Conference noted::sf

    Did you catch Harlan's screenplay for Asimov's "I Robot"?  It was
    serialized in IASFM (or maybe Analog?) a little while back, and
    while I never could handle reading screenplays, Harlan kept me up
    till the wee hours...
    
    Willie
    
    The problem, IMHO, with Harlan is that he is too vituperative (sp?)
    for such long periods of time that it gets too much.  It's interesting
    watching him flame something, and there's a lot of dreck to flame
    about, but he flames _everything_, all the time, and it gets old
    fast.

    Re .0:
    
    >What they never learn is it's just as difficult to make well
    >written, well directed SF teleplay as it is to create an worthless
    >drivel.
    
    Actually, it's _more_ difficult.
    
    The mind-set of a screen producer is (correctly) that the vast majority
    of their audiences won't know the difference, or care, for that
    matter.  It happens that the majority of science-fiction enthusiasts
    are science-literate; many people aren't _and don't want to be_.
    Until they do, the screemplay producers will get away with producing
    schlock.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    It is very difficult to make any kind of adaptation from an SF book
    work as a screenplay.  Take for example, Larry Noven's works.  I
    had an opportunity to talk at great lengths with Larry while trying
    to prepare the program book for a convention at which he was guest
    of honor.  He told me that two of his books had been picked up by
    Hollywood for possible movie adaptation: _Dreampark_ and _Ringworld_.
    Now I want all of you to try and picture what a mockery Hollywood
    could, and probably would, make of each of these fine pieces of
    fiction.  How on earth could you even begin to handle the scope
    that would be necessary for _Ringworld_?  What FX artist would be
    able to duplicate a Puppetteer?  Think about it!
    
    Mike Dillson
    FSTRCK::DILLSON
    

    
    
    		A picture is worth a thousand words, but if its only
    	that, then write one thousand one words and you have exceeded
    	the capacity of the picture.
    
    						sam

    This discussion is interesting!
    
    It occurs to me that we all read sf (and, in my case, fantasy) with
    certain expectations.  One thing we demand is a tolerable level
    of "realism" -- real human (or alien) characterizations, believable
    emotions, acceptable science (or magic) which, at least, doesn't
    contradict what we believe to be true.
    
    With the help of our own imaginations, we often find this demand
    satisfied in writing which is about something that in fact is NOT
    "real" (yet!)
    
    Yet people still get up at arms when other artists (besides writers)
    try to visualize the same things!  Film makers and visual artists
    try to make those things/beings/places etc. which, if they WERE
    "real" would certainly be visible and tangible LOOK visible and
    tangible, and we cry "UNREALISTIC"!  We each invision the words
    of our favorite writers in our own particular ways and accept that.
    But if the images other artists see don't match we feel uncomfortable.
    This seems odd when you think about the fact that in both situations
    we are dealing with the imaginary, and there is no one right or
    wrong interpretation except by the same tests we apply to writing.
    
    This doesn't sound as articulate as I meant for it to, but you get
    the idea...just and observation (and "wonder-why") about the different
    standards we apply to visual and written sf interpretations.
    
    Sherry 
                               

    Re .5: It's not the moviemakers' interpretation that bothers me, 
           it's their adaptations.
    
    While in the BOOKS WE'D LIKE HOLLYWOOD TO FILM (sic) file I gave some
    thought as to what books I'd like to see on film.  I tried to look
    at it realistically: how difficult would it be to follow the book.
    
    Very difficult to come up with a great action tale that fits into
    the 'reality' of the special effects medium.  (e.g.: Russell's
    THREE TO CONQUER could be done with minimum F/X; I think Hollywood
    could even handle Cherryh's THE PRIDE OF CHANUR)  What I see though
    are movies geared to current levels of special effects expertise,
    not books into films.  Look how many SF books-from-screenplays are
    on the bookshelves vs. SF books-made-into-movies and you'll get the
    idea.  How many SF books written prior to, say, 1970 you've read
    and wondered why no-one's made it into a movie.  Better yet, review
    the Hugo & Nebula winners file and see how many made it to film.
    
