Martian atmosphere".... hardly. [...] It is a movie to watch with your brain put into neutral merely to enjoy the film as an action thriller, not for any scientific accuracy if you really know anything about this stuff.

It may come as a surprise to you, but most people don't watch action movies for their scientific accuracy ...

It's also worth pointing out that Total Recall stops being based on the PKD story fifteen minutes into the movie or so. (The rest is still based on a mix of Dick's themes, though. I like it.)

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (1)

Teancum (67324) | about 4 years ago | (#33848892)

It's also worth pointing out that Total Recall stops being based on the PKD story fifteen minutes into the movie or so.
(The rest is still based on a mix of Dick's themes, though. I like it.)

As an action adventure film to enjoy, I'd agree. I do have to put my brain into neutral when watching movies like this, particularly movies like "The Net" that attempt to depict computer technology that I happen to know a thing or two about on a more intimate level. My wife sometimes has to hit me to settle me down when I see a glaring technical flaw that is being used as a major plot device to help "save the hero".

I can handle FTL spaceflight as it sort of suspends reality, but at least stay somewhat consistent if you stray away from the physics of the real world. Sort of like cartoon physics, which is a completely different universe with its own physical laws of reality like how gravity is selective if you aren't aware that you just ran off a cliff or the existence of a portable hole. Some movies (and script writers) do a pretty good job that way.

Then again, I am into movies like 2001, 2010, or "docudramas" like October Sky and Apollo 13. Technical accuracy can happen if you put some effort into it, something that most Hollywood directors seldom even try to do. Total Recall in particular is one movie that really had problems with technical accuracy, and yes I blame the director/producers of that show much more so than Phillip K. Dick on that point.

As for the fact that "most people" watch movies for entertainment rather than technical accuracy.... I guess that explains why members of congress can't seem to separate out movie physics from reality most of the time, much less the voters who put them into office. It does make a difference in our culture if you show something more realistic even if it isn't a Hollywood convention like hearing explosions in space.

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (1)

cyclomedia (882859) | about 4 years ago | (#33857742)

Agreed, there comes a point when you have to turn the dial in your brain from "Nerd" to "John Woo"... Paycheck for example. The same is also true, topically, with Mission Impossible 2. If the dial in your brain is set to "Mission Impossible" and not "explosions and slow mo" then you're not going to enjoy it.

This is the problem with movie rewiewers (1)

aekafan (1690920) | about 4 years ago | (#33847332)

He's got 2 out of 10 right.

I mean Paycheck is great, but Blade Runner is trash? I mean Paycheck, great? Really? Was there another version i missed that was good, and if so where can i see it?

Movie critics are about as useful and accurate as futurists.

Re:This is the problem with movie rewiewers (1)

Lord Maud'Dib (611577) | about 4 years ago | (#33848114)

Whoosh?

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (1)

shinehead (603005) | about 4 years ago | (#33850102)

I think I would have preferred PKD to author Solaris instead of Stanislaw Lem. The novel would be worse but the movie would have been better.

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (4, Informative)

xigxag (167441) | about 4 years ago | (#33844858)

Not bothering to look this up but I think almost self-evidently the correct answer would be Shakespeare.

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (2, Informative)

xigxag (167441) | about 4 years ago | (#33844872)

In fact, to reply to my own post... I just found ;-) [wikipedia.org]

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (2, Insightful)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | about 4 years ago | (#33845044)

Ok, maybe I should've specified MODERN author, and even then apparently Stephen King beats PKD.

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (2, Informative)

xigxag (167441) | about 4 years ago | (#33845164)

True. According to this article, there are a few more authors [suite101.com] who have beaten our Dick.

The article lists:

0. Bible/Homer/Shakespeare/Dickens
1. Stephen King
2. W. Somerset Maugham
3. Ernest Hemingway
and possibly, depending on the current count
4. John Grisham

Ian Fleming seems to be missing from that list, and I suspect others as well.

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#33845356)

Homer? Didn't they only make 1 Simpsons movie?

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | about 4 years ago | (#33846218)

The OP meant modern, sci-fi, author whose first name starts with a P and has a story with the word "androids" in the title. Clear enough?

