What would you like to see?

POSTED BY: christhecynic
UPDATED: Sunday, June 29, 2003 05:38
VIEWED: 13245
PAGE 1 of 1

CHRISTHECYNIC

Monday, May 12, 2003 1:09 AM

If you read the Tremors thread you have seen my rant about what I'd like to see made into a series or movie. What would you guys like to see done? Not shows that are currently runing, new ideas, or ones you think should get another chance. Not Firefly though, we all want that to be back.

SUCCATASH

Monday, May 12, 2003 3:03 AM

I really liked the V series, when it was in its prime. If there was a chance to bring that back I'd be happy.

I've also been waiting for Starship Troopers II, I think that would be cool.

GAEBOLGA

Monday, May 12, 2003 1:23 PM

Quote:
Not shows that are currently runing, new ideas, or ones you think should get another chance.

I'm going to assume (with all the deadly risk that entails) that by "new ideas" you mean "stuff that I personally made up." With that caveat, what I would love to see is a live-action miniseries based on Miyazaki's Nausicaa manga. The whole "clash of decadent empires on a dying world" thing is really frelling cool, and Miyazaki does a great job of capturing the flavor of imperial Russia and the middle Chinese dynasties. Besides, it's got giant bugs and killer fungi of doom.

And, even though it violates your strictures, I want Invader ZIM back. There. I said it.

- Let slip the Dogs of Art!

MOOLA

Monday, May 12, 2003 4:06 PM

Woo-hoo! Me too! Me too! (The Invader Zim thing, I mean...)

"To survive, one must be able to adapt to changing situations." - T. Rex

CHRISTHECYNIC

Monday, May 12, 2003 11:21 PM

I really meant more of a concept. But I didn't make myself clear so hey, thanks for the response.

What I mean by concept is “The whole ‘clash of decadent empires on a dying world’ thing” rather than the specificity of “a live-action miniseries based on Miyazaki's Nausicaa manga.”
And I meant new ideas as in ones that hadn’t been used yet on TV or in movies, or ones that hadn’t gotten their fair run. For example if you think the concept of Dark Skies should be done then you would say either, “something like Dark Skies,” or, “a ‘real’ history of the world showing the conspiracies behind the news that was reported.” Perhaps going into a bit more detail, but you get the idea.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Monday, May 12, 2003 11:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
I really liked the V series, when it was in its prime. If there was a chance to bring that back I'd be happy.

I've also been waiting for Starship Troopers II, I think that would be cool.

Didn't notice this way back (perhaps 30 seconds ago) when I just posted.

I would like to see the book Starship Troopers made into a movie. The movie that has been put out bears little resemblance to the book. I like it, but to pretend that that is a film version of the book is an insult. I don't see why they didn't just give it a new name.

GAEBOLGA

Tuesday, May 13, 2003 12:33 PM

Chris, have you read a book called Armor? The core story is essentially a rewrite of Starship Troopers, only it focusses on the combat rather than the culture. It's fairly interesting, and you can definitely tell that it was written post-Vietnam. Heinlein is better, of course.

As for the concept thing, I'd like to see a show about an alien who infiltrates a middle school while trying to take over the world with a malfunctioning robot poorly disguised as a dog. The requisite foil should be a schoolmate who's so obsessed with the paranormal that no one will believe anything he says. Throw in some brilliantly stilted dialogue and I'd watch it religiously....

- "Everyone's afraid of the neighborhood griper."

CHRISTHECYNIC

Tuesday, May 13, 2003 7:03 PM

No, I've never heard of it. I'll look into it.

KOFFEE

Tuesday, May 13, 2003 11:26 PM

My hubby made me watch Starship Troopers when it first came out on video.

I still haven't forgiven him.......

----------------------------------------------
“It's a real burn, being right so often.”

CHRISTHECYNIC

Tuesday, May 13, 2003 11:42 PM

Read the book, it's really good. I also recomend Stranger in a strange land. I haven't read anything else by Heinline but I can recomend a person who will recomend everything else.

If you take my advice, and read Starship Troopers, and somehow don't like it, you should still read Stranger in a strange land.

There are few who have read the book and seen the movie who would not shout at the top of their lungs to make everyone understand that the movie in no way refelects the book. (I would but you still wouldn't be able to hear me from where you are.)

KOFFEE

Tuesday, May 13, 2003 11:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
There are few who have read the book and seen the movie who would not shout at the top of their lungs to make everyone understand that the movie in no way refelects the book. (I would but you still wouldn't be able to hear me from where you are.)

Same thing goes for Anne Rice's Queen of the Damned. ((shudder)) Not what she wrote at all.

----------------------------------------------
“It's a real burn, being right so often.”