    H-wood isn't looking for SF books to make into movies; they'd rather
    use themes from previously successful movies to adapt.  By and large,
    they're not out to win awards, but to make money.  (An aside: since
    it's *our* money we help decide what films are made in the future.)
    
    As for TV (the base note started there), a large volume of SF & 
    Fantasy short stories have hit the screen and have been followed
    more faithfully than the moviemakers.  The British seem to have
    a handle on it.  I felt their versions of THE INVISIBLE MAN, THE
    DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS, and THE LATHE OF HEAVEN are prime examples
    of this.  The realism was there; therefore it can be done.  
    
    American TV hasn't had a weekly show in which novella/novel adaptations
    could be done since THE OUTER LIMITS.   The "SF" shows that have
    been on were loosly based on SF.  Let's face it; Television doesn't
    feel the public is ready for a decent dramatic SF show.  (They
    proved this with shows like Star Trek:TNG, Battlestar Galactica, etc.)
    "We have the technology, we have the money, but we haven't the balls."
                                                 
    This theme will stay in effect until someone rich takes a chance with
    his money (I hope Fox rues the day they didn't pick up ST:TNG) or
    until "The Great Unwashed" changes their viewing habits.
    
    Keep in mind the driving force behind Hollywood moviemakers and
    TV executives is the great god Dollar.   
    
    							Don
    
                                                         
    P.S.  After seeing COCOON, RETURN OF THE JEDI, and THE DARK CRYSTAL,
          I bet H-wood *could* do a passible Pierson's Puppeteer.

    I'd have to say the basic problem is that while I'm willing to accept
    other people's visual interpretation of the settings of SF stories,
    it's the total disregard for the original characters and plot that
    ends up annoying me.  Day Of The Triffids was a good example of
    following the book very closely and doing an excellent job, while
    Twilight Zone, The Movie had such a blatant "Let's rip off _IT'S_
    _A_GOOD_LIFE_, but make it somehow uniquely our own." attitude that
    it bothered me.  I guess the most aggravating thing is to see a
    really good book [that could have been turned into an excellent
    movie or TV show] made into mediocre entertainment.  Phoenix Without
    Ashes into The Starlost is another classic example...
    
    Willie

    re:.6
    
    "American TV hasn't had a weekly show in which novella/novel adaptations
    could be done since THE OUTER LIMITS."
    
    Aren't you forgetting (at least) NIGHT GALLERY, TALES FROM THE
    DARKSIDE, and THE (new) TWILIGHT ZONE?
    
    re:.7
    
    I don't understand your comment on the TWILIGHT ZONE movie "ripping
    off" "It's a *Good* Life!"  What ripping off?  They paid for the
    rights, they gave Jerry Sohl credit. Where's the rip off?
    
    --- jerry

    Wow ! Seven replies without areference to Dune ! A new record.
    Since Dune is about twenty years old and is the most recent 
    attempt to film "real" "modern" SF, we could state that Hollywood
    is about twenty years behind the genre. 
    Let's face it, 2001 was based on The Sentinel, 1954 - 1968 - 14
    years; CE3K and ET are variants of the same first contact theme
    that goes back a looooong time, Star Trek is 1940s pulp, ST::TNG
    is to ST::TOG as Footfall is to War Of The Worlds, (retelling
    with better hardware). 
    Hollywood has yet to tackle Stranger in a Strange Land (1961),
    which was State of the Art back then, wouldn't raise an eyebrow
    in Iowa today. 
    More ? The late seventies 'Buck Rogers'. Alf - Bewitched meets ET.
    
    My point ? Hollywood is not original, never has been, doesn't WANT
    to be. Originals don't make money. Go with a proven winner. This
    book has been selling steadily for 30 years ? OK, but is it
    Shakespeare ? Just like Hamlet ? OK, but don't go  over budget.
    
    Cheer up, Stranger In a Strange Land begins filming in 3 years :-)
    But you'll have to wait a while for Neuromancer.

