On the heels of Dune’s cinematic success, sci-fi director extraordinaire Denis Villeneuve has signed on to adapt Arthur C. Clarke’s classic first-contact story Rendezvous With Rama.
Villeneuve is no stranger to the science fiction genre, just as Arthur C. Clarke books are no strangers to screen adaptations. Villeneuve has a track record of successful sci-fi adaptations. His take on the first half of Frank Herbert’s masterpiece is still firmly lodged in many fans’ minds even as we collectively await Dune: Part 2, which will hopefully give Zendaya more than three minutes of screentime. Arrival made waves in 2016, memorably adapting Ted Chiang’s novella “Story of Your Life.” The director also tried his hand at bringing Philip K. Dick’s characters from Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? (and the classic film version of the story, 1982’s Blade Runner) to life again in 2017’s Blade Runner 2049.
Arthur C. Clarke’s Childhood’s End was filmed as miniseries for the Syfy network in 2015, though it came and went with little critical acclaim. Before that, of course, came the iconic 2001: A Space Odyssey. There’s a bit of a caveat, though: Clarke wrote the screenplay for the movie (which was inspired by some of his earlier short stories), but also crafted the novelization prose treatment as Stanley Kubrick was constructing the legendary sci-fi masterpiece, so calling the film an “adaptation” of the novel isn’t quite accurate. Still, 2001 remains a crowning achievement in science fiction cinema, and the book deserves appreciation as well. Peter Hyams wrote, produced, and directed 2010: The Year We Make Contact in 1982, adapting Clarke’s 2010: Odyssey Two, his direct sequel to 2001. (Want a Clarke fan’s advice? Read the 2010 book, but skip the film at all costs.)
Buy the Book
Sisters of the Forsaken Stars
Simply put: the late Clarke was a prolific science fiction writer whose works, brimming with gorgeous descriptions of space, alien races, and the unknown, still feel ready-made for the Hollywood treatment. With this recent announcement, then, it seems we have a match made in speculative fiction heaven: a Clarke novel packed with wonder, gorgeous descriptions, and big ideas ripe for the picking and a veteran genre director bolstered by a string of recent blockbusters. Suffice it to say I’m excited by the possibilities of Villeneuve’s Rendezvous With Rama project. That said, as a fan of the book (I reviewed it here for The Quill To Live), I have a few hopes for the movie in terms of how it approaches the story and characters…
But first, for the uninitiated, a brief summary of the novel: Clarke’s Rendezvous With Rama takes place in roughly 2130, in our solar system. Humans have terraformed and colonized many of the planets we know and love, save for the toxic-rain-addled Venus. One day, though, a miles-long metallic cylinder careens into our solar system. Its origins and purpose unknown, humanity sends Commander Bill Norton and a crew of spacefaring experts to investigate the object—dubbed Rama—and discover any secrets contained within. Time is short, however, as Rama’s trajectory indicated that it will pass quickly through our system and out into the universe beyond.
Anything more would be considered a spoiler, so I’ll leave it there—I do, however, encourage science fiction fans to read the book, if you haven’t gotten to it yet! But for now, let’s explore the possibilities of Denis Villeneuve’s upcoming adaptation, and what the director needs to get right about Rama.
Relish the Ambiguity
Kubrick understood this when he made 2001, and Clarke consistently embraced the same philosophy in his writing. Science fiction celebrates the what-ifs and imagines the how-tos of our world, painting pictures of humanity’s future. Vibrant cyberpunk cityscapes are as common as post-apocalyptic hellscapes in the genre, but these stories are all united by the questions they ask… How did humanity come to this point? Is there a better future beyond this imagined one? What does it all mean?
Clarke’s work is nestled in the near-ish future. He’s a master when it comes to exploring the implications of major otherworldly breakthroughs or first contact that don’t unfold exactly how you’d expect. Rama sits right within that goldilocks zone, and the end of the novel compels us with the questions it asks, rather than the answers it offers.
Like 2001: A Space Odyssey, this latest Clarke adaptation should take that outlook to heart, celebrate the questions raised by the plot, and allow viewers to grapple with them on their own. And speaking of 2001, let’s jump to my next point…
Don’t Try to Recreate 2001: A Space Odyssey
The novel and the movie both stand out as science fiction classics, and we don’t need a retread. Rendezvous With Rama shares certain boilerplate similarities with its spacefaring sibling story, but there’s a treasure trove of untapped sci-fi goodness to be had in the lesser-known Clarke narrative.
