From: chris@x-track.demon.wastebitco.uk 
  
 In article , 
 cool@forcats.com writes 
 >In article , chris@x- 
 >track.demon.wastebitco.uk says... 
 >> In article , 
 >> cool@forcats.com writes 
 > 
 >> >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 
  
 There are other WotW out this year, it seems, but apart from the book I 
 keep returning to Richard Burton and Jeff Wayne. 
 > 
 >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. 
  
 Blade Runner worked well, within the limitations you describe. 
 Minority Report less so, though PKD has at least had honourable 
 attempts. 
 I, Robot was a travesty. 
 > 
 >john 
  
 Is a Hollywoodised film better than no film at all? 
 (in a balance to earlier historical productions, I have this script 
 where a British Commando unit raises the flag over Iwo Jima, but funding 
 is a little slow coming in) 
 -- 
 Chris Brown 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)