    I sort of misspoke, they didn't really rip off It's A Good Life,
    but they really did make a hash of the story, which is at least
    as bad as having ripped it off.  The New Twilight Zone was just
    as bad as the movie, I think they had better ratings on the reruns
    of the old TZ, which were happening at the same time.  It's a good
    thing I don't have much time to watch TV, or I'd start emulating
    Harlan Ellison...  :+{
    
    Willie

    re: .8
    
    I hope they didn't give credit for "It's a GOOD Life" to Jerry Sohl,
    because it was written by Jerome Bixby.
    
    re: .9
    
    "Max Headroom" followed pretty closely on the heels of cyberpunk.
    CP stories started appearing in 1981, and hit the big time
    with "Neuromancer" in '84.  MH came out in England, when, in '86?  
    The reason for the quick transition from print to video is probably
    because cyberpunk is based on a movie, "Blade Runner", to begin with.
    TV producers may not read, but they do watch.

    /jlr

re: .9

Where do "THX-1138" and "Brazil" fit into your theory?

    Since we are on (or at least tangential to) the subject of cyberpunk:
    
    Burning Chrome has to be my all-time favorite CP story, but I thought
    Neuromancer was just a stretched_out version of the same, and both
    it and Count Zero were about an order of magnitude longer than they
    had to be....  I was really disappointed by both.
    
    Willie

    Re .6 (Don), .others:
    
    >H-wood isn't looking for SF books to make into movies; they'd rather
    >use themes from previously successful movies to adapt.  By and large,
    >they're not out to win awards, but to make money.
     
    Yes, and that's generally the way.  There _are_ exceptions, though.
    _Ladyhawke_, one of my most favorite films, came clear out of nowhere.
    I understand it did okay in the box office, though it wasn't a
    blockbuster.   _Why_ did anyone risk significant capital on this? 
    Dunno, and don't care.  
    
    Sometimes something will just click.  _Star Wars_ and its sequelae
    were "new," and they made bundles.  Of course, there were then
    the SW ripoffs, but these didn't do nearly as well (witness _Battlestar
    Galactica_).
    
    Usually, there are several things working here.  One is that like
    any business, the film companies are in it to make money (anyone
    who says different is deluded).  If it doesn't, the company's out
    of business.  Hollywood is emotionally (as opposed to politically)
    conservative.  Thus, if it worked once, do it again.  Classic films
    are often "remade"; one of the latest examples of this was Dino
    Di Laurentiis' _King Kong_.  It is seldom that the remake matches
    -- or even comes close to -- the original.  (On a non-SF/nonfantasy
    tack, _Stagecoach_ has been remade twice; _It's a Wonderful Life_
    has been remade once , etc.  Even, Heaven help us, _Godzilla_ was
    remade[!].  Both Hitchcock and De Mille remade one of their films
    each.)  
    
    But beyond that, a Hollywood type doesn't usually _care_ about
    accuracy.  In _This Island Earth_, for instance, a female scientist
    said of a cat (a nice orange tabby tom), "We call him `Neutron'
    because he's so positive."  Now, I could see calling him Neutron
    because he'd been fixed, but ....  In _The Manhattan Project_, the
    kid hero handles plutonium with virtually no shielding, and doesn't
    suffer radiation burns.  How many films have we seen where somebody
    asks a computer a difficult-to-impossible question to have the computer
    _explode_ is a shower of (supposedly) electric pyrotechnics?  The
    point is, the vast majority of the viewing public _doesn't care_
    about accuracy, so why should the studios?
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re:.10
    
    Ratings have little to do with quality. I thought the new TWILIGHT
    ZONE did some outstanding work (Ellison's "Paladin of the Lost Hour"
    remains, in my opinion, one of the finest pieces of sf/fantasy ever
    done on television), as well as some dreck. I find in watching some
    of the old TZ, that a good many of the episodes do not hold up well
    over time. Many that I thought very good 25 years ago seem to be
    very creaky today.
    
    re:.11
    
    EEK!!! Mea culpa! I always get the two mixed up.
    
