PDA

View Full Version : Heinlein on Celluloid



David Hall
2001-Nov-09, 12:49 PM
Since there was so much talk on other threads concerning Starship Troopers (Thanks Mr. X /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif), I decided it would be a good idea to start a new thread on the subject. But I have also decided to expand it to talk about all of Heinlein's cinematic works, so I'm including those here as well. These are the ones I know about, and I welcome comments on them all:


1) Starship Troopers

Verhoeven's story is vilified by many, and justly I believe. I remember the first time I saw it I kind of enjoyed it, but it left a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. Now that I know the story behind it and have read the book again, I know why. Check out this wonderful essay for a good critique on both the book and the movie. Starship Troopers (http://www.kentaurus.com/troopers.htm)

There also seems to be an animated series based on the movie that does things like including battle armor. I've never seen it. And for those who don't know, there was a 3 part 1988 Japanese animated mini-series based on the book as well. I've only seen bits and pieces of it, but I think it probably is a little closer to the original than Verhoeven's travesty. Here are some mech shots from the Japanese series: Uchuu no Senshi (http://www.trooperpx.com/AFS/AFS01.html). If I ever find a copy of it here, I'm going to get it (but it might be difficult to understand due to my incomplete knowledge of Japanese).


2) The Puppet Masters

This movie had such promise, but ended up being only mediocre. At least the basic character of the novel wasn't trashed this time, but it could have been much better. Here's a good description on how the movie came about: Writing The Puppet Masters (http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/rossio.html)

3) Destination Moon

Not too many people know about this 1950 production co-written by Heinlein. It was a true "hard" SF movie that attempted to show how men could go to the moon. I remember catching a few minutes of it at the 1987 World Science Fiction Convention, but I never got to see the whole thing. It seemed pretty plodding in pace, and now it's horrendously out-of-date, but it's a real example of "good SF". Has anyone seen it?
Destination Moon (http://www.geocities.com/anubis4_2000/pages/moon1.htm)


That's all I know of, movie-wise. If anyone knows of anything else, feel free to throw them in.

I have also decided to rent the Verhoeven Offense again and watch it just for the purposes of this thread. In fact, I just got back from the video store, but I won't be able to watch it tonight as when I opened the video bag, the DVD of it was not there. The checkout lady forgot to put it in. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif Doh! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif It will have to wait until I can get back to the store tomorrow. But when I get it I'll come back here to discuss whatever Bad Astronomy and moviemaking I see in it.

Well, there's the topic. I now open the floor to all and sundry. Have at it. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif
_________________
David Hall
"Dave... my mind is going... I can feel it... I can feel it." (http://www.occn.zaq.ne.jp/cuaea503/whatnots/2001_feel_it.wav)

<font=-1>(added my signature and fixed up a bad HTML code and other errors.)</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2001-11-09 08:00 ]</font>

James
2001-Nov-09, 12:59 PM
There also seems to be an animated series based on the movie that does things like including battle armor. I've never seen it.

I have. It was based around Razak's Roughnecks. In the series, Razak lived. Yes, eventually, he was KIA, but that wasn't till almost the end of the series. And Rico did get command of them, too. The series did expand on the different kinds of Bugs there were and that Klendathu(sp?) wasn't the Bugs home planet.

And the Bugs eventually even go to Earth and almost take over the entire planet.

Mr. X
2001-Nov-09, 01:23 PM
There's an also "less" exact closer to the movie animated CG series. I like it. But then again I liked Starship Troopers so there /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif.

Didn't watch it enough though, and I couldn't really keep an idea of who was who and what happened to Rico, Ace, etc. Its focus was primarily action (that's yay for me! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif ). It lacked a lot of the violence of the movie so that was kind of disturbing.

Since I don't read much aside from my math books, I haven't read the book (what a surprise coming from me /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif ) but I'd like to say that if here had been those suits it would have cut back on a lot of senseless violence that sells so well.

Besides a lot of its fast paced action seemed to be to me like the action of D-day in Saving Private Ryan. The kinds of senseless massacres that arise from poorly planned operations or straight out assaults that you do when you can't really outsmart an enemy, kinda like that shower scene in The Rock. I just guess it was more akin to current or past wars than future wars.

That was a meaningless pointless point, and I know that isn't very tight at all and I can think at least of a million things I'd say to answer that. And that would be better than that point. But I'm busy, so there. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Matherly
2001-Nov-09, 02:04 PM
Since I've been accused of holding back and not letting me feeling be know, I go ahead and say this...

VERHOEVEN, WE HATES IT FOREVER!!!

O.K., now that we have got that out of the way, let me give you a great example of where I think the Unholy Corruption (UC for short) went wrong.

In the book (ST for short), when one of the recruits asks Zim why they are training for hand-to-hand combat when they have nuclear devices. Zim breaks the training to say that while he does not feel it is his place as a soldier to interpret policy or stratagy, he does say that he believes the Moble Infantry is not designed to kill all of the enemy (according to Zim, that's not war, that's geneocide). Instead, the MI is supposed to jump in, create a specific amount of chaos in the enemies force/production capacity/etc. and then get out. This sends the message to the enemy that they could kill them all without having to actally go and comit genocide. This fact is then used by the leaders to force a setlement.

In the UC, when one of the recruits asks Zim why they are training for hand-to-hand combat when they have nuclear devices. Zim throws a knife at the recruit, pinning his hand to a board and looks smug at the fact that he has caused injury to one of his recruits.

Personally, I think the goal of the movie was to first have a "blowed-up really good" vehicle. The second and more insideous was to paint Heinlan as a vicous, sadistic facist by claiming that this was "his work"

Kaptain K
2001-Nov-11, 01:05 PM
After reading the horror story of trying to get even a halfway decent version of "The Puppet Masters" on the screen and seeing for myself what was done to "Starship Troopers", I have given up on my dream of seeing a faithful (to the book) version of "Stranger in a Strange Land" in my lifetime. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cry.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_evil.gif

_________________
When in danger, or in doubt...
Run in circles, scream and shout.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2001-11-11 08:07 ]</font>

David Hall
2001-Nov-11, 01:32 PM
Kaptain, I'm feeling the same as you. One link I found (and lost again) as I was searching for these mentioned some work on making a version of "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". It was dated about 1999 though, so it doesn't look like much progress has been made on it.

I finished watching ST again last night. Give me a bit and I'll write up a review/BA critique on it. There's a lot to mention, so it's going to take some time. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

David Hall
2001-Nov-11, 06:09 PM
Ok, here's my thoughts on Starship Troopers. Whew, it took me forever. Sorry it's so long. I'm going to try to break it up into sections.


<U>My overall impressions</U>

I hated the first part of the film. It was very difficult to watch. Every scene seemed designed to show sadistic intent. EVERYONE was intent on humiliating, arguing with, dominating, or taking advantage of others. Carl flashed Johnny's math score up for everyone to laugh at. Carmen flirts with the opposing football player. The two guys are instant rivals. Nobody seems concerned about anybody else's feelings at all.

Johnny's boot camp was exactly like Matherly says. Cruel and sadistic for no reason. Very different from the book version. Maybe Verhoeven was just trying to make it "the toughest boot camp" ever, but it came off as just gratuitous.

The basic message of combat ethics was also the exact opposite of Heinlein's intent. In the book it was "never leave your comrades behind", Here it was "mercy killing is a favorable option". Rasczek looses his legs, probably a recoverable injury in that situation, and Johnny whacks him instead.

But there WAS a small part of it that seemed to be closer to the spirit of Heinlein's book. This is the part that focuses on Rico himself and his growth during battle. Here, he seems to learn the importance of responsibility and the film kind of depicts a kind of nobility of spirit. Especially as they get near the end. This is demonstrated best at Dizzy's funeral. His little speech is pure Heinlein. (But why is there a special funeral for her when so many others died as well?)

So once they got into the actual fighting part of it it was much better character-wise and message-wise. In fact, the movie really seemed to change tone right after the disaster at Klendathau. It became more serious and more of a "pro-human spirit" kind of a movie.

But the overall effect of the movie was really insulting. Verhoeven seemed intent to give this future world the same cynical, facist edge he gave to Robocop. Many of the characters were a bit slimey and the society obviously had a facist feel to it, what with the propoganda commercials, the SS-like uniforms and such. The last scene with yet another propoganda commercial brought it right back to the beginning.

Heinlein did it much better.


<U>Continuity problems and mistakes:</U>

First, there's a part at the beginning where Rico's being given a telepathy test. Carl says that statistically he should have guessed right by that point. Actually this would be an indication of psychic ability since any deviation from chance would show some outside cause.

Ok, here's a big one. All of these characters joined up at about the same time. But while Johnny is still sweating away in boot camp (maybe about 4 or 5 weeks in?) Carmen is already making her first run piloting a starship? I guess infantry stuff takes just so much longer to learn than learning how to pilot a half-million ton starship. And to top it off, the guy Zander, who only entered a few days before her himself, is conveniently there to be her instructor and superior? In fact, in the scene just before the asteroid encounter, Zander tells Carmen something like "3 weeks aboard a starship, and you think you can do better than me?" Well, how long has HE been there?

Why didn't Rico know that Rasczek was the leader of the Roughnecks until they meet? Except for dramatic effect, it's completely illogical. You don't know who your new CO is going to be? Crazy.

It also bugs me how often the main characters run into each other "by chance". Spread out all over the place like that, and they just happen to always be in the same place at the same time. This is really just a personal annoyance, and it bugs me in any movie, but here it was especially bad.


<U>Bad astronomy</U>

Well, there's the normal BA of sounds in space, banking spacecraft, and stars moving. Other than that, most of the action takes place on the ground, so there isn't that much to criticize.