CHRISTHECYNIC

Tuesday, May 13, 2003 11:53 PM

Havn't read it or seen it, probably should considering I'm writing a book with vampires in it.

RIVERSIDE

Wednesday, May 14, 2003 7:16 PM

How about a Sci-Fi series based on the universe of H.P. Lovecraft? Although he's often lumped into Horror, a lot of his stuff is very sci-fi.

Guess I'm just a geekchick who used to run Call of Cthulhu, but I think it'd make a fun show. Could be dark, comic, dramatic...all the stuff we love in a Joss show....hey Joss! How do you feel about Lovecraft? ;-)

CHRISTHECYNIC

Wednesday, May 14, 2003 8:36 PM

How about one about angels? Not the touched by an angel kind, but the biblical "I kill entire cities without blinking" kind. Everyone seems hung up on demons these days, but angels are interesting too. (Yes, if you haven’t figured out yet this is fantasy not sci fi, but what the hell.)

You've got the Grigori who just seem to want to elevate man to the power of the divine (not god so much as the angels) while having sex with the best looking females, their kids-very powerful half breeds (Nephalim). The strict loyalists, the fallen host (yeah these are the demons, they are 1/3rd of the angels) and many more who likely squabble over internal politics.

Grigori are the teachers of sorcery, divination, astrology, herbology, and other bad things. They also had children by humans.
Nephalim were the kids of the Grigori in many translations, they are said to be both great men, and heroes, as well as terrible and other bad things. Some of them are said to be the giants.
The rest most know, I think it could make an interesting story.

NONOLUNA

Wednesday, May 14, 2003 8:59 PM

There's a book called 'The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency' that would make an interesting series...It takes place in Botswana (a culture that I haven't seen much of on TV) and although she's a detective, it's her inate understanding of people and culture and the simple pleasures in life that make the stories so intriguing...

INVISIBLEGREEN

Wednesday, May 14, 2003 9:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
I would like to see the book Starship Troopers made into a movie. The movie that has been put out bears little resemblance to the book. I like it, but to pretend that that is a film version of the book is an insult. I don't see why they didn't just give it a new name.

Wasn't the movie supposed to function as a sequel to the book? I haven't read the book, so I don't know for sure.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Wednesday, May 14, 2003 10:27 PM

No, it takes place at the same time, with the same characters, but that is the extent of the similarity. The plot is different, although many events are the same, the characters are flat, and a variety of other divergences are present.

To understand exactly how they are related it might help to imagine the following.

You read a book and write down the names of key characters.

Then you write in four of the events and the setting

finally you give what you've written to someone who has never read the book and tell them to make a movie out of it. Make sure that they make the movie with a completely different approach then the book, if the book was about politics make it so the movie is about sex, things like that.

If the book's strength was it's realism then make the movie look really fake.

The movie that would result, and the original book would be related in the same way that the movie and book Starship Troopers are related. That is the best way that I can describe it, to truly understand you need to read the book and watch the movie. Unlike some things the order you do it in doesn't matter, they are so different that which one you saw/read first wont affect how much you like them.

KAC

Thursday, May 15, 2003 6:19 AM

Heinlein himself always hated Stranger in a Strange Land. He is reported to have said it is proof that some people will do anything for money. The best example of pure Heinlein is clearly The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, very much n the same vein as Starshiptroopers but not as reactionary.

kac

GAEBOLGA

Thursday, May 15, 2003 2:44 PM

I'd like to see a show about faeries. Not the wussie "oh look, I've got wings and pixie dust!" kind of fairies, but the "holy fucking christ, she just unleashed the Wild Hunt on my sorry ass" kind of faeries. You know: Them. Anyway, taking a page from Pwyll (of Mabinogi fame), what if the otherworld was having a bit of an arms race involving humans...after all, faeries are immortal unless they receive a wound from a human. So the faerie kingdoms keep kidnapping humans to fight in their wars (eventually, there might not even be any faeries on the battlefields), and they keep arming these humans with faerie blades and such.

Now throw in a page or two from Spartacus, and see what happens.

Well, it sounds good to me, anyway....

- Fear the badger, for it is mighty!

RIVERSIDE

Thursday, May 15, 2003 6:22 PM

Faeries? Not the cutesy kind, but the kind that will release the "wild hunt" on your ass?
Hmmm...are we talking traditional folk tales or White Wolf here? If WW, then please recall the disaster that was the tv show based on Vampire, The Masquerade. Although I suppose if Joss were writing it...any of these might be really, really cool.
*gamer geekness*

Side note of badass Fey, ever read Artemis Fowl?

