Environmentalism

It's About Zombies, Dummy, Not Global Warming

|

Critics are calling M. Night Shyamalan's new movie, The Happening–in which plants release toxins that cause Northeasterners to kill themselves–a dystopian vision of the consequences of global warming (as well as a terrible movie), but Shyamalan says that's not what The Happening is about:

CNN: So a lot of people are going to see this and say, "Is this an environment movie?" Are you sending an Al Gore-like message out here, or is it just a thriller?
Shyamalan: No. 1, it's a B movie. This is the best B movie you will ever see, that's it. That's what this is. If there's other things that stick to your ribs as you walk out, that's great, but it's supposed to be, you know, zombies eating flesh.
CNN: So when you say B, you don't mean honeybee?
Shyamalan: No, I meant like, you know, zombies and killer things running around.

James at Gone Elsewhere reviewed the script of The Happening in August 2007, calling it, "The Day after Tomorrow…with plants." Perhaps anticipating that moviegoers would interpret the movie as an enviro-film, Gone Elsewhere slammed The Happening's not-so-subtle approach to the possible consequences of humankind's footprint:

The Happening features the most moronic environmentalism in the history of cinema. It makes On Deadly Ground look like An Inconvenient Truth….The Kindergarten-level message of the film is that if Mankind continues to be cruel to nature…nature will eventually fight back. In case you miss this (despite having it sledge-hammered into your brain for two hours) don't despair: Shyamalan has characters spell-it-out for us throughout the proceedings.

The talking head scene at the end of the movie, in which an environmental expert explains the event as nature's way of defending itself and warns that the event was only a "prelude" to a more catastrophic attack, reinforces the critical sentiment that The Happening is a really, really, bad environmental movie.

But there are some aspects of the plot that suggest the environmental aspects are only a means for scaring us for the sake of scaring us, and not a strategy for raising environmental awareness.

I submit as evidence one of the movie's more explicit ironies: The few characters in the movie who are modeled after green freaks die horrible deaths. The greenhouse owner, who is the first character to suggest that it's not terrorists releasing the toxin, but plants, shoots himself, as does his equally earth-friendly wife. And the old lady who lives off the grid, grows her own crops, and doesn't own a car, ends up being bat-shit insane, killing herself by repeatedly headbutting the side of her earth-friendly house.

The two Philadelphia survivors–Mark Wahlberg's and Zooey Deschanel's characters–on the other hand, live to pollute another day, and the second to last scene of the movie shows Deschanel optimistically sharing the results of her positive pregnancy test with an equally joyful Wahlberg–which suggests that the two are bringing more rabid consumers into being. As if this wasn't enough, the final scene of the movie depicts the toxin infiltrating France, a country known for its environmentally-friendly regulations.

Here's a classic literature class question (posed to me by reason's very own green guru, Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey): Does the movie mean what the director says it means, or is it up to the critics to tell us what to take away from The Happening?

Check out Bailey's debate on Global Warming here and Tim Cavanaugh's comprehensive look at zombie cinema here.

NEXT: Does Too Much Data=Bad Predictions?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I just want to be the first to say Sham-a-la-long-ding-dong.

  2. the most moronic environmentalism in the history of cinema. It makes On Deadly Ground look like An Inconvenient Truth

    While On Deadly Ground is a real stinker, Seagal is in a worse movie with an enviromental element to it – The Patriot. Worst movie ever made.

  3. Umm, spoiler alert?

    Not that I care, I wasn’t going to see it anyway, but geez, you kinda a give away, well, everything.

  4. Umm, spoiler alert?

    Seriously… I’m glad you haven’t posted anything about a good movie with a surprise ending like Oldboy.

  5. That picture awakens in me more nostalgia for Night of the Living Dead than desire to see this movie. Is that wrong?

    Also, some people might interpret the idea that nature defends itself from pollution the “wrong” way. Doesn’t that imply that we can pollute all we want without worry, since nature can take care of itself like a southern girl?

    I submit as evidence one of the movie’s more explicit ironies: The few characters in the movie who are modeled after green freaks die horrible deaths.

    It’s like a Green Rapture.

  6. I really like this idea of environmentalists killing themselves for the sake of the planet.

  7. Maybe the point is that many B movies have horrible clunker environmental messages. I give you Mansquito, for instance.

  8. All of the characters in this movie annoyed the shit out of me.

  9. It’s an awful movie. Don’t see it. And I liked the rest of his movies.

    The concept is just dumb. Many parts of the Northeast have more trees now than they have had for years. As for plants in general, I think they would go after deer long before they go after humans.

    One of the worst movies I’ve ever seen.

  10. Oh, and the Einstein quote in the movie is a fraud. 20 seconds of research on Google to find that out.

  11. The National Review has what I thought was a pretty hilarious spoiler laden review of the movie here:

    http://www.tnr.com/booksarts/story.html?id=75893f9a-3391-4ab5-88c8-cf7e74bcd835

  12. ‘Love’ is what saves Marky Mark and Zooey, so the reason the environmentalists die is probably that they “hate humans”.

    Or something. It’s Shyamalan, expecting logical plots is a fool’s errand.

  13. Lisa: “The New Republic”

  14. The funny thing is, years ago I was toying with a short story with the same premise as this movie. Except my story was a dark comedy, and the “message” was that we should kill all of the trees before the trees kill us. (Also, my trees weren’t grown; they were built by elves.)

  15. I can’t believe that this movie could top The Day of the Triffids.

  16. I’m reminded of Harry Harrison’s “Deathworld“, which involves psionic plants and animals picking up bad vibes from humans and mutating with incredible speed to eliminate the threat. From the sounds of it, that story is much better than this movie.

  17. Pretty bad spoiler, but better than that Inside Washington Weekly podcast Weigel was a guest on last week. TNR’s Jamie Kirchick, in his end-of-podcast rant, said it was a movie with one of the worst moral messages he’s seen, but he can’t tell you why without spoiling it, so everyone listening would have to go see it to see why it is so unwatchable.
    Gak!!
    After reading how bad it is, I’m glad it’s been spoiled, it saved me a couple of hours of my life. Grow some bawz, Kirchick! No one who was listening to that podcast wants to see a whiny-ass Wahlberg lecturing them on being nice to trees, lest they kill us up. Better to have just not brought it up.