But there are lots of problems with the asteroid attack. First, it's supposed to have come directly from Klendathau, which according to one of the graphics is on the other side of the galaxy, but there's no indication of any FTL drive on it. Maybe it's not too bad. They seem to encounter it while near Jupiter orbit, so conceivably it was hurled through warp and was encountered after it had dropped out. But then takes only hours to reach the Earth after that. It would have had to be moving at quite a clip to manage that.

Second. as it gets near the starship, they first detect it due to it's gravitational field. In fact they notice it because it's so strong that it causes the liquid in a cup to angle off very steeply. Boy, it must be massive! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif Also (minor annoyance time again), they happen to be directly in it's path. Quite a coincidence given the amount of space out there. And another thing, how come they only detect it when it's about 30 seconds away? Aren't they keeping watch on their path or anything? Don't they have any sensors out there able to see what's coming? This is a military ship. How about some radar or something?

The asteroid goes on to level Buenos Ares. Now it seems to be at least several hundred meters across. If something that size hit the Earth it would have vaporized a huge area, leveled everything around it, and created a huge crater. Yet in the tv reports all they show are big fires, burning buildings, and dead bodies everywhere. And afterwards people are going through the ruins picking up photos and such. It looks no worse than a conventional bombing or earthquake. In reality I think there would be nothing left and the area would be a molten plain for a long time. Not to mention the world-wide effects of such an impact. I suppose these scenes could have been on the very outskirts of the impact area, but there's no impression given of this.

More asteroid stuff: In the beginning of the movie, there is an asteroid heading towards the Earth. But moon-based cannons shoot at it one time and blow it to pieces. Pretty powerful cannons. Also, they say that Klendathau's twin-sun system creates unlimited asteroids that can be sent Earth's way. They go on to show a typical Star Wars style asteroid belt around the planet. But this could be taken with a grain of salt, as it's all reported in one of the intersperced films and could therefore have been faked for propoganda purposes.


<U>Military Idiocy</U>

This has been gone over many times in other places, but after watching it, it seems even more embarrassing. The human race would indeed deserve to lose if they really performed like that. Where to start...?

There's no effective communication or intelligence gathering. No spy drones, orbital mapping, scouts, seismic surveys to detect underground tunnels, advance radio reports or anything. A few floating observers or people watching from orbit could have warned them of incoming enemies well before hand. They were always clueless of when and where the bugs would attack, much less their numbers or types, even when the bugs were coming at them from the surface. And aerial surveys could at least have picked out the main tunnel entrances or danger zones before the attacks.

The only time they use air power is in one bombing run. There is absolutely NO use of the air in any other scene. And all they did in that one attack was drop some conventional bombs on a group of bugs. Why not send in some hovering platforms with heavy weaponry and pick off the enemy at will? Carpet bombing? Napalm attacks? The bugs have effectively no aerial capability and little that could take down aircraft. BTW, the idea of the one attack was to bomb them first, then send in the infantry to clean up what's left. What made them think that aerial attack would do most of the work when they know the bugs are primarily underground? At most, it would clear them a beachhead to launch ground attacks.

You know, if the alien anti-ship fire was so heavy, why didn't they launch the landers from a much higher orbit? Smaller ships could avoid the shots much better than those big cruisers. And the big ships could dodge the bursts better from much farther away. And since the origin of the bursts is a dead givaway, why not send a nuke or two down to take care of them before trying to land troops?

The infantry's weapons are pathetic. We're using better stuff than that right now. Except for the mini-nuke grenades, none of the weaponry seems to cause any real damage. Everything seems to be along the lines of machine guns and grenades. Even the heavy guns in the "Alamo" base were only medium caliber machine guns.. The soldiers had to keep pumping round after round into the bugs to get them to stop. Even the grenade launchers were pathetic (and were only used a couple of times in the whole movie). Johnny pumped round after round into a couple of bugs and hardly even slowed them down. I'd think that the military would run a few tests they'd try to equip them with more effective ordinance. How about some heavy weapons? Area weapons? Mortars? Bazookas? You know, I think flame throwers would have been a really effective weapon. Burning off legs, appendages and sensory organs would cripple a bug much faster than a few lead slugs, and a curtain of fire would probably slow them all down too. And as I mentioned before, I didn't see ANYTHING that could be classified as "futuristic". No beam weapons, smart weapons, anything. Just futuristically styled versions of modern rifles. How about personal armor? They had nothing but a helmet and some flak vests. Not even night-vieion goggles for exploring underground.

Where was the heavy armor? Tanks? Armored carriers? I'd take anything. Even a WWII sherman tank. Just drive right through the bugs. Flatten them and don't even feel a thing. Use the howitzers on the big guys. And with modern (futuristic) technology, you'd think they'd be able to come up with something even better than a tank. But actually, now that I think of it, there wasn't any evidence of any ground transport at all. Not even a simple jeep.

As said before by others, the basic combat tactic of the MI was to run in a great big mob towards the enemy, and then run in a great big mob in away from the enemy. No battle tactics at all. Battle plans? Who needs them? Let's just walk in and start shooting. No plans or set actions for what to do when a hole opens up in the ground or when a particularly large nasty shows up. No support fire or staggered advances. No coordination or cooperation was in evidence at all. Every battle was every-man-for-himself. Retreats were unorganized, with nobody providing cover for anybody, and scene after scene had soldiers getting chopped up as they turned to run. Oh, and hey, let's just stand there in the open and shoot. No need to find any sort of cover.

The "Alamo" defense was moronic. First, as people have mentioned before, why build an open air defense to begin with? And when the bugs come to attack, they just line up at the wall and wait for them to come. Nobody starts firing until the enemy is almost upon them. The bugs are very nasty in close-quarters combat, so you'd think they would do everything they can to keep them as far away as possible. A smart commander would have had them open fire as soon as they were spotted. Hell, I'd of given a standing order to shoot on sight. They should have opened up with the heavy weapons as soon as they appeared on the horizon, lobbed grenades, anything to slow them down. Also, they knew already that the fort was attacked from below before, but nobody kept any eye out for another attack from that direction?


Well that's it. These are just my opinions, and I'm no expert in anything here. Especially the military stuff. So anybody wants to chime in, feel free.

In conclusion, I think the movie was overall a very poor interpretation of Heinlein's novel. It seemed to be a deliberate attempt to corrupt Heinlein's ideas. A few of his thoughts shine through, but not enough. It also is completely illogical and poorly thought out. But it is a fun movie to watch, if you forget all about everything I've just mentioned here. The only thing you can do with this movie is turn off your mind, forget that it's supposed to be Heinlein, and just enjoy it if you can.

Wiley
2001-Nov-13, 12:41 AM
In my opinion Heinlein's best work tends to philosophical in nature. Only superficially is Starship Troopers about Rico becoming an officer in the space marines; it is more about exploring the military's role in society. Stranger in a Strange Land and The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress are also more about ideas than action.

How many SF books that are about ideas and philosophy, as opposed to blowing up an evil galactic empire, are made into movies? The only two that come to mind are 2001 and Contact. In other words, to do justice to Heinlein's vision we need a skilled director and a skilled screenwriter, and we can't expect a large return.

David Hall
2001-Nov-13, 11:14 AM
Actually, quite a few philisophical works get made into movies. The problem is, they don't ever get the philosophy transferred. The moviemakers just turn them into excuses for gee-wiz special effects. Like ST here, they pull out the superficial story and ignore any underlying message. The really good adaptations are truely few and far between.

I'd put Blade Runner in with the other two you mentioned, as it's definitely thought provoking and works on so many levels. And while it's not directly taken from a book, the classic Forbidden Planet also has the same effect.

And I agree wholeheartedly with you about Heinlein. His best and most memorable stuff is definitely more about ideas than action. In the best of them, like "Harsh Mistress", the ideas behind the stories don't even seem to register consciously. They just creep in on you while you read. There's no telling exactly how much of my basic outlook on life was shaped directly by Heinlein, but I can tell you, it's a VERY LARGE percentage of my total being.

BTW, it was Heinlein who introduced me to the world of SF in the first place. In 8th grade I discovered an intriguing little novel called "Orphans of the Sky" in my school library and became instantly hooked. There was no turning back after that. Thank you RAH, for opening the infinite to me. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Kaptain K
2001-Nov-13, 05:04 PM
Like you David, My personality, philosophy and world view has been profoundly shaped by the underlying philosophies of Heinlein's works.
"strager in a Strange Land" was the second science fiction book I read and I was hooked for life.
Note that my sig is a Heinlein quote.
________________
When in danger, or in doubt...
Run in circles, scream and shout.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2001-11-13 12:06 ]</font>

Wiley
2001-Nov-13, 05:35 PM
My favorite Heinlein book is The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress. Why? Probably because it was the very first Heinlein book I ever read. I still have it: the cover is almost gone, all the pages are yellowed and dog eared, and the binding is nigh non-existent.

And what can you say about Mike? Sure, Hamlet and Lear are more complex and fully developed, but is there another character in all of literature you love as much as Mike?

Jim
2001-Nov-13, 08:48 PM
"How many SF books that are about ideas and philosophy, as opposed to blowing up an evil galactic empire, are made into movies?"

Add Asimov's The Bicentennial Man to the list. While it had it's share of "gee whiz" fx, it didn't blow up anything and did get the message of the original short story across pretty well.

I'd like to see them try The Ugly Little Boy, but I'm not holding my breath that they will make it, or that they will hold true to the message.

David Hall
2001-Nov-13, 11:03 PM
On 2001-11-13 12:04, Kaptain K wrote:

Note that my sig is a Heinlein quote.
________________
When in danger, or in doubt...
Run in circles, scream and shout.