GAEBOLGA

Thursday, May 15, 2003 6:46 PM

Although I'm a bit of a game geek myself, Riverside (and I even played a session or two of Vampire back in the day), I'm not all that up on White Wolf's offerings (although I suppose it's hardly surprising, given the way they keep pumping out crap, that they've done a book on faeries...which I'm assuming they have, from your comments). I'm more of a DP9 guy...especially Tribe 8. Goddess, I love that world....

The answer to your first (non-rhetorical) question is Irish/English/Scottish/Welsh folk tradition and some Kinsella-era Celtic mythology. And yeah, I remember that Vampire show; I even watched it once. That sucker blew big meaty chunks of leprous goat dick like it was Catherine the Great. Hell, any plot written that poorly would suck.

To answer your second question, no, I've never even heard of him/it. Pray, do enlighten this poor ignorant fool....

- Fear the badger, for it is mighty!

RIVERSIDE

Thursday, May 15, 2003 6:58 PM

Actually, the Changling (WW's faerie game) sourcebook is a pretty fun read, even if it isn't the greatest game to play. But then as I've said, I prefer Cthulhu: normal Joes in WAY over thier heads.
I've done a lot of mythology reading myself, so I see where you're coming from, with a story about faeries would be cool w/o the disney glossing. I think it'd make a better movie (or group of movies) though, rather than a series. More scope for the epic, less day-to-day living.
As for Artemis Fowl...well, it's a series of books, of the young reader variety. In them, the world of the fey is very interestingly portrayed. Also good if you like fiendishly clever heros who have really kickass sidekicks.

GAEBOLGA

Thursday, May 15, 2003 7:20 PM

For some reason, I've always preferred the Japanese theory regarding (most) television shows: they have a preset run (usually about a year), and then they're finished. This lends itself well to the epic style; they usually have a least one samurai epic every few years, and they're often pretty cool. I figure the faerie show would work best as a year-long (maybe two) kind of offering. Of course, American networks don't play that way, so there you go.

The thing I've always loved about the whole traditional faerie thing is the level of political intrigue they always seem to impart to even the most innocent of actions. That, and the fact that they never tell anyone what's actually going on. Inscrutable and obtuse...you gotta love 'em.

Cthulhu looks like an awesome game, but I've never found enough other people who were interested in it at the same time...a shame, really.

And speaking of both the Fey and young adult fiction, have you ever read the Dark Is Rising series? Pretty cool stuff....

- Fear the badger, for it is mighty!

HJERMSTED

Thursday, May 15, 2003 7:20 PM

I would love to see a talented ensemble cast with good chemistry team up with a gifted writing team to create a series based on Roger Zelazny's Amber series of books. The special effects team would need to be top notch as well (No "Action Pack" lo-fi stuff... apologies to fans of that genre)

Those of you who have read the series know what "traversing Shadow" means. An Amber series could follow the main story arcs created by Zelazny and the Shadow element would allow the writers to explore any storytelling genre in it wishes in doing so. An Amber series, once the premise is set (All known worlds and dimensions are but shadows of the one true world, Amber) the stories could be fantasy, sci-fi, western, military, romance... you name it.

mattro

CHRISTHECYNIC

Thursday, May 15, 2003 8:16 PM

When you talk about fairies you can also do something on elves, Tolkien wrote the book (literaly) on the modern concept of elves, the orginal concept was things that looked like people who were go betweens for people and gods who often had agendas of their own and could be good or evil.

I always thaought that a show should go on for it's run, some shows go on season after season and theres nothing wrong with that. Then there is the "we won it's all over, it's a happy ending... but wait we made enough money to get picked up for more; so now there is a new thing that needs to be done" (think the digimon cartoons) which should have ended right there.

I think it might be intresting to see something on gods, I'm thinking the greek gods becuse they were the most human like, they could be hurt by people, and at times interacted with people on an almost equal level. Think of what they would be doing now, Eros (cupid) now owner of a matchmaking company, stuff like that. Just show them and what they do now that no one belives in them.

SUCCATASH

Thursday, May 15, 2003 10:42 PM

How about "Last of the Renshai" on the Big Screen?

NONOLUNA

Thursday, May 15, 2003 10:58 PM

There was a series of 6 books called 'The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever'...

It has an unredeemable anti-hero who is transported to another world where he is the Saviour because of the Wedding band he wears made out of white gold...I didn't really like the series but it might translate into an interesting visual offering...

GAEBOLGA

Friday, May 16, 2003 1:03 PM

Hey Riverside, I've got to thank you for being the universe's conduit...I was listening to NPR on the way home from work last night, and they were interviewing the guy who writes the Artemis Fowl series. Now I've got to read them, since I don't believe in coincidences.

Besides, high-tech faeries and an "anti-Potter" evil genius sound pretty frelling cool.

- Fear the badger, for it is mighty!

