web
counter
 

Any Sufficiently Advanced Film is Indistinguishable From...

By Steven Lloyd Wilson | Posted Under Trade News | Comments (19)



rendezvouswithramathumb.jpg

David Fincher did a lengthy interview with Collider, in which he mostly talked about The Social Network since he’s on the promotional swing for it these days. But of more interest to science fiction fans is that Fincher talked briefly about Rendevous with Rama which (along with about three other projects) might be the next film he does. The story, based on a famed Arthur C. Clarke novel, has long been championed by both Fincher and Morgan Freeman.

Fincher had this to say:

It’s a question of things lining up, I mean, you know Rendezvous With Rama is a great story that has an amazing role for Morgan Freeman who is an amazing actor and would be amazing in this thing. The question was can we get a script that’s worthy of Morgan and can we get a script that is worthy of Arthur Clark and can we do all of that in an envelope that will allow the movie to take the kinds of chances that it wants to take. ‘Cuz we want to make a movie where kids go out of the theatre and instead of buying an action figure they buy a telescope. That was the hope… So there have been people that have been interested in this idea and we have never been able to get a script. So the answer is, you know, is the story good enough, is the script the best telling of the story, is there an undeniable person to hang it on, is it technologically feasible. All those things come into play.

That line about wanting to make a science fiction film that makes kids leave the theater wanting a telescope instead of an action figure, that makes my nerd heart pitter patter. It’s like the anti-Burton, who scoffed at the very notion of comic books as he filmed Batman, convincing every kid who had read Batman in print that this tool couldn’t possibly have the slightest clue what the story was really about. Telescopes though? Fincher cuts right to the heart of science fiction with those few words. Wonder and awe, your soul soaring as your mind strains to comprehend the universe.

And hey, it’s not like it could be as bad as his first science fiction film, right?


(source: SlashFilm)









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Inheritance Valdemar II: The Shadow Prohibited Trailer | Cthulhu Is Calling, And He Is No Longer F**king Around | Fox Turns Down "24" Script | TELL ME WHERE THE SCRIPT IS!









Comments

Again - Rama strikes me as too sterile, long and complicated to be a film, Fincher is NOT a hard science fiction director, and Morgan is now honestly too old and maybe too uncertain in health.

If Fincher makes it, he's going to make what Gentry Lee made the Rama sequels like, and they were in no way the classic that the original was.

Posted by: idiosynchronic at January 3, 2011 10:38 AM

Certainly sounds like it could be... amazing.

Posted by: Todd at January 3, 2011 10:45 AM

Sir, if you are referring to Alien3 then you need to retract that filthy insinuation post haste.

Posted by: ed newman at January 3, 2011 10:53 AM

Fincher is NOT a hard science fiction director

Yeah, but... who is? Seriously, hard sci-fi is virtually nonexistent in film, sadly enough. I guess I'd just want a thoughtful, intelligent director. Fincher fits. Duncan Jones, perhaps? Blomkamp?

I never got past Rama II, because it was massively disappointing. Anyone read the others? Are they worth pursuing?

As for Rendezvous, it could be a breathtaking movie, but if they stick to the book, it's going to bore moviegoers to tears, unfortunately (and I loved the book).

Posted by: The Other Agent Johnson at January 3, 2011 11:19 AM

What Ed said. Alien3 gets unfairly maligned because it's not Aliens. It is a beautifully shot, incredibly hopeless and bleak movie that wraps up Ellen Ripley's cursed life in style. And the Director's Cut is far better than the theatrical version. Fincher did what he could, studio meddling and constant script revisions brought that movie down. Which, given it is a FOX movie, isn't surprising at all.

Posted by: TylerDFC at January 3, 2011 11:19 AM

I read Rendesvous with Rama years ago. The only thing I remember from that was that it bored me senseless. I kept waiting for something to happen and it just never seemed to.

So I just can't see this being anything except 2 hours of special effects.

Posted by: Uncle JR at January 3, 2011 11:29 AM

Forget Rama, how about Gateway?