Yes Kaptain, I recognized it immediately. One of my favorite and most memorable Lazarus Long quotes. I've used it myself on quite a few occasions. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Actually, after going through most of Heinlein in High School, I then moved on to others. Now I'm more into Niven and Clarke and such, and I don't get back to Heinlein much. But his stories are the ones I remember the best. There are just too many good ones to list.

ToSeek
2001-Nov-14, 02:00 PM
On 2001-11-13 15:48, Jim wrote:
"How many SF books that are about ideas and philosophy, as opposed to blowing up an evil galactic empire, are made into movies?"

Add Asimov's The Bicentennial Man to the list. While it had it's share of "gee whiz" fx, it didn't blow up anything and did get the message of the original short story across pretty well.

I'd like to see them try The Ugly Little Boy, but I'm not holding my breath that they will make it, or that they will hold true to the message.


Does anyone remember "Enemy Mine"? Great story, mediocre (at best) movie.

Wiley
2001-Nov-14, 06:27 PM
On 2001-11-14 09:00, ToSeek wrote:

Does anyone remember "Enemy Mine"? Great story, mediocre (at best) movie.


Dennis Quaid and Lou Gosset Jr., right?

If I recall this film was based on film where a black and a white convict escape from a chain gang.

ToSeek
2001-Nov-14, 07:36 PM
On 2001-11-14 13:27, Wiley wrote:


On 2001-11-14 09:00, ToSeek wrote:

Does anyone remember "Enemy Mine"? Great story, mediocre (at best) movie.


Dennis Quaid and Lou Gosset Jr., right?

If I recall this film was based on film where a black and a white convict escape from a chain gang.


Well, the original "Enemy Mine" I was thinking of was an award-winning novella (Hugo and Nebula) by Barry Longyear. There could be some other roots as well.

Russ
2001-Nov-15, 12:49 AM
I like the Laz Long books as well. I didn't care much for the way he was depicted in "The Number Of The Beast" but loved "Time Enough For Love".

Did anyone here actually understand Heinline's book "Job, A Comedy Of Errors"? I never did "get" that book.

Kaptain K
2001-Nov-15, 10:53 AM
The correct title is "Job: A Comedy Of Justice". I thought it was great. Basic premise: God is a capricious sadist (with the personality of a stereotypical Jewish mother) who repeats his Job "schtick". This time with Loki instead of Lucifer as the foil.

_________________
When in danger, or in doubt...
Run in circles, scream and shout.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2001-11-15 05:54 ]</font>

Bob
2001-Nov-15, 09:19 PM
On 2001-11-13 12:35, Wiley wrote:
My favorite Heinlein book is The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress. Why? Probably because it was the very first Heinlein book I ever read. I still have it: the cover is almost gone, all the pages are yellowed and dog eared, and the binding is nigh non-existent.

And what can you say about Mike? Sure, Hamlet and Lear are more complex and fully developed, but is there another character in all of literature you love as much as Mike?


Don't you mean Michelle?

Wiley
2001-Nov-15, 09:59 PM
On 2001-11-15 16:19, Bob wrote:


On 2001-11-13 12:35, Wiley wrote:
My favorite Heinlein book is The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress. Why? Probably because it was the very first Heinlein book I ever read. I still have it: the cover is almost gone, all the pages are yellowed and dog eared, and the binding is nigh non-existent.

And what can you say about Mike? Sure, Hamlet and Lear are more complex and fully developed, but is there another character in all of literature you love as much as Mike?


Don't you mean Michelle?


I love Mike, and I'm not ashamed to admit it.

The Rat
2001-Nov-17, 11:59 AM
On 2001-11-13 15:48, Jim wrote:
I'd like to see them try The Ugly Little Boy, but I'm not holding my breath that they will make it, or that they will hold true to the message.


That one was made into a TV movie about 15-20 years ago. You might try searching for it.

ToSeek
2001-Nov-17, 06:38 PM
On 2001-11-17 06:59, The Rat wrote:


On 2001-11-13 15:48, Jim wrote:
I'd like to see them try The Ugly Little Boy, but I'm not holding my breath that they will make it, or that they will hold true to the message.


Really? I'll have to look for it. That was always one of my favorite stories.
That one was made into a TV movie about 15-20 years ago. You might try searching for it.

Irishman
2001-Nov-20, 08:46 PM
Heinlein - he's one of my favorite authors.

It's a shame how movies about his works turn out.

Actually, I thought The Puppet Masters was a decent movie and a pretty good rendition of the original, if somewhat simplified for the time allowed. Well, except for the slimy alien spaceship thing that was not consistent with the original. But yea, the essence of most of the book was there. I watched it again a couple months ago and still thought it was good, after rereading the book. I have no idea why it tanked at the box office, except that I think it opened sometime relatively close to another rendition of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers".

Whereas Starship Troopers is a different story. First time I saw it, I sort of enjoyed it, but parts of it definitely made me uncomfortable, and I certainly didn't think it was true to the original. Then I reread the book. Then I read an interview with Verhoeven and learned his intent was exactly opposite Heinlein. How's that for Hollywood? Hey, we've got this great story with name recognition and a built in fan base, let's hire a director that strongly disagrees with the author's ideas and let him tell the story however he wants. So a society where military service (i.e. serving your country and being willing to sacrifice yourself for the betterment of that country) as a prerequisite for being a citizen (i.e. being able to vote) becomes a facist and sadistic society. The uniforms were intentionally molded after Nazi uniforms, especially for the psi corps.

Then there was all the anti-Hollywood stereotypes. Doogie Howser playing the heavy, the battle at the fire-base was basically a western. And then the sadism of the training. When Rico hit's basic training the first scene is the interview with the Drill Instructor. In the book, the point of that scene is that there is always some tough guy who wants to establish that the DI can't push him around, and the DI has to establish his superiority up front to prevent incidents later over discipline, so the DI offers anyone who wants a chance to "show him how good they are". And in that fight, a guy accidentally gets his wrist broken. Not because the DI wanted to break the wrist, just that's the way the fall went when both parties were serious. Whereas the scene in the book plays out more about beating up the recruits for the sake of hurting them. The breaking of the wrist occurs after the guy is on the ground and is intentional - you can see it in Zim's face. Same thing with the scene already mentioned.

This movie really should have been named "Bug Attack" - with no reference to Heinlein.

David, I happened to read "Orphans of the Sky" not too long ago. It was rather intriguing. I note it was actually one of his earlier works, written as a juvenile. It was odd to see the juxtaposition of engineers as high priests. I also noted the insignificant role of women - probably because it was written as a juvenile. Not reflective of Heinlein's later works and representations of women.

Regarding character development, a buddy of mine was recently complaining about SF tv shows having too much "Felicity" content. What he fails to realize is that is what makes the audience care about the characters. It's the difference between CSI and "The Medical Detectives" or one of those other sundry documentary type shows on forensic investigation. CSI is very popular, the others have tiny audiences. Why? CSI is about the people as much as the science.

JOB: A Comedy Of Justice was the first Heinlein I read. I really liked it, as it really put christianity under a microscope. For me at that age really questioning things, it was thought provoking.

Moonpuppy
2001-Nov-20, 09:55 PM
I haven't read much Heinlein...

*waits patiently until everyone stops shouting "INFIDEL!!"* /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

...so I can only comment on how extraordinarily BAD the movie was. I couldn't understand how these bugs could be shooting firebombs (or whatever they were) out their rear ends from a planet on the other side of the galaxy, & manage to hit Earth! Only saw it twice so maybe I missed something.

I hated every character in the movie. There was no reason to like them, no reason to care if they suffered & died, because they were all so selfish, mean, & fundamentally unlikeable. They all had this "let's kill as many bugs as we can before we die" attitude, which I guess was meant to make them look tough, but there was no character development.

What can you possibly learn about an alien species by sucking its brain out? If you want to read a human's mind, isn't it a good idea for the human to still be alive? Nobody ever explained that. Those scenes were included for their gross-out factor, & nothing more.

It doesn't surprise me that this movie bears little resemblance to the book. Movie makers always think they know better than the authors when it comes to telling a story.

Russ
2001-Nov-20, 10:26 PM
On 2001-11-15 05:53, Kaptain K wrote:
The correct title is "Job: A Comedy Of Justice". I thought it was great. Basic premise: God is a capricious sadist (with the personality of a stereotypical Jewish mother) who repeats his Job "schtick". This time with Loki instead of Lucifer as the foil.


You know it's really wierd that I blew it on the title. I can see the spine of the book from where I'm sitting. As they used to say in "Dragnet" Dumb Da Dumb Dumb.

You give an interesting synopsis. I didn't get that at all, although I can see how you did. It seems reasonable as RAH had Lazurous Long talk about God as having the temperment and manners of a spoiled 2yr old. I'll try reading it again from your point of view. I attributed all of the wierd scenes as a side effect of his clogged arteries (at the time)starving his brain for O2.

Russ
2001-Nov-20, 10:34 PM
On 2001-11-20 16:55, Moonpuppy wrote:

What can you possibly learn about an alien species by sucking its brain out? If you want to read a human's mind, isn't it a good idea for the human to still be alive? Nobody ever explained that. Those scenes were included for their gross-out factor, & nothing more.


I don't know if the director or writers knew this but primitive species of bugs can eat the brains of other bugs and then know what the other bug knew. I did an experoment in my college biology lab with planaria. It's a type of flat worm that you can teach to run a simple maize for food. Once you have a worm trained you grind it up and feed it to another planaria and the new planaria can run the maize without training.

Wierd stuff if ya ask me!