NICOLA

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 11:25 PM

Laurell K. Hamilton has a tremendous series of books about "Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter". It has a really interesting universe inhabited by Vampires (recently given legal status), Werewolves, Wereleopards etc., Fairies, and Necromancers. Ms. Hamilton builds a very credible universe, without any easy moral absolutes.

Very cool series of books to read, and would more than likely make a kickass TV show!

My mother taught me to respect religion, but to be wary of people who use piety as a license to run other people's lives.

RIVERSIDE

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 6:31 PM

Actually, done right, Anita Blake could be a cool series. Although, can't see Joss doing another Vamp universe, and it is different from his. And besides Joss, who does really amazing TV?

Quote:
Originally posted by Nicola:
Laurell K. Hamilton has a tremendous series of books about "Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter". It has a really interesting universe inhabited by Vampires (recently given legal status), Werewolves, Wereleopards etc., Fairies, and Necromancers. Ms. Hamilton builds a very credible universe, without any easy moral absolutes.

Very cool series of books to read, and would more than likely make a kickass TV show!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

CHRISTHECYNIC

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 6:52 PM

I've always had the idea for a movie or show with vampires in it to have the vampires, though not necessarily good guys, be the sympathetic characters. Before someone says that’s been done, there is more to it than that.

The setting would be the contemporary world, I had the vampires living in the woods off a fairly well traveled road. They cause car accidents and then feed off of the occupants. Being a vampire is a genetic condition (contagious via retrovirus), sunlight kills, and wood is poison so shoving it through the heart kills even though otherwise impaling wounds would be healed. Decapitation kills everything. As for garlic, I figured that would just be that they had a very good sense of smell so garlic caused sensory overload.

The start of the movie would be vampires being hunted down and killed. This would be by Nazi like people who were killing them because they saw vampires as a sub human inferior race that had to be killed off for the good of humanity. Then the Vampire leader would go to a Vampire hunter for help, the vampire hunter helps because, although his morals are flexible, genocide goes against them.

I figured that eating people would be not morally wrong because it is how the vampires got their sustenance, and suicide by starvation isn’t generally considered moral high ground. So the vampire hunter doesn’t see what the vampires are, or do, as wrong but he will kill them if he is paid by people who the vampires would kill.

I thought that the situation between vampires and a vampire killer would be an interesting thing, and that the vampires could pay him by sharing with him everything they knew about themselves from a medical standpoint.

RIVERSIDE

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 7:48 PM

RIVERSIDE

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 7:51 PM

Whoops, sorry about the blank post.
Okay...not a bad idea, vamps as genetics, and not necessarily evil. Sure. However, killing innocent people is wrong no matter why you do it. Maybe your "good vampires" would feed off people but not kill them? Or maybe they would form romantic symbiotic relationships w/ humans where the human would allow them to feed willingly, again, not dying in the process?
I mean, nice guy or not, it's hard to be sympathetic towards someone who is killing you so that they might live.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

I figured that eating people would be not morally wrong because it is how the vampires got their sustenance, and suicide by starvation isn’t generally considered moral high ground. So the vampire hunter doesn’t see what the vampires are, or do, as wrong but he will kill them if he is paid by people who the vampires would kill.
QUOTE]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

CHRISTHECYNIC

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 8:36 PM

This is long, I'll see if I can distill it later.

You would be surprised at how people can be sympathetic to the nastiest characters. As for morals, I don’t believe in absolute morals, if I did then I would have to convince you that killing innocent people is not wrong. Unless you want to play god, in which case whatever you say is wrong is. So it is good that we don’t have to live in a place of absolute morals, and can just stick with the current case: ours.

Truth be told the only way that anyone lived was to take what someone else had (admittedly this was long ago), which in most cases killed them, if not by direct murder than as a result of the taking. You are here as a result of one of the longest streak of rape murder theft and cannibalism in history, we all are. Now you will never hear me say rape is right, never, but the rest has its time. We should just be happy that that time isn’t now.

To say that killing innocent things is wrong is fine with me, just keep tabs on how much you do it. Every time you eat something, you have killed something innocent, but it gets better because think of all of the things that had to die to get you that. If you’re a vegetarian than a place where crops could be harvested had to be made, cattle grazing land can’t support crops that people can live off of. For each plot, and there are usually multiple for each field to be used so that they don’t work the soil till its dead, but instead rotate, there had to be a holocaust of the animals there. Pesticides, even organic ones, wreak havoc on the animal kingdom (bugs are the food for things that are in turn the food for other things and so on) and when pesticides are not used more crops must be grown to make up for pest damage. If you eat animals than the innocent animals that you kill are more evident. And lets not forget the plants, despite their lack of a central nervous system they can feel something akin to pain.