  18. Just another bush bashing movie.

  19. Thanks Reason, for just ruining the movie for me. Dumbazz

  20. Over at Pandagon, they are saying the movie is a Intelligence Design film. I guess the film is so bad that people of all political colors are playing hot-potato to what idiotic political message it is supposed to poorly represent.

  21. Just another bush bashing movie.

    I have no problem with this, on principle. One might say a movie was well or poorly made, but let it not be said it was terrible for shitting on the 2nd worst president in American history.

  22. Oh, yeah, Shyamalan, definitely not propaganda, you fucking jackass.
    Especially when people are dying in massive numbers, and the living walk by a real-estate sign that says, “YOU DESERVE THIS!
    It’s clear in the movie that this low-grade, bush-league director salivates at the thought of millions of people dying.
    M. Night Shyamalan showed some early promise (“Sixth Sense”) but it’s clear now that he’s utterly fucking incapable of making a good movie. I watched this piece of smoking dog flop and apologized to my wife immediately for taking her to it. Fucking worst movie in the last 15 years. I’d rather scrape the fossilized layer of shit out of my toilet bowl with my incisors than watch it again.
    Get the fuck out of the business, Shyamalan, you dick.
    You’re the new Goebbels of the enviro movement.
    And yes, that is a Godwin. So suck it.

  23. Annalee Newitz at io9 says it’s an ID movie. People need to agree on what sort of propaganda it is. Otherwise, I’ll be really confused if I watch it.

  24. “You’re the new Goebbels of the enviro movement.”

    But not really. The plants aren’t purging the plant-haters, they’re purging the haters, period.

    It’s not plant-love that saves you, it’s people-love.

    It’s incoherent.

  25. People viewing it through the lens of Signs, his only other mildly entertaining film besides The Sixth Sense, might jump to the ID conclusion.

    Or maybe this movie is just all things to all people (in a bad way).

  26. “Just another bush bashing movie.”

    “I have no problem with this, on principle.”

    You missed the joke entirely.

    Very clever Syd. I laughed.

  27. People viewing it through the lens of Signs, his only other mildly entertaining film besides The Sixth Sense, might jump to the ID conclusion.

    Seriously? I thought the only film of his that was watchable, especially more than once, was Unbreakable. Once you know the ending of Sixth Sense a second viewing is unbelievably tedious. The Village was cute but predictable and boring.

    I thought Signs was simply fucking terrible because it stretched the bounds of credibility to the point where an IDer would have to start believing in evolution to resolve the idiocy. I mean, aliens who are allergic to water landing on the fucking Earth? Without encounter suits? How did these retards ever even develop interstellar travel?

  28. You missed the joke entirely.

    No, I got it. Just wasn’t all that funny, so I straightmanned it for the stumping opportunity.

  29. Does the movie mean what the director says it means, or is it up to the critics to tell us what to take away from The Happening?

    The obvious answer is ‘neither.’ Anyone who interprets a movie based upon its director or critics has no business watching movies.

    As for the film in question, I think this is Shyamalan’s version of Starship Troopers.

  30. LMNOP, you need more cowbell irony/sarcasm in your straight man posts if you want to pull it off. You must craft them to make it unmistakable, if pointed to, that you did not if fact fall for it.

    M. Night is a shitty director. The one thing he can do well is “quiet” atmosphere. That can work, somewhat, for Unbreakable, and Sixth Sense worked if you didn’t expect a twist. Everything else he’s done is shit, shit, shit. Signs is dumber than shit.

    Just because a director showed promise doesn’t mean he needs to be taken seriously. Each movie must be judged on its own merits.

  31. LMNOP,

    I never saw Unbreakable. The only one I’ve seen twice is Signs. The Village and The Lady in the Water were just awful.

    On Signs, yeah, the water thing was pretty pathetic, especially since those difficulties could have been fixed quite easily, by making it some non-obvious but common chemical like alcohol. In fact, during the second viewing, when the Culkin kid is explaining the possible outcomes of the alien invasion, and he says “if they’re defeated, they return hundreds of years later,” I was muttering, “and this time they wear RAINCOATS!”

    But aside from that awful ending, as a whole the film was enjoyable.

  32. As for the film in question, I think this is Shyamalan’s version of Starship Troopers.

    Did you not get the Verhoeven take on this movie? He wasn’t trying to do Heinlein; he was doing Verhoeven. There’s a big difference. Watch Verhoeven’s early work and watch Total Recall again, and understand.

    Side note: first attached to Total Recall was David Cronenberg. I love Verhoeven’s version, but holy shit I’d love to have seen a Cronenberg mutation/mindfuck version.

  33. As for the film in question, I think this is Shyamalan’s version of Starship Troopers.

    In what way? Do you mean he’s actually imitating that story, or completely missing the point of an existing story like Verhoeven did with ST?

  34. Elemenope,

    Signs is the worst big budget release movie ever. And, even though I’m an atheist, God is portrayed as such an idiot in it, I actually feel bad for Him.

    Dry-clean only aliens land on Earth. God wants to help humans fight them off. So God kills Mel Gibson’s wife so she can deliver a cryptic message, fucks up Phoenix’s MLB career so he can swing a bat, and has Fanning set water glasses all over the place for months… all to get an alien wet. HOW ABOUT MAKING IT FUCKING RAIN?

    Dumbest. Movie. Ever. It made The Day After Tomorrow look like a work of sublime genius. At least you got to hope for a little while that wolves would tear Jake Gylllegenhooliewhatsit limb from limb.

    How a guy who made a movie featuring Rosie O’Donnell as a nun was ever allowed to make another film is beyond me.

    The Happening is also a retarded title.

  35. I think this is Shyamalan’s version of Starship Troopers.

    See, but I *liked* Starship Troopers. Thought it was fucking hilarious; a great send-up of those old WWII propaganda films. I don’t get my panties in a bunch about “pure translations of text to film” that so many sci-fi fans seemingly have a fetish for. Sure, Heinlein probably would have puked in his popcorn bag, but that’s him. Why should I care when the resulting movie is good clean wholesome fun? Heinlein as a rule I’d say is damn near impossible to translate to film anyway; too much long-winded political pomp/pedagogy.

    Then again I used to think the same of P.K. Dick, and yet it seems there’s a bloody cottage industry devoted to making (usually decent) films out of his short stories and novellas.

    LMNOP, you need more cowbell irony/sarcasm in your straight man posts if you want to pull it off. You must craft them to make it unmistakable, if pointed to, that you did not if fact fall for it.

    Noted for future reference. The Internet, as a medium, is a fickle bitch.