While Space Odyssey carved out a small chunk of the vastness of space and showed us just how little we understand, Rama gives the prospect of first-contact a slightly more accessible, if fleeting, spin. I hope Villeneuve draws ample inspiration from Kubrick’s masterpiece; at the same time, I hope he recognizes the opportunity to tell a more grounded, human-centric tale. 2001 was about exploring the great unknown and struggling to comprehend its gargantuan scope. Rama is about engaging with an infinitesimal slice of the unknown. Both angles make for great storytelling, and a movie that focuses on the latter could fill a key gap in the Clarke adaptation pantheon.
Give Women the Spotlight
…sigh. My biggest gripe with Arthur C. Clarke books remains the same with every tome I read. In books already devoid of relatable, meaningful characters, Clarke shunts women into the dark recesses of his stories. Rendezvous With Rama has one incriminating passage that always irks me. Essentially, a crew member of the Rama exploration crew shares an internal monologue about how distracting low gravity can be when a woman is on board. He mentions how the lack of gravitational force makes for excessive jiggling of the breasts. The character goes so far as to question whether women should be astronauts in the first place. I remember reading the passage (which is by far the most egregious, though there are others) with jaw agape.
Beyond the outright sexism, there are precious few women characters in the book at all. It would be an easy (and necessary) win in terms of representation for Villeneuve to gender-swap a few characters and allow women to showcase their scientific talents in the movie. The story only stands to improve by broadening this particular horizon: In a story about humanity’s place in the universe, everyone should be included.
Give the Characters Some Extra Flair
Along the same lines as my last point, I hope Villeneuve takes full advantage of the fertile filmmaking ground Clarke’s characters represent. I’ve always appreciated Clarke as a conduit to the beyond, a deft writer of descriptive sci-fi prose. There are passages in his books that I read with teary eyes, transported by their beauty. But his characters…yikes. The most fleshed-out character in any Clarke book I’ve read is a sentient computer.
Humans, in so many Clarke books, take a backseat to the space that engulfs them. In a novel, I give this approach a pass. I’m content to read sweeping sections of elegant prose, ushering me into a world of stars and novae and alien beings. In a movie? I need more.
Villeneuve has the power to give stock characters and archetypes new life in the Rama movie. Show me how their personalities mesh. Give me conflict, clashes of ideals and personalities, tests of knowledge, educational biases…I want it all, and Villeneuve can deliver it on screen with the right casting and direction.
There’s also a character with a low gravity moon bike…leave that in, please. There are plenty of possibilities there, as you’ll see with my final point.
Go All Out on Sets and CGI
Older Clarke adaptations were limited by the technology of their time. Even so, they were uniquely prescient in their depictions of then-future technology. 2001 still holds up with its practical and visual effects (lookin’ at you, stargate sequence).
Rendezvous With Rama has no shortage of beautiful set pieces and action sequences. Villeneuve has the tools at his disposal to do them justice. This is a sci-fi movie; give me the best visual effects you’ve got. I want to bask in the glory of Clarke’s vision as glimpsed from the 21st century, brought to the screen by a steady-handed sci-fi directing veteran. Like Dune before it, I hope Rama sets a new standard for cinematic sci-fi storytelling, and I’m rather confident that Villeneuve can and will deliver on this front.
And Now, We Wait…
If the past is any indication, we won’t see Rendevous With Rama brought to the silver screen until 2024 at the absolute earliest. For now, it’s a waiting game. But while you pine for the cinematic wonder to come, pick up a copy of Clarke’s book and give it a read or a reread and let me know where you stand on the upcoming adaptation.
Cole Rush writes words. A lot of them. For the most part, you can find those words at The Quill To Live or on Twitter @ColeRush1. He voraciously reads epic fantasy and science-fiction, seeking out stories of gargantuan proportions and devouring them with a bookwormish fervor. His favorite books are: The Divine Cities Series by Robert Jackson Bennett, The Long Way To A Small, Angry Planet by Becky Chambers, and The House In The Cerulean Sea by TJ Klune.
Didn’t know this was coming, but it seems like an incredible match. I’m more from the film side of things and will sign onto anything Villeneuve. He hooked me with Prisoners and Enemy and sold me on Arrival and Blade Runner.
The scope he brings is going to be perfect.
The two sections Give Women the Spotlight and Give the Characters Some Extra Flair relate to a lot of the science fiction I read growing up. An amazing amount of those great books are great despite the complete lack of character development. The plots and settings were enough for a lot of writers and readers.
This also means that (just like Foundation), there really isn’t a problem with gender swapping or other character changes being made to the original source material. In most cases, the gender or other characteristic of the characters really don’t matter. I’d expect many of Clarke’s characters to be switched to female in the movie. And I won’t have a problem with that.
As long as they leave the plot and settings alone.
@2 EXACTLY. I read RWR quite a while ago, but I’d re-read Foundation very shortly before the series and I can count on one hand the number of Characters that HAVE to be one gender or the other…Bayta Darrel (female) Arkady Darrel (female), Toran Darrel’s (Bayta husband and Arkady’s dad both, male), Bliss (female). Other than that, any (or I guess none, in which case you only HAVE to have Bayta and the two Torans).
May I beg to differ re: 2010. I would say watch the film and ignore the book. And I’m also a life-long Clarke reader from Islands in the Sky when I was about eleven. Ideally of course, do both and make your own mind up:)
God, yes. Up there as one of the greatest cinematic disappointments I’ve ever endured.
I’m with a-j @@.-@. Both 2010s are good. The movie does have a couple of clunker moments, but it does the sensawunda well
Get rid of the “bouncing boobs in free fall” line?
“In a story about humanity’s place in the universe, everyone should be included.” Seems so obvious, yet here we are. Couldn’t agree more!
It’s a great book, but you’re right about it not being strong in the character department. None of his books were. He was more of a big idea writer. So lots of room for improvement there.
Skip the first book and start with the trilogy that begins with Rama II. Clarke refined the tale with a deeper story and all-new more complex characters, including women! Rendezvous can be made later as a a prequel of there is interest.
This is like breaking news! Can’t believe I didn’t know Denis Villeneuve was taking this but wow I can’t wait now
I agree with CGI could be better
I don’t think there’s any need to keep the plot or the characters from the novel. The point of the novel is the mystery supplied by the alien craft, and that’s all the film needs to keep.
Concerning #13 robertstadler’s comment: “I don’t think there’s any need to keep the plot or the characters from the novel. The point of the novel is the mystery supplied by the alien craft, and that’s all the film needs to keep.”
I completely disagree.
The whole point of making a movie based on a book is to use the book as a guide for plot points and characters. Hollywood has a long history of raping authors and books in just the fashion that that comment suggests and I for one don’t appreciate the injustice done to the author and the book.
If anyone in Hollywood is reading…if you are going to do what Robert Stadler suggested then please pay the money but have the decency to say “This is inspired by book X” and not “Based on book X.” At least that is an accurate warning for anyone that the movie will be basically nothing like the book.
Hollywood writers all too often think they are better and smarter than ‘mere’ authors of books and thus do exactly what Stadler suggests – and as often as not create trash and the occasional success.
Jodorowsky’s Dune would have been an example of raping the book. A travesty of a film from all that I read about it online. Thank the Goddess of justice and movie making that that movie was never made!
We readers and authors should be respected and honored. If you are going to say it is based on a book – then don’t lie to us and just buy the title, good name of the author, and the topic/subject/theme of the book and that is it. Have the decency to recognize that the author actually created something that was successful in its own right way before Hollywood thought it was worth using.
He ruined Dune. Nothing good will come from him getting his hands on this
Just a moderation note: let’s please not misuse the word “rape” in this context. No matter how strongly one feels about the topic, it’s not appropriate, and clearly does not take into account the feelings and experiences of those who have survived sexual assault. Please don’t use it again.
I disagree with Nate. While a filmmaker adapting a book must make some sacrifices and compromises because of the differences between text and film. However, an adaptation of a book should be just that. The plot and characters should be largely as they are in the source material, otherwise its just another story using the same name.
I know that if I was ever so lucky to have my books optioned I would be furious if the filmmakers decided to change all the many species I developed for my stories into bland, human clones; or change the largely cooperating worlds into war-mongering monsters.
I do wish when people talked about Rama they would both acknowledge that the breasts passage is real bad and also acknowledge that it includes a gay couple, one of whom the captain has to counsel because he’s so worried his boyfriend is going to get hurt on an expedition; a society that has settled on polyamory as its organizing structure; central female figures exercising significant authority without anyone thinking twice about it; an intensely optimistic view of the future in general; and other dimensions which warrant some attention and even praise from our point of view in time.
I read the book when it 1st was released it was very exciting. I did find the lack of satisfying alien interactions rather bothersome but perhaps the new director writers can spice things up in that regard.
