ShopDreamUp AI ArtDreamUp
Deviation Actions
I just watched the 2000 movie of Nightfall.
I went in optimistically. They put the right number of suns in the sky! The movie addressed at least some of Asimov’s ideas! The story, um, made sense!...well, at least up to a point.
But congratulations, Hollywood! For the second time, you managed to completely screw up adapting one of the greatest science fiction stories ever written. What’s the matter with these people? To me it’s astonishingly simple: STICK TO THE STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I understand that when you’re adapting a short story into a movie, you have to pad it out. I get that. But come on! The 1988 movie had the snake princess...now this version has people with Jedi powers? WHAT?!?!?! Look, just STICK TO THE STORY!
And the thing is, Asimov even made it easy for them. By the time this version was made, Asimov and Robert Silverberg had already expanded Nightfall into a splendid full-length novel. So if you need to mine for extra material to pad the story out, DUDE, pick up a copy of the novel!!! Is this really that difficult??
So I’m still waiting for a good film version of Nightfall. The tragedy is, done properly, Nightfall really would make a tremendous movie. I only fear that two lousy film versions have turned people off of that magnificent story.
I keep wishing I could consolidate the two films and get one halfway-decent adaptation out of them, but it’s just impossible. They both totally screwed the pooch.
I’m still trying to digest what I saw last night, but I’m thinking that even though this version was more faithful to Asimov’s story, I actually prefer the 1988 version. As bad as it was, and as much as it had NOTHING to do with the story, it had some sense of dramatic presentation. That film’s opening, showing a montage of the three-sun system, is (even though it’s the wrong number of suns) exactly the way a movie of Nightfall should open. If I were to make a movie of Nightfall I would start with a similar montage, but with six suns.
And the fact that the 2000 version was more faithful to the story is actually kind of a negative, because they do it so poorly. At least you can watch the ‘88 version and then go into the original story absolutely fresh. The 2000 version just ruins the story’s most dramatic moments.
Also, at least the ‘88 version had a sense of rising tension as the suns set. This version...boom. Night falls. I didn’t even realize there was only one sun left in the sky at that point in the movie. They did a very poor job conveying a sense of the impending darkness.
Both movies completely ruin the climactic moment when the Stars appear—but at least the ‘88 version delivers a tiny little bit of an emotional gasp when you see the stars. In the 2000 version the stars are just....there. Actually, a rather unconvincing painting of the stars are just there. Geez. The one moment I was hoping they would get right. The one moment!
However, it was nice to see that the 2000 version at least got some things right. They did a very good job conveying the people’s panic when they find themselves in darkness. And I really did like the “darklings,” people who have lived in the caverns in darkness since the last Nightfall. It’s an interesting concept, very true to the spirit of the story; just unfortunately the movie dropped the concept as soon as it was introduced.
If I were to do a film of Nightfall I would take all care that the suns are characters in the story. Don’t just superimpose six suns in the sky—make them each individual. Make them all a different size, color, and magnitude. Figure out the orbits and put them in the right place. In the original story, Asimov named the suns Alpha, Beta, Gamma, etc. In the novel, though, he wisely gave them more interesting names: yellow Onos, red dwarf Dovim, white binaries Trey and Patru, blue binaries Tano and Sitha. What a splendid stellar vista in which these characters live their lives, and how magnificent it would look on screen if done right. I remember how the novel absolutely arrested my attention with the first line: “It was a spectacular four-sun afternoon.” How I came to love that world.
And it amazes me that neither film includes the characters’ speculations about these mythical things called “Stars.”
Ah, well. The fact that there are two awful film versions doesn’t negate the existence of the original story—I can read it anytime I want to.
Happy Thanksgiving!
On this Thanksgiving I'm thankful to all my loyal readers who have kept Jack Abbott going for these past seventeen years. If it hadn't been for my wide readership sticking with me through all my ridiculous stories and terrible artwork, I would have abandoned this strip long ago. Knowing so many people are interested makes it worth the trouble of drawing each strip every morning and coming up with all the bizarre twists and turns that keep it going. So thanks to all of you!
Space missions I wish they would make into movies
APOLLO 16--Even though this was a successful Moon landing mission, I think it was eventful enough that, if done right, could be as exciting on screen as Apollo 13. We follow the astronauts' training, as we did in Apollo 13, and then the story of how the launch was scrubbed and the Saturn V rolled back to the pad because Charlie Duke got double pneumonia. Then the saga of the trip to the Moon, which is so exciting that it doesn't matter if we've seen it before, and the story of the oscillation in the command module that almost scrubbed the Moon landing. I could see some heart-pounding suspense as the Orion rendezvouses with Casper and we await the word--and a big sigh of relief when Mission Control says "Go!" We could get either suspense or humor--or both--in the story of Charlie Duke's helmet filling with orange juice during the landing. And of course the story of how John Young broke the lunar heat flow experiment would probably lead both to laughs and exasperation. On top of all
The Fall of the Ship of Reinhardt
Caution: spoilers abound! Sometime in 1980 or ’81—I can’t be sure of exactly when, but I do know it was between September of 1980, when I started First Grade, and April of 1981, when the Space Shuttle Columbia launched on its maiden voyage—I had one of the most formative experiences of my young life. My parents sat me down and explained to me what a black hole was (I’m sure their explanation was riddled with scientific errors, but I can no longer recall exactly what they said), and told me that there was going to be a movie on that night about a spaceship that gets sucked into a black hole. So, that night, we sat down and watched the amazing, astonishing, fascinating, hypnotizing Disney movie The Black Hole. There has been much criticism of The Black Hole over the years, and in my opinion all of it is unjustified. Some, notably Neil DeGrasse Tyson, have laid out the film’s scientific errors, and yes, those errors do exist, but in my opinion the scientific errors in The Black Hole
I don't understand the streaming phenomenon.
I grew up in the 1980s. From my early childhood to about 1984, the only way to watch something was in the movie theater or to catch it on television. I remember the palpable sense of excitement whenever Star Wars or Close Encounters of the Third Kind were shown on HBO. We would make popcorn and all gather in front of the TV, and it was an event. When V was on Thursday nights, or Battlestar Galactica on Saturday nights, we had to be there and tuned in or we'd miss them. If you missed an episode, well, you were out of luck. Tune in next week and hope you can catch up. Then my mother brought home an amazing new device: the VCR. With this miraculous machine, we could tape shows off of television. Even if we weren't home, we could set the device to tape them and we could watch them later. We could even keep them. We could put the tape on the shelf and watch it whenever we wished. Not only that, but there were stores where we could rent movies. From 1986 through 1989, I videotaped the
Featured in Groups
© 2014 - 2024 Jack-Abbott
Comments2
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
I couldn't agree more! I never saw "Nightfall" (either version) though -- I just assumed that it would suck, the same as "I, Robot" did. I'd heard a few years back that they were trying to develop Foundation into a movie. I was instantly excited, then just as instantly dubious. Asimov's stories, most especially the Robot mysteries and Foundation series, don't adapt well the Hollywood action movies. While you and I would like to see literal translations of them to the big screen, others would find them boring. Asimov's characters solved their issues and conflicts with brains and logic. I think the world could use a little more of that, eh?!