Customer Discussions > science fiction discussion forum

If you were a sci-fi character, who would you be ?>


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 83 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 5 Mar 2012 23:02:09 GMT
If you could be any character in any sci fi production, TV, Movie, Novel etc - who would you like to be ??

Posted on 6 Mar 2012 01:19:00 GMT
For me it's a toss up between Bijaz or Chani from the Dune series.

Posted on 6 Mar 2012 03:24:54 GMT
Anita says:
I honestly tried to think of some answer... and still I don't think I'd like to be anybody else but good old humble me. No one is intelligent/beautiful/happy (etc) enough for me to want to fill his/hers/it's boots :)

If you asked what fictional character I'd like as a friend, it would be way easier to answer

Posted on 6 Mar 2012 08:59:48 GMT
[Deleted by Amazon on 27 Aug 2012 15:28:31 BDT]

Posted on 6 Mar 2012 09:07:34 GMT
Cartimand says:
The traveller in H G Wells' Time Machine. I remember watching the movie (obviously the 1960 original, not the shabby 2002 remake) as a young boy and it really fired my imagination. Listened to the audio book recently too and it truly is a timeless classic.

Posted on 6 Mar 2012 09:33:53 GMT
Ken O'Neill says:
Aineko, from Charles Stross' Accelerando. The character is an artificial intelligence which uses a cat avatar. Need I explain further?

Posted on 6 Mar 2012 10:09:20 GMT
fairy queen says:
Ripley. Strong,intelligent,kick-ass and sexy without the need to be half naked.Ultimate female icon.

Posted on 8 Mar 2012 14:00:26 GMT
Jim Chaseley says:
Takeshi Kovacs.

Posted on 8 Mar 2012 14:03:04 GMT
Menolly

Posted on 8 Mar 2012 15:45:31 GMT
Alien Girl says:
Female version of Scorpius.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Mar 2012 16:50:38 GMT
Mr T J Clark says:
Good answer! I was once asked what 3 powers I'd choose, if I could. I replied 'High speed flight (much faster than any airliner), invulnerability, and invisibility'. I could fly anywhere, wear a superhero costume and tackle crime, and not be seen'. However, I've reconsidered.

Fly anywhere? I'd need to navigate... need friction proof clothing able to withstand such speeds... have to avoid any run in with any police force of whatever country I land in (tricky, if I help prevent a crime, unless I stay invisible), having them view my passport would be interesting ('and just what flight did you arrive on sir... may we see your flight tickets?' etc)...

But the big problem? Invulnerability. True invulnerability would mean that none of my body cells could be damaged... like 'Highlander', I'd never age... I'd have to make up a new ID every 80 years or so. And have to watch my family (son, daughter, grand-children) all die of old age. That last one is a pretty appalling thought... without the invulnerability, no high speed flights.

I also know myself too well. No matter how noble my aims, with those God-like powers I'd eventually become a sort of dark angel passing judgement on those I deem wrong-doers... probably not intentionally at first, but tackling crime would lead to criminals getting injured or possibly accidentally killed by me, maybe innocent by-standers being involved? So... I'd now say 'no' to super-powers!

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Mar 2012 16:51:59 GMT
Ken O'Neill says:
Interesting; wasn't there one episode where Aeryn finished up in Scorpius suit to stop her dying/going mad from heat delerium?

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Mar 2012 17:01:03 GMT
Mr T J Clark says:
As a fan of Doctor Who and steampunk creations, the Time Machine and the Tardis appeal to me just for their looks. I'm not so sure about the time-travel aspects. It would be so tempting to travel into the future and see how my son, daughter, grand-children, etc, would be doing. But that might not be a good thing, if injury, death, or some disaster had happened to them... and I couldn't prevent it.

I like both versions of the Time Machine for different reasons: the look of the first film, and Samantha Mumba in the 2002 remake.

As for the Tardis... I'd settle for one that could just move in space (save a fortune on air fares) and is bigger on the inside than the outside (I could buy as many books as I want). Preferably with a working chameleon circuit, and be undetectable by any scanner known to science.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Mar 2012 17:04:45 GMT
Alien Girl says:
Indeed! I'm rewatching the whole series at the moment, unfortunately just got to the "Princess" trilogy - not my favourite time in Farscape.

