
fantastic planet
i have it in my possession now, and im waiting for the right moment to watch cause it looks life changing.

Can also recommend Iain M. Banks - have only read The Player of Games, but it's incredible, and so is his fiction he writes as Iain Banks.karmacazee wrote:Not too sure what's going on entirely, but I still quite like it.
I have The Player of Games on my shelf but haven't got round to it yet. Brazil is an amazing film.spooKs wrote:Yeah I never got into it even though my brother is a fiend for it. My attempts to start moving on my dissertation, on 20th century fiction about Dystopian futures has jolted me into it though - I just read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (filmed as Blade Runner) and now likewise, I'm reading William Gibson's Neuromancer, and I agree with you:Can also recommend Iain M. Banks - have only read The Player of Games, but it's incredible, and so is his fiction he writes as Iain Banks.karmacazee wrote:Not too sure what's going on entirely, but I still quite like it.
Bandshell just noticed you cited these
Gonna read Farenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury and then leave off the possible texts cause I could just read all year and not write anything or refine my question - my current shortlist is George Orwell's 1984, Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, Margaret Atwood's A Handmaid's Tale, Farenheit 451, A Clockwork Orange, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, and Neuromancer. Need to choose a maximum of 4 to study them in depth I think![]()
As for films, no one's mentioned Brazil!
Neuromancer as well: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1037220/August 21, 2007 Commercial director Joseph Kosinski will make his directorial debut on the sci-fi thriller, which is being written by Tim Sexton. "Logan's Run" is best remembered as the 1976 film starring Michael York, Jenny Agutter and Farrah Fawcett, though it was based on a 1967 novel by William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson. While details of the new take are being kept mum, it is known that it will be low-tech science fiction in a futuristic setting and hew closer to the book than the 1976 movie.
nowaysj wrote:I wholeheartedly believe that Michael Brown's mother and father killed him.
Iain M Banks's books are amazing - I'm half-way through "Matter" at the moment, and he's still got it. It's about 10 years since I read Player of Games, but remember it being awesome.spooKs wrote:
Can also recommend Iain M. Banks - have only read The Player of Games, but it's incredible, and so is his fiction he writes as Iain Banks.
manillathrilla wrote: the breakup
Magma wrote: SNH is a genuinely necessary part of making sure I don't murder everyone in the building whilst muttering Flow Dan lyrics.
badger wrote:The panda's problem isn't man. The panda's problem is that it's utterly shit
Great book. Read it if you haven't.Hothouse (1962) Set in a far future Earth, where the earth has stopped rotating, the Sun has increased output, and plants are engaged in a constant frenzy of growth and decay, like a tropical forest enhanced a thousandfold; a few small groups of humans still live, on the edge of extinction, beneath the giant banyan tree that covers the day side of the earth.
I really want to see this..ehcsztein wrote: Moon
nowaysj wrote:I wholeheartedly believe that Michael Brown's mother and father killed him.
You still haven't???magma wrote:I really want to see this..ehcsztein wrote: Moon
That's interesting, what do you mean by not-quite-so-old, 5-10 years old or 20-30? I like sci-fi lit but I pretty much ONLY read older stuff, as in stuff from before 1980, although I'll go for almost anything written since the late 1800s... not really drawn to newer material for some reason.kay wrote: I've been picking up some older stuff recently. I find that the not-quite-so-old stuff hasn't really aged well. The really old classics though seem to have fared much better.
LOL not-quite-so-old to me is stuff from about 70s-80s, maybe a bit of 60s. Really old stuff is anything 60s and older. Some early sci-fi really is quite impressive and it's quite obvious how later writers have built on their concepts and structures.cr1tt3r wrote:That's interesting, what do you mean by not-quite-so-old, 5-10 years old or 20-30? I like sci-fi lit but I pretty much ONLY read older stuff, as in stuff from before 1980, although I'll go for almost anything written since the late 1800s... not really drawn to newer material for some reason.kay wrote: I've been picking up some older stuff recently. I find that the not-quite-so-old stuff hasn't really aged well. The really old classics though seem to have fared much better.
Gotcha, totally agree about the early sci-fi comment, some amazingly forward thinking and creative writers from the days of old, makes we wonder what contemporary stuff will set the stage for future trends of the genre... any suggestions for a post 1990 "classic" that rivals the old masters? I'd love to get over my prejudice regarding new sci-fikay wrote:LOL not-quite-so-old to me is stuff from about 70s-80s, maybe a bit of 60s. Really old stuff is anything 60s and older. Some early sci-fi really is quite impressive and it's quite obvious how later writers have built on their concepts and structures.cr1tt3r wrote: That's interesting, what do you mean by not-quite-so-old, 5-10 years old or 20-30? I like sci-fi lit but I pretty much ONLY read older stuff, as in stuff from before 1980, although I'll go for almost anything written since the late 1800s... not really drawn to newer material for some reason.
Has Wells been authorizing shit from the grave again!? Can't hold a good man down!kay wrote:He's also written a sequel (and I believe it's fully authorised) to H G Wells' Time Machine.
Yeah those damned time travellers!cr1tt3r wrote:Has Wells been authorizing shit from the grave again!? Can't hold a good man down!kay wrote:He's also written a sequel (and I believe it's fully authorised) to H G Wells' Time Machine.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests