In article , chris@x- 
 track.demon.wastebitco.uk says... 
 > In article , 
 > cool@forcats.com writes 
 > >In article , chris@x- 
 > >track.demon.wastebitco.uk says... 
 > >> In article <9LO+QYKB7TtCFwNJ@jhall.demon.co.uk>, John Hall 
 > >>  writes 
 > >> > 
 > >> >>> 
 > >> >>>You cnanargue the prompt could have been better, but only if you can 
 find 
 > >> >>>the start of that particular moebius strip! 
 > >> >> 
 > >> >>I found the end of one of those once, but I think I left it on a 
 subway 
 > >> >>somewhere. 
 > >> > 
 > >> >Glad to see that you're well up on the classic SF short stories. :) 
 > >> 
 > >> But you got the reference too, as was hoped for. 
 > >> There are a few well-read survivors, then. 
 > >> -- 
 > >> Chris Brown 
 > 
 > 
 > >perhaps more than first appears ... but 
 > >depends what you mean by "well read" - now if youre talking Simak I could 
 > >understand the "well" part... 
 > 
 > Saberhagen to Simak to E E Doc Smith in the "Esses" 
 > 
  
 hmmm I still have the lensman paperbacks somewhere - I didnt know for 
 years that smith was a she not a he - quite a shock that when I found out 
 Probably that one would make a good Paul Verhoven style movie 
 If I had to bet though I'd guess Harrisons Stainless Steel Rat would be 
 more hollywoods taste saberhagens best hope would be too close to 
 terminator possibly (or maybe thats a good thing - hard to tell with 
 hollywood) 
  
 > >To be fair most of heinleins juvenalia is pretty dire stuff that deserves 
 > >to sink into oblivion but some is well worth the effort - 
 > 
 > Hang on, can't I invoke Sturgeon's law here? 
 > "Sure, 90% of science fiction is crud. That's because 90% of everything 
 > is crud." 
 > 
 fair comment 
 refreshing to hear the correct name associated with that - not that I've 
 ever been able to track down the article he said it in - perhaps it was 
 Locus or somewhere like that 
  
 > > I'd love to see 
 > >A Michael Valentine Smith movie ..... if anyone had the guts to make it 
 > >And how they can fail to make the Time Enough For Love movie (in the 
 > >style of Barbarella I'd suggest) beats me. 
 > 
 > The length? 
  
 sequels? there's enough of a scene change going on within the story to 
 justify sequels that look fresh I think 
 > 
  
 > >But them so many of the older books seem like natural movie blockbusters 
 > >to me that maybe I'm going a bit too nostalgic. 
 > 
 > No, there are some potential gems there,  from space opera to twisted 
 > time tales, but the track record of Hollywood turned loose on 
 > science-fiction does need to be taken into account.   And here comes 
 > "War of the Worlds"  (why does the phrase Independence Day echo in my 
 > mind?  Has it been planted there by some super-being?) 
  
 I'm not sure how this can have that title (admiting i've not seen it) but 
 from what i've heard its a brand new invasion story totally unconnected 
 with war of the worlds except the title 
  
 I agree about what hollywood  does to these books but to be fair they 
 have to condense down to 2 hours. Take BladeRunner - they stripped 
 everything out that gave the story a heart and just made the hunt and 
 kill thread into the movie which was by no means what the book was 
 really about. But they did popularise PKD a bit more in doing so and made 
 a half decent movie. 
  
 john 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)