Arthur C. Clarke R. I. P.

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by smiffy And once again I can add some more nuggets of wisdom from the Crook mine . I think I have just picked up the "Sci Fi "tag from popular abbreviation . I was a Telecommunications engineer for 15 years (originally for the post office before the introduction of BT) at a time when technology was moving faster than the Business could keep up with. I was working on equipment that ranged from ,the old mechanical switches,the electronic new fangled (hexadecimal ) system ,and the brand new System x ( digital ) I wasn't offered training on the digital system so I took the offer of redundancy and bought a chippy ,so you see I appreciate the sciences and the arts I shall research Earthsea , my periods of abscence from the site are usually Holidays or catching up on members reccomendations for reading (apart form the films ) I also like the term "Ideas fiction " Thanks Steve

Don't get me wrong, "Sci Fi" isn't a horrendous term. It's just neither fish nor fowl. It's not the full term and it's not the more common abbreviation. So it's hardly every used by the cognoscenti

Le Guin's books are very good, but they are at the Fantasy end of the genre.
For a purer SF I would tend to stick to the masters like Asimov (I Robot), Heinlein, Clark, Dick (Bladerunner), Aldiss (A.I.), Bradbury (Fahrenheit 451) etc.

I remember System X. I think there might even be some still out there, still in use

Steve

[David Brent]

A great man who saw his visions of the future become reality.
I remember him saying on his 90th birthday that he was still awaiting the conformation that contact had been made with ET's.
He thought it would only be a matter of time.

Yet another very sad loss.

Dave.

[dylan]

Originally Posted by smiffy And once again I can add some more nuggets of wisdom from the Crook mine . I think I have just picked up the "Sci Fi "tag from popular abbreviation . I was a Telecommunications engineer for 15 years (originally for the post office before the introduction of BT) at a time when technology was moving faster than the Business could keep up with. I was working on equipment that ranged from ,the old mechanical switches,the electronic new fangled (hexadecimal ) system ,and the brand new System x ( digital ) I wasn't offered training on the digital system so I took the offer of redundancy and bought a chippy ,so you see I appreciate the sciences and the arts I shall research Earthsea , my periods of abscence from the site are usually Holidays or catching up on members reccomendations for reading (apart form the films ) I also like the term "Ideas fiction " Thanks Steve

Generally "SF" is the written form while the horrible "Sci-Fi" or "Skiffy" refers to the visual media. It's interesting to note that Michael Chabon's alternate world novel The Yiddish Policemans Union is up for several SF awards and will be filmed by the Coen Bros (hopefully not promoted as "Sc-Fi").

D.

[AdrianTurner]

I think I'm right in saying that the reason 2001: A Space Odyssey is a classic, remains a classic, and continues to fascinate, is mostly down to the singular vision of Stanley Kubrick. The project began, you will recall, by Kubrick inviting Clarke to collaborate on a novel and then a screenplay. This process took about two years and only when it was complete did Clarke rewrite the novel. The original screenplay - I have a copy somewhere - contained a full narration, loads of science stuff from NASA boffins, and many explicatory or expositionary sequences. Kubrick cut all of this stuff out, having in mind a movie that worked on the level of enigma, metaphysics, symbol and visual impact. And that's what we admire in it today. Clarke's novel, on the other hand, explains everything Kubrick wanted to remain a total mystery and it's a rather pedestrian work compared to the movie. This is not to deny Clarke his undeniable importance in several fields, not least in the sf world - but isn't it interesting how none of his other novels ever became movies?

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by AdrianTurner ... but isn't it interesting how none of his other novels ever became movies?

Except 2010
Except various episodes of The Twilight Zone and other TV shows
Except Rendezvous with Rama which is currently in production

You're right that the film was as it was mainly because of what Kubrick brought to it. But it was based on an original short story by Clarke and like all collaborations, who can say exactly who did what?

Steve

[AdrianTurner]

Mmm, I think 2010 was a commission from MGM, so it counts as a novelisation of a screenplay. And that, too, is far too explanatory, though on its own terms an enjoyable picture.

[s20076037]

He's in 2010, sitting on a park bench, feeding the pigeons in the Washington park scene, while Roy Scheider and another actor talk with the Whitehouse behind them.