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (1)

itlurksbeneath (952654) | about 4 years ago | (#33846546)

Technically, he's the Sci-Fi author that's had the most stories turned into films. And speaking of somebody who's read most of the stories and seen all the films - some of them are SO LOOSELY based, it's hard to even say it's based on the story. Read The Golden Man then watch Next and you'll see what I mean.

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (1)

PCM2 (4486) | about 4 years ago | (#33847178)

Technically, he's the Sci-Fi author that's had the most stories turned into films.

Really? Not Ray Bradbury?

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (2, Informative)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | about 4 years ago | (#33847678)

Wiki has a list of Bradbury 6 adaptations to other media. [wikipedia.org] There's a whole Movies and Films based on works by Philip K. Dick [philipkdick.com] site. I count 7 theatrical releases based on RB, vs. 9 for PKD and 2 more in production. This doesn't count miniseries...miniserieses? or other TV adaptations.

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (1)

PCM2 (4486) | about 4 years ago | (#33878678)

On the other hand, IMDB has a total of 75 credits for Bradbury, while Dick only gets 19. Granted, many of these are for TV series and some are work that Bradbury himself did for Hollywood.

No knock to Dick, but for sheer number of adaptations in all media I think Bradbury takes the cake. E.C. comics got a lot of heat from Bradbury for adapting his stories without asking (or paying) him, and that was all in the early 50s -- and I suspect some radio plays predate that.

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 4 years ago | (#33847920)

Ian Fleming seems to be missing from that list, and I suspect others as well.

Perhaps Michael Crichton?

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33848616)

Don't forget Alistair MacLean...

1961 The Secret Ways
1961 The Guns of Navarone
1965 The Satan Bug
1968 Ice Station Zebra
1968 Where Eagles Dare
1970 Puppet on a Chain
1971 When Eight Bells Toll
1972 Fear Is the Key
1974 Caravan to Vaccares
1975 Breakheart Pass
1977 Golden Rendezvous
1978 Force 10 from Navarone
1979 Bear Island
1980 The Hostage Tower
1989 River of Death
1993 Death Train
1995 The Way to Dusty Death
1995 Night Watch

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33845160)

Quit replying to your own posts fellas, the editors might think they've doubled their readership with this story! It's GOLD Jerry, GOLD!

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (1)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | about 4 years ago | (#33847688)

Reading AC posts is like being beaten with a bag of oranges.

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33848830)

here's a related idea: which author has had the highest percentage of their written works made into films or television? where is shakespeare, about 75%? pkd isnt close. unfortunately, JK Rowling may be close, as may the twilight author.

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33844870)

Not that I have anything against PKD, he's one of may favorite authors. But lets be honest, he stories are raided and the screen adaptations are nothing like the prose. There are many other authors out there. Hollywood is lazy, or maybe Philip's family are very well connected. Shame the author himself didn't get the money, just his leach of a family.

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (2, Informative)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | about 4 years ago | (#33845204)

Whoever modded the above post down, he's speaking the truth. PKD's family trust has milked his works for years... yet another argument against extended copyright. (Although thinking about it, his work would probably still fall under copyright under older versions of the laws).

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 4 years ago | (#33847636)

How old? Just like patents, copyrights were originally 15-17 years.

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (1)

Teancum (67324) | about 4 years ago | (#33848998)

I could live with a 30+30 rule, as in 30 years of protection plus an additional 30 years if you make the effort to formally renew the copyright (verifiable and can be confirmed with the Library of Congress). That was the law at the beginning of the 20th Century. Under such a law, most of PKD's books would still be under copyright although there would be a huge pile of stuff that would be in the public domain that would be useful.

I believe the Copyright Act of 1790 had a term of 17 years plus 17 years for renewal.

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | about 4 years ago | (#33851118)

Thanks for that info, the 30+30 rule was the one I was thinking of when I made my last post.

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (2, Insightful)

AfroTrance (984230) | about 4 years ago | (#33847490)

But lets be honest, he stories are raided and the screen adaptations are nothing like the prose.

There is nothing wrong with movies based on a book that have been modified heavily. The medium is completely different. You can't convey the same ideas in a movie as you can with text.

Hollywood is lazy, or maybe Philip's family are very well connected.

It's the first. Blade Runner was a success, therefore producers are more willing to make a PKD book into a movie. Hollywood is very unwilling to try untested writers/directors/etc.