David Hall
2001-Nov-21, 01:19 PM
Irishman, thanks for the review of the Puppet Masters (though your comments on ST were spot on too). I think what happened is that they got most of the original story pretty much ok (it's kind of hard to ruin such a simple and straightforward story completely), --except for the shocking fact that they put it in modern instead of futuristic times-- but what was missing was all the tension, charm, mystery, and horrific surprise of the original. It didn't have the same sense of suspense or action the book had. A great book was turned into a mediocre movie.

In the book it was clear that it was a war. There were battle fronts where the aliens were contained but not defeated. And other countries like Russia were rumored to be involved in their own battles. In fact, by the end of the book there were still outbreaks of alien infestation, and the battle was far from being over. Society had been changed radically by the needs of war, but in the end the situation was finally under control and the war could now be taken to the aliens home turf.

As for the movie, simply put, it got "Hollywoodized". The biggest evidence of this was the handling of the ending. They had to turn it all into one final confrontation that you could see coming from a mile off. And even more, they made it so the whole invasion could be stopped with one assault on a central hive. Typical wrap-it-all-up-at-the-end Hollywood writing. There was absolutely no mention in the movie about invasions anywhere else in the world, or any continuing struggle. I think it would have been much more effective to have a vague shadowy ending where one battle was won, but it was clear that it all wasn't over yet. They should have had it where everyone, and I mean special agent and citizen alike, knew about the continuing danger. That would have been cool, even if they hadn't gone for a totally nude society like the book had.

It's been a long time since I've seen it though, so I'm going to try to hunt it down on my next trip to the video store. (It's kind of tricky though hunting down a specific title when you don't know how it's been translated in Japanese. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif)

New topic:

I don't think I've read Orphans of the Sky since that first time back in JHS. I only vaguely remember the story itself. But I remember the impact it had on me. It really did totally open my eyes up to the realm of SF, and introduced me to many of the concepts that are common in the genre. Mutants, fusion power, spaceflight, different and unusual cultures, and much more. My imagination was sparked, and I would never be the same. I know it was a juvenile, but most of Heinlein's juvenile works were a cut above many more "mature" SF titles, and had concepts that were quite eye-opening. Sometimes I liked the juveniles more than the adult works of his. They had an innocent wonder-of-the-universe feeling to them.

In an interesting note, Heinlein incorporates a passing mention to Orphans in Time Enough for Love, talking about how they finally found the first generation ship completely dead, but that there was a planet with a human population on it somewhere back on it's flight path. Quite cool.

To Moonpuppy:

Couldn't agree more with your opinion of the characters in ST. See my write up about it. It was particularly heavy at the start of the movie.

The bugs didn't use their plasma beetle bombardment to hit the earth though. They only used them to shoot at things in orbit. For the Earth, they just sent huge asteroids at it. They don't really bother to explain how this was done though. (Actually, this was true in the book too though. I don't think Heinlein himself explained the bug spacegoing ability very clearly).

Ok, last comment. I mentioned one more Heinlein movie: Destination Moon. I'm really curious to know if anybody here has actually seen this movie. I'd like to know what people who have seen it have to say. I doubt very much if there are that many who have seen it, and if it's available for rental anywhere I'd be surprised, but maybe one or two of the old-timers here can dredge it out of their memory?? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

No, wait, one more comment, but completely unrelated to the rest. Russ, good quote on your sig-line. One of my favorite movies. In fact, I just rented it to watch again, and someday I'm going to buy the DVD for myself. That was a cool, cool movie, and even though it was released in 1956, it has a feel to it that almost makes it seem like a new release. Even the SFX are still close to good enough for modern film. It'd be interesting to see a remake of it someday though. They could really make it kick-***, (if they didn't butcher it instead. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif)

Kaptain K
2001-Nov-21, 06:03 PM
Moonpuppy wrote
I haven't read much Heinlein...
No shouting here, but if you are the least bit interested in "good" science fiction, there is none better than Heinlein (in my humble opinion).

ToSeek
2001-Nov-21, 06:23 PM
On 2001-11-21 13:03, Kaptain K wrote:
Moonpuppy wrote
I haven't read much Heinlein...
No shouting here, but if you are the least bit interested in "good" science fiction, there is none better than Heinlein (in my humble opinion).



Heinlein has written some of the most readable sf novels ever. I remember I had to be careful when I was in my teens because if I started a Heinlein novel I could scarcely put it down till I was done.

Mr. X
2001-Nov-21, 06:30 PM
I don't know if the director or writers knew this but primitive species of bugs can eat the brains of other bugs and then know what the other bug knew. I did an experoment in my college biology lab with planaria. It's a type of flat worm that you can teach to run a simple maize for food. Once you have a worm trained you grind it up and feed it to another planaria and the new planaria can run the maize without training.

Never did that, but I smell a new question coming to my biology professor! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Planaria are quite interesting, they're the first ones with photosensitive cells if I remember. And you can cut them in 3 parts and get 3 new planaria!

I don't think planaria have brains, I think they have what biologists call a "ganglion", in this particular context a lot of brain cells together but not quite a brain yet. And since you can get 3 new from 3 parts, the brain can be reconstructed from scratch by other cells meaning it's quite simple.

Some liver parasites are amusing little fellas from this family, the friendly fasciola hepatica methinks (they're actually very evil little things, steer clear!).

Either way I'll try to check that up, maybe you don't remember correctly, I'll be certain to embarass the biology professor for giving so many lousy grades! >:-)

ToSeek
2001-Nov-21, 06:40 PM
On 2001-11-20 17:34, Russ wrote:

I don't know if the director or writers knew this but primitive species of bugs can eat the brains of other bugs and then know what the other bug knew. I did an experoment in my college biology lab with planaria. It's a type of flat worm that you can teach to run a simple maize for food. Once you have a worm trained you grind it up and feed it to another planaria and the new planaria can run the maize without training.

Wierd stuff if ya ask me!



Also still controversial:


The experimental evidence that planaria which have learned some avoidance action have a particular RNA which, when fed to untaught planaria, gives them a head start in the learning is still a matter of debate.

From:

http://www.custance.org/Library/MIND/chapter5.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2001-11-21 13:40 ]</font>

Mr. X
2001-Nov-21, 07:36 PM
Ye Gods! What kind of searching machine are you, ToSeek!

ToSeek
2001-Nov-21, 07:44 PM
On 2001-11-21 14:36, Mr. X wrote:
Ye Gods! What kind of searching machine are you, ToSeek!


Determined, when I can remember a point I want to make but have to look to find something to support it! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

ToSeek
2001-Nov-21, 07:45 PM
On 2001-11-21 14:44, ToSeek wrote:


On 2001-11-21 14:36, Mr. X wrote:
Ye Gods! What kind of searching machine are you, ToSeek!


Determined, when I can remember a point I want to make but have to look to find something to support it! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif


Actually, that, and I only have three more posts (two counting this one) to be a "Bad Grad." /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

David Hall
2001-Nov-25, 08:33 AM
(Well, my first attempt got lost in the password bug, so let's try again)

Wow! Talk about strange quirks of fortune. I went to my video store yesterday, and they absolutely do NOT have "The Puppet Masters" in stock. Pity. I was really looking forward to watching it again. But to my big suprise, they DO have "Destination Moon"! That's right, the video I was thinking would be too rare for anyone to find without trouble is available at my rental store in the middle of Japan. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif Go figure.

Well, first off, it is about as slow and plodding by today's standards as you would think. The beginning especially fails to grab you. The characters are like those of most 50's movies. They display a remarkably cavalier attitude towards things like safety and planning. for example, when they get word that their test of the atomic rocket was prohibited, they decided to forego the test and launch within 17 hours. This seat-of-the-pants decision making was common throughout the movie.

The story is really very simple. A group of private citizens get together the corporate backing to build their own moon rocket. In spite of obsticles put up by the government, they launch anyway. When a poor landing on the moon uses too much fuel, they have to strip the ship of all excess weight to get home. That's it.

But while the story isn't much, it's charm is in the way it was designed to teach the truth about space travel. This movie is a Bad Astronomer's dream. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif In fact, sometimes the effort to educate us gets in the way of the story a bit. They use the common device of the ignorant foil to provide a reason to explain much of it ("Hey, won't we fall out?" "No, there's no gravity, so we can't fall."). They didn't get everything right, but they sure get an A for effort.

Almost everything we've talked about here that's bad astronomy is avoided and even pointed out explicitly. The stars are bright and steady (and unfortunately very fake looking). They also don't move. This is explained in the dialog ("Hey, we ain't moving!" "Actually we're moving at thousands of miles per hour. It's just our perspective.") The launch scene was a bit cheesy, but only because of the limits of special effects of the time. They used sinking cushions and some special face-stretching makeup to simulate g-forces. Weightlessness was people on wires and camera angles, and worked pretty well. They even had a couple of them get spacesick. There was a pretty good effect of one of them trying to catch a floating pill in his mouth.

The scene where they had to go on a spacewalk was well done, mostly. They showed the spacesuits expand due to vacuum. The scene where they left the airlock (upside down from our perspective) was particularly well done in my opinion. One of the crew screws up (due to the same risky attitude towards safety) and starts floating away from the ship. the effect of them using ropes in weightlessness isn't bad. They finally use an oxygen tank to go and get him. This shows one of the few bits of bad astronomy. The idea is ok, but the way he uses it would have sent him into a spin.

They tried to show low gravity on the moon, but it didn't look too realistic. They could jump way too high. Also, the stars were just as bright on the surface as in space. The worst Bad Astronomy though was the landing site. It looked like a dried and cracked lake bed. Otherwise, it was pretty good if you consider that this movie was made more than 15 years before we got a good look at the real thing.