    --- jerry

    RE.11 RE .9  how long between publication of "Do Androids Dream
    of Electric Sheep?" and filming of "Blade Runner" ?

    re .12 THX 1138  Boy meets girl, they fall in love - *VERBOTEN!*
    
    Hmmm, didn't someone named Orwell write a story like that back in
    '48 ?
    
    Not familiar with "Brazil". 

In < Note 571.14 by ERASER::KALLIS "Just everybody please calm down..." >

>    suffer radiation burns.  How many films have we seen where somebody
>    asks a computer a difficult-to-impossible question to have the computer
>    _explode_ is a shower of (supposedly) electric pyrotechnics?  The

    Aside from the absurdity of a user request nuking the machine(:-)
    I always wondered if these people had ever heard of "circuit breakers".
    				- HBM

    re:.16
    
    "How long between publication of DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC
    SHEEP? and filming of BLADE RUNNER?"
    
    14 years (1968 and 1982, respectively).
    
    --- jerry

    re: .12  THX-1138--  I don't consider this a Mainstream Hollywood 
             movie.  As I recall I put stress on the Hollywood-type 
             movies as opposed to Independant-type flics.  It was 
             definitely progressive and wasn't made with the intent of 
             making a huge profit.

             I had never heard of Brazil until this notesfile/cable TV.

    re: .18  Exploding computers--true, but you gotta admit an error 
             message isn't very spectacular, and that's what Hollywood 
             Hi-Tech is all about.

     Mr. Kallis' comment about radiation is a good one.  In BACK TO
     THE FUTURE the Doc took off some radiation gear after 'fueling"
     his car; what about the open container?  Radiation either has
     no effect or it turns you into a monster.
    
     I only saw a few New TZs, and I couldn't get "into" 'em.  Looking
     at both from a Current Events standpoint, the old TZs held up better
     than the new, even tho' some of the old seem silly nowadays.
     
     I just finished a book which cries out to H-wood for movie status:

     FORTRESS, by David Drake.  A little James (Hollywood) Bond, a 
     little Peter Trees, aliens, the Middle East, SDI, flying saucers, 
     double-crosses, and an appearance by 20th Century Villains make it 
     the typical adventure H-wood has been filming.  Now, I didn't think 
     it was as good as HAMMER'S SLAMMERS, and I liked Jon Land's VORTEX 
     a bit better, but I did enjoy it.  The main character tweaks the
     noses of his bosses, and has enough initiative to get the job done 
     while scaring the Hell out of them; in short, is competent enough 
     to get away with things us mere mortals can't.

     							Don

     P.S.  I think the reason Jerry got mixed up is because he's on a 
           first-name basis, while the rest of us say "Mr. Bixby".  ;-)

    Re .20 (Don):
    
    >re: .18  Exploding computers--true, but you gotta admit an error 
    >         message isn't very spectacular, and that's what Hollywood 
    >         Hi-Tech is all about.
     
    Yes.  But how much more _effective_ and chilling was HAL's action
    in _2001_ when the life support was terminated ...
    
    Hollywood Hi-Tech gets in the way.  But it's what audiences expect
    and want, alas.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    As I recall, HAL didn't have an insurmountable problem to deal 
    with; he had all the answers.   Hollywood also has Clarke saying
    (probably over & over) "Not THAT way. THIS way!".  
    
    BTW, I don't think Herbert protested enough.
                
    When ours 'lock up', we kill the power & reboot.  HAL couldn't be
    shut down due to Life Support; he had to have his "voluntary" functions
    disabled w/o impacting the "involuntary". 
                                                 
    2001 was an exception to the rule--however, its another example
    of a book following the movie. 
    