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (2, Interesting)

mapuche (41699) | about 4 years ago | (#33845016)

Only if you mean Stephen King when you say FKD:

http://bestsellers.about.com/od/stephenking/a/king_films.htm

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (1)

Miseph (979059) | about 4 years ago | (#33845064)

I know Truman Capote is up there as well.

If I were the sort to do pointless and only marginally interesting research, I might look into the actual answer.

Re:Please correct me if I'm wrong.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33845214)

I know Truman Capote is up there as well.

If I were the sort to do pointless and only marginally interesting research, I might look into the actual answer.

If I were the sort to make pointless and only marginally interesting /. posts, I might.... Oh wait...

Filmographies (2, Informative)

westlake (615356) | about 4 years ago | (#33846082)

but isn't PKD the author who has the most works that have been translated to the silver screen?

"The Prince and the Pauper" was filmed by the Edison studios in 1909 - at Mark Twain's home in Conneticut!

There have been at least 120 credited and uncredited adaptations of Twain's stories.

292 tales from Dickens.

232 adaptations of Sherlock Holmes.

223 productions based on the novels and stories of Robert Lewis Stevenson.

201 adaptations from O.Henry, 137 from Jules Verne.

83 from H.G. Wells, 77 from Rudyard Kipling.

As improbable as it sounds, there is new version of The Three Musketeers in production. The first was in 1898.

Hanging ending (3, Insightful)

mark0 (750639) | about 4 years ago | (#33844826)

Showbiz types generally hate hanging endings. I'll guess fans will be disappointed with it being "reimagined".

Re:Hanging ending (1)

s0litaire (1205168) | about 4 years ago | (#33844936)

Ain't this going to be a BBC Production?
That means it will probably keep the hanging ending and be better than most US treatments would have been...

Re:Hanging ending (2, Interesting)

arth1 (260657) | about 4 years ago | (#33845426)

But it'll have fewer and smaller explosions, and no artificial hiding of nipples and penises.

And (and this is one of my pet peeves) US movies tend to have colour and contrast wildly exaggerated, and like with Bollywood movies, you need to have a cultural bias for suppressing disbelief. Despite less attention to details, probably due to much smaller budgets, I find British movies to be easier to identify with and "live in" while watching them.

Re:Hanging ending (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 years ago | (#33845672)

And (and this is one of my pet peeves) US movies tend to have colour and contrast wildly exaggerated

Or is it that UK movies have a shade too much Real Is Brown [tvtropes.org] ?

Re:Hanging ending (2, Insightful)

Dogtanian (588974) | about 4 years ago | (#33846414)

Or is it that UK movies have a shade too much Real Is Brown [tvtropes.org]?

Let me guess- you've only ever seen two British movies, and one of them was Guy Ritchie's "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels"? And the other was its follow-up, "Snatch"- right?

They're not all like that, you know.

Re:Hanging ending (1)

mobby_6kl (668092) | about 4 years ago | (#33850586)

No shit, just like not all American films have exaggerated color and contrast.

Re:Hanging ending (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#33845370)

If by showbiz types you mean most people in the movie going public, then yes. Showbiz types like certain endings, because they test well in focus groups, and people go to see them. In this day and age, I doubt very much that Casablanca would've been made. Same goes for Shakespeare, if he hadn't long ago earned his reputation.

I mean, just look at the Disneyfied versions of old tales. They frequently change the ending to something more upbeat so that people will want to go.

Re:Hanging ending (1)

mbone (558574) | about 4 years ago | (#33849400)

I mean, just look at the Disneyfied versions of old tales. They frequently change the ending to something more upbeat so that people will want to go.

Editors did that to Shakespeare (especially downers like King Lear) for centuries. Cordelia married happily every after, hah !

Re:Hanging ending (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33847008)

PKD fans shouldn't be disappointed, PKD wasn't. He was quite conscious of books and movies as different art forms. You have to tell the same story in different ways for it to be a "good book" vs a "good movie." Just as you can tell that story as a painting or a comic book, or a short story, or a video game. Each one has a different framing and the interaction with the viewer is different.

Re:Hanging ending (1)

thomst (1640045) | about 4 years ago | (#33847346)

Showbiz types generally hate hanging endings. I'll guess fans will be disappointed with it being "reimagined".