From a scientific viewpoint, this movie was incredible. There's really too much to mention here. I highly recommend it to everyone here if you want to see a good example of good astronomy. Just remember the time and situation in which it was made. Especially, I'd like to recommend it to the BA himself. I'd love to see you review this on your site. This would make a perfect addition to your movie section as an illustration on how to do things right. (I'd also like to see you do 2001 for the same reason. In fact, maybe you could do a good astronomy movie section.)

That's all. I don't suggest you go out of your way to find it, but if you ever come across it in your video store, I suggest you take the time to give it a view. I think you'll all enjoy it. (Now, where am I going to dig up a copy of the Puppet Masters...?)

Irishman
2001-Nov-28, 05:06 PM
Thanks so much! I've been very interested in seeing that movie ever since I learned of it's existence (and Heinlein's role) some 12 years ago. I really would like to see it just for that purpose. Of course, movies in that time frame are often plodding and dull and slow by our current expectation - the few I've seen follow that pattern. At least the "action" movies. (I've seen some pretty good comedies that hold their own.)

For the record (to those who don't know), Heinlein was directly involved in making that movie, and all the good astronomy is because of his input.

David, I find it amazing that you have that movie just sitting on the shelves for rent there. The few times I've looked for it here with the big movie rental chains, nobody has heard of it.

As for "Puppet Masters", just remember the movie title is "Robert A. Heinlein's: The Puppet Masters", and not the cheesy slash film series about animated dolls under the similar name "The Puppet Master".

David Hall
2001-Dec-10, 01:40 PM
OK, sorry to keep this thread going, but I just found this fun Mr. Cranky review of ST. He's got it pretty much on-target. But boy, reading the posted messages at the bottom just goes to confirm to me the sheer stupidity of the average movie-going public. It's so sad. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif

http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/starshiptroopers.html

steinhenge
2001-Dec-12, 08:16 AM
Actually, Destination Moon was recently released on DVD so it should be fairly findable. Here's a link to a review:

http://dvd.ign.com/articles/307047p1.html

Donnie B.
2001-Dec-12, 03:08 PM
From the review at steinhenge's link:



The film was made in 1950, almost 20 years before the US put a man on the Moon (if, that is, you believe we actually went to the Moon.) Despite some science they got wrong, the film is surprisingly faithful to the difficulties and dangers associated with a real Moon trip. Some of the things they got wrong include the time it would take (hours instead of weeks)...


Sheesh. Not only does this reviewer (Rick Sanchez) lend credence to the lunar conspiracy nuts by questioning the moon landings, but when he tries to correct a "science mistake", it's he who gets it absurdly wrong, not the movie.

The Apollo missions took about two days to get to the moon, not weeks. One would assume that the nuclear-powered vehicle in the movie could do it a good deal quicker (by accelerating longer, or at higher g, or both -- though I haven't seen the movie and don't know if they did this).

Let's hope Mr. Sanchez' aesthetic judgements are more accurate than his knowledge of space travel!

Hmmm... just realized I may have misread the reviewer's comment. Perhaps he meant that the trip lasted weeks in the film? If so, he's right and I apologize. Who has seen it and can confirm this?

I still don't like the moan-hoax implication though...

[backed off my rant, and corrected spelling of steinhenge's nym]


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Donnie B. on 2001-12-12 10:09 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Donnie B. on 2001-12-12 10:13 ]</font>

David Hall
2001-Dec-12, 03:55 PM
On 2001-12-12 10:08, Donnie B. wrote:
From the review at steinhenge's link:

Hmmm... just realized I may have misread the reviewer's comment. Perhaps he meant that the trip lasted weeks in the film? If so, he's right and I apologize. Who has seen it and can confirm this?

I still don't like the moan-hoax implication though...



Hah. The Apollo quote sure does seem condescending to us, but maybe he was just trying to look open-minded about things? He does seem to be mistaken about the time though. I know he wasn't talking about the film. It's been two weeks now since I watched it, so I don't remember exactly how long they took, but I remember it was close enough to the actual Apollo times that it didn't catch my attention. I seem to remember someone mentioning 71 hours, but I can't be sure unless I see it again.

I also know they didn't use the motor for a long acceleration. Lack of reaction mass was a main theme of the movie, and the spacewalk accident happened when the doofus bent over to check out the engine nozzle and lost contact with his magnetic boots. He couldn't have peeked over if the rocket were still firing.

This is quite a good review by the way. I can agree with almost all of it (except for the passage quoted above naturally /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif). There are some good screen shots on that page too, especially the one that shows the cracked lunar surface, which I mentioned before. I laughed out loud at the comment about the magnetic boots. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif As for his final conclusion, I would agree it's mostly for die-hards, but for a slightly different reason. It's main charm to me is realizing what they attempted to do at that time in cinematic history. The attempt at accuracy and the seriousness of the science is something that's quite rare in SF film, and to see what they tried to do at the time is quite amazing.

It's nice to see it coming out on disc. If you can afford it and aren't too bored by outdated, slow 50's productions, I say check it out.

_________________
David Hall
"Dave... my mind is going... I can feel it... I can feel it." (http://www.occn.zaq.ne.jp/cuaea503/whatnots/2001_feel_it.wav)

<font size="-1">(Edited out an unnecessary quote)</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2001-12-12 10:59 ]</font>

steinhenge
2001-Dec-13, 03:19 AM
Despite some scientific shortcomings, ign is a really fine site for DVD reviews. Almost always funny (especially in picture captions) and rarely am I in massive disagreement with reviewers. Can't say that about most places.

Hopefully, I'll be able to find a copy thanks to the DVD release, though I'm not holding out any hopes of wide spread distribution for a title that won't register on most peoples entertainment radar. Heck, I'm just pleased that it got released at all as, like many of you, I'm a bit of a Heinlein freak.

g99
2003-Feb-19, 09:56 PM
I know this is a dead topic, But David brought it up in a different topic. Heinlen has made a huge difference in my life and was my first Sci-Fi novelist. The first book i ever read by him was Red Planet and it is still my favorite out of all of hit books, followed closely by Starship troopers and another i will mention later. Those were followed by almost all of his books. I have not read a few of them yet, but they are on my list. Next is rocket ship Gallileo Seems interesting. Don't know much about it.
Orphans of the sky was a weird one that i just picked up this summer.

One of my favorite was Sixth Column About a future world where Asians take over the world and a few scientists create a superweapon that eventually helps them win. They even create a pseudo religion to get acros their means and get helpers.

He was a inspiration and i love his writings. He is one of the few authors i want to read more than once. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2003-02-19 16:56 ]</font>

tracer
2003-Feb-19, 11:09 PM
On 2001-11-11 13:09, David Hall wrote:
Ok, here's my thoughts on Starship Troopers.
[ ... ]
Second. as it gets near the starship, they first detect it due to it's gravitational field. In fact they notice it because it's so strong that it causes the liquid in a cup to angle off very steeply. Boy, it must be massive! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif
This is bad for another reason:

If your space ship suddenly found itself in the presence of an enormous body with odles of gravity, it would fall toward it. (Well, okay, more precisely, it would orbit it, although the orbit might be one of those that would intersect its surface.) Everything in the ship -- people, tables, cups, liquid in the cups -- would all be falling toward it at the same rate. In other words, the ship and everything on it would be in freefall ("zero gee"), and you wouldn't see anything moving in relation to anything else on board the ship.

tracer
2003-Feb-19, 11:12 PM
On 2003-02-19 16:56, g99 wrote:
He was a inspiration and i love his writings.
So after reading Starship Troopers, were you inspired to join the military and flog people for disobedience? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

g99
2003-Feb-19, 11:26 PM
On 2003-02-19 18:12, tracer wrote:


On 2003-02-19 16:56, g99 wrote:
He was a inspiration and i love his writings.
So after reading Starship Troopers, were you inspired to join the military and flog people for disobedience? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif


Only twice. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif. But I left when i found out that the mission to Klendathu (sp?) was canceled for this year.

johnwitts
2003-Feb-20, 05:16 AM
This thread missed 2002 completely. Where's it been?

Starship Troopers is quite simply the best movie ever made, closely followed by It's a Wonderful Life.

So there.

PS. The rock that hit Argentina was *reported* to have been launched by the Bugs. My understanding was that it had nothing to do with them, it was just a coincidence, and a reason for Earth to go to war.....

g99
2003-Feb-20, 06:56 AM
On 2003-02-20 00:16, johnwitts wrote:
This thread missed 2002 completely. Where's it been?

Starship Troopers is quite simply the best movie ever made, closely followed by It's a Wonderful Life.

So there.


Dang, and i guess my bid for Robocop as the directors best movie will go unoticed. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif.



PS. The rock that hit Argentina was *reported* to have been launched by the Bugs. My understanding was that it had nothing to do with them, it was just a coincidence, and a reason for Earth to go to war.....

In the book the bugs plastered several cities with asteroids and even Pluto (killing Carl). Not just Argentina.

Onew thing that bugged me has been braught up earlier in this topic. The bugs are supposed to be of inferior tech. They do have spaceships, but no propulsion is given for the Asteroids. Even with the Humans more advanced tech it takes them months or weeks to travel b/t the systems. Don't you think Earth would have been looking for the asteroids since they knew it would happen? Like have asteroid hunters around the globe and then dispatch it.

It is not like they could not destroy them. They mentioned Nova bombs many times that could easily destroy a planet. Plot hole.

