WetGeek I don't believe in these figure things, this is just bullshit imho. A book could take 5 pages to describe a landscape or 15 pages to describe a scene that will last just 1 or 2 seconds in the movie. It's all about translating the athmosphere, feelings, the message of the author. Nothing else matter. Trying to do a one-to-one mapping will lead to a fail for sure. Personally I don't care if the director drops elements or add some in his/her movie... These things are just for fanboys/fangirls that will anyhow always find something to complain about.
The books are full of dialogs, it looks like there are very few in the movie which personally which I think is positive because the movie will focus on the athmosphere.

I regert I couldn't read the books before watching the movie (I won't wait) because I prefer not knowing the storyline and the main events but also and that's the most important because my imaginary is then influanced by what I saw in the movie. I think I'll wait a couple of decades before reading the books... Anyway I don't have the time now. Too many things in which I am involved... Even on Solus I had to slow down...

      kyrios It's all about translating the athmosphere, feelings, the message of the author. Nothing else matter.

      Pretty much. That's where a director comes in. No matter what a director is doing he/she is reinventing the author. Will he/she please everyone who read the book? There is no chance at all for that. edit: like wetgeek said, I can appreciate them both if they give me something to appreciate. No expectations of faithfulness on my end.

      kyrios . Personally I don't care if the director drops elements or add some in his/her movie... These things are just for fanboys/fangirls that will anyhow always find something to complain about.

      If the Mel Gibson/George Miller Max trilogy began as a series of books then that whining fanboy would probably be me🙂.

          brent you know the second two weren't as good as the first one

          The first one was awesome! The other two are mediocre imho, I was expected much more from the sequels back then.

              brent my expectations are still low even after this (rather cool) trailer...

              brent I got a good feeling about this one.

              You reminded me about Bing-bong 😿

                    Solarmass from a pixbar fan wiki website:
                    "Bing Bong was Riley's imaginary friend that existed within her mind. He was created by her when she was three. As a result, he was somewhat naive in both his appearance and personality. For instance, he does not know how to read everything. Bing Bong's body is mainly made of cotton candy. Shape-wise, he was part cat for the tail and whiskers, part elephant for his trunk and ears, and part dolphin, though the latter is not so obvious. He cried candy when he was sad. "
                    Sad indeed. I've had mornings like this.

                        7 days later

                        Solarmass Well I didn't wait those 13 hours for that countdown. I went about my life and a week passed-------
                        ------saw this for the first time last night. And again tonight. Not sure of the premise it looks like they both got reinjected back into the matrix semi amnesiac(?) to be working shleps like us all and don't know each other kind of. Either way
                        PSYCHED.
                        What a trailer. Grace f-ing slick White Rabbit with no Jefferson Airplane and instead a bad as* techno/string hurricane of sound behind her wild voice? WOW,
                        won't be rushing to the theater with a KN95 mask but one way or another I will see this!

                          Gattaca: A great example of what I call "Humanist sci-fi." It doesn't highlight, or even feature any of the whiz-bang, techie stuff that many would normally associate with the genre. Instead the focus is on the social and personal ramifications of genetic engineering becoming common place. An additional plus would be that the movie does this without immediately resorting to depictions of dystopia and sanctimony.

                            stream26 "Humanist sci-fi."

                            Love that moniker and love the cerebral films that have no bells, whistles, guns, crap blowing up. (not saying bells whistles guns and crap blowing up is bad in any way🙂).
                            It's got to have a taut psychological angle, not necessarily a morality play to make my day. I'd stick 2001 in that category as well. Nolan's Memento as well (its guns were barely noticed). Michael Clayton too. Dig it.

                            edit: you put gattaca on my to-see radar

                                6 months later

                                Did anyone see the last Matrix movie? Seemed to disappear in thin air after release?
                                Care to review, mini-review, or describe in a sentence?
                                (I trust y'all more than I trust a random reviewer..)
                                Graci--

                                  brent I am waiting patiently too. ... , I heard it was good, but from where, who did I hear such news. You know what I have come to despise after all these years, .. trailers !! just show us the movie .

                                  I do trust you used your best Smith voice. 🤣

                                    Lots of good suggestions here, but sadly not much love for the classics. Here are a few to consider::
                                    The Day The Earth Stood Still -1951,
                                    The Thing From Another World - 1951,
                                    The War of the Worlds - 1953,
                                    Them! - 1954,
                                    Forbidden Planet - 1956,
                                    The Blob - 1958,
                                    The Fly - 1958
                                    and Planet of the Apes - 1968
                                    This one's also a bit newer, but it belongs on everyone's list: 2001: A Space Odyssey - 1968.
                                    Honorable mention goes to The Twilight Zone - '59-'64 and The Outer Limits - '63-'65.

                                      Recently watched matrix resurrection and found not interesting and good..... Looks over-thrown...

                                        WetGeek
                                        I thought about adding the classic "mad doctor films," such as Frankenstein, The Invisible Man and Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, but these are typically considered to be horror films. I suppose they could go either way, because The Fly and X: The Man With X-Ray Eves are also essentially mad doctor films. There aren't any mad doctors (the science element of sci fi) involved in The Mummy, The Wolf Man, Dracula and (a personal favorite growing up) The Creature from the Black Lagoon. Where do you draw the line?

                                        Any way, special effects aside, they don't make 'em like they used to, eh?

                                        EDIT: Oh, and how about King Kong and the original Japanese version of Godzilla? Do these count as sci fi? They are classics, none the less!