Bobby’s Comments (group member since Mar 15, 2013)

Bobby’s comments from the Sci-fi and Heroic Fantasy group.

G33z3r wrote: "It's been a really long time since I've read Ringworld (probably not since you were born :) So you're going to have to wait till I get a chance to re-read it before I can respond with ..."

I do concede that, but what one culture on Earth considers diverging from the norm, another culture might not. Say, Vulcans, Klingons, and Ferengi all exist on the same planet. HeCK, those are all subcultures of Americans, if you ask me. But as I said, that's certainly not a failing unique to Ringworld.

And actually, as per our Station Eleven discussion, the narrative arc you outline there, of a group of people confronting a seemingly insurmountable problem and showing them a) figuring it out and then b) accomplishing it, overcoming obstacles and unforeseen circumstances (a la >gulp< The Martian would have been the more interesting story.

As long as they threw in some grief for the passing of the old ways and questioning the way of the future and petty squabbles exploding into full on rifts and people dying and hearts being broken over the choosing of the ways of the new world. You get the idea.

Though, actually what I'm talking about is Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars series.

My personal feeling is that a good book can ruin a good movie but a good movie can't ruin a good book. Unless it's like, Presumed Innocent which is a whodunit (excellent!).

But generally, an author has more time and is going to take more time to use the thrust of the narrative to explore his/her themes -- much as Mandel does. If they make a movie of Station Eleven it'll be hard to make it as good as the book for that reason. The entire point of Mandel's plot is to provide a canvas with which to explore the souls of her characters. Whereas in The Martian, Andy Weir just loves thinking up increasingly difficult situations for his hero to get into and then solving them. Which has its own appeal. :-)

Beth wrote: "Bobby wrote: "Beth wrote: "You know, I'm really not sure. I *usually* do a review along with the rating, so not giving one is somewhat telling. Looking back, though, I fail to be impressed and just..."

I saw the movie. Couldn't wait, really. And (heh-heh) I actually thought more of what I wanted to see in the book was in the movie. Basically, in the book, I found Watney's constant, upbeat, jokiness rang false and I wanted to see more of how an actual human caught in such desperate circumstances might actually react, behave, live. And there's an extent to where I'll always feel like The Martian was a missed opportunity, some people feel the same way about Station Eleven. You might feel that way.

Whereas say for me, Station Eleven went for broke on things I love, gorgeous prose and compassionate insight into the human spirit. Though, if I'm real about it (and not arguing with G33z) Station Eleven was also lacking in things that are important. Like, if you're going to explore the human soul from the standpoint of worldwide disaster, and you're going to create a villain at all, then you have to be a little more willing to live in the dark soul of that villain, you can't just brush them aside with a few strokes of the pen. That's not legit. But, like The Martian I felt like the author achieved a great deal of what she set out to achieve, which, for me, was quite beautiful.

Beth wrote: "You know, I'm really not sure. I *usually* do a review along with the rating, so not giving one is somewhat telling. Looking back, though, I fail to be impressed and just remember feeling sort of....."

I have a similar experience with The Martian. I was actually very entertained by it, but it failed at an aspect that is generally pretty important to me. And it still is. And the more I talked to people who really loved The Martian the more I realized how this aspect was really necessary -- to me -- to have good storytelling.

Yet, I gave it four stars. I haven't felt the need to change it because where it succeeded, I thought it succeeded really well, I really enjoyed it. I just didn't think it held much more.

I want to ask this of G33z3r in particular but if anybody cares to answer, I'm open to it.

A discussion G33z3r and I had over the merits and faults of Station Eleven indirectly lead to me re-reading Ringworld. And you know, it's funny, I had given it three stars originally because I read it when I was a teenager and I remembered the idea being really cool but not much else. But re-reading it, I'm finding it not very good at all. I'm actually shocked, G33z, that you gave it five stars. I find it just not that interesting. The idea of the Ringworld is interesting as an expression of scientific theory but man, what's the deal? What's the story? They come all the way to the Ringworld as a manifestation of Teela Brown's "luck" so that she can grow up? Really? It's as though Niven couldn't think of a reason for Louis Wu to go to Ringworld at all.