Posted by: Uncle Mikey at January 3, 2011 12:00 PM

Indeed. Alien: Cubed wasn't the worst movie ever, much less the worst in that series. It's underrated, sure, but not by that much. The effects are what really bog it down, which makes it sort of the opposite of Alien: Resurrection.

An Arthur C. Clarke story that some people find fascinating while others find excruciatingly boring? Who'da thunk!

Posted by: RobP at January 3, 2011 12:04 PM

As much as I like old school Science Fiction, I never got into RwR.

I kept waiting for something to happen...
...and then it ended.

Posted by: OldSchool60 at January 3, 2011 12:21 PM

I liked the myrmicats and the avians, but that might have been a sequel.

Posted by: Johnny Von Awesome at January 3, 2011 1:08 PM

My first reaction to "Rendevous with Rama" as a movie was the same as some others here: it's a fabulous book but perhaps a touch too dry to translate to film.

But, it IS a fabulous book and I'll still watch the movie on the chance that my gut reaction is wrong. It COULD be a fabulous movie.

Posted by: NeoCleo at January 3, 2011 2:15 PM

Pull out the stuff that reads like lab reports and you have fun exploration / adventure yarn, some big ideas and a couple spectacular effects sequences. Fuel-stealing chase. Reveal the Big Bad. Scary landing. Spelunking. Dawn. Waking mechanisms. Aerobatics. High Diving. Terrorist bomb threats. Lone hero. Run away!

It bogs down because the book tediously explains the hard science driving every plot beat. You'd need a savvy writer & something like the tech continuity people on Star Trek to get the science right yet *show* vs. *tell*. Take rolling that little delivery down the North dome. Throwing something to hit a moving target is a human species super-power. How cool is that?

"You woke me up to schlep this inside? Have a Simp do it."

"Inside makes them neurotic."

"Too enclosed?"

"Too open. They've never been inside ships."

"So, you're saying I'm more evolved than a Simp."

"Less. You can throw, too, cave man. They can't. No need. So do this you are completely obsoleted."

That's 5 bad lines of doing stuff that expositionizes about as many pages in the book. Set the scene right and it's 2 lines. The book is full of stuff that would have the younglings reaching for all manner of implements of geekery as they see the world differently. "Throwing things is a super-power? Really? Holy crap!"

(And here I was going to keep my trap shut.)

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at January 3, 2011 2:48 PM

I do love that quote too. It is very encouraging. I've read some Clarke, but Rama is one of those classics that I never got around to reading. I should remedy that.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at January 3, 2011 3:34 PM

I don't know anything about the source material, but I've always wanted to see a sci-fi movie set on an O'Neill cylinder that didn't feel like it was trying to be Chronicles of Riddick or something.

Posted by: Leftylad at January 3, 2011 5:56 PM

i'd love to see this but i can see what others have said about it being boring. it's not a summer action blockbuster and that probably means no one will see it. what would be a better clarke novel? my first love was childhood's end. lots of potential for spectacle there

i second the love for gateway!

Posted by: splinter at January 3, 2011 9:14 PM

I feel like a movie version of Rama is going to live or die based on the visuals alone. Bringing the ship to life is a major task.

I read it years ago, and I side with the "bored" contingent. Not enough of the human element to keep my interest.

Posted by: MelBivDevoe at January 3, 2011 11:13 PM

I just don't know how to feel about this. On the one hand you got a competent director and Morgan Freeman with the right attitudes. But on the other you got Hollywood/Studio/coked-up Execs wanting the next 3-Dfied pukefest. So like Jester once said: I just don't know.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at January 4, 2011 6:37 AM

Tim burton didn't like comics? Can anyone share info/links about this, i'm intrigued!

Posted by: Antukin at January 4, 2011 8:26 AM

I keep checking this thread, hoping that Roman DeBeers will pop in and school us on HARD SCI-FI.

Posted by: Pinky McLadybits at January 4, 2011 10:58 AM