why is sci-fi in film & TV so different from sci-fi in Literature?

[slimjim]

I recently read Non-Stop by Brian Aldiss and I just can't imagine seeing anything like it on a screen, the main characters are morally ambiguous, it takes quite a long time to explain and justify the situation and what caused it as plausible, the setting is unlike anything else but not in a superficial way, it has a complex message having to do with the possible implications of being overly pessimistic about human nature that it explores in complex and plausible way

[Morbo]

time constraints, advertiser constraints, pandering to the lowest common denominator of the public, retarded network execs.

[Girlbot]

What ^ said

[AlbinoMonkeyC]

money

[Thunderstorm]

I recently read Non-Stop by Brian Aldiss and I just can't imagine seeing anything like it on a screen, the main characters are morally ambiguous, it takes quite a long time to explain and justify the situation and what caused it as plausible, the setting is unlike anything else but not in a superficial way, it has a complex message having to do with the possible implications of being overly pessimistic about human nature that it explores in complex and plausible way

Time.

How long did it take you to read the book? Probably longer than 2 hrs. (or 1 1/2 hrs for some movies these days).

How can you get that summary across to a mass audience in 30 seconds? And visually.

Will it hold the attention of a mass generic audience, or more likely will it appeal to males 18-24?

Will it appeal to movie studio heads and marketing that want something that is generic enough to be able to sell to a mass audience?

And then there's the money. I don't know how much money it takes to publish a book but I suspect it's 1/1000th that of a movie or maybe even less.

[Brian]

time constraints, advertiser constraints, pandering to the lowest common denominator of the public, retarded network execs.

Nailed it. Unfortunately we won't see much made with superb quality because it would cater to people with an intelligence higher than a potato...and there aren't enough of those people these days to make it profitable.

What would be cool though is if someone with ridiculous amounts of money, more than they could spend, and was a big science fiction fan could spend the money to make something spectacular for the sake of just doing it rather than wanting to profit from it. We can dream right?

[The Urban Spaceman]

why is sci-fi in film & TV so different from sci-fi in Literature?

Because television is an instant-gratification media, and sometimes producers feel that some aspects of books can be left out when making a film version. Sometimes they're right. Quite a lot of The Lord of the Rings would have been boring on film. Such as when Frodo sat around in the Shire doing bugger all for a year after being told to leave by Gandalf. Or when the Fellowship lingered in Lothlorien for a while. Or Tom Bombadil.

But they failed spectacularly with Bladerunner. They missed out the entire message of the book. Philip K Dick must be rolling in his grave.

[Zed_PM]

Or Tom Bombadil.

Yes.

Also, they failed spectacularly with The Golden Compass but that was due to protests from the Catholic Church. Ruined any chance for The Subtle Knife to me made or for TGC to make any real sense.

Also, most people these days have an attention span of less than 10 seconds. So do I but I don't always give in to it.

[LT. COL. John Sheppard]

money

for everybody

[LT. COL. John Sheppard]

the impact of seeing it not reading it plus the time frame is smaller and companies get more cash as AlbinoMonkeyC said

[slimjim]

But they failed spectacularly with Bladerunner. They missed out the entire message of the book. Philip K Dick must be rolling in his grave.

isn't Bladerunner considered one of the best and deepest sci-fi movies ever made?

[slimjim]

time constraints, advertiser constraints, pandering to the lowest common denominator of the public, retarded network execs.

yes but that's true of the difference between books and TV/film in general, it's just much more extreme in the case of sci-fi for some reason

[The Urban Spaceman]

isn't Bladerunner considered one of the best and deepest sci-fi movies ever made?

Only by people who haven't read the book. Because I read the book long before I watched the film, I found the latter to be bitterly disappointing. Instead of the deep and introspective message given at the end of a book, it was a chance for Harrison Ford to run around shooting androids. I highly recommend that you read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep for yourself.

For a real deep movie, watch The Shawshank Redemption.

And if you're looking for deep movie representations of Philip K Dick's works, A Scanner Darkly manages to portray the book accurately and also keeps the message.

[slimjim]

Only by people who haven't read the book. Because I read the book long before I watched the film, I found the latter to be bitterly disappointing. Instead of the deep and introspective message given at the end of a book, it was a chance for Harrison Ford to run around shooting androids. I highly recommend that you read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep for yourself.