What the heck was all the hype about? I feel like no wonder I can't remember anything about it. And I have a hard time thinking that any race that had the capability to build Ringworld couldn't have found an easier way to save itself. And the fact of the Ringworld itself doesn't really have much to do with the plot, such as it were. How does all that crazy engineering figure in the lives of Louis Wu and company? Couldn't pretty much the same story have been written if they'd landed on any other, normal,spherical, hospitable planet?

It almost feels like it might have been a better book, G33z, if Niven took the tack you wanted Mandel to take in Station Eleven: in other words, the real story seems to be at the moment when creating a ringworld became necessary and then putting the reader there while it was happening, while the Ringworld Engineers were deciding that this was the way to solve their problems and then they encounter obstacles that lead to solutions, etc. They realize people need to sleep at night so they build the shields and blah blah blah. Because, man, as is, what happens? It almost seems as if Niven recognized this problem so he added in some fight scenes just to wake the reader back up -- and distract us from the fact that this fight could happen on any planet and there's nothing about the world being shaped like a ring that dictated it.

I mean, the whole subplot of Teela Brown's luck, my goodness, what a waste of ink. No more so than Teela Brown of course, who seems to only be there so that two hundred year old (again, why?) Louis Wu can have sex again and again and again with someone a hundred and eighty years younger than he is -- and she'll love him for it. And pout cutely when he teaches her life lessons. Definitely sounds like a fantasy we(men) all share but that's not necessarily good literature.

And one of the things that's so difficult about science fiction in general is the creation of aliens that only exhibit a single facet of the human condition. So, the Kzin are all warlike and the puppeteers are all cowards -- or insane. That's not a fault of this book alone, you see the same thing in Star Trek and Star Wars and everything else. No one thinks to match the diversity of life on Earth.

But anyway, what makes Ringworld so great? In your opinion(s)?

Beth wrote: "Anne Marie wrote: "I gave this book 3 stars, but felt it worth maybe 2-1/2. I will say that it was easy to read, easy to follow, was basically interesting as (yet) another dystopian novel. However,..."

And yet, you gave it four stars. How come?

Martin wrote: "I can't pick just one!

Blade Runner
Alien/Aliens
The Matrix"

It's hard to go wrong with any of those!

Sarah wrote: "Bobby wrote: "C. wrote: "Oh and John Carpenter's~ The Thing, and the Jurassic Park trilogy."

It's funny, I like Carpenter's but my favorite is still the old 1951 version http://www.imdb.com/title/..."

Oh, I know. And if I remember correctly, the Carpenter version is actually closer to Campbell's version than the Fifties version.

C. wrote: "Oh and John Carpenter's~ The Thing, and the Jurassic Park trilogy."

It's funny, I like Carpenter's but my favorite is still the old 1951 version http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044121/.

Sarah wrote: "Rose wrote: "I'm really the odd man out in this discussion. I liked the movies The Time Machine, The Da Vinci Code and Starship Troopers. Did everyone really think they were that bad or just that t..."

Sarah, did you ever see the old 50's horror movie, Them? The extended opening is one of my favorite openings in movies. I, personally, have a thing for classic sci-fi horror movies and books from the 50's.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047573/

Sarah wrote: "I didn't say anything, but I do love Bradbury. Reading what you wrote Bobby, makes me want to start suggesting a Bradbury for the classic novel read. It has been awhile for me."

It's funny, Sarah, I went years without reading a Bradbury novel. I read all of his collections of his short stories as a kid, and many of the stories even got recycled in different collections, I didn't care. But I didn't read Fahrenheit 451 until I was an adult (and was blown away) and I still haven't read Something Wicked This Way Comes or Dandelion Wine.