    …HOW ABOUT MAKING IT FUCKING RAIN?

    Full. Of. Win.

  36. Jamie Kelly, you should be a movie reviewer. Your profanity-laden tirades would offer a refreshing alternative to the populist analysis of Roger Ebert.

  37. I think the most generous (to M. Night Shamalan) interpretation is to consider this movie as a comedy.

    And the old lady who lives off the grid, grows her own crops, and doesn’t own a car, ends up being bat-shit insane, killing herself by repeatedly headbutting the side of her earth-friendly house.

    She was batshit insane to start, it just became more prominent later (or is that what you meant?).

  38. NutraSweet, you fuck, how dare you insult Roland Emmerich? Independence Day is one of the greatest movies of all time; Godzilla is awesome; and The Day After Tomorrow was brilliant dystopia. Have you zero taste? What the fuck?

    (LMNOP, this is how you do it)

  39. I thought this was the worst of the guys films. The characters were so gee-whiz good it bothered me.

    I liked Signs, Village and Lady in the Water (the latter had a very powerful performance by Giammati).

    Shymalan (or whatever it is) is not trying to make a film in which the supernatural/sci fi part is the central part. Obviously the aliens or the nymphs etc., are just there to help tell a human story. In Lady in the Water this community learns the strenght of its own community and the main guy gains some kind of redemption and healing at saving the nymph after he could not save his family. And it was a bold undertaking, to use film to create a bed-time story. Trying to critique the logic of the supernatural elements of the movie is missing th point, like saying “Hansel and Gretel is so fucking dumb, why didn’t they just mark the trees as they went by them rather than leave crums.” Ditto for Signs. I’m an atheist but Hollywood usully takes a unnuanced dump on religion and Signs dealt with it in a respectful but not over the top way. And the director has some courage too. An alien story in there are no army battling the aliens, death ray stuff. Instead everything takes place around this one families ordeal, and most of it is just waiting. That was cool.

  40. Epi,

    When we saw Godzilla we were in a mostly empty theater and the other two knots of people actually booed a few times. We started yelling out bits that were stolen from other movies. One of my favorite movie experiences.

    The other was when I fingerbanged your mom at The Departed.

  41. I’d rather scrape the fossilized layer of shit out of my toilet bowl with my incisors than watch it again.

    Now I’d go to the theater to see that….

  42. I liked Unbreakable best by far of all of his stuff. It is probably still one of my five or so favorite superhero movies ever – not as big an insult as it would have been mid-80s. I liked The Sixth Sense OK as well, though Andy Richter spoiled it for me.

    Signs was crap. The Village wasn’t miserably horrible, but it was pretty predictable. (The monster was very cool looking, though.) Lady in the Water was a mess.

    As far as this one goes, I think I’m done watching M.Night Shyamalan’s movies. I definitely know I’m done watching things starring that retard Wahlberg.

  43. OOPS fixed bad tag.

  44. Please no spoilers in the beginning of a H&R blog post. I expect to get a spoiler about an election race here, not a movie.

    Unbreakable is my favorite of M. Night’s work and I think The Village is a good flick as well. In Signs he did a good job of creating tension by not really showing the aliens until he needed to (the home video of the alien hiding in the bushes then emerging is an example of that), but he blew it on with the “Water Kills Aliens Good!” BS, though.

    I would mention Sixth Sense , but someone spoiled that for me as well, so the twist at the end had no meaning at all.

  45. This post and most of the comments remind me of the people who debated whether there were satanic messages backwards in Ozzy Osborne records in the 80s.

  46. It’s typical of Shyamalan the sense of self-importance that infused into his uniformly shitty movies that he thinks it impresses us admitting to what he considers slumming in the b-movie world. I’d trade even “The Beast of Yucca Flats” for this asshole’s entire work, or what he would love us to call his “oeuvre.”

  47. but someone spoiled that for me as well

    Man, either ya’ll take a long time to watch these movies or ya’ll know some real assholes.

    @joe: all in good fun?

    @bastard: “Sixth Sense” and “Unbreakable” were terrific and all this guy’s movies (that I’ve seen) have some redeeming qualities.

  48. Dry-clean only aliens land on Earth. God wants to help humans fight them off. So God kills Mel Gibson’s wife so she can deliver a cryptic message, fucks up Phoenix’s MLB career so he can swing a bat, and has Fanning set water glasses all over the place for months… all to get an alien wet. HOW ABOUT MAKING IT FUCKING RAIN?

    God ran 26 million simulations and this is the best set of initial conditions that worked. Remember, he’s responsible for the whole world, so while it may look totally arbitrary on a small scale, there was a reason for everything in the big picture. Maybe if the aliens had seen rain clouds on the way to Pennsylvania they would have landed in Utah or something.

    It’s like the traffic light down the street from my house. It goes like 15 minutes between greens, and there’s no turn on red. But I’m sure there’s a really good reason for it. I don’t question the engineer. Never do that.

  49. joe,

    Most of the comments have been about the relative merits of MNS’s various films. I don’t think anyone is taking any of the purported messages seriously.

  50. Chris Potter,

    If the reasons and explanations for everything were immediately obvious, then we wouldn’t have cinema. Or music or literature, or any other arts form, for that matter.

  51. Indeed, the only human pursuit would be engineering, and the whole race would die off quickly of despair.

  52. Sounds like a film Uwe Boll should have made. Too bad there was no shrubbery-genocide video game on the market.

  53. “Signs” was just stupid. Even aside from the whole water thing, you’ll never sell me on the idea that spacefaring aliens need to make crop circles in order to communicate/navigate their ships.

    In “Unbreakable”, the only way to make the plot work was by having a dimwit protagonist, otherwise he would’ve realized his powers years ago. Unfortunately, the dimwittedness was such a turnoff to me that it made the movie downright painful to watch.

  54. Chris,

    Quite a few people seem to be taking the possibility that there could be such a message seriously indeed.

    In at least one case upthread, to hilarious effect.

  55. Sounds like a film Uwe Boll should have made. Too bad there was no shrubbery-genocide video game on the market.

    Eerie that I knew who and what you were talking about. Almost as eerie as the fact that a man could direct “House of the Dead” and still be able to live with himself afterwards.*

    *And direct like, 4 more movies!