So it is as you aptly put it only killing innocent people that someone can take issue with killing, right? And I certainly hope you haven’t killed any of them. But for you to be here you’re ancestors had to. Territorial disputes, a lack of plant or animal food, a need for the resources of another to survive, what ever it was there is something you can count on: No matter who you are you are descended from cannibals, and not only did countless innocents have to be killed to get you here, but if even one of those innocents (because these are the ones that had to die) hadn’t been killed you wouldn’t be here.

So I guess you could be right, killing innocents is wrong, I would go the whole way, killing any innocent thing is wrong, but if you want to limit it to people then go for it. But remember that that if you’re ancestors had had that idea you would have never been born, and it’s not like I’m saying they were cold killers, the ones I’m talking about are the kind caring loving family supporting ones, because those are the ones who killed the innocent people that had to die for you to be here.

You may not agree with anything I have said, but if you have an open enough mind you will have read this far anyway. It is my belief that the only absolute moral is that it is wrong to harm another without cause. Killing isn’t wrong on its face, self-defense isn’t wrong. There are situations, very rare admittedly, in which stealing is not wrong. And the same goes true for anything. The best example would be sex, there is nothing wrong with that, but rape is wrong, the reason is that another is harmed (on too many levels to count) without cause.

I’m not going to give examples, you don’t want them (I think) but the evolution of the human species, and all others that I know of, is based on killing of innocents (among other things) and in many instances there was nothing morally wrong.

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverside:
Whoops, sorry about the blank post.
Okay...not a bad idea, vamps as genetics, and not necessarily evil. Sure. However, killing innocent people is wrong no matter why you d

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

RIVERSIDE

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 8:50 PM

Uh. Okay. No really, sounds a lot like those deep, meaningful, everything is subjective conversations I remember having when I was younger, talking to other bright young people deep into the night. Very interesting mental exercise. However, I no longer believe that everything is subjective, and I also don't believe I have to pay for what my forbearers have done. No genetic guilt for me. Also, I think there is a difference between killing a carrot and a intelligent being capable of grasping the concept of their own demise. However, you are right about how sometimes people identify most with the most evil of characters. I'm not really sure why myself, as it's not my style. I mean, I like the dark, misunderstood type as much as the next chick, but outright evil I've never been able to get behind. My lil' bro says that people choose "baddie" fictional chararacters for role-models because it justifies their desire to do whatever they want, regardless of the cost to others, while still seeing themselves as the "hero" of the story. He may be right. He is a lot smarter than I am. Anyway, I hope you didn't think I was bagging on your movie idea. Just for me, likeable characters make all the difference. Case in point, I loathed Pulp Fiction (and I may be one of the very few in my age bracket who did). Why? Because not one of the characters (IMO) had any redeeming qualities (except the stupid chick...which to me, indicated that nice people are only nice cuz' they're too stupid to be out for themselves like all the "normal" people). And to be honest, my view of humanity is already cynical enough without indulging in such grim fiction that it makes me long for The Bomb to take all us "cockroaches" out.

Keep Flyin'
Serenity - a ship full of characters I can stand firmly with and not feel sullied ;)

CHRISTHECYNIC

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 11:36 PM

Read the whole thing, I’m sure you’ll disagree, but everything I say is true (except for the sujective parts which are of course subjective, or the parts a preface with what if, or it could be because those are things that could be, and not necessarily are.) so it should give you something to think about. If you see something that isn’t one of those and isn’t true please tell me, cause I probably put it in by mistake.

You didn't understand, not that I blame you, like I said it probably needs to be seriously distilled. I wasn’t saying that you should bear the guilt for what your ancestors did, you shouldn’t, hell if you should then the entire concept of innocence would be gone and there would have been no point in any of what I said.

What I was saying is that if you look at the history of humans, or any other animal (including bird, fish, and reptile) life you will find that not only have innocents been killed repeatedly in large numbers, but also that it wasn’t wrong. Not that it isn’t wrong to kill an innocent in general, but in the specific case it wasn’t. That throws a wrench in a lot of moral argument, we live in a different time though, and I for one am happy for it.

But the other problem, which I didn’t make a big deal of at all is where you draw the line. If a plant can feel pain, and it can to some degree (there is no way to tell how much, we know very little about plants) then is it wrong to hurt it? Most likely you’d say no. So what about a mouse? A cat? A dog? A primate? A dolphin? Those last two are popular examples, because both a dolphin and primate use tools and can be taught to speak English, correctly, in context. (A parrot can too but it hasn’t shown itself to be self cognizant or to have an understanding of death.)

