Kevin's Watch

Avatar wrote:Never gone for the Trek ones, but read the Star Wars ones when I have the chance. Like all books, some are good, some not so good. I'm an undemanding reader though...what I like is the opportunity to revisit those worlds/universes.

--A

Shame you're not an undemanding debater

Nice try my friend. Nice try.

--A

Alynna, at 100+ books that's a COLLECTION. As you might imagine my media tie-ins books are mostly in the Buffyverse, (That's a big surprise to everyone :lol ), and it's less than 100 books

How does this fit into the discussion, many of the authors writing media tie-ins write original fiction, too. Examples, previously mentioned Peter David, Matthew Stover, Keith DeCandido, and Christopher Golden, Nancy Holder, Yvonne Navarro (FWIW, lots of these same authors dabble in the comic book world, too). Did anyone start to read an author's original fiction because of their tie-in efforts, or the other way around?

And who wrote Splinter of the mind's eye?

Alan Dean Foster IIRC.

--A

I have a few Buffy novels, too. How could I forget that?

My favorite is Christopher Golden's The Lost Slayer.

Roland of Gilead wrote

Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:51 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a few Buffy novels, too. How could I forget that?

My favorite is Christopher Golden's The Lost Slayer.

Roland you have Buffy books and you like Christopher Golden, that's too cool. A few others by Christopher Golden are Wisdom of War and Spike and Dru: pretty maids all in a row, and he co-wrote with Nancy Holder Immortal, and those are all pretty good. Have you ever read Golden's original fiction like Ferryman or such, it's all pretty good.

Roland, you should look over at the BtVS thread kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3616

Taraswizard, Christopher Golden was my discovery of 2003. I've read The Lost Slayer, The Wisdom of War, Sins of the Father, Immortal, Monster Island (a Buffy and Angel combo), and his original work, Of Saints and Shadows. All pretty good, but I thought the concept of the parallel world in Lost Slayer, if just one thing had gone differently, was clever and very executed. It was my first Golden book and still my fave.

I also own Strangewood, but haven't read yet. Golden apparently considers Strangewood his best novel to date.

I sometimes read movie novelizations. It depends on how much I like the movie. Such novels mostly aren't memorable reading experiences. It's literary fast food, but re-living a favorite movie in book form is a fun way to pass the time. Actually, eating fast food while reading a movie novelization is perfect.

I've read the original Star Wars trilogy novels, but I don't remember them much anymore, meanwhile the movies of course have stayed in my mind. I should re-read them one of these days. While chowing down on burger & fries, naturally.

I actually read more Star Trek than Star Wars in the early to mid '80s. I loved everything about Star Trek more intensely at that time than at any other, and that was because of the first four big screen Trek films, which I loved. The original TV show itself made me like Star Trek, but it was the big screen movies that really fired my imagination - enough to make me want to read Trek books. Didn't mean they were great reads, but I read 'em anyway. Just don't ask me to recite them, because I've mostly forgotten them too, like the Star Wars ones.

Alan Dean Foster's Splinter of the Mind's Eye is an exception to the fast-food quality of movie tie-ins. I'm quite fond of it.

Another exception that I love very much is Arthur C. Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey. I revere both the novel and Stanley Kubrick's movie. Might this be the first instance of a big budget movie being followed shortly be an accompanying novelization? The first big movie tie-in? Whatever the case, I can't think of another example of two respective titans of their field collaborating on a movie project the way Kubrick and Clarke did, and with such brilliant results.

Are you saying the movie 2001 came first here MM? I had no idea. Or that they'd collaborated. Don't think I enjoyed the book when I first read it, but it's been a long time. Don't think I ever watched the whole movie either.

And I think your post has made me put Splinter next on my "to read" list.

--A

Okaaay, Av, here's my much-delayed answer to your query. (I had to do some digging, because I wasn't sure which came out first myself.) Apparently, the movie premiered in the US in April 1968. The novel wasn't published until July of that year. So, in that way, the novel came later.

However, the book and the film were so intertwined that maybe it's really splitting hairs over this question. Looking at it in a different way, you could say Clarke's story came first - not 2001, but The Sentinel. It was the short story that, as far as I understand it, gave Kubrick the idea for the story for a sci-fi movie in the first place, the movie that turned out to be 2001. But in the process of talking about the movie, the two men ended up with something different enough from the original short story that Kubrick asked Clarke to write a whole new story to base a movie on. My understanding was that Clarke was going back and forth between doing the novel and working on the movie screenplay with Kubrick. So it becomes almost a chicken-and-egg question. My own opinion is that Kubrick was the ultimate mastermind behind 2001. Without him, Clarke would not have re-done The Sentinel, and obviously there would have been no movie.

You never saw the whole movie? Well, I guess it's not for everyone...but personally I think it's the greatest sci-fi film ever. As I said, I like the novel too, but I know Clarke isn't for everyone's tastes either.

Thanks MM. I have very on-again off-again feelings about Clarke...some things I like, some I don't, and some I only like sometimes. I don't make much effort to read and re-read his stuff as a result.

Sounds from your post that the movie and book were pretty much both in progress at the same time, which is quite interesting. I doubt that anything similar has ever been done.

Still, Kubrick's speciality was the never-before done and the undoable I guess.

Maybe it's time to revisit them both. the years may have provided a different perspective.

--A

Matrixman wrote:You never saw the whole movie? Well, I guess it's not for everyone...but personally I think it's the greatest sci-fi film ever. As I said, I like the novel too, but I know Clarke isn't for everyone's tastes either.

I've caught bits somewhat toward the end on TV in the past, but I've also yet to see the whole movie. Tried to last year, but after the first half hour I was so bored I had to stop. I'm sure it gets better from that point on, but the first part had such a bad effect on me I couldn't make myself wait and find out.

Heh, it's a great movie, but I fall asleep every time I put it on, somewhere right before the end, when he's in his little spaceship going faster and faster, which makes the clock go slower and slower, and.......Bam! Snoozeville for me.

dAN, the funny thing is, most people would say the stargate sequence was the most interesting part of the whole movie and skip right to it. I think every shot of the movie is mesmerizing, but that's just me.

No big deal, Murrin. I can handle it. You're not the first, and you won't be the last, who finds 2001 a bit too...deliberate in its pacing.

I'm just not sure that the movie would get any better from your perspective. I mean, there is more "action" with the apes in that first half hour than there is in the next hour and a half with the astronauts in space...