Definitely adding Rama to my reading list :)
Firstly we all need to realise that 2001 (the film) was initially inspired by a Clarke short story, ‘The Sentinel’, although the plot eventually became COMPLETELY different. The book of 2001 was at best a simultaneous novelisation of the film.
Secondly, there are indications that Clarke’s personal life may have had something to do with his treatment of female characters.
That said, a film version of Rama that doesn’t try to give a full solution might be well worth watching. CGI will certainly help.
I remember reading Rama when it was first published and thinking that it was written to be a movie, with the short chapters like movie scenes and the great visuals.
I will have to respectfully and strongly disagree with you @10 (Nate). The sequels to Rama, written with Gentry Lee’s help, were a travesty. Terrible plots, characters and writing combined to make the books unreadable. They should never have been published. I hope DV stops with the original by Clarke and never considers touching the sequels.
I think Villaneuve is doing great with Dune so far. It could go off the rails. The huge use of Zendaya in the media blitz has always confounded me. They will be adding a lot if she is in more than 15 minutes of part two. She is an important person in the story but not a particularly present character in the book.
I think Rendezvous offered social situations that were way ahead of the times and thrilled me as a closeted teenager.
I remember fondly the 1996 game RAMA. It was strongly based on the first book, and I think it would be a better fit for a movie ‘inspired by’ then RWR.
I’m looking forward to this one. I hope they retain the sense of mystery that made it so compelling. And don’t even dream of delving into the sequels.
Personally I found the reflections on the distracting effects of zero G on female anatomy amusing, and a criticism of male distractibility. I guess it’s all in how you read it.
As I recall the book includes unconventional families, such as the astronauts who are co-husbands and the captain has a wife and family on Earth and another on Mars. He’s not cheating. The women are fully aware of each other and regularly exchange cards in holidays and aniversaries.
I remember devouring the entire Rama series when I was a teenager visiting the local library (2 miles away!) almost every single afternoon. I can’t remember almost anything about them.
I tried going back and re-reading Rendezvous and it was rough going. If I recall, the second book had lots more about the alien octopods and was generally at least more entertaining…but they got weird past that point, and were so /huge/ in number of pages.
Just for the sheer visual sense of scale alone, something that Villeneuve has proven good at, I’m in for the film.
Rendezvous With Rama is one of my favorite books. The sequels on the other hand .. ugh! The only worse butchering in a sequel was in the sequel to City and the Stars.
I hate to say this because overall, on average, I’m fond of Arthur C. Clarke and he wrote some good stuff. But Rendezvous With Rama wasn’t all that good a book. It had some sensawunda, but that’s all it had. There was basically no conflict, and no plot. Nothing happens. No real characterization either. If Clarke wasn’t one of the Great Masters of the Golden Age (we are not worthy! We are not worthy!) nobody would remember it at all. It’s like if you did a book where the main characters arrive for the first time at an alien planet, they explore a bit and find the ecology interesting, nothing else happens, the end. He could get away with it because frankly, standards were lower in those days–there were far fewer good writers in SF. Well, also because some of the base ideas of SF were still being fleshed out and so you could just do one of them hard and call it a book, whereas nowadays to get published your SF book has to be hitting on a bunch of cylinders. But I read it a long time ago and I didn’t think much of it then.
Making it a workable movie will basically require taking the core premise of the arriving Big Dumb Object as the frame and then doing some totally different stuff within it.
Make a movie of Rama and stop there. The Rama II trilogy is a completely different story–the amount of internal retconning that had to be done to set up the world it starts from was absurd.
My biggest gripe with writers (in this case Rush) who write something like: “…sigh. My biggest gripe with Arthur C. Clarke books remains the same with every tome I read. In books already devoid of relatable, meaningful characters, Clarke shunts women into the dark recesses of his stories.” First, I don’t think Clarke’s books are all devoid of relatable meaningful characters. Second, novels are cultural products where the culture of the time influences the writer and the writer influences the culture. Clarke’s writing is a sign of the times. Why would you expect anything else? 50 years from now, someone will gripe about today’s writers because of some cultural difference. My point isn’t that the writing isn’t problematic today. It is, but do not expect those writers to meet today’s standards. Holding them to today’s standards and being irked by that writer seems counterproductive. Context is important.
Gonna agree with 23 (JD), do the 1st book and skip the others. The beginning of Rama II was so frigging depressing compared to the original’s optimistic future.