Well from what you said I hope you think it’s ok to kill all of these. Hey it’s not my problem, go for that kind of thought. But then if it’s only innocent people that you think it is wrong to harm, where do you draw the line on people? It’s unlikely you’ll get the chance to try your moral ideas out on aliens or anything. But it was certainly the argument that it was only people that it was wrong to hurt that caused the suppression and repression, not to mention enslavement of the black race, the genocide of the Indians (or Native Americans if you please) my ancestors, and it wasn’t though far off that allowed the Holocaust to happen, or the degradation of the Irish in the United States. Once again, the list goes on. So the real problem of morals come at where you draw the line on what is “an intelligent being capable of grasping the concept of their own demise.”

I hope that all humans fall into this concept for you. But where does it end, if a dolphin can, and studies show it can (studies can only be so accurate without the ability to communicate beyond around fifty words -the teaching of dolphins to speak English was really quite fascinating by the way- although these studies did not involve the talking dolphins), than you have to expand beyond your own species. So where does it stop, if one animal can meet your criteria why not two, or three, or four? And we don’t know what signifies intelligence so you can’t simply say it’s brain is too small, because we do know that brain size has nothing to do with it.

So what if a cow can grasp it’s own demise, does that mean hamburgers are off limits? Well, maybe all animals can (I personally doubt that a cow can, but there is no proof either way) should we be vegetarian? That gets back to what I was saying before, you have to kill lots of animals to get the land, just like you ancestors had to kill other people to get fertile lands and good hunting grounds, there was no working together then, there just weren’t the resources. If you were to share you would starve your tribe, if you didn’t share you doomed others to death. On the other side if you didn’t kill the people who had the lad you might as well kill your tribe yourself, it would hurt them less that way.

But lets stay with being a vegetarian, lets

TRAGICSTORY

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 11:55 PM

Series I would like to see:

Riverworld (Not the thing that was on SCIFI, but based on the book)

Wheel of Time series: with LOTR SFX.

Red Dwarf: (I know its already a series...BUT I NEED MORE!!!!!)

Lastly, I would like to see a series based on the gods of different religions waging war against each other. All gods would walk and live amongst us doing their good deeds for their believers. The catch is that gods could only be killed by humans. So you would have Shiva trying to talk a cardinal into stabbing Jesus or "the devil reborn" as he would be called. Each god would have one human champion who could kill other gods, yet the gods are hidden from each other. So they would have to find each other by searching out miracles and killing the likliest suspect (or convincing/forcing a believer to betray). Killed gods can then be "brainwashed" into following other gods. Which was what happened when the Chritian god got ahold of Baal and renamed him Jesus.

Somehow I feel that this will never make it past a book!

"Societies are supported by human activity, therefore they are constantly threatened by the human facts of self-intrest and stupidity." --Peter Berger

SUCCATASH

Thursday, May 22, 2003 12:34 AM

Tragic Story wrote:
"Riverworld (Not the thing that was on SCIFI, but based on the book)"

Do you mean the Gods of the Riverworld series where suddenly people in history all appeared on a planet naked and bald, and when they died they reappeared? I really liked those books.

XENARC

Thursday, May 22, 2003 12:58 AM

I don't have a specific idea, but I would dearly love to see Joss Whedon and JMS team up on something Sci-Fi. Book, comic, movie, show - whatever. I just can't imagine what wonders those two could come up with and pull off working together.

XenArc

CHRISTHECYNIC

Thursday, May 22, 2003 1:22 AM

TragicStory, the gods idea is really interesting. I posted somewhere a similar idea, but they weren't necessarily at war and were simply immortal. Your idea would certainly lend its self to a show better. But the reason, I think, that it wouldn’t make it is because people are just fine with a story about other gods, but not their own.

RIVERSIDE

Thursday, May 22, 2003 3:23 PM

christhecynic,

Okay, I'm not arguing, but I didn't misunderstand you, I just don't generally get into those debates where the goal is that the loudest and most eloquent grinds the other into silence, thereby winning. Really, I understand all of your points (and I have known a fair share of EMTs and Nurses, and I don't consider life or death decisions on par w/ murder in general), and I have heard them before, have entertained them before, many times. I just don't agree. If you had caught me when I was 19-21 you might have been able to dislodge what I have come to accept about good and evil, but these days, after many, many discussions exactly like this one, I follow my heart. I am able to know in my heart that war is absolutely wrong, yet understand that at times in our history it has been necessary. I would not concede that Nazi medical experiments, despite later humanitarian uses of the data collected, were absolutely necessary. I think that one should always look to do as little damage as possible. No, I'm not a militant vegan, either, but my belief systems are not the two dimensional zealotry you seem to suspect me of. I, too, have had many nights of what ifs, and then hows. All I can say is that for me, willfully killing people is wrong. I wouldn't condemn a soldier who was in the recent war, and I wouldn't condemn a police officer defending his or others lives. I wouldn't condemn a firefighter who doesn't manage to save everyone. But a race of people who live through destroying other people without even searching for an alternative would seem bad to me. And no, I don't think of cows as people, although yes, the research w/ dolphins, primates, and even octopii is fascinating. One day science may prove everything we now know or believe wrong. I'm not a hippy, or a right-wing Christian. I just like heros whom I can admire, identify with and aspire to. So, if you do get your movie made, I wouldn't be your audience, although I don't doubt that others would enjoy it a lot. So, no hard feelings? We can agree to disagree, hopefully without casting aspersions of my intelligence of lack therof?