  56. I haven’t seen The Happening, but Mr. Nice Guy pretty much sums up my thoughts on Shyamalan. Anyone who takes Signs as a realistic simulation of alien invasion is missing the point entirely. For that matter, very few sci-fi classics would work if interpreted literally. Take Alien for example. Humanity has mastered the enormous technological challenges of interstellar travel, but they can’t stop a fucking dinosaur? Really? Of course, it wouldn’t be very scary if they could stop it easily, so they fight it with primitive flame throwers and cattle prods. But as long as you don’t take it too seriously, it’s still a pretty good movie. And so is signs, IMHO.

    Anyway, that’s my rant, which changes nothing. Good night 🙂

  57. Take Alien for example. Humanity has mastered the enormous technological challenges of interstellar travel, but they can’t stop a fucking dinosaur? Really? Of course, it wouldn’t be very scary if they could stop it easily, so they fight it with primitive flame throwers and cattle prods. But as long as you don’t take it too seriously, it’s still a pretty good movie. And so is signs, IMHO.

    Bad example. The Nostromo was not a military vessel. A 25th century *civilian* is gonna be just as pooped-pants-and-dead as a modern day one if faced by a sauric superpredator.

    Signs is a whole different class of stupid because it features aliens that are supposedly sentient and technologically advanced that are still so stupid that they need to make yard signs 100 ft. long in order to park their craft, and don’t know how to wear a raincoat.

  58. Yeah its a story about how love saves you and hate leads you to self-destruction. Clearly. The plants are just a literary device as are the suicides (self-destruction). Nothing to do with environemtalism at all unless we are talking about bad vibe pollution.

    Additional moral, naughty kids who disrespect property rights get deaded.

  59. Bluebook and hello nail it, and without my awful typing and grammatical errors…The Sci Fi/Fantasy elements of MNS work are plot devices, he’s aiming for some human story. He also often aims to work in things that are “archetypical” as mysterious parts of pop culture (comic books, the crop signs, the persistence of fairy tales, etc). This is I totally believe him when he says what he was going for in The Happening is to re-boot a B horror film. Something, whether it is zombies, the Blob, or killer plants, starts killing everybody and we are left with the story of a handful of people dealing with this, and of course through this, other issues. It’s just that in this film I found the issues to be weak (compare what the guy in Signs was wrestling with to what the man and woman in this film are wrestling with) and the dialogue was so hokey it was incredible.

    But, compare the overdone War of the Worlds with Tom Cruise to The Happenning. In many ways they are the same film. Awful calamity. Mankind on the ropes, maybe ending. We follow one family through it all. Speilberg has his family stumble into computer generated WWWIII battles and adventures. MNS has a much quieter, and in my opinion braver and more plausible telling.

    Enviromental issues become just the “explanation” for the calamity. Hell, he had to pick something. Do you think I am Legend was a commentary on the evils of viral research?

  60. joe, the irony is – you seeing a “debate” in these comments is parallel to those who see an environmental message in the Happening. It just isn’t there.

  61. Anyone who takes Signs as a realistic simulation of alien invasion

    I’m more willing than the next guy to suspend disbelief, but I need a little help from the director.

    Galactic-level stupidity doesn’t help on that front, and once the director/producer/author/performer pops you out of the suspension-of-disbelief spell, you get resentful, and start noticing every little flaw.

    The fundamental role of the people making a movie is to get you to suspend disbelief. If they fail at that, they’ve just failed. I find Shyamalan is very spotty on that essential task.

  62. I thought Signs was simply fucking terrible because it stretched the bounds of credibility to the point where an IDer would have to start believing in evolution to resolve the idiocy. I mean, aliens who are allergic to water landing on the fucking Earth? Without encounter suits? How did these retards ever even develop interstellar travel?

    I’m pretty sure that it wasn’t just water that killed them, it was “holy water.” For evidence, see the BS that Gibson’s character goes on about how his daughter seemed like an angel, and how she was constantly asking for glasses of water, and how the aliens also died “somewhere in the Middle East,” but nowhere else. The Middle East being where all pedestrain filmmakers think God lives, y’see.

  63. To me an “auteur” is someone who pretty much exclusively directs his or her own scripts.

    My Rule Of Auteurs:

    Most Auteurs suck to an unbelievable degree

    (e.g. Hal Hartley, Jim Jarmusch, M. Night Shyamalan, Robert Rodriguez, and, my nominee for worst filmmaker of all time, David Lynch).

    Good auteurs: Early Woody Allen, David Mamet… um… Quentin Tarantino up until Death Proof… I’m sure there are others…

  64. …Almost as eerie as the fact that a man could direct “House of the Dead” and still be able to live with himself afterwards.*

    One of the best lines from an IMDB review for Boll’s Alone in the Dark: “…it should have been called Alone in the Theater.

    Unfortunately, he’s still making movies.

  65. This was the worst movie i have seen in a long time! The actors were over the top (Marky Marks i’m-so-innocent-and-indecisive-please-help-me persona was puke inducing), the dialogue was horrendous, i thought a 9 year old had written the script and had the actors reading off of teleprompters, the story made no sense at all (maple, elm, oak, and grass all start to release the same toxin, come on…), even the cinematography was laughable (why do close up face shots every 5 damn seconds?), none of the characters were believable and i had trouble feeling empathy for any of them.

    Why do people keep giving Sham-alot money to make these pieces of crap films. the man made 1 good movie, just 1. Everthing after The Sixth Sense has bombed horribly (signs, the village, unbreakable, lady in the water, all of it is crap).

    To summarize, i hated this movie, and i saw it for free. Do not give this man your money please. It will only encourage him.

  66. Robert Rodriguez

    seriously? I liked Sin City, Planet Terror, the El Mariachi movies too…

  67. Do you think I am Legend was a commentary on the evils of viral research?

    Do not mention the Will Smithessess. I hatesses him and what he did to I am Legend.

    (For your information, the book is about one’s perceptions about the role you play in the world and how you can feel you are doing the right thing yet be considered a monster from another perspective)

    M. Night is too clever by half. He is covering his ass with the “B-movie reboot” comments because he has seen the critical reception of the movie, and some of you are buying his shit.

    Grindhouse is a B-movie reboot/nostalgia work. The Happening is not. I haven’t seen it yet but if I do I am sure I will be able to see tons of ripoffs of stuff like Romero’s The Crazies and John Christopher’s No Blade of Grass.

  68. Episiarch-

    It could have been worse, Have you seen The Omega Man? Charlton Heston fights ‘fro wearing albino zombie/mutant cultists…. nuff said.