And the ending of Blade Runner is disappointing in what way?

Ridley Scott is my favorite director, in part because he doesn't seem to give much of a damn about Hollywood marketing conventions. His recent version of Robin Hood, for instance, ends where most Robin Hood movies begin, and his underrated White Squall focuses on character delineation and development, with a determinedly non-Hollywood ending. All the evidence says Scott cares first about authenticity, second about story, and googleth about Hollywood conventions.

I expect Scott's version of TMITHC will expand Dick's story, include a romantic relationship, and end as satisfyingly to fanboys as Blade Runner did - because Ridley Scott clearly is a PKD fanboy himself.

Re:Hanging ending (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | about 4 years ago | (#33847530)

>>I'll guess fans will be disappointed with it being "reimagined".

I guess. I wasn't that impressed with the novel, though PKD evidentally was.

IIRC from reading the notes in the back of the book, he randomly rolled the entire story using the I-Ching, and was reportedly creeped out by how well it worked.

Scott Free did the Andromeda Strain remake (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33844990)

That was such a steaming pile of dumb, I will simply assume a Scott Free production is shit until proven otherwise.

Great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33844994)

...for a moment i almost forgot that Scott has made nothing but crap since Thelma & Louise.

The world has moved on (-1, Troll)

dbIII (701233) | about 4 years ago | (#33844998)

In 1962 it was insightful, but now it's just a Godwin.
There's also been one incredibly crappy alternate history TV series that has soiled that sort of plot beyond recovery (the one where the USA didn't enter WWII and then found to their horror later about the genocide - that thing people were running away from before the war even started).

Re:The world has moved on (1)

jgrahn (181062) | about 4 years ago | (#33845096)

In 1962 it was insightful, but now it's just a Godwin.

Huh? Care to elaborate? And did you really read it in -62? That would make you ... pretty old by Slashdot standards.

Re:The world has moved on (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 4 years ago | (#33845536)

Why do you think there's a /. "standard" for age?
I believe you'll find plenty of people here in their 60s or older.

The people who started the Internet revolution are now between 40 and 70, and Slashdot has become one of the home bases. Yes, Slashdot probably has a much larger proportion of geezers than many other tech fora. Deal.

Re:The world has moved on (1)

plcurechax (247883) | about 4 years ago | (#33869742)

And did you really read it in -62? That would make you ... pretty old by Slashdot standards.

Being old enough to have actually read a paper based book, not just seen them cited in Wikipedia, makes you old Slashdot standards.

Nowadays you are expected to have downloaded the ebook, reading it would take too long; preferably without having paid for it.

Professionalism Anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33845038)

Why does there seem to be typos in at least half of all posts on the main page? "Phlip K Dick"? It's like the site is run by 8th graders. Yeah it's off topic. Get over it.

Re:Professionalism Anyone? (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#33845384)

Probably because "Philip K Dic" is particularly hard to spell.

A scanner darkly (1)

radu.stanca (857153) | about 4 years ago | (#33845060)

The movie is in my opinion the best adaptation of a PKD novel. Watch it!

Re:A scanner darkly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33845100)

Second that, I read the picture book of that movie, and I soo wanted to see the flick. Luckily, I was drinking over at a buddy's place, and late at night it showed on one of the cable channels; I was riveted. It was the last thing I expected.

Now I'm hoping Ridley will surprise us, even though the era this story portrays is from the past.

Re:A scanner darkly (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | about 4 years ago | (#33845174)

I'm not normally a fan of roto-scope, but this movie was such a faithful and well presented adaptation that it won me over.

Re:A scanner darkly (1)

Aneurysm (680045) | about 4 years ago | (#33845188)

It's an alternate reality. WWII went on longer in this reality.

Re:A scanner darkly (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 4 years ago | (#33845284)

While the movies are often good, sometimes excellent, they are also often so far from the book that you wonder whether the screenwriter tossed darts at the cliff notes, and wrote a new script out of that.

A Scanner Darkly is one example, and (the absolutely over-the-top brilliant) Blade Runner is another.

Anyhow, I could see Riverworld being made into a TV series (with the necessary-for-US-audiences change of everybody being resurrected with clothes).

And I think Palmer Eldritch or Faith of Our Fathers have potential too. The "malevolent god" theme is rarely used, and I've never seen it done well.