TriangleMan
2003-Feb-20, 12:21 PM
I thought Starship Troopers was an entertaining movie. Then a friend of mine pointed out that the cast members are just like the characters from 'Archie' comics (in other words the movie may as well have been retitled "Archie vs the Aliens"). I now can't see the movie in any other way. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

If you are familiar with Archie comics think about it, Archie, Reggie, Betty, Veronica, Moose, Dilton, they're all there!

Sorry if this ruins Starship Troopers for anyone . . .

DaveOlden
2003-Feb-20, 12:59 PM
On 2001-12-12 03:16, steinhenge wrote:
... Here's a link to a review:

http://dvd.ign.com/articles/307047p1.html


There's a new location for that Destination Moon link..

http://dvd.ign.com/articles/307/307047p1.html

Even though a search at ign generated the dud link too. More searching dug up the working link...



On 2001-11-09 07:49, David Hall wrote:
That's all I know of, movie-wise. If anyone knows of anything else, feel free to throw them in.

I haven't seen mention on this thread, yet, of a 1994 Animated multipart Red Planet, based on Heinlein's novel of the same name. I haven't seen it, but some reviews online weren't kind. Visitors to it's listing at Internet Movie Database (http://imdb.com/CommentsShow?0216502) are a little nicer, giving it a cumulative rating of 6.5/10 stars.

gethen
2003-Feb-20, 03:53 PM
If anyone has already mentioned this about "Starship Troopers" and I missed it, I apologize, but I have to say that I found the acting itself to be so bad that I hardly noticed what else was going on. The lead female (a brunette I think) was very attractive and as they say, ran the gamut of emotions from A-B. Her reaction to every situation was a brainless smile. I don't think I'll take any Hollywood attempt to film a real sf movie seriously until they hire real actors to play the roles. The casting tells me that they are primarily concerned with special effects--not the quality of the films.

tracer
2003-Feb-20, 06:32 PM
On 2003-02-20 00:16, johnwitts wrote:
Starship Troopers is quite simply the best movie ever made, closely followed by It's a Wonderful Life.

So there.
That may be, but the best movie of this millennium is, unquestionably, Shallow Hal (http://www.netcom.com/~rogermw/ShallowHal.html).

informant
2003-Feb-20, 06:51 PM
I have only seen Starship Troopers, and here’s a heretic’s opinion:

I liked it.
I’m sure it isn’t faithful to the content/message of the original, and it does have obnoxious characters, over-the-top acting, and implausible situations. But that’s the whole point, IMHO. Starship Troopers is a very well done parody of Heinlein’s style. Heinlein was one of the most talented SF writers ever, but he was far from flawless. His writing is often preachy, conservative, an militaristic. The film exaggerates these characteristics to the point where everyone can see how they can become annoying.
The excessive violence is just typical of Verhoeven, but it’s much better dosed here than in Total Recall. Instead of spoiling the story, it does a great job of exposing the latent law-of-the-jungleness of the characters.

(All right, you can all hit me now… /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif)


Wiley wrote:


How many SF books that are about ideas and philosophy, as opposed to blowing up an evil galactic empire, are made into movies? The only two that come to mind are 2001 and Contact. In other words, to do justice to Heinlein's vision we need a skilled director and a skilled screenwriter, and we can't expect a large return.

There have been a few more. Off the top of my head: ‘Blade Runner’, ‘AI’, ‘A Clockwork Orange’ (yes!), ‘Nineteen Eighty Four’…

g99
2003-Feb-20, 10:56 PM
On 2003-02-20 07:59, DaveOlden wrote:


I haven't seen mention on this thread, yet, of a 1994 Animated multipart Red Planet, based on Heinlein's novel of the same name. I haven't seen it, but some reviews online weren't kind. Visitors to it's listing at Internet Movie Database (http://imdb.com/CommentsShow?0216502) are a little nicer, giving it a cumulative rating of 6.5/10 stars.

I saw it on FOX kids amny years ago. I liked it alot and got me into the novel version. If you like heinlen i reccomend it. It stays fairly close to the book (the whole revolution was not included) . But it has been several years since i have seen it.

_________________
"Hi!!" - Some person, somewere, at some time.
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." - Dan Sandler 2002

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2003-02-20 17:57 ]</font>

Krel
2003-Feb-21, 12:48 AM
I attended the panel at the 96 World Con. There the producers of "Starship Troopers" stated that the objective of the director, and themselves was to discredit RHH and his politics. They were even proud that they had turned down the more vitriolic screen writers that really wanted to bash RAH.

Actual quotes: "We're going to do his book excactly, but make it different". "We're going to do his politics exactly, but subvert them". I remember them to this day because the audience was looking at each other, going wtf?

The other authors, and screenwriters were making fun of them in other panels.

The best part though was the look on their faces when about 400 people booed them when they said that there would be no power armor. I think that they knew they were in trouble then.

The politics in that movie were as far away from RAH's as you could get.

David.

g99 be picky. But in my defense, I'm in the second day of a virus and this is one of the few things that takes my mind off my misery.

Oops, I forgot, mistake corrected.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: krel on 2003-02-20 23:20 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Krel on 2003-02-20 23:22 ]</font>

g99
2003-Feb-21, 02:10 AM
I don't want to be picky, but it is RAH. Robert A. Heinlen.

Sorry. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Great story by the way. That just makes me mad. The politics were a very large part of the book. It is like making Jurassic park into a movie without the island or the park, just the dinos. A bad move on their part.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2003-02-20 21:12 ]</font>

Dickenmeyer
2003-Feb-21, 03:46 AM
I'm not a rabid Heinlein fan but I read a bunch of his juvies as a young sprout, ROCKETSHIP GALILEO, TUNNEL IN THE SKY, HAVE SPACE SUIT - WILL TRAVEL, THE STAR BEAST (loved that one) and STARSHIP TROOPERS was one of the first SF novels that I read which had more mature themes of a political nature however two-dimensional they may have been, so I hate to see his stuff turned into DOOGIE HOWSER, National Socialist. Still as bad as it was, and it was BAD, I kind of liked it as a mindless blow-em-up bughunt kind of a movie.

Wiley
2003-Feb-21, 08:07 PM
Does anyone else here think that the movie Aliens is a better adaptation of Heinlein's Starship Troopers than the Verhoeven's (ahem) movie?

informant
2003-Feb-21, 08:18 PM
No, the female characters are too independent. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: informant on 2003-02-24 11:41 ]</font>

The Shade
2003-Feb-22, 02:31 AM
On 2003-02-21 15:07, Wiley wrote:
Does anyone else here think that the movie Aliens is a better adaptation of Heinlein's Starship Troopers than the Verhoeven's (ahem) movie?


Well, I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who thought that James Cameron took many of his ideas from Starship Troopers. And, you're right, it's a heck of a lot better than Starship Troopers the movie.

Wiley
2003-Feb-24, 10:38 PM
On 2003-02-21 15:18, informant wrote:
No, the female characters are too independent. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: informant on 2003-02-24 11:41 ]</font>


I know you're joking, but I can see Ripley as Heinlein inspired. Heinlein is known for having strong, independent female characters (sure, they want to sleep with their fathers but that's whole different issue. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif).

g99
2003-Feb-24, 10:43 PM
In this month's MAD XL. (#20 March 2003). They do a parody of Starship troopers. What a coincidence. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif Prety funny i think. Go check it out.

informant
2003-Feb-24, 11:10 PM
On 2003-02-24 17:38, Wiley wrote:


On 2003-02-21 15:18, informant wrote:
No, the female characters are too independent. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


I know you're joking, but I can see Ripley as Heinlein inspired. Heinlein is known for having strong, independent female characters (sure, they want to sleep with their fathers but that's whole different issue. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif).




Hmm... Actually, Wiley, I was only half joking.
I know that Heinlein had some tough female characters in his later novels, but in my opinion there are subtle, but important, differences between them and Ripley. He would never have written Ripley.

g99
2003-Feb-24, 11:33 PM
I would have to agree with informant. Most of Heinlen's novels are male centered. The female is almost always a secondary character or in a steryotypical position (homemaker, secratary, ect.)

The only exception i can think of is I Will Fear No Evil. Even then it does not count since it technically is still a male character. But the "voice in his head." is a woman and she does play a large role. The only thing is, is that she is a secratary. Aagain, eventually the guy who inhabits her body reverts to steryotypical female roles.


But even with his faults (he did write in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. Before most of women's lib.) he still weaves a great story. Nobody takes his ideas of women seriously. But his ideas of the human character are universal.

Dickenmeyer
2003-Feb-25, 12:20 AM
FRIDAY, which seems to have been Heinlein's try at a sort of cyberpunk novel, featured a strong, smart female lead. It also plays to the crowd that thinks RAH was a paranoid libertarian gun nut with an adolescent boy's idea of female sexuality though. It wasn't bad but it sure wasn't his best.

David Hall
2003-Feb-25, 04:16 AM
Heinlein usually painted his female roles as sort of uber-women. They look feminine on the outside, but underneath they are really tough and strong. Rather than taking central roles themselves, they were portrayed more as either the "power behind the throne", or as a means to contrast the weaknesses of the main male character.

But underneath all that was usually another layer, where the woman is still a woman, and she ends up falling for the lead in a rather girlish way.

In any case, they are decidedly not stereotypical depictions of women, usually.

g99
2003-Feb-25, 04:18 AM
I guess i didn't look into them that much. Oops.../phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif

[added this:]

Hmmm...I guess i just looked at them for what i saw (read). I try to look into the characters, but usually when i read, i just read.

Now that i think about it, they did have the power behind the throne type of mentality. The "voice in the head" in I Will Fear No Evil did actually lead the main character to a better, happier life and was the drawing point of the story. How about the girl in Have spacesuit, will travel? (I think that is what it is called). She was strong, but still a secondary character.
So yes they are strong, but still not a main character.