  69. Uh, Steve, the Heston one is far better than Smith’s version. I was rewritten by Matheson to be a bit different than the book. It may be a bit 70’s-cheesy, but it has its moments.

    The Last Man on Earth with Vincent Price is probably the best interpretation of the book, and it has Vincent Price. But it still doesn’t really hit it properly.

  70. Steve | June 18, 2008, 8:50am | #

    Robert Rodriguez

    seriously? I liked Sin City

    Sin City and From Dusk Till Dawn, are the only two times I’ve ever sat in a theater, wanting to walk out, but being too paralyzed by disgust to do so.

    But I guess Tarantino wrote From Dusk Till Dawn, so that’s another strike against him. The trend seems to be that a pound of Tarantino and a pound of Rodriguez equals two pounds of Rodriguez.

  71. Hal Hartley? Really? Maybe I’m just strange, but I really liked The Book of Life and The Girl from Monday. The key is to not take the thing too seriously.

  72. I thought Omega Man was good.

    “my nominee for worst filmmaker of all time, David Lynch”

    Now you’ve gone too far. That guy is great.

    “I thought Signs was simply fucking terrible because it stretched the bounds of credibility to the point where an IDer would have to start believing in evolution to resolve the idiocy. I mean, aliens who are allergic to water landing on the fucking Earth? Without encounter suits? How did these retards ever even develop interstellar travel?”

    I know, and who would buy an ancient civilization with cuper advance science plowing over earth armies, but one that knew so little about bacteria and such that they landed on a planet deadly to them and on the verge of victory they all died from viruses and bacteria and such. Jesus, that would be a stupid story!

  73. The Last Man on Earth with Vincent Price is probably the best interpretation of the book, and it has Vincent Price. But it still doesn’t really hit it properly.

    Agreed.

    I’m just getting so tired of these people messing with good sci-fi novels to create horrible movies. I just expect them to be horrible at this point. Smith in Robot is a good example.

    And it wasn’t just the 70’s cheesiness that makes Omega Man so bad, it’s the Heston cheesiness as well, same reason i can’t get into Planet of the Apes(the first one, Roddy makes the sequels watchable) or Soylent Green, he was always such a ham.

    I think we can all agree though that Sham-a-lot is NOT the “Hitchcock of this generation”…

  74. The trend seems to be that a pound of Tarantino and a pound of Rodriguez equals two pounds of Rodriguez.

    I think they are both fantastic, but even still, lol, you are right on that one! They are better when they dont collaborate.

  75. I was rewritten by Matheson to be a bit different than the book.

    So was the Will Smith version. Just not as much. Going to a movie based on a book and complaining that the movie took liberties is like ordring salisbury steak and then complaining that you didn’t get filet mignon. True they’re both “steak,” but it was still rather naive of you to expect it, wasn’t it?

  76. Shem-

    it would be one thing if it was a good movie that differed from the good book that it was adapted from. No problems if they don’t synch up 100%. the problem is that just as a movie it is bad, the fact that it is adapted from a book that was actually good makes its worse.

  77. my nominee for worst filmmaker of all time, David Lynch

    This is ridiculous. Lynch is actually one of the best filmmakers around. His problem is when he directs his own scripts, which are hallucinogenic and are not intended to be viewed like a regular movie. This really turns people off, understandably (I do not much like his films in this style).

    But when he directs based on a script that is based on more…traditional notions of story and plot, he is amazing. Have you not seen The Elephant Man?

  78. Elemenope | June 18, 2008, 9:06am | #

    Hal Hartley? Really?

    Fay Grim was obviuosly an experiment to if the worst possible movie will render Jeff Goldblum unenjoyable. Conclusion: it won’t!

  79. Last Man on Earth suffered from the typical Corman “thousand dollar movie” budget. It was also hard to believe in Price’s marriage in the movie.

    As for Omega Man, if there were zombies created by biological warfare in the early 1970’s, many of them would have had ‘fros. But yeah, if you don’t like Heston, you’re probably not going to like Omega Man.

    I’m still waiting for the local library to get I Am Legend. I refuse to pay anything, even through Netflix, to see Smith.

    Episiarch, Steve – do either of you know anything about Soy Leyenda? It was made in Spain in 1967. I’ve been unable to find a copy.

  80. So was the Will Smith version. Just not as much. Going to a movie based on a book and complaining that the movie took liberties is like ordring salisbury steak and then complaining that you didn’t get filet mignon. True they’re both “steak,” but it was still rather naive of you to expect it, wasn’t it?

    Have you even read the book? “Taking liberties”? Are you fucking serious? Smith completely and utterly changed the entire fucking point of the book. He didn’t change it; he inverted it.

    Get serious.

  81. Episiarch, Steve – do either of you know anything about Soy Leyenda? It was made in Spain in 1967. I’ve been unable to find a copy.

    It’s basically impossible to get. I have connections for getting these types of movies and even they are no help.

  82. Episiarch | June 18, 2008, 9:14am | #

    …Have you not seen The Elephant Man?

    No, and I’ve actually heard it was good.

    But I’ve seen (as much as I could stand of) Blue Velvet, Lost Highway, and Mulholland Drive, all of which were aggressively, mind-blowingly unwatchable.

  83. Episiarch, Steve – do either of you know anything about Soy Leyenda? It was made in Spain in 1967. I’ve been unable to find a copy.

    If you ever do let me know, they dont have it anywhere in my state.

  84. Episiarch | June 18, 2008, 8:51am | #

    Do you think I am Legend was a commentary on the evils of viral research?

    Jeffrey Tucker of Lewrockwell.com tells us that I Am Legend is a commercial for Christianity.

  85. Considering Smith is a Scientologist, I doubt that.

  86. Have you even read the book? “Taking liberties”? Are you fucking serious? Smith completely and utterly changed the entire fucking point of the book. He didn’t change it; he inverted it.

    I have read the book, and still all I can say is “…and?” They decided that it would be more compelling on film if the movie played out the way that it did, so they changed it. You can argue that it maybe shouldn’t have carried the same name as the book, but saying that it was bad purely because it didn’t follow the plot of the book closely enough betrays an ignorance of how difficult it is to convert a book into a screenplay/movie.

  87. Like all his movies, if you dont see it opening weekend, you cant complain about spoilers. I stopped seeing his movies after going to Unwatchable opening weekend.

    And before some one tells me Im wrong about Unbreakable, no Im not.