    							Don

    re .10:
    
    >The New Twilight Zone was just as bad as the movie, I think they had 
    >better ratings on the reruns of the old TZ, which were happening at
    >the same time.  It's a good thing I don't have much time to watch TV, 
    >or I'd start emulating Harlan Ellison...  :+{           
     
    Interesting juxtaposition, as Harlan was Creative Consultant for
    the new TZ.
    
    re .22:
    
    > 2001 was an exception to the rule--however, its another example
    > of a book following the movie. 
      
    No, book and movie were created simultaneously. TRULY an exception
    to the rule.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Hmm, you learn something new every day....  I guess it kind of makes
    sense, though, as Harlan is into 'shock' imagery and if the new
    TZ had nothing else, it had a lot of that....
    
    Willie

    Books, Books, Books, it's a sad commentary but the fact remains
    that hollywood only caters to the unwashed.  This digresses a bit
    but Ralph Bashki (from Fritz the Cat, Wizards, etc) has started to
    make "The New Mighty Mouse" cartoon series on saturday morning.
    
    Passable as lite entertainment is the first cartoon of the 1/2 hour,
    as it's filled with a parody of many of the other saturday morning's
    fares;  but the 2nd cartoon seems to be some type of old terrytoon
    nightmare put to music ala DTV with no rhyme or reason.             
    
    
                                
    I've given up, and guess I'll dream between my ears until I can
    build my own dream box.
    
                    
    
    Has anyone seen in the trades about the 1.5 minute short made by
    that Canadian company using computer generated images of Bogart
    and Marilin Monroe?  Soon Hollywood won't even have to pay
    real actors.....
    
    

    
>    Has anyone seen in the trades about the 1.5 minute short made by
>    that Canadian company using computer generated images of Bogart
>    and Marilin Monroe?  Soon Hollywood won't even have to pay
>    real actors.....
    
    I've seen it; it's awful.  Part of this may be bias -- I saw it last
    summer in Montreal, presented by Northern Telecom (my employer at the
    time).  They had the worlds most uncomfortable seats ("futuristic"
    means built for a shape other than the human body, right?), and they
    spent most of the film (total length about 15 minutes!) talking about
    how they made the film.  It could've been interesting, but they kept
    claiming that they were actually "creating" Marilyn and Bogie.
    
    The actual film was quite an anticlimax.  
    
    Beverly
    

    re: .23
    
    Let me get this straight.  As the book was being written it was
    being adapted into the screenplay.  Or, as the screenplay was being
    written it was being novelized.  Boy, I'd be upset if I was 3/4
    of the way thru the book and found out the producer changed a large
    chunk of the screenplay....
    
    re .25-- real actors
    
    Remember LOOKER?
    
    							Don

    re:.27
    
    Yes and no. This is the approximate chronology of events.
    
    	(1) Clarke writes the short story "The Sentinel".
    
    	(2) Kubrick approaches Clarke about working on a film.
    	They decide on "The Sentinels" as a good basis for a film.
    
    	(3) The two collaborate on a screenplay.
    
    	(4) Kubrick makes the film and Clarke writes the book
    	roughly simultaneously.
    
    And Kubrick *did* change a good chunk of the screenplay. The
    special effects crew was having problems with Saturn's rings,
    so Kubrick made everything happen around Jupiter instead.
    Clarke just ignored this change while writing the book. You
    may notice if you read the novel 2010: ODYSSEY TWO that it's a
    sequel to the *movie* of 2001 rather than the novel.
    
    --- jerry

    Damn, Jerry, you spilled the Sentinel beans.  I wasn't going to
    bring that up until I got a reply.  Oh, well...
    
    							Don

    Bascially, a good book and a good movie have exactly the right things
    in common, namely that they lock you into them long enough where
    you can forget where you are now, and slip into a different
    world--whether it is purely through the imagery of words or images
    on film.
    
    As for which is better--books vs. movies--that purely depends. 
    Books based on movies are sometimes better than the movies because
    the novelist presented the idea of the film in a way that made the
    images more vivid and "life" like.  Movies based on books CAN be
    better or worse than the book, generally on the latter side if simply
    because once one has read a book, they have in their mind a planted
    image of How This Is.  In books, you can see into every character's
    mind, should the author choose, and things can be told in much greater
    detail, bringing a fullness to the the images, if you will.  Everyone
    perceives a book in a slightly different form.  
    