But i really still can't remember Heinlen writing a fleshed out female main charcter. I never read Friday, but according to Dickenmeyer it wasn't that good.

Maybe he just didn't think he understood women enougth to write a good character.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2003-02-24 23:31 ]</font>

DaveOlden
2003-Feb-25, 07:29 AM
Although not an adaption, I've often wondered how much the movie Explorers owes to Have Space Suit Will Travel...

captain swoop
2003-Feb-25, 03:38 PM
The CG cartoon version of Starship troopers was great.

Proper Power Armour that worked in a believable way, head up displays, inertial mapping and weapon sighting all built in. Big 'heavy' support versions with rocket launchers etc. proper tactics by the squad and real support from aircover and heavy weapons (when they were on the surface)

The missions were more appropriate for a small squad in an 'ongoing' military campaign as well.

The story and characters seemed more true to the book than the movie as well, allowing for the fact it was aimed at a younger audience.

As an aside Microsoft had a game out a few years ago called 'Outwars', you can still get it on budget labels. It's a 1st person shooter and is a take on the Starship Troopers power armoured infantry against big bugs, ongoing campaign and support from team members the lot.

Get it if you can.


Seperate to this at the beginning of this topic thread someone mentioned the weapons seemed feeble.

This is a general thread in every 'modern' sci-fi film I have seen from Star Wars onwards. We have better kit today.

Look at Star Wars. All the gun turrets and fighters are simple 'line up the X and press the button' Better fire control and sighting systems were in use in WWII for goodness sake!

daver
2003-Feb-25, 06:31 PM
On 2003-02-24 23:18, g99 wrote:
I guess i didn't look into them that much. Oops.../phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif

[added this:]

Hmmm...I guess i just looked at them for what i saw (read). I try to look into the characters, but usually when i read, i just read.

Now that i think about it, they did have the power behind the throne type of mentality. The "voice in the head" in I Will Fear No Evil did actually lead the main character to a better, happier life and was the drawing point of the story. How about the girl in Have spacesuit, will travel? (I think that is what it is called). She was strong, but still a secondary character.
So yes they are strong, but still not a main character.



Hazel Stone? She was a child in the lunar revolution. I remember trying to find her once in THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS; i can't remember if i did or not.




But i really still can't remember Heinlen writing a fleshed out female main charcter. I never read Friday, but according to Dickenmeyer it wasn't that good.



PODKAYNE OF MARS. A girl, not a woman. His publishers made him change the ending; probably a good thing.

I wasn't that enamored of FRIDAY. One of my favorites of his was "Gulf"; FRIDAY takes place in the same timeline (some of her DNA came from the main characters in "Gulf"), but the theme is 180 degrees opposed to "Gulf".




Maybe he just didn't think he understood women enougth to write a good character.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2003-02-24 23:31 ]</font>

informant
2003-Feb-25, 08:34 PM
On 2003-02-25 13:31, daver wrote:

PODKAYNE OF MARS. A girl, not a woman. His publishers made him change the ending; probably a good thing.



Can you tell me what changes the publishers imposed on the ending of Podkayne of Mars?

daver
2003-Feb-25, 10:28 PM
On 2003-02-25 15:34, informant wrote:


On 2003-02-25 13:31, daver wrote:

PODKAYNE OF MARS. A girl, not a woman. His publishers made him change the ending; probably a good thing.



Can you tell me what changes the publishers imposed on the ending of Podkayne of Mars?


They wanted Podkayne to survive.

Wiley
2003-Feb-26, 12:30 AM
On 2003-02-25 13:31, daver wrote:

Hazel Stone? She was a child in the lunar revolution. I remember trying to find her once in THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS; i can't remember if i did or not.


In "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" she goes by her maiden name, Hazel Meade. Although (I think) she first appears in "The Rolling Stones", she does not get fully developed until "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls".

The female lead of "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", Wyoming Knott is a very good example of the archetypal Heinlein woman that David described in a previous post. She's strong, independent, competent, and for some inexplicable reason falls for Manuel.

The most fully developed, and possibly my favorite, Heinlein woman is Maureen Johnson from "To Sail Beyond The Sunset".

informant
2003-Feb-26, 03:50 PM
On 2003-02-20 19:48, Krel wrote:
I attended the panel at the 96 World Con. There the producers of "Starship Troopers" stated that the objective of the director, and themselves was to discredit RHH and his politics. They were even proud that they had turned down the more vitriolic screen writers that really wanted to bash RAH.

Actual quotes: "We're going to do his book excactly, but make it different". "We're going to do his politics exactly, but subvert them". I remember them to this day because the audience was looking at each other, going wtf?

The other authors, and screenwriters were making fun of them in other panels.

The best part though was the look on their faces when about 400 people booed them when they said that there would be no power armor. I think that they knew they were in trouble then.

The politics in that movie were as far away from RAH's as you could get.

David.




Film studios can be terrible, in the way that they "reinterpret" stories that they adapt...

irony
2003-Feb-26, 07:59 PM
Just curious... has anybody else noticed how the movie version of Starship Troopers has taken on some disturbing new context in recent years? I don't think I would have liked the film even if I'd seen it before 9/11/02, but seeing it for the first time after that incident made me feel physically ill.

g99
2003-Feb-26, 10:15 PM
On 2003-02-26 14:59, irony wrote:
Just curious... has anybody else noticed how the movie version of Starship Troopers has taken on some disturbing new context in recent years? I don't think I would have liked the film even if I'd seen it before 9/11/02, but seeing it for the first time after that incident made me feel physically ill.




I don't get it.
Do you mean the military style govt.? The war with the bugs? The propaganda ads?

informant
2003-Feb-27, 05:55 PM
Some issues with Starship Troopers, the film adaptation:

1) The "bugs" don't seem to have any kind of technology. How did they send the meteorite across space to bomb Earth?

2) How did they even know where Earth was?

3) How did they colonize other worlds?

4) The planet where Rico and the others eventually land seems like a lifeless desert. What did the bugs eat?

5) If I really wanted to get rid of those bugs, I suppose an obvious solution would be to spray them with some kind of chemical -- chemical warfare. After all, it's how we deal with roaches.
Why bring in the infantry, and fight them one on one?

irony
2003-Feb-27, 08:30 PM
On 2003-02-26 17:15, g99 wrote:
I don't get it.
Do you mean the military style govt.? The war with the bugs? The propaganda ads?


'They' (the enemy from a desert) stage an unprovoked aerial attack on 'us' in an urban centre we thought was safe, and within an incredibly short time there's a war going on. It made the movie feel like an 'attack Iraq!' propaganda video.

Schrodinger's Cat
2003-Feb-28, 03:48 AM
It made the movie feel like an 'attack Iraq!' propaganda video.

Actually Verhoeven himself said that he tried as hard as he could to make Starship Troopers as much like a 50's propoganda film as possible. That was the whole point. Between lines such as 'the only good bug is a dead bug', public executions and Carl's nazi looking SS trenchcoat I'm surprised a lot of you didn't get the film. Anyone who went into the theater expecting an accurate adaptation of Heinlein's fantastic book was garaunteed to get burned.

Perhaps that's the problem though; basing the film on and naming it Starship Troopers immediately implants an expectation in everyone's mind. An expectation that can never be met.

Do yourselves a favor and watch the DVD with the directory commentary. Then seperate the film and the book in your mind.

Ba Witda
2003-Feb-28, 04:08 AM
The problem, oh indeterminable cat, is that the man was basically pissing on the intellectual property of a man most of the boardites, Ba included, hold in high regard. Not only that, but he did it on what Ba believes to be a mistaken basis. It isn't correct to call Heinlein a fascist. His point wasn't that this was an ideal society. He himself once said that the cost of such a society would be too high. He merely wanted to draw attention to a number of problems he saw in the society around him. However, many people misinterpreted his intent. Verhoeven stated that he wanted to show Heinlein as a fascist, so is it any wonder that he gets lambasted by those who like Heinlein? It was an idiotic move to intentionally do something guaranteed to antagonize the fan base. The movie, even as a parody, wasn't all that good. The acting was awful, the premise was stupid, and the action scenes were gratuitous. This endears it to a large portion of the movie-viewing public, but not to Ba, and not to a large number of people, it seems.

g99
2003-Feb-28, 04:27 AM
O.K. so it agreed that everything i have thought about Heinlen and his views on women are totaly wrong. Well i learned something new. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Just one question. When did heinlen start to write his space novels? Like Troopers, Have spacesuit will travel,farmer in the sky, Orphans of in sky (or however it is called), and so on. He seems to have a good grasp of how rougth and inhospitable space it and how hard it is to move around in it. He describes the moon prety accurately in some books. So when did he write those major space novels and others? After Apollo?

Ba Witda
2003-Feb-28, 04:37 AM
Well, a lot of his books were pre-Apollo, including most of those that concentrate on space and the moon. here (http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/authors/Robert_Heinlein.htm) is a bibliography of his works. It should answer most of your questions.

Thing about Heinlein was, he did his research. Not only was he well-educated to begin with, he learned more in his spare time. He was a firm believer in the importance of knowledge for its own sake, and this showed in his books.

g99
2003-Feb-28, 06:51 AM
thanks Ba Witda. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif that site is great.

Schrodinger's Cat
2003-Feb-28, 11:38 PM
That's an interesting point, Ba. You've obviously thought this through more than I have.

Matherly
2003-Mar-01, 04:49 AM
Oh my, this thread is still going!

Well, to recap my feelings

VERHOVEN!!! WE HATES IT FOREVER!