For a real deep movie, watch The Shawshank Redemption.

And if you're looking for deep movie representations of Philip K Dick's works, A Scanner Darkly manages to portray the book accurately and also keeps the message.

really because people tell me it has complex story about humans justifying their unwillingness to except robots as people by claiming the Voight-Kampff test is proof of non person hood when in fact it is just proof of them being slightly different from humans in terms of how they think
also are you arguing it's a bad movie on it's own or just compared to the book? and if you think the later why would people think a bad movie is good just because they haven't read the book it's based on?

[The Urban Spaceman]

really because people tell me it has complex story about humans justifying their unwillingness to except robots as people by claiming the Voight-Kampff test is proof of non person hood when in fact it is just proof of them being slightly different from humans in terms of how they think

The Voigt-Kampff test and its validity in determining humanity is just one very small aspect of the whole story. I'll explain in spoiler mode so as not to ruin things for anyone.

Spoiler:

Basically, the story is set in the future following World War Terminus, which caused radioactive dust to blanket the Earth. Many humans emigrated to Mars, where a colony was formed, and this was made possible by the use of androids, which were also used as incentive to get people to leave Earth -- anybody migrating to Mars was given a free android model of their choice. Thousands of humans remained behind, though, in heavily populated urban areas.

The protagonist, Rick, has the job of 'retiring' rogue androids who have illegally come back to Earth to escape their servitude and try to make lives for themselves.

Now, because of the radioactive dust, leaving the confines of buildings without proper protection (one of those being the humourous lead codpiece) is impossible. And because of the radiation, most animals on Earth are dead. The owls were the first to die, followed by other birds, and then all the rest. Only a few were saved in zoos and areas which managed to restrict radiation.

It is the highest goal of any Earth-bound human to own an animal, because animals are a symbol of wealth, success and prestige. The protagonist, Rick, who lives with his partner, is not particularly well-paid, being given money on a bounty basis. As a result, he can't afford an animal, so instead he has bought himself an electric sheep, which is made to look and sound and feel just like the real thing. Indeed, there are companies who specialise in making these android animals so realistic that nobody except their owners would ever know that they are not real.

To make an incredible story short, after accepting a job to retire several androids which escaped from Mars and were hiding out on Earth, Rick goes to the company that manufactures androids and administers the Voigt-Kampff test to a young woman, Rachael. She almost passes the test, but fails because of a slow reaction time on one question, and Rick realises that she is by far the most human android he has met to date, and realises how much of a struggle he will be facing when he has to retire six of them.

Naturally he goes about this and if you've seen the film you pretty much know how it plays out, although there are other characters involved and there is an existential/God aspect which is too complex for me to describe. In the end, however, Rick realises that androids are frighteningly human in their desire to live. Many of them can pass as human, so complete is their programming. He speculates in a hermetic manner; as it is the highest aspiration of all humans to own a real creature, is it also the highest aspiration of all androids to own an artificial creature? For owning a real animal signifies completion of a human life; is this also so with androids? As humans dream of real animals, do androids dream of electric sheep?

Of course the story is far more complex than that. I included only the very basics in a nut shell.

also are you arguing it's a bad movie on it's own or just compared to the book?

I thought the movie wasn't bad on its own, but it didn't hold my interest through its entirety.

and if you think the later why would people think a bad movie is good just because they haven't read the book it's based on?

Personal preference?

I know quite a lot of people who think Sex and the City is a fine example of quality television, but I'd rather have my eyes pecked out by rabid vultures than actually watch it myself. Similarly, I've heard many accolades regarding The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, Unbeliever, but I happen to think that Thomas Covenant is one of the most whiny, irritating and unsympathetic protagonists I've ever encountered and struggled to get through the first book, much less both trilogies.

It is of course down to the individual to make up their minds. LOTR, for example. I hated that the producers changed one or two things (Faramir was never tempted!!! and I missed the presence of Glorfindel) but overall I felt that the films did justice to what is one of the most complete and in-depth pieces of high-fantasy ever written.

Bladerunner did not achieve this for 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?' Like I said, bitter disappointment.