    However, in changing the written word to pictures, you are going
    to loose much of that "fullness" if you will--you CAN'T see into
    a character's mind on film, and you can't (without a great deal
    of narration) get the sheer detail you can with a book.  Filmakers
    have to cut and chop to fit your standard book onto a two hour reel,
    and they cut and chop to what they perceive the story should be
    like.  They have the option of putting up what they think the story
    should be about, and this is were many fans of a book will bristle.
    Especially if the filmed conception isn't faithful to the written
    one.  Granted, it's a bit rough on the author to see their baby
    puzzle pieced togheter according to someone else's ideal (the lucky
    ones get a say so), but that is life.  The filmakers are putting
    THEIR concept up to reach a base of people (you might call 'em the
    hairy unwashed, but face facts, people make films for other people
    to see.  Just the same reason why people write books).  My perceptions
    and ideals are not going to match up with every filmaker, or novelists
    ideals.  I've seen movies that didn't do justice to a book (in my
    own opinion) but that other people have liked very much.  And I've
    read books other people have raved about that I didn't like.  If
    I had the rights to--say--Dune, and the money to make a film out
    of it, I'm willing to bet MY version wouldn't look like (ugh) David
    Lynch's version, and probably not like most of your versions either.
    
    It's nice to flame about it, but I don't think most filmakers come
    from the Cooky Stamp Crowd.  Sure, they want to sell their films,
    but hell, if I made a film, I'd like people to watch it, too.  Just
    the same when I'm writing a book.
    
    As for (yes, I'm rambling), regarding those who are not science literate or
    want to be, that does come off rather snobbish to imply that those
    who don't really give a hoot n hell that computers really don't
    blow up are some kind of lesser critter.  Not quite true (she said,
    fully knowing that, yes, it is a strange computer indeed who blows
    up, but it can be forgiven in something that is a work of fiction
    anyway).  Every now and then, I find myself bristling as condescending
    remarks are made about THEM (those people who do not read SF and
    do not worry about technical aspects of FTL travel, etc.). 
     Being a person who does
    read some Science Fiction, or Sci-Fi, or SF, and Fantasy, I don't
    appreciate being thought of as one of THOSE by THEM, so I don't
    think it helps the SF crowd to get snooty back.  Kinda furthers the
    "Oh, it's one of THOSE people, you know, the techno weenies who
    bury their noses in Science Fiction STUFF.  You can't talk to THOSE
    guys/gals."  What made me think of this?  The comments on how films
    caters to the ever-dreaded "popular" audience.  You know, THEM guys.
     ;D
    
    ::whew::  Okie, semi-rant mode off.  My God, what has happened to me?
     I am writing paragraphs instead of merely LINES now!!  ;D
    
                                                 ---kim
    

    Re .30 (Kim):
    
    >As for (yes, I'm rambling), regarding those who are not science literate or
    >want to be, that does come off rather snobbish to imply that those
    >who don't really give a hoot n hell that computers really don't
    >blow up are some kind of lesser critter. ...
     
    No, not a l;esser critter, but a different one.  The point is that
    many hardcore SF readers are inherent nitpickers and/or have a higher
    threshold before disbelief can be suspended.  Therefore, what's
    _acceptable_ to a [descriptive, not derogatory adjective]
    techno-illiterate viewer may not be to someone who's technologically
    literate.  This, BTW, goes for many viewers: some doctors are driven
    to distraction by films with hospital scenes where the procedures
    are in error; aircraft pilots occasionally feel like pulling their
    hair when some cockpit action is taken that could be dangerous in
    real life rather than lifesaving; some occultists bristle at this
    or that liberty taken by Hollywood in such things a spiritism,
    ceremonial magic, or scrying; mariners are annoyed at inaccuracies
    concerning seamanship and navigation; etc.
    