(And I just want to add that he is tricksy and false too)

Anyways, rumor has it that there may be an adaptation of "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". I'm already worried and I havn't even read that book...

Kaptain K
2003-Mar-02, 05:58 AM
Not only did Heinlein do his research (as Ba Witda said), he and his wife (Virginia) actually calculated "real" orbits using nothing but pencil, paper and a slide rule! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif

Zeljko Milobara
2003-Mar-07, 03:27 AM
lets face it it was a crap movie !!!shame on you!

The things that bugged me about the movie :

The basic infantry scenes were reminicent of "full metal jacket" without any of the emotive content that brilliantly defined FMJ (ie being tough to get a point across rather than mindless violence as in ST.) So it was bad plagurism instead of setting a mindest for RICO and his future development as a officer in MI.

MI are supposed to be spread across a battle line with up to 10km between indivuduals rather than a mindless mob with machine guns.

MI use Maurauder, Scout or Commander suits rather than facist black leather leotards with a open chin helmet.

MI use strategic/tactical placement of ordanance to acheive gains rather than mindless firing into a mass of bugs.

MI use sophisticated weaponry rather than "hollywood machine guns" who's magazines never run empty.

MI officer school is a long term process rather than political indocrination that is to be skipped over.

Isn't Carmen/Doogie Howser supposed to die in the book ? (cant remember!)

MI arnt morons with machine guns.

Things I liked :

The propoganda and consumer goods ad's (eg "Why we fight" or the "Car thief zapper"

The bugs who shot cannonballs out of thier arses (bums).

Carmen was hot (as she's supposed to be)


Things that should have been covered but weren't ;

The anti-hero mentality of johnny and any other of the officer class.

"Frying bacon"


Someting that a discerning reader should note :

Joe Haldermans "Forever War" was a parody of "Anti-Vietnam" whereas "ST" was "pro-Vietnam" (check it out and review yourself)

My fav H book : Time Enough For Love

My 1st H book : Number Of The Beast

Cheers

g99
2003-Mar-07, 04:16 AM
On 2003-03-06 22:27, Zeljko Milobara wrote:

Isn't Carmen/Doogie Howser supposed to die in the book ? (cant remember!)

Carmen lives

Carl [doogie houser's charcter) dies on pluto in a big attack.



Things that should have been covered but weren't ;

The anti-hero mentality of johnny and any other of the officer class.

"Frying bacon"



I think they should of did officer school with Johnny meeing his thought to be dead dad.

"Frying Bacon" would of been nice, but it would of slowed down the movie and was really not explained much in the book.
(for those of you who have no clue what we are talking about, near the climactic end battle of the book, the bugs tunneling underground is supposed to sound like "frying bacon".




Someting that a discerning reader should note :

Joe Haldermans "Forever War" was a parody of "Anti-Vietnam" whereas "ST" was "pro-Vietnam" (check it out and review yourself)



I love Forever War One of my favorite books. Forever peace was similar, but not as good. It was (to me) still using Vietnam as a backdrop.
Forever free is something that should be burned on sight.

I loved the way the forever war portrayed the reality of time dilation and its effect on the main character and humainity as a whole.
The best part is when they had to resort to bows, arrows, and swords to defeat a enemy because their technology has gotten so advanced that they negated all guns and beam weapons.

I think that troopers (the book) was anti-vietnam. They mentitoned numerous times in the book that the humans were loosing the war and dieing in huge numbers. They were fighting a hardy enemy who used gorrila tactics and numbers to kill them with weak technology that was behind the Good guys, but not that far behind.

The residents of the home planets were against the war. Johnny and his other MI's held deep contempt for them. The residents were protesting spending all of the money on a war light years away.

David Hall
2003-Mar-07, 09:43 AM
On 2003-03-06 23:16, g99 wrote:

They were fighting a hardy enemy who used gorrila tactics and numbers to kill them...


Gorilla tactics? Did they throw bananas at the enemy? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Sorry to nitpick, but the correct word is guerilla.

captain swoop
2003-Mar-07, 11:17 AM
The best part is when they had to resort to bows, arrows, and swords to defeat a enemy because their technology has gotten so advanced that they negated all guns and beam weapons.



In the Dorsai books (OK not by H) they had the same problem with defensive technology ewndering lots of weapons useless.


sorry, edit of spelling.
_________________
http://www.cthuugle.com/
for all your searching needs.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: captain swoop on 2003-03-07 07:22 ]</font>

calliarcale
2003-Mar-07, 04:46 PM
I think one of the most interesting things about the movie "Starship Troopers" was that the two best performances (in my opinion) were both turned in by former Highlander villains: Clancy Brown (a highly underrated actor who always does a fine job) and Michael Ironsides (cast against type and clearly enjoying the stretch).

Strange, isn't it?

"The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" is a very intriguing book. It's about the fundamental problems of trying to maintain control over an offworld colony -- and also about how to pull off a good revolution. I don't think it would work as a movie; it's too dependent on the dialog to explain what's going on, and the problem with dialog is that it eats up running time. You can compress action scenes and love scenes, but dialog pretty much has to run in real time.

Rodina
2003-Mar-07, 05:24 PM
Couple of assorted comments:

Hazel Stone (nee Meade) was indeed in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and is, in many editions of the book, referenced at least in the front pull quote.

"A girl no bigger than Hazel..."

****

I think if you take Verhoven's ST not so much as adaption of the book, but more as a propaganda film that might have been made by the society depicted in ST, it's actually not so bad.

Krel
2003-Mar-07, 06:40 PM
It's kind of hard not to take it as an adaption of the book when the movie's title is: "Robert Heinlein's Starship Toopers".

The movie was out to show a certain view, and to make specific points. And they didn't care how stupid or ridiculous they had to be to get there.

David.

It would help if I checked my spelling before I hit the 'submit' button

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Krel on 2003-03-07 16:29 ]</font>

ToSeek
2003-Mar-07, 07:31 PM
On 2003-03-07 04:43, David Hall wrote:

Sorry to nitpick, but the correct word is guerilla.



Nitpicking even more, it's actually guerrilla (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=guerrilla).

calliarcale
2003-Mar-07, 08:28 PM
On 2003-03-07 13:40, Krel wrote:
It's kind of hard not to take it as an adaption of the book when the movie's title is: "Robert Heinlein's Starship Toopers".


Agreed! There's a humor website called Rinkworks.com that has a funny little bit called The Filmmaker's Exam (http://www.rinkworks.com/filmmaker/). The idea is that if you answer "yes" to any question, your movie should not be made. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif Question fifteen relates to this:

15.Is the title of your movie prefixed with a credit, as in, Bram Stoker's Dracula? (You may skip this question if you are Alfred Hitchcock. But if you are Alfred Hitchcock, you shouldn't be taking this test, as you are dead.)

I sometimes wonder how many of the movies prefixed with an author's name are actually true to their source and how many are just desperately attempting to convince the clueless that they really *did* bother reading the book first.

Matherly
2003-Mar-08, 04:56 AM
Part of the reason why I like the fact that it's not "J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings". Of course, its also not "a Peter Jackson film", so Pete does realize that the create force behind the film was the Professor.

David Hall
2003-Mar-08, 09:03 AM
On 2003-03-07 14:31, ToSeek wrote:

Nitpicking even more, it's actually guerrilla (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=guerrilla).


D'oh! The worst part is, I even checked with my dictionary to make sure I had the spelling right. I therefore plead a simple typing error in my defense. Thanks for the correction.

Kaptain K
2003-Mar-12, 07:55 PM
15.Is the title of your movie prefixed with a credit, as in, Bram Stoker's Dracula? (You may skip this question if you are Alfred Hitchcock. But if you are Alfred Hitchcock, you shouldn't be taking this test, as you are dead.)

How about:

51. Are you unfaithfully adapting a classic work of literature and using "hardly anyone's read the book" as an excuse?

Anyone planning to make a movie of any Heinlein book (or any of the acknowledged SF masters) should be required to read Fellowship of the Rings and then watch Peter Jackson's adaptation to see the proper treatment of an icon.

informant
2003-Mar-13, 11:55 AM
Looks like there's going to be a low budget sequel (http://www.moviehole.net/search.php?q=Starship+Troopers&Go.x=9&Go.y=9) to Starship Troopers.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: informant on 2003-03-13 06:55 ]</font>

David Hall
2003-Mar-13, 12:34 PM
On 2003-03-13 06:55, informant wrote:
Looks like there's going to be a low budget sequel (http://www.moviehole.net/search.php?q=Starship+Troopers&Go.x=9&Go.y=9) to Starship Troopers.


Ouch! It's pretty sad when a movie doesn't even get past the planning stage before you can tell it'll suck. Just reading the synopsis of the storyline makes it sound pathetic.


"The film involves a bunch of troopers in a fort staving off raids from the bugs while waiting to be rescued. The cast will be made up of largely unknowns and will not feature any characters from the previous film. What the film will feature is a lot of action and a very surprising human drama. The reason for this is that the bugs have a parastic infection in their arsenal, and troopers who become infected start to loose control and decay from the inside. A symptom of the infection is a hand deformity so as a result, those who are infected attempt to hide this fact and will cause the soldiers to turn on themseleves as they are unsure of whom they can trust. The film will mix elements of "The Thing", "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" "The Hidden", and "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan" with classic Trooper Combat."

Tell me, why would anyone want to hide the fact that they have an infection, especially if they jeopardize the whole? Not to mention that a physical deformity is about the hardest thing to hide from others. Stupid. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

Kaptain K
2003-Mar-13, 02:40 PM
Another tipoff that they know it's gonna suck.

"It will be shot High Definition and go direct to DVD (at least in the US)."