But most of all, I want to see a law being passed against ever adapting VALIS to the big screen. Or, alternatively, the powers need to legalize drugs in the quantity needed to sit through and get an experience out of it.

Re:A scanner darkly (1)

sumday (888112) | about 4 years ago | (#33845456)

"But most of all, I want to see a law being passed against ever adapting VALIS to the big screen. Or, alternatively, the powers need to legalize drugs in the quantity needed to sit through and get an experience out of it."

This. VALIS would never make it to the big screen while retaining the themes and beauty of the book. However, if someone made a film of the film VALIS from the book VALIS, that might be a little bit awesome. I want to see Mother Goose's head explode.

Re:A scanner darkly (1)

AfroTrance (984230) | about 4 years ago | (#33847634)

However, if someone made a film of the film VALIS from the book VALIS, that might be a little bit awesome.

Radio Free Ablemuth has been made into a film, which was used as the basis of the film VALIS in the book VALIS.

Also, "If Radio Free Albemuth is successful, VALIS the book would form the basis for the sequel to VALIS the movie. In other words, the story of VALIS would form the basis for VALIS 2." So looks like there could be a VALIS movie.

I agree it will be near impossible to succusfully turn VALIS into a movie. But from what I can tell of the Radio Free Ablemuth movie, it looks like a small independent production. They probably have the best chance, compared to a largish Hollywood production.

I think The Divine Invasion could be successfully made into a movie. Maybe that can be the second sequel? :)

Re:A scanner darkly (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about 4 years ago | (#33846224)

Anyhow, I could see Riverworld being made into a TV series (with the necessary-for-US-audiences change of everybody being resurrected with clothes).

Wrong Philip (Farmer, not Dick.) But yeah, it could be a great series. I understand there was a terrible miniseries "adaptation" that took nothing from the books but the name and the central conceit; it would be nice to see it done right.

Re:A scanner darkly (1)

snuf23 (182335) | about 4 years ago | (#33847248)

There was a 2003 adaption that was a failed pilot for the Riverworld series. While not one hundred percent faithful it did have many of the elements from the books including Mark Twain and the riverboat. I can't say it was very good.

I've avoided the 2010 version as I've heard it's worse.

 

Re:A scanner darkly (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 4 years ago | (#33848292)

Wrong Philip (Farmer, not Dick.)

Duh, of course. They both were bending if not outright breaking many taboos with their science fiction, and in some ways, Philip J. Farmer took over the legacy, but I still have no excuse for confusing the two and misremembering Riverworld as being written by Philip K. Dick.
My apologies to the two great ones' memories.

Re:A scanner darkly (1)

Boronx (228853) | about 4 years ago | (#33849934)

"While the movies are often good, sometimes excellent, they are also often so far from the book that you wonder whether the screenwriter tossed darts at the cliff notes, and wrote a new script out of that."

Which would be a fitting way to script "Man in the High Castle"

Re:A scanner darkly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33847022)

It was good until the last act (newpath) when some retard screwed with the ending, thus rendering the preceeding narrative pointless and moronic. My guess is either the screen writer didn't understand the original story or we add it to the list of films completely ruined by studio executives.

I didn't know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33845148)

... that WW II ended in 1948.

Re:I didn't know... (1)

Aneurysm (680045) | about 4 years ago | (#33845200)

It's an alternate reality story. WWII went on longer in this reality.

Robin Hood (1)

hack slash (1064002) | about 4 years ago | (#33845156)

I just hope he does better than the recent Robin Hood film of his, that one kinda missed the spot, so to speak. I didn't find myself rooting for any of the characters, good or bad they were both bland and unengaging.

Re:Robin Hood (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 4 years ago | (#33845364)

Scott is excellent at creating anti-hero protagonists, and Russell Crowe is excellent at playing them. But Robin Hood is a (collection of) heroic epic(s) with no room for a complex protagonist. I want to see an unstoppable Errol Flynn type character with wit and charm.

To put it another way, The Princess Bride wouldn't have been a good movie with Scott/Crowe either. But I think the pair could have made Inception a heck of a lot better.