Agree with @23, the book sequels were a travesty, terrible writing, plots and characters, tonally they are nothing like the first one.
Pretty sure they were mostly written by Gentry Lee.
Just to point out: 2001 was visually stunning and a landmark in sf film, all props to it for that.
But the way the movie depicts spaceflight turned out to be almost totally inaccurate (with the exception of no sound in space and the lag time between Discovery and Earth).
Pretty much every single spaceship shown in the film is very badly designed, and people don’t live and work in space the way the movie shows.
Especially the way the Discovery crew have to do spacewalks to maintain the ship…nope, not even close.
The production design was mostly done in 1964-65 iirc, before humans had more than a few minutes of EVA experience and zero experience with spacecraft you can actually move around in.
So Kubrick and Clarke and the design team did the best they could, but their 1G bias betrayed them.
I first read Rendezvous With Rama back in the 1970s when I was a teenager. That copy still sits in my bookcase nestled among all the other Clarke novels in my collection, and is dusted off once every decade for a reread.
Just some points. As a female I didn’t mind the male-centric characters of his books and if some gender-swapping has to happen in order to appease modern day mores, then so be it, as long as the swapping isn’t forced and the swapped characters make sense as females. I too would prefer a little more in-depth characters, but please, no going woke, because woke equals a cinematic death sentence (e.g. the all-female Ghostbusters, bleh).
When that mysterious object (Oumuamua) came into our solar system a few years ago, the first thing that came into my mind was Rendezvous With Rama. Even now scientists aren’t really sure what Oumuamua was, and I still think it was an alien ship. What I’d really love is that Rama is not shown as a perfect cylinder, but more like Oumuamua, something that could be mistaken for a natural object but isn’t – if you get my drift, which would provide a compelling connection between Rama the ship, and Oumuamua the unknown object.
Other than that, I am looking forward to seeing the strangeness of Rama’s interior, and also seeing the characters experience that feeling of vertigo when Rama’s internal lights are switched on, as well as the massive sparks from the prongs. The focus of the story, in my opinion, should not be on the characters, but rather how they experience and relate to the alien massiveness, landscape, environment, and ‘climate’ within Rama.
Cheers!
“- please, no going woke, because woke equals a cinematic death sentence (e.g. the all-female Ghostbusters, bleh).”
This, yes! An LGBTQ character is going to get backlash if it’s painfully obvious that the only reason he/she is there is to be a token. Also the all female Ghostbusters was badly written and acted. Basically the gender swap turned out to be the least of it’s many weaknesses.
I’m surprised how many commenters have said they found the original Rama story to be boring and “weak”. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time, could hardly put it down, and got literal chills from a few scenes (notably when the sea melted and when the lights came on). To this day it remains one of my all-time favorites. Ah, well, I guess everyone is different.
That being said, I never thought it would make a very good movie because most audiences would find it insufficiently intereresting and the producers would feel compelled to insert antagonistic aliens and turn the competent, well-adjusted, and co-operative crew into a hot angsty mess with massive interpersonal problems because it seems that what sells anymore. Sigh.
Incidentally, the SyFy adaptation of Childhood’s End wasn’t critically acclaimed because it wasn’t very good. They changed parts of the story they really shouldn’t have, presumably due to budgetary constraints.
First, thank you for writing about this book and (HOPEFULLY!) soon to be (FINALLY!) made movie. Morgan Freeman has been trying to get this done for the last 20 years or so.
Second, while I respect your opinion, please don’t speak for other Arthur C. Clarke fans: I loved the book and movie versions of 2010: Odyssey Two.
Third, as clarification for all readers of this article and comment section, the Rama sequels (Rama II, Garden of Rama, Rama Revealed) were written primarily by Gentry Lee, with Clarke acting as a technical advisor. The human characters, plot and drama components were all Lee’s creations. So Rendezvous With Rama was a true stand-alone novel, with the sequel trilogy belonging to the “fan fiction” category.
Rendezvous With Rama should be made as a “sense of wonder” exploration without worrying about pleasing the largest possible fan base. Can the characters be fleshed out? Can the conflict between the Hermians (the human settlers of Mercury) and the rest of the human outposts in the Solar System be intensified to create a greater sense of danger for audiences? Yes to both, absolutely. However, PLEASE don’t “dumb it down” or let script decisions be influenced by studio executives or fan screenings. Let it be ground-breaking and mind bending like 2001: A Space Odyssey. Hopefully, the writing and direction will match the scope of visual wonders that CGI will surly provide.