Spooky1947 wrote: "surprised no one has mentioned the greatest monster movie of all time....Cloverfield"

SARCASM! Ah-ha! I got you!

Spooky1947 wrote: "and I ain't no she either...."

Oh, for some reason I thought Sarah made that comment. :-)

And I still don't know what you're talking about.

If I had to name just one, man, it would be tough. One, huh?

I'll say on any given day it's probably one of two: 2001: A Space Odyssey or The Matrix. They also hold up the best.

Though, man, Alien is one of my all time favorite movies period but it's such a hybrid, it might be more horror and the science fiction is just the trappings -- as opposed to say gothic horror set in a creepy castle.

Sebastian wrote: "Please post the worst book to movie adaptation you've ever seen.
For me the worst book to movie adaptation I've ever seen would be either The Da Vinci Code or Child 44.
I think its gotta be the Da..."

I didn't see it but The DaVinci Code movie could not have been worse than the book.

Amelia wrote: "Bobby wrote: "Amelia wrote: "Need to add Journey to the Center of the Earth:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373051/?..."

Hey! You changed your avatar!"

Yes, 'cause you made fun of Seven."

Nooooooooooo!!! I didn't!

Amelia wrote: "Need to add Journey to the Center of the Earth:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373051/?..."

Hey! You changed your avatar!

Naim wrote: "The despair and rage came through for me in the book, too, Bobby. It's just that it disappeared because Watney is the type of guy who throws himself into his work and manages to crack a joke about ..."

C. wrote: "I thought the book was total crap, and I had to stop reading in disgust when the focus was literally on his crap! He is an unlikeable jerk, and there is no way I would even get the DVD free from ..."

Tell 'em, C.! They won't listen to me. See, ya'll? I didn't even go as far as C. did. :-)

And you're right, Naim. Despair and rage did not come through for me AT ALL. I did very much feel it disappeared. And for pete's sake, I didn't say he shouldn't be humorous. He can show everything I asked for and still be Resilient. He's on Mars by himself, starving, what food he does eat is raw potatoes and whatever pre-packaged crap he brought from NASA, he never ever gets to TALK to PEOPLE, he doesn't take showers, doesn't brush his teeth, doesn't have toilet paper, doesn't get to sleep on a mattress, can't just walk around in the park, go see a movie, museum or play, watch football, get on the computer and argue the merits and faults of a book and every second of every day the planet is trying to kill him. FOR A YEAR AND A HALF. Think about the thousand, thousand things you do every day that he can't do. You guys are killing me. He'd be half-insane. That he wouldn't be fully insane would be a testament to his "resiliency". If all you could do for a year and a half is fight to survive that would be really, freaking intense. Is it too much to ask that there be some fluctuation god forbid in his demeanor? I don't want the rage and despair and the million other emotions any human being, no matter how resilient, would feel to disappear. I want to read them, see them, feel them.

And I liked the book. I did. But I sure as heck didn't think it was "brilliant". Sheesh.

Sarah wrote: "An observation from Neil deGrasse Tyson:

"The @MartianMovie may be the first SciFi blockbuster — ever — in which nobody dies.""

Wow, I started to go through them in my head aaaaaannndd...woah.

I saw The Martian last night. It's good. If you go see it, you'll see some of the flavors I thought were missing from the book. In fact, I went with a friend from Germany. When we got out, she asked me, "Did you like it?"

"Yeah, yeah I did. Did you?"

"It was okay. It was fun. It was very full of -- how do you say -- the American mythos? All the 'never give up' and 'I'm stranded on another planet all by myself, that's so funny' -- you didn't think it was little too much?"

True story.

I don't have to tell you guys my response.

And you know, she's German. That would be the other extreme. And she admitted as much. But the movie is relatively toned down in its lightheartedness compared to the book and she was still, well, wondering the same things I was wondering about the book.

So I'm right. :-P