Re:Robin Hood (1)

Flambergius (55153) | about 4 years ago | (#33847786)

My favorite in the Errol Flynn one too, but the tale can succesfully be told in other ways too; for proof see "Robin and Marian" by Richard Lester and writer James Goldman. Sean Connery and Andrey Hepburn in the name roles. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075147/ [imdb.com]

Re:Robin Hood (1)

Vaphell (1489021) | about 4 years ago | (#33845386)

RH was so bad
omaha beach in RH was the most ridiculous thing i've seen recently, especially with the charge of the hobbits on top of it... seriously, wtf
and i didn't like the blatant shortcomings in realism department (everybody and his mother was wearing a chain mail which is nothing to scoff at, yet people fell like flies to single arrow or a sword slash, combat was too clean with no moaning of the wounded, mounted knights used swords exclusively, no lances to be seen)

Re:Robin Hood (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 4 years ago | (#33845478)

mounted knights used swords exclusively, no lances to be seen

To be fair, the lances of that time were throwable "long spears", and not the oversized jousting lances seen in other Robin Hood filmatizatons. Those didn't become common until several hundred years later, and wasn't really usable for war. So omitting lances wasn't all bad.

Re:Robin Hood (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33849456)

i hadn't jousting lances in mind though, but those simple long spears you speak of, those were missing too. In general long stick + something sharp at the end was one of the most common tools of war for centuries because it's cheap to make, gives the advantage of range in melee fight and even a caveman can use it. If the depictions show William the Conqueror's men using spears 150 years earlier and knights/cavalry used lances 100/200/300 years later then one can make an educated guess that polearms were used continuously, also around 1200 - yet pretty much the whole movie was about swordfight with some archery thrown in (so people don't feel cheated = WTF, RH movie and no bows?!)

More Republican bashing? Feh. (-1, Flamebait)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | about 4 years ago | (#33845326)

If this is yet another attempt to paint conservatives as evil facists, this will be total sh*t. Given that it's coming out of Hollywood, I wouldn't put it past them. Given that Scott's Robin Hood practically threw away the entire original script and subsequently turned it in to another steaming pile, I can see how this is going to end up. Come on, creatives, be original for once.

Re:More Republican bashing? Feh. (-1, Troll)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#33845398)

That's probably because conservatives in the US are fascists. It's beyond puerile to get upset about being called out on it. Xenophobia, check. Fear mongering, check. Corporatism, check. Ultra-nationalism, check. Obsession with stomping out socialism, that's a big check. Relying heavily upon tribalism, check. Using the aforementioned to get people to vote against their own self interest, check.

Seems to me that if conservatives are going to whine about being called fascist, that it might make sense to adopt a platform that differs in some significant and substantial way from the prototypical fascism one. But then again, if you're even making that complaint you're not going to admit that you're full of it.

Check again (-1, Troll)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | about 4 years ago | (#33845974)

Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement. Exactly which side is it that is a huge proponent of the so-called Fairness Doctrine? That would be the left. Exactly which side is it that instead of debating the issues shouts racism whenever there is dissent. That would be the left.

Fascism presents itself as a solution to the perceived benefits and disadvantages of conservatism by advocating state-controlled modernization. Exactly which side is hell-bent on enacting "progressive" Cap & Trade and heavily subsidized "green" projects? That would be the left.

Fascism is heavily opposed to laissez-faire capitalism which by definition means "leave us the hell alone". Exactly which side is a huge proponent of heavy-handed government regulation? That would be the left.

There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both the left and the right. A number of historians have regarded fascism either as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine which mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things. Don't give me that crap about Fascism be exclusively the domain of the right wing.

Xenophobia? Nationalistic? What a crock. Leftist regimes have been the most xenophobic and genocidic in history.

Obsession with stomping out socialism? Fine by me. By what right should anyone have to give up what they rightfully earn so other people can slack off?

Tribalism? Oh, you mean those leftist warlords in African and other parts of the world who aren't satisfied with corrupting elections that they kill anyone who opposes them?

Quite frankly it is you, sir (spelled with a c and a u) that are full of it. Don't let factual history hit you in the butt on your way out.

Re:Check again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33848082)

l o fucking l

Re:More Republican bashing? Feh. (0, Troll)

arth1 (260657) | about 4 years ago | (#33845574)

If this is yet another attempt to paint conservatives as evil facists, this will be total sh*t.

