On Dec 13, 6:48 pm, Duggy  wrote:
> On Dec 14, 9:03 am, Kathryn Huxtable 
> wrote:
>
> > I'd do it as a prequel, if at all.
>
> Fair enough.  Are you saying it's not worth it without trying to rope
> in Triplanetary or just not worth it unless you're going for a final
> cash in?
Note that the books got a major rewrite between serialization and book-
form publication. The original version had only "Galactic Patrol",
"Gray Lensman", "Second-Stage Lensmen", and
"Children of the Lens",
and, most importantly, until "Children of the Lens", did not tell the
reader anything that Kimball Kinison did not know. The Eddoreans, in
particular, were never mentioned until nearly the end of the story.
But, for some reason, the original book publisher felt it was
cheating, and insisted that the readers know everything from the
start.
The first half of "Triplanetary" and all of "First
Lensman" were newly
written to go with the new book version. The second half of
"Triplanetary" was an old, published story that was used as the
nucleus of that new material.
From a film viewpoint, it would almost certainly be best to go back to
the original version. Skip both halves of "Triplanetary" and "First
Lensman" altogether, and let the audience learn about the layers of
Boskone as the heroes do. It worked, after all, for "Babylon 5".
This also avoids the awkward issue of Jill Samms. Smith was, at least
in his own mind, and by his own intent, a feminist, but when he chose
to write a prequel, he could not avoid painting himself into a corner.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32