Posted on 8 Mar 2012 17:28:22 GMT
The Emperor says:
Jabba the Hutt

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Mar 2012 17:57:51 GMT
Anita says:
If you consider invisibility, (re)read "The Invisible Man" :)
The Invisible Man (Penguin Classics)

Posted on 8 Mar 2012 19:17:17 GMT
Would have to be somebody a lot like me.......Marvin the paranoid android.

Posted on 8 Mar 2012 20:09:45 GMT
G. Owens says:
Q

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2012 09:09:30 GMT
Cartimand says:
Apart from the fact that it was heavily Hollywoodised (why the hell move it from London to New York?) I thought Samantha Mumba's character ruined the Time Machine remake. Another soulless remake with nowhere near the charm of the original.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2012 11:24:42 GMT
Ken O'Neill says:
I thought it was Jeremy Irons' "uber villain" that ruined the remake. Where the Traveller lived doesn't really matter, and both versions have a "love interest" Eloi character.
Irons unnecessary character ruined things enough that I've seen the remake once, and George Pal's version more times than I care to count!

Posted on 9 Mar 2012 13:14:41 GMT
Cartimand says:
You're right that the "über Morlock" was another superfluous insertion into the remake, but I've always had a bit of a soft spot for Mr Irons and that didn't really bug me too much.

IMHO very very few remakes succeed in improving on the original. In fact the only two movies I can think of that buck that trend were Carpenter's brilliant remake of The Thing and Cronenberg's visceral take on The Fly.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2012 15:02:58 GMT
Ken O'Neill says:
Don't get me wrong; I'm not blaming Jeremy Irons for a bad performance, but complaining about the existance of the character in the script.

I'd agree with you in the general case about remakes rarely improving on the originals although I've always felt that Carpenter's "The Thing" replaced creeping paranoia with slash-cuts to "gross em out visuals". Not SF but I thought that the Vanishing Point and Gone in 60s remakes were better than the originals.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2012 15:14:19 GMT
Mr T J Clark says:
I'm a fan of make-up and special effects, lighting, etc, and so will watch almost any fantasy film just for those aspects alone. But I though Iron's villain was out of place too. He looked as though he'd wandered onto this movie set, from another tacky vampire movie film set.

I think this film has the better budget and effects, but (as already commented) the earlier version has the charm. And a better script.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2012 15:17:11 GMT
Mr T J Clark says:
Q from STTNG? And not Q from the James Bond movies?

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2012 16:21:46 GMT
G. Owens says:
"Q from STTNG? And not Q from the James Bond movies?"

Clearly they are the same, a multidimensional extrusion of the Q-continuum into the Bondiverse. With the same mandate, to educate the irredeemable (Gadzooks! I can spell irredeemable!) caveman.

As for J Irons, a quick peek at the carpet chewing "performance" he put in for the Dungeons and Dragons movie, lets you know he is clearly an actor that would rather be working than resting.
SF actors are held in high esteem with fans, which is an attractive market for an actor to put aside for a financially rewarding retirement, touring conventions and doing signings and meet-the-star thingies. But unless the actor has a natural understanding of what creates the affection for literature of the imagination, they can come over, like Mr Irons did, as lost and without connection to what he was doing. Swan in Love - Good (well, I liked it), D&D - Bad.

The Time Machine remake failed for all the previously stated reasons, but also because they tried to take a deterministic time-travel story, written with THE future and THE past and replace it with an uncertain quantum spin, where it's all about A past or A future. A story of Victorian certainty is as much about certainty of attitude, you can't just go all Heisenberg on it and expect the heart of the story to survive the translation
The film makers thought they could take a story that has been successful and widely read for over a century, write their own trite and moralistic 3-act structuralist narrative (show the hero in his normal environment, show the inciting incident etc. etc.) and foist it on an uncritical public - however, it worked on me, I shelled out to see it at the cinema, although for me to see it again would require drugs, senility, or physical restraint. As a one-shot financial project, probably made its money back, as an artistic endeavour it will justly sink into the sands of oblivion. (Still, it wasn't as bad as the Jack Palance Barry Morse remake of "The Shape of things to Come")

The George Pal version of Time Machine works because of the gloriously innocent Steampunk visual ethic, some nicely judged performances, sparkly colours and pretty lights, and the tongue stuck as firmly in the cheek as the original book

And I go from having the shortest reply on the thread to the longest.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the science fiction discussion forum (527 discussions)

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
ARRAY(0xb3d16894)
 

This discussion

Participants:  50
Total posts:  83
Initial post:  5 Mar 2012
Latest post:  31 Mar 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 9 customers

Search Customer Discussions