    The point is, if the _viewer_, from whatever perspective, sees
    something that breaks the illusion, the film (or book, for that
    matter) is spoiled.
    
    The criticisms voiced in the previous responses were of a _specialized_
    (not "elite") group.  And as such, in this company, are  valid.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Re (Mr. Kallis, Jr.)
    
    
    Well, yes and no, I see your point--I wasn't grousing about
    nitpickers--not this time.   Maybe I was vaguer than I thought,
    and it certainly isn't a HUGE issue with me, but occassionally and
    from SOME SF fans, those people who aren't as hard core (especially with
    the technical aspect of "straight" science fiction) or not into
    the SF genre at all are looked upon as the Great Unwashed--and THEY
     (in this topic's case) cause great books
    to be made into simple movies because the film industry caters to
    them (and adds all the bells and whistles to impress--ie, computers
    blowing up).  I knew I was rambling, but I picked up slight overtones
    on the same sort of "what do THEY know" in some earlier notes, and
    since I was sort of on the subject, I voiced on opinion on that
    and the occassional snobbery I have seen among the genre in the
    past (not just in this notesfile mind you).  
    
    I DO understand that professionals in a field will scoff at unrealistic
    happens depicted in books or films that have to do with their
    specialization.   I do consider it nit picking and sometimes engage
    in that myself, but to no great degree.  Yes, this is a techical
    company I work for, but to no huge surprise, I am NOT a technical
    type person (in a word, I shuffle paperwork).  Not everyone who
    likes SF and Fantasy gets into the technical aspect of things (and
    to prove it, I royally botched up the previous entry-- .32), and
    of course, not everyone who sees a computer blow up spends the
    following nite tramping in commands at their Mac to watch it sizzle
    and pop--even if they don't read Asimov.  Not every Non-SF is a
    layman and not every SF-type is a nerd....
    
    Ah well, enough rants for now.  It's almost time to go home and
    blow up my Commodore.   ;)
      
                                                    ---kim
    
    (PS.  On a more serious note, I surely hope I did not offend anyone.
     It's been a while since I semi-ranted about anything and I was
    in the mood.  Besides, I can't hear you yelling at me from here.
     ;)

    Re .33 etc.
    
    I think the word you are looking for is "mundanes."  This is the term
    used by the community of SF fans for the rest of the world -- rather
    like "gentiles" (as contrasted to Jews), "infidels" (as contrasted to
    your own religion), "barbarians" (as contrasted to your own ethnic
    group), "breeders" (as contrasted to homosexuals), or "textiles" (as 
    contrasted to nudists).
    
    Actually, "mundane" is used kind of elastically, and may either be
    limited to those with no interest whatever in SF or extended to those
    who may be interested but don't spend all their vacation time going to
    science fiction conventions.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Re .33 (Kim):
    
    >(PS.  On a more serious note, I surely hope I did not offend anyone.
    > It's been a while since I semi-ranted about anything and I was
    >in the mood.  Besides, I can't hear you yelling at me from here.
    > ;)
     
    Oh, I dasresay it's a case of "if the shoe fits...";' only those
    who would feel offended are those who practice (to use Earl's
    phraseology) "transmundanity."  When I'm reviewing films in the
    MOVIES conference, I strictly differentiate between "science fiction"
    (a handful of films) and "sci-fi," an odious term to the SF purist,
    but a perfect description of a film that, while possibly entertaining,
    is full of technological schlock or techno-detritus.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    The main (and best) difference about books and movies is that a
    book (by describing emotions, thoughts, vision, experiences, etc)
    allows the reader to assume the role of the main character. Movies
    only allow you to watch and enjoy the experience, the situation
    is helped by supplying backround music to relay the emotions and
    thoughts of the actors, but you are still partially on the outside.
    The DUNE movie attempted to portray the character the same as the
    book did, but allowing us to "hear" his thoughts, but this actually
    made the movie hard and it probaby would have been better to work
    it into the dialogue instead.