If you loved this film, you may want to seek out Arthur C Clarke's novel 'The City and the Stars', and/or his earlier novella, 'Against the Fall of Night'.
Both are surprisingly similar in theme to this film (I haven't read the 'Ember' books...): escape from a dying city, and a search for what lies beyond.
Both versions are haunting and unforgettable, for those who still have a 'sense of wonder'...
I'll have to see if I can find that.
Har alla vägar blir kaput?
There are a lot of science fiction stories about this. "Orphans in the Sky" by Robert Heinlein was about a generation of colonists living on a spaceship who through the centuries no longer remember that there is an outside world. Personally I thought that story was better told than the City of Ember...
shareThe City and the Stars is one of my favourite novels. Much broader in scope than this story, but similar in parts.
shareThere's also Non-Stop (also published as "Starship") (1958) by Brian W. Aldiss. Like in the movie, there are mutant animals, etc.
Also based in space rather than underground is "Captive Universe" (1969) by Harry Harrison.
There are Wikipedia articles for both "Non-Stop" and "Captive Universe" for those interested an an overview of the story lines.
Another one people might like reading is "Tumithak of the Corridors" by Charles R. Tanner. It and the three sequels are available to read for free at Tanner's official site or, if you manage to find a copy, it's also part of the anthology "Before the Golden Age"(collected by Isaac Asimov) which has many more great examples of classic science fiction short stories.
http://www.charlesrtanner.com/index.htm
Although, in the Tumithak stories, humanity is driven underground by an invading alien force(the Shelks) but they don't figure that out until near the end of the story.
Make IMDb a better place-Put the wannabe film critic, red-267, on your ignore lists.
Sorry to veer away from City of Ember, but I want to share this...
I like Clarke, too, yet there is a brilliant (and not mean-spirited) criticism of TCaTS in Walter Meyers's book ALIENS AND LINGUISTS: LANGUAGE STUDY AND SCIENCE FICTION. He writes:
"The prize for arrested development must go to Arthur C. Clarke's The City and The Stars (1956).
There are actually two cities figuring in the book, Diaspar and Lys, which have been without contact for a full billion years. Alvin, the hero, makes a trip from one city to the other, the first human to do so throughout this geologic time span.
We are told that he 'had no difficulty in understanding the others, and it never occurred to him that there was anything surprising about this. Diaspar and Lys shared the same linguistic heritage, and the ancient invention of sound recording had long ago frozen speech in an unbreakable mold' (pp. 69-70).
Although Clarke's unchanging language puts an intolerable strain on the willing suspension of disbelief, the oddest thing about this linguistic will-o'-the-wisp is its complete needlessness.
Granted that the plot may require immediate communication to take place, still, the people of Lys are endowed with another of science fiction's more bewhiskered conventions, telepathy.
If he had chosen, Clarke could have had them read the traveler's mind instead of boggling ours, and the continued mutual intelligibility of the languages of the two cities could have been dispensed with."
Elsewhere Meyers adds that, in Clarke's future fiction, they presumably still have tea at 4:00, too.
Cheers, all
Fiona
Science first! And information: also first!
Cheers, fiona.
Clarke was always the scientist, never the metaphysician.
It's obvious that neither of these last two posters have read the book. I consider The City And The Stars to be the greatest sci-fi book ever written. That was the most idiotic review I've ever read of it. Clarke handles the language problem with the same deftness he manages in his other books. And to say he's all about science and not a metaphysician is to not know Clarke's work at all. It's the latter that has always been the driving force in every book I've ever read by him (about ten). There's always a bit of the mystical in what Clarke writes and usually a good deal of storyline is given to origins. His books are all about finding meaning in the world unlike someone like Azimov who only seems to care for politics or Heinline who only cares for science and ethics. That's why Clarke has always been head and shoulders above other sci-fi writers. Only Orsen Scott Card and Walter Miller ever came close to him.
shareHey, you can't jump to Clarke's defense like that and then in the same paragraph belittle Asimov and Heinlein! Each was a fine writer, with range and subtlety.
In particular, Asimov's final Foundation novels had unexpected depth and poignancy, also with that archetypal 'searching for' feel that characterized The City and the Stars.