Seque - African Grey parrots have been shown in some informal studies to be able to use and understand concrete words correctly, such as ball, food, etc. Not abstract concepts though.

Keep Flyin'

CHRISTHECYNIC

Thursday, May 22, 2003 6:23 PM

I wrote this response, then read your post again and realized I needed to say this: you seem to have gotten the idea that I think you're a closed minded crazy person, I don't. I don’t suspect you of “two dimensional zealotry.” Or any more or less complex type of zealotry. As for anything about your intelligence, I was tired when I wrote what I wrote, and at the moment am not in the mood to read it, but I certainly didn’t mean to put anything calling you stupid. When I’m tired sometimes I put in things that have nothing to do with what I’m typing, and that would have nothing to do with what I was saying, after all you have proven to be quite intelligent in quite a few spots in your posts, which is pretty good for a post on an Internet forum.

I'm not trying to convert you, I wouldn't justify a race of people living off of destroying other people, I'm just saying that what you said doesn’t work always, and from a purely objective stand point, which no one is every really in, it can't be said to be wrong.

I also wasn't saying cows were people, I like my hamburger, I was just pointing out that your definition of what is wrong cant be done unless you know everything. That doesn't matter because as you said you feel it. (Where it doesn't work is that you said killing, and that is triage, if you meant murder it still doesn’t matter because you said you work on feeling, not what you wrote down somewhere.)

Objective standpoints aren’t fun anyway, it’s easy enough to figure out what someone in one would think, it’s just that it doesn’t matter. After all, if there were a race (forget vampires just a something) that naturally lived off of people, and there was no other way (not one, life or death, eat people or die), then you couldn’t objectively say that that was wrong. Sure they are killing innocent people, but objectively it’s no more wrong than a lion eating a gazelle. On the other hand from a human stand point that is very wrong, And in reality a human stand point is the only one to give a damn about, because that is the only one that matters.

If it didn’t come across, I “agree to disagree” even though I dislike that phrase.

SUCCATASH

Monday, June 9, 2003 3:49 PM

It looks like I'm the winner of this thread, since V is coming back to television.

Yay!

JASONZZZ

Monday, June 9, 2003 5:44 PM

How about Prophency? Christopher Walken did a great job playing Gabriel; and the storyline was sufficiently disturbing.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Monday, June 9, 2003 7:52 PM

Yeah, that did a rather interesting take on the divine host. Satan was probably the best (most interesting/intriguing) character in it, although Simon was good before he died.

FAHQ

Monday, June 9, 2003 8:10 PM

What would I like to see?

The death of the "Belch and Fart" channel (Fox).

The death of so called "Reality shows".

The death of the televison attitude that basically says somethuing like; if it has breasts, explosions and negativity-run it!

The death of press controlled by corporate interests. How many of you have watched television news and seen a newscaster start talking about American Idol or some other crap like it was an actual news story?

The death of all the shows like Springer and its ilk.

The education of the drooling masses that actually hike the ratings of all that crap.

THAT would make room for more interesting shows.

TECHBOY

Friday, June 27, 2003 3:43 AM

I would love to see Orson Scott Card's "Ender" series produced.

================================================
This space for rent. All proceeds go to production costs of FireFly.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Friday, June 27, 2003 3:48 PM

I still haven’t read the Ender series, love the Alvin Maker stuff.

TECHBOY

Saturday, June 28, 2003 2:16 AM

The major problem I see with it is that Ender is 5 years old at the start of the book, and has to go through some pretty grown up things (nothing lurid or sexual, just emotional). I would worry about this turning out to look like a another Annykin Skywalker from "Episode I". The fact that the main character is a child does not mean that it is childish. I don't know how that would translate on the screen.

Other than that little pitfall, I think that it would be cool to see a big production on that.

================================================
This space for rent. All proceeds go to production costs of FireFly.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Saturday, June 28, 2003 9:20 PM

Card said that in a movie adaptation that was going to be made the people in charge insisted that Ender be played by a teen. This horrified him. Apparently no one watches sci fi if its not about teens, ET was listed a notable exception.

