But the book is very very good, one of the better sci-fi books I’ve read. And the only thing that is related to Scientology is the aliens are “Psychlos”. L. Ron Hubbard has an (understandable) loathing of Psychiatry.
The movie has as much in common with the novel as the original Star Wars trilogy has with the prequels. Similar storylines, but one is vastly superior.
I disagree with you on two counts. While I haven’t read the book to compare with the movie, the movie doesn’t deserve its reputation. Sure it was stupid and the camera angles were a bit sloppy, but compared to so much of the butchered sci fi movies out there it is probably in the better half. At the very least it is better than Will Smith’s version of I, Robot. And it didn’t have nearly as great source material as Asimov’s short stories. Whats more it is a post apocalyptic genre, making a comparison to similarly inadvertently campy titles such as the mad max movies.
My second argument comes from star wars. The First star was trilogy kind of sucked. Sure it was influential and it led to a pretty interesting expanded universe but I think Tony Long said it best, “ยท Bad writing is bad writing, and bad acting is bad acting. And ever the twain shall meet. At least in Hollywood.” The original wouldn’t rank so highly without the mythology that surrounds it. Personally taken on their own I found Revenge of the Sith the most entertaining.
In sheer defiance of the World Wide Web Consortium's will, Ectomo was designed using a non-web-standard font. Luckily, it is included in the excellent font pack released by the H.P. Lovecraft Historical Society, which can be freely downloaded in Mac and PC formats here. Ectomo should still look fine without it, though.
The movie is terrible, yes.
But the book is very very good, one of the better sci-fi books I’ve read. And the only thing that is related to Scientology is the aliens are “Psychlos”. L. Ron Hubbard has an (understandable) loathing of Psychiatry.
The movie has as much in common with the novel as the original Star Wars trilogy has with the prequels. Similar storylines, but one is vastly superior.
Comment by Chiablo — February 10, 2008 @ 8:18 pm
Way to miss the point, I guess.
Comment by Eliza Gauger — February 10, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
I disagree with you on two counts. While I haven’t read the book to compare with the movie, the movie doesn’t deserve its reputation. Sure it was stupid and the camera angles were a bit sloppy, but compared to so much of the butchered sci fi movies out there it is probably in the better half. At the very least it is better than Will Smith’s version of I, Robot. And it didn’t have nearly as great source material as Asimov’s short stories. Whats more it is a post apocalyptic genre, making a comparison to similarly inadvertently campy titles such as the mad max movies.
My second argument comes from star wars. The First star was trilogy kind of sucked. Sure it was influential and it led to a pretty interesting expanded universe but I think Tony Long said it best, “ยท Bad writing is bad writing, and bad acting is bad acting. And ever the twain shall meet. At least in Hollywood.” The original wouldn’t rank so highly without the mythology that surrounds it. Personally taken on their own I found Revenge of the Sith the most entertaining.
Comment by Hlaode — February 10, 2008 @ 11:24 pm