  88. Episiarch- he has denied that. Don’t know if i believe him considering his sizable donations to scientologist private schools, but still…

  89. I’d have thought the one good thing about the Smith version is that it would have prompted someone to resurrect the Spanish version on DVD. Oh well, maybe at some point…

  90. but saying that it was bad purely because it didn’t follow the plot of the book closely enough betrays an ignorance of how difficult it is to convert a book into a screenplay/movie

    The movie is terrible because it’s terrible. Not following the book is bad enough, but neither did Omega Man. But if you are actually defending the movie as still being good while not following the book, you are delusional and should seek help.

    Converting a book into a screenplay is more or less difficult depending on the book. If you think it is always that difficult, it betrays not an ignorance but a lack of writing skill.

  91. how difficult it is to convert a book into a screenplay/movie.

    the difficulty involved is why not all books should be made into movies. Especially if the process involves keeping the same title while thrashing 90% of the story.

  92. I’ve sent an inquiry to the George Eastman House Film Preservation Center to see if they have a copy of Soy Leyenda. I’ll let you guys know what I find out.

  93. I’ll let you guys know what I find out.

    Really? Awesome!

  94. Lynch is actually one of the best filmmakers around.

    No one associated with this can ever be forgiven.

    Except Sting. But, really, who expected him to be any good anyway?

  95. anon | June 18, 2008, 8:11am | #

    joe, the irony is – you seeing a “debate” in these comments is parallel to those who see an environmental message in the Happening. It just isn’t there.

    Really?

    I’ll point you to Jamie Kelly at 8:13. I guess I just made that up.

  96. No one associated with this can ever be forgiven.

    Hater.

  97. robc – If you only saw the original theatrical version, the director’s cut was a lot more coherent.

  98. CHEW ON THE SCENERY HARDER, WALBERG! CHEW IT!

    No, no, you’re not chewing enough, look more confused and talk in a baby-talk voice to high schoolers and everyone else, especially your best friend. There you go, there you go, got it. Now, Zooey, just stand there staring vacantly and whine every now and again. No, no, not quite vacant enough. THERE YOU GO!

  99. No one associated with this can ever be forgiven. Except Sting. But, really, who expected him to be any good anyway?

    See? Fetish. (Comment @ 9:10 for reference).

    Besides, I’ve gone on to forgive Dean Stockwell, Patrick Stewart, and even Kyle MacLaughlin…fine actors, all. And once you move past the idea that it was based on a book, it was kinda fun.

    Shit, I’d forgot that Jose Ferrer and Brad Dourif were even in it. Two other awesome actors.

    For what it’s worth, the SciFi Channel version was much more true to the novel, and more technically adept besides, but it didn’t have the balls out verve that the David Lynch version had. I enjoy the SciFi channel version because the director seemed to understand that Dune is a better as a stage play than a movie and filmed it that way.

  100. CHEW ON THE SCENERY HARDER, WALBERG! CHEW IT!

    No, no, you’re not chewing enough, look more confused and talk in a baby-talk voice to high schoolers and everyone else, especially your best friend. There you go, there you go, got it. Now, Zooey, just stand there staring vacantly and whine every now and again. No, no, not quite vacant enough. THERE YOU GO!

    LMAO, Thats the movie in a nutshell.

  101. The movie is terrible because it’s terrible.

    Agreed, it’s a bad movie.

    Not following the book is bad enough

    But this is where we disagree. There’s nothing inherently bad about a screenplay not following a movie.

    Converting a book into a screenplay is more or less difficult depending on the book. If you think it is always that difficult, it betrays not an ignorance but a lack of writing skill.

    So, how many times have you done it?

  102. If you only saw the original theatrical version, the director’s cut was a lot more coherent.

    I agree. I couldnt follow the story in the original, and Im a huge fan. The director’s cut didnt improve my view of Lynch. I just ignore the existence of the original anyway. If the director’s cut is the best you can do with the best sci-fi novel ever, then you suck as a director.

    LOTR had to be ripped apart to make movies, but Peter Jackson still made 3 damn good movies.

  103. Just got back a book that had been sitting on a friend’s bookshelf for a few years. Reread it. So, anyone know a director with the balls to make The Integral Trees into a movie?

    It should be relatively cheap. No sets, no onsite. Whole thing I think would be filmed in front of a blue screen with actors hanging on strings. I guess there would be a few sets, but no need to ever leave the studio, I dont think.

  104. So, how many times have you done it?

    2 short stories and 1 novel, but to no avail since I couldn’t get the original author to give me the rights.

    But you see, I picked stuff that was easy to turn into a screenplay, as the author’s writing style was extremely cinematic.

  105. LoTR was an achievement, but the one thing that consistently annoyed me were the repeated Kodak moments in the films. Ok, they really love each other, we get it. Please move on. The slash fic potential for movies with that much male bonding is incredible, I’m sure.

  106. When “Dune” came out, I saw a review in some science fiction mag where the reviewer’s first two sentences were something like “Dune is a gawdawful movie. I loved it”.

    He then proceeded to explain that the movie did a great job of showing the key scenes of the book etc., but the problem was that it would be incomprehensible to anyone who hadn’t read the book beforehand (e.g. “What’s with all these witches named Benny?”)

  107. Steve,

    I don’t know if they can reproduce it for us, even if they have it. They are fairly strict on copyright. I’ve been needing to write them any to inquire about a copy of La Citt? dell’ultima paura anyway.

  108. Dune was the first movie adaptation that bitterly disappointed me. I was 14. That movie broke my heart.

  109. 2 short stories and 1 novel, but to no avail since I couldn’t get the original author to give me the rights

    But you see, I picked stuff that was easy to turn into a screenplay, as the author’s writing style was extremely cinematic.

    And you still say it was easy? Wait, do you mean easy in the sense of “easy to have something that sparkles while remaining a faithful adaptation” or easy in the sense of “not challenging to carry out the work involved in adaptation?” Because I can agree with the former, but if it’s the later, you’re either some kind of genius or are bullshitting these fine people.

  110. Dune was the first movie adaptation that bitterly disappointed me. I was 14. That movie broke my heart.

    I hadn’t read Dune yet at that point. For me, the first bitter disappointment was The Black Cauldron. Fuckers. At least Lynch tried, quite hard.

  111. I too would have liked a “spoiler alert” warning. I tore my eyes away when I realized you were basically going to give away the whole plot of the movie, but not before I saw something along the lines of “plants release toxins.”