Oh, I think U.S. conservatives have proven that they're fully capable of painting themselves brown, with no help needed. Once the Tea Party starts wearing uniforms, it's time to run away, quickly.

Fitting... (1)

owlnation (858981) | about 4 years ago | (#33845464)

A dick directs Dick. (at least according to his reputation in the film industry)

Re:Fitting... (2, Informative)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | about 4 years ago | (#33847858)

Check out RS's debut film The Duellists [wikipedia.org] if you haven't. Beautiful film. Listening to the director's commentary he doesn't sound utterly reprehensible, either. Might be holding himself in check, of course; whatever, he is a talent.

Re:Fitting... (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 4 years ago | (#33848486)

maybe things have changed since then, but the Duellists (totally amazing film BTW) is one of his first - along with Blade Runner and Alien.

things then went awry, so if he's going back to his roots, full of fabulous lighting and huge long pauses of plot and character building in between the few action seuqneces, then I would be very happy.

Actually, thinking of the Duellists again, forget the characterisation and all that, if he just went back to the lighting, I'd be very happy.

I will look forward to this.. (1)

moodel (614846) | about 4 years ago | (#33845502)

I'm guessing that it'll be 2 x 2hr episodes which in some respect is better than making an actual film as it means the directors/script writers will have more time in order to portray the story. One of the problems in transferring any book to film format is that most audiences have a finite attention span in a cinema setting so its hard for script writers to convey the full story with all the nuances of a book :/ Fingers crossed they get it right.

So....PKD's vision is no different than reality. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33845656)

EOM

*Alternative* history (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33846814)

> The original 1962 novel was a science fiction 'alternate history'

No it wasn't, not unless it recounted two different histories and oscillated between them on a periodic basis.

Alternate is not a synonym for alternative.

Re:*Alternative* history (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33847220)

Alternate is not a synonym for alternative.

Unfortunately for you, it is [merriam-webster.com] .

Re:*Alternative* history (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33847270)

Alternate is not a synonym for alternative.

Unfortunately for you, it is.

Have you not considered that the GP may have been commenting from an alternative reality where it isn't?

yo0s Fail It (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33847080)

dead. It is a dea0d Darren Reed, which

4 hours with or without adverts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33847096)

Is this going to be 4 hours of actual story, or is it going to be 4 hours in the way that I've heard people talking about making an 'hour' of TV (the official LOST podcast comes to mind) when what they're actually making is ~40 minutes of TV which the broadcaster will then show in an hour long timeslot along with ~20 minutes of adverts?

I hope this adaption is true to the original novel (1)

jenningsthecat (1525947) | about 4 years ago | (#33847620)

As a long-time fan of Philip K. Dick, I've always been disappointed that the movies made from his stories have deviated so far from the stories themselves. Don't get me wrong - I loved Blade Runner and quite liked Total Recall - but I was always dissatisfied that they weren't true to Dick's original vision. 'The Man in the High Castle' is arguably Dick's best and most accessible work, and I've always thought it would make a fantastic movie. Here's hoping that Scott has the good sense to simply translate the novel to film, rather than playing at being an SF writer and trying to one-up Dick's own mastery of the genre.

Re:I hope this adaption is true to the original no (1)

aled (228417) | about 4 years ago | (#33851746)

Mod parent up... except 'The Man in the High Castle' wasnt his best work. Other of his books are better in many senses. Just remember, too much PKD before sleeping can provoke paranoia, time flow alterations and alternate reality experiences... or experience the true reality.

Re:I hope this adaption is true to the original no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33859052)

I think Blade Runner was brilliant even though it wasn't true to the book. In fact, I dare say I found the script even more compelling than the original PKD story. Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? is great and a true adaptation might have been excellent but what Ridley Scott managed to do with Blade Runner is nothing short of marvelous. It's extremely rare for a "re-imagined" story to be that good because the movie will be competing with your own imagination while at the same time limited by what you can achieve (visually) through movie making.

I'm not ashamed to say Ridley Scott's vision kicked my ass.

Argh, Ridley Scott! (1)

Adam Jorgensen (1302989) | about 4 years ago | (#33850276)

I have no faith in this being any good. Ridley Scott used to make good movies. Blade Runner and Alien are examples. Since the end of the 80's though he has mostly gone to pot, producing awful movie after awful movie.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?