TECHBOY

Sunday, June 29, 2003 2:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Card said that in a movie adaptation that was going to be made the people in charge insisted that Ender be played by a teen. This horrified him. Apparently no one watches sci fi if its not about teens, ET was listed a notable exception.

Reading his introduction in "Ender's Game", I can understand why he would be upset about changing the age. Some people (namely execs like the ones af Fox Television) just don't get it. There is a certain integrity that goes into a piece of work. It is that integrity that makes something good. It sets a level that others can aspire to, instead of keeping the status quo. This is why we have reality programming - no one wants rock the boat, and it desguised as "That's what the viewing public wants".

I say fooey on them. If you can do, you do; If you can't do, you teach; If you can't do or teach, you administrate. [/soapbox]

About "Ender's Game", it would be interesting to see what the producers who did "Dune" and "Childen of Dune" for the SciFi channel (not David Lynch) can do with the story. That would be the best chance of keeping the integrety of the characters and story.

================================================
This space for rent. All proceeds go to production costs of FireFly.

CANADIANJON

Sunday, June 29, 2003 2:40 AM

I am just happy that some shows from my childhood are coming back. Astroboy has a new series in Japan, and I think a live/CG Transformers movie is being made).

CHRISTHECYNIC

Sunday, June 29, 2003 2:50 AM

The people in Children of Dune had older versions of Leto and his sister to stop a loss of integrity, making an older version of Ender would have caused a loss of integrity. Intrestring how the same thing can have such different effects. Of course Card says (I haven’t read it but believe him) that Ender being a small child was essential to the character and point, Leto being young wasn’t so important.

HKCAVALIER

Sunday, June 29, 2003 4:57 AM

Hey everybody,

That whole thing about "the race that eats people" got me thinking about a show, or a theme for a show that I've thought a lot about. The idea is to explore racism from the standpoint of actually different races. They got some of it in "Alien Nation" but it always seemed to be too much like normal human "racism." What I'm talking about is the whole issue of whether the other race is even senscient or not. I'm talking about absolutely unbridled hate in the guise of survival and protecting your own. There are all kinds of people who think killing apes and dolphins and dogs and what have you is totally okay. I guess I'm thinking of something like the movie "Starship Troopers" except the aliens can communicate, send diplomats and form relationships.

You know, there's evidence that sperm whales destroyed human ships back in the day without immediate provocation as a general strategy. What if they saw the potential for world domination which humans posessed and decided to draw a line at the world's oceans? What if they'd found a way to prevail? What if we'd had to stop all ocean exploration and had never discovered flight? The only way to get from one continent to another was maybe some mad boatmen who made a run from Russia to Alaska at certain times of the year? Or (why not?) what if the "hollow earth" had recently been discovered as a way to travel from continent to continent? But the Whales with they're extraodinary natural sound technology could cause earthquakes? What if some people made peaceful treaties with the whales and were allowed to ride with the whales to any part of the world they wished? What if, what if, what if?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Sunday, June 29, 2003 5:38 AM

I think that the most interesting and thought provoking things are where there is not a clear right and wrong. Actually that’s not true, I would think that if I didn’t dislike such things. What I mean is that when a situation doesn’t have a clear right or wrong, (I like stories with hope) as long as there is a way for you to know that there is a right thing on some level and people are trying to do it you keep the hope. In concept where there can be no clearly defined right or wrong is most interesting but not always for a story.

It doesn’t just have to be a vampire thing where one species lives off another, it can be simpler. You and your people need a mineral (to survive), a recent landslide or something made it so that the plants or animals you ate which had this mineral in them are gone, you need to mine it to survive. The mining process will kill the people who took shelter in the caves as a result of this same catastrophe, and they cant leave (or they die) neither of you has a greater right to live, neither can lay claim to the caves, if it is the only source of said mineral either you kill them or you die. Who is right? If you mine you’re murdering them, if they don’t let you they’re murdering you, if you start a fight you all little murderers or attempted murderers.

That’s an hastily made up thing, but the situation of mutually exclusive necessity does occur, and it becomes a big dilemma. Tell the story from the cave dwellers’ point of view and there can be no doubt that they are good and the miners are self serving egocentric asses who might not even deserve to live. Tell it from the miners’ point of view and it’s the same in reverse.

That doesn’t really say anything that I’d like to see, although it does present the idea for a show. Every week tell the story of you’re conflict with sympathetic characters from a the opposite side, make it so it is not a misunderstanding, there is no demoniseing of the enemy, both sides understand exactly what is going on, they understand what is at stake to both sides, they know their enemies position and realize they would do exactly the same, and they still kill each other.

Not my kind of show, but it did seem to be suggested by what I was saying.