  112. SciFi Dune? Fuck that shit.

    The Sardaukar are wearing jodhpurs and berets. They are supposed to be Galactic-wide terror troops and they’re dressed like French waiters at a dressage event.

    Lynch had them in hazmat suits, which was also fairly retarded, but at least they had an air of mystery.

  113. Because I can agree with the former, but if it’s the later, you’re either some kind of genius or are bullshitting these fine people.

    There is a third option: that you are a shitty writer, or at the very least not skilled at adaptation, or choosing sources for adaptation.

  114. There is a third option: that you are a shitty writer, or at the very least not skilled at adaptation, or choosing sources for adaptation.

    Well, no reason *that* couldn’t coexist with you attempting to BS people. So hey, maybe we’re both right!

  115. They are supposed to be Galactic-wide terror troops and they’re dressed like French waiters at a dressage event.

    When you are as hardcore as the Sardaukar were, you can dress like that. It adds to the mystique. “You got your asses kicked by people dressed like WHAT!”

  116. Epi,

    I tried reading Dune when I was ten and it broke my brain 5 pages in. I picked it back up when I heard the movie was being made. Actually made it though the rest of them, much to my disappointment.

    Anyway, anyone interested in Soy Leyenda, drop me a note at the link in my name and I’ll write you back off list with what I find out.

  117. “You got your asses kicked by people dressed like WHAT!”

    Good point.

    Epi,

    Black Cauldron? You got a book you like Disney-fied? Poor bastard.

    Anyone want to play first SF novel?

    Starman Jones by Heinlein

  118. Anyone want to play first SF novel?

    Shit, I can’t remember that. It might have been Asimov’s Elijah Bailey series.

  119. Believe it or not, my first SF novel was A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court by Twain. Dune was second.

  120. I had a wonderful school librarian who parlayed my interest in Star Wars to a life-long SF obsession with 5 of the Heinlein juveniles. The public library supplied me with the rest and I wandered over the adult section when I ran out. This is how I wound up reading Time Enough For Love when I was 9.

  121. can’t remember my first sci-fi novel, i’ve been reading them from the Young Adult section of my library since i was 8, the book A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L’Engle comes to mind.

    I think my first real adult sci-fi novel was Rendezvous with Rama by Clark.

  122. On the subject of all this…

    I just bought this for $20 bucks at Best Buy. Has both Last Man on Earth and Last Woman on Earth. Last Woman is a Corman quickie rip-off of The World, The Flesh, and The Devil scripted by and starring Robert Townsend (the screenwriter of Chinatown.)

    Tons of other great stuff too. Sorry to sound like an ad.

  123. I just bought this for $20 bucks at Best Buy.

    Titles include:

    Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde starring John Barrymore
    Blue Beard starring John Carradine
    The Corpse Vanishes starring Bela Lugosi
    Night of the Living Dead starring Judith O’Dea
    Doomed to Die starring Boris Karloff
    The Phantom of the Opera starring Lon Chaney, Sr.
    The Indestructible Man starring Lon Chaney, Jr.
    The Hunchback of Notre Dame Lon Chaney, Sr.
    Nosferatu starring Max Schreck
    Swamp Women starring Mike Connors
    The World Gone Mad starring Pat O’Brien
    The Little Shop of Horrors starring Jack Nicholson
    Tormented starring Richard Carlson
    The Monster Walks starring Rex Lease
    Monster from a Prehistoric Planet starring Tamio Kawaji
    The Gorilla starring The Ritz Brothers
    A Shriek in the Night starring Ginger Rogers
    Bloodlust starring Robert Reed
    The Amazing Mr. X starring Turhan Bay
    Last Woman on Earth starring Robert Towne
    The Bat starring Vincent Price
    The House on Haunted Hill starring Vincent Price
    The Last Man on Earth starring Vincent Price
    Dementia 13 starring William Campbell
    Phantom from 10,000 Leagues starring Kent Taylor
    Carnival of Souls starring Candace Hilligoss
    Atom Age Vampire starring Alberto Lupo
    Creature from the Haunted Sea starring Robert Towne
    Nightmare Castle starring Barbara Steele
    Black Dragons starring Bela Lugosi
    Invisible Ghost starring Bela Lugosi
    One Body Too Many starring Bela Lugosi
    White Zombie starring Bela Lugosi
    Attack of the Giant Leeches starring Ken Clark
    The Screaming Skull starring John Hudson
    Beast of Yucca Flats starring Tor Johnson
    The Terror starring Boris Karloff
    Revolt of the Zombies starring Dean Jagger
    The Giant Gilla Monster starring Don Sullivan
    The Fatal Hour starring Boris Karloff
    Dead Men Walk starring George Zucco
    The Mad Monster starring George Zucco
    Maniac starring Bill Woods
    Metropolis starring Gustav Frolich
    The Vampi

    Good Find!

  124. Hmm, some interesting titles in that, NutraSweet, but my burning hatred of 4:3 aspect ratio might stop me from buying it.

    Have you watched Hammer’s Frankenstein series with Peter Cushing as Herr Dr. Frankenstein? Great stuff, especially Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed.

  125. Ugh, First?

    I know A Wrinkle in Time was early, but it wasnt first. I read a lot of fantasy earlier than that: Narnia, The Book of the Dun Cow (still a favorite).

    Possibly, The White Mountains, but Im sure it wasnt the very first.

  126. I read a lot of fantasy earlier than that

    Same here, i was in love with the Redwall series by Brian Jacques.

  127. still in love with the series actually, just a little too old now…

  128. Epi,

    Most of those films were originally made in the 4:3 ratio, they don’t exist as widescreen. 16:9 was just a way to compete with TV in the 50s.

    All the Hammer stuff is good, I gorged on them when a local TV station ran almost all of them late night during the 80s.

    Nightmare Worlds looks good too… Of course, I was just really after a copy of Last Woman. Tales of Terror, too. Imagine, your very own copy of Manos!

    The Ape Man
    The Bat
    Bowery at Midnight
    The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
    Chloe, Love is Calling You
    Condemned to Live
    Crimes at the Dark House
    The Crimes of Stephen Hawke
    Crypt of the Living Dead
    The Curse of Headless Horseman
    The Demon Barber of Fleet
    The Devil Bat
    Devil Monster
    Devil’s Daughter
    The Devil’s Messenger
    Devil’s Partner
    Louisiana
    The Manster
    Midnight Shadow
    Murder in the Red Barn
    The Night Evelyn Came Out of Her Grave
    Night Fright
    One Frightened Night
    Phantom Creeps (feature)
    The Phantom of Soho
    Rogues Tavern
    The Sadist
    Scared to Death
    She Beast
    Shock
    Sound of Horror
    A Strange Adventure
    Tales of Frankenstein
    Teenage Zombies
    Terror Creatures from the Grave
    Torture Ship
    Vampire Happening
    Vampires Night Orgy
    A Walking Nightmare
    Werewolf of Washington
    The White Gorilla
    The Ghost Walks
    The Head
    I Eat Your Skin
    Ironbound Vampire
    The Island Monster
    It’s Never Too Late to Mend
    The Long Hair of Death
    Man with Two Lives
    Manos: The Hands of Fate

  129. “But when he directs based on a script that is based on more…traditional notions of story and plot, he is amazing. Have you not seen The Elephant Man?”

    Tru dat.

    I think when he does his own vision the results can be so idiosyncratic and solipstic as to be terrible (Inland Empire) or great (Blue Velvet). I liked Blue Velvet, it was one of the best of his “woman in trouble” films. I liked the over-the-top sweetness and innocence of many of the characters because the main character provided the bridge between such character’s and the Hopper character who was like pure evil. We’ve all got a little bit of both in us and kind find both archetypes interesting…

    I thought the Will Smith film was just calculated box office stuff, ho hum but no worse than anything else in that category. When they try to appeal to a very broad audience artistic concerns go out the f*cking window…

  130. Tales of Terror, too.

    Oh shit, that has The Sadist. Great stuff.

  131. Never before a motion picture Rampacked with… Suspense… Terror… Sudden Shock, as The SADIST

    “Rampacked”? I don’t even want to know.

  132. You need to get some Abominable Dr. Phibes and The Conqueror Worm too.

  133. Most Auteurs suck to an unbelievable degree

    (e.g. Hal Hartley, Jim Jarmusch, M. Night Shyamalan, Robert Rodriguez, and, my nominee for worst filmmaker of all time, David Lynch).

    Dude has no taste.
    At least he wears that on his sleeve.

    M Night is the only one on this list who deserves any disrespect (Unbreakable is great, Signs is a good representation of the weeks after 9/11 and how people (don’t) react to events that are bigger than they are.

    LMNOP,

    Hal Hartley is consistently one of the funniest directors out there. People who don’t get that will hate his movies.

  134. Even if plants were really aware of anthropogenic global warming, and had the power to stop it … why would plants be opposed to higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2? Plants like CO2. Why would they want to kill humans for putting CO2, the sine qua non of photosynthesis, into the atmosphere? That isn’t even trying to make sense.

  135. Hal Hartley is consistently one of the funniest directors out there. People who don’t get that will hate his movies.

    Saw The Unbelievable Truth on Cinemax in 1990 and have been hooked ever since. Poor Adrienne Shelley, what a hard way to go out.

  136. He then proceeded to explain that the movie did a great job of showing the key scenes of the book etc., but the problem was that it would be incomprehensible to anyone who hadn’t read the book beforehand (e.g. “What’s with all these witches named Benny?”)

    I agree that some of the key scenes were rendered beautifully.

    The real problem, however, was that if you had read the book it was an incomprehensible jumble because he added nonsensical plot changes and made such odd choices of what scenes to include (maybe it was worse if you hadn’t read it, who knows).

    And the things he decided to change were all bad choices…every single one.

  137. A comment on Signs:

    The “water kills the aliens” thing was a direct allusion to two previous movies in the genre: War of the Worlds and Day of the Triffids.

    People who found it hard to suspend their disbelief for the film are missing what M.Night was doing. He was taking the ridiculous beliefs expressed in much of the UFO community and treating them seriously…it’s not like he came up the ideas of crop circles as navigation aids, for instance.

    Back in the day when I toyed with becoming a screen-writer I wrote an outline of a story whose main character got all his news from Weekly World News. In order to work, you would have to depict a world in which the stuff WWN published was manifest and common place. To faithfully represent the characters world view. Signs and most of M.Nights films attempt this level of analysis. His films start with “what if that idea were real? How would that work if real people were involved?” He fails more often than he succeeds, but he doesn’t deserve criticism for what he is trying to do, just whether or not he pulls if off.

  138. NM

    maybe it was worse if you hadn’t read it, who knows

    I do! I had friends who hadnt read it and it was far worse for them than for me. They had no clue at all what was going on.

    The one advantage of the director’s cut is that at least the story is somewhat coherent.

  139. I wrote an outline of a story whose main character got all his news from Weekly World News.

    You wrote Men in Black? 🙂

  140. People who found it hard to suspend their disbelief for the film are missing what M.Night was doing.

    He asks us to suspend it a little too much and a little too often, that’s why his movies bomb, because outside of his world none of the logic in his movies hold up.

    “but it makes sense if you close your eyes and pretend people really would behave that way in that situation, maybe, if you just don’t think about it then the story makes sense”

    give me a break. He tries way too hard.

  141. You wrote Men in Black?

    Nah, my story was just about a guy who worked as a janitor, had very few friend…more of a Hal Hartley vibe than Will Smith.

    I did, however, write a draft for Jason Vs. Freddy a full decade or more before it came out. My version was much better…;^)

  142. >Good auteurs: Early Woody Allen, David
    >Mamet… um… Quentin Tarantino up until
    >Death Proof… I’m sure there are others…

    Two words: Cohen Brothers

  143. 2 short stories and 1 novel, but to no avail since I couldn’t get the original author to give me the rights

    So, in other words, you have done it a total of ZERO times successfully.

    Making a personalized claim that “it is easy if you choose the write source material” requires that you have actual taken a book, adapted it into a screenplay… and then into a movie…otherwise you are just talking out your ass.

    I mean come on…

  144. um “actually”

  145. This movie wasn’t about global warming, and it wasn’t about environmental hysteria, either. It was about the anti-human philosophy that drives the whole of the Ecology movement. Check out my blog post on it if you want to know more about it.

  146. Neu Mejican,

    Nah, my story was just about a guy who worked as a janitor, had very few friends

    You might be able to re-write it as an adaptation of Philip K. Dick’s Confessions of a Crap Artist. It’s been filmed already in France as Barjo, but PKD movies are a hot property right now.

  147. Barjo is a nice example of a good adaptation.

    I would think Radio Free Ablemuth would be the PKD movie to do.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.