Heinlein Books and Movies

Factual Questions
1

To legitimize a hijacked thread…

How come nobody can make a decent movie out of a Heinlein novel?

To be more specific:
When I say “decent movie” I mean one that remains true to the themes and tone of the original work.

What’s been done to date?
[ul][li]The movie adaptation of Starship Troopers was not a movie I enjoyed. Maybe you liked it - that’s your right (Hey, people liked Home Alone III, right?). But certainly no one would argue with the assertion that that ST the movie was an entirely different story than ST the novel.[/li][li]As for The Puppet Masters… one word: Utterlysoullessandpointlesspieceofcrapvehicletofurther donaldsutherland’sreputationasalousyactor whomakesonlyparanoidbgradehorrorfilms.[/li]
(I threw in some spaces to end the thread scroll. -manhattan)
[li]I never saw Destination Moon, but I hear it’s less than great.[/ul][/li]So, anyone know why it’s so hard to turn good books into good movies?

I think lots of Heinlein would make good movies:
Methuselah’s Children would be a great first movie before beginning a trilogy based on Time Enough for Love. Also, a movie based on Requiem and The Man Who Sold the Moon would be great!
[Note: This message has been edited by manhattan]

2

I agree with you 100%.

I think there are several parts to the explanation.

First, there’s simply a question of money. Special effects cost $$$.

Next, “hard” science fiction traditionally doesn’t do well at the box office. (I’m sorry but I don’t consider “Star Wars” or “E.T.” to be “hard” science fiction. Science fiction is about mind-bending ideas as well as nuts-and-bolts gadgetry. I didn’t see any mind-bending ideas in either movie.) Hollywood is very reluctant to risk money on Sci-Fi. I think the Star Trek movies basically “lucked out” that way, in that there was a big enough market for the first few movies that Hollywood saw, hey, this might fly, so continued to invest money in it.

Also, a lot of Heinlein’s stuff consists not just of rocket-boy-to-the-moon type stories, but of stories that are essentially unfilmable. How would you film Time Enough for Love? I don’t mean “unfilmable” as “not worthy of being filmed,” I mean look at it from Hollywood’s perspective, money-men who need a 25 words or less, high-concept sound bite to describe it. Same thing for Methusaleh’s Children, “well, it’s about this guy who’s immortal…” Whoops, the money-men are beating a hasty retreat to the screening room to look at rushes of the Silence of the Lambs sequel.

I think translating some of Heinlein’s less video-ready concepts to the big screen would be rather difficult. I think if you did manage to do it, and did justice to the original story, you’d end up with more of a Merchant/Ivory art film kind of thing, and we all know how well those do at the box office, and how eager Hollywood money-men are to back them, when they’re still just a screenplay and a director’s dream.

Also, there’s this: I long ago stopped trying to keep track of movies that I loved as books, but which Hollywood totally screwed up when translated to the Silver Screen, by changing things, by adding and subtracting characters, by leaving out (or adding) subplots. A book always undergoes a strange sea-change when it’s translated by a team of screenwriters, directors, producers, and money-men into a movie.

I actually did not realize for some time that the movie “Puppet Masters” was supposed to be based on Heinlein’s book.

So I have to say that I would actually prefer that Hollywood kept its grubby fingers off some of my favorites. I look forward to the release of “Lord of the Rings” with a sick feeling of mounting dread. “Dear Lord, please let it be, if not good, at least not totally lame. Amen.”

Because if it’s totally lame, there’s 20 million people who will be turned off Tolkien, forever.

“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!” - the White Queen

3

One reason is that the storytelling devices are phenomenally different.

Where a novelist can explore character motivation by revealing the character’s thoughts to the reader, the screenwriter has to show motivation through speech and actions. The novelist can expound with impunity, he can have his audience’s attention for ten hours or more. The screenwriter gets two and a half hours, maybe, and then the audience starts to nod off. In setting scenes and describing events, the novelist is limited only by the human mind’s capacity for visualization, whereas the screenwriter is limited by the director’s views and the budget.

The biggest reason to me, though, is that as you’re reading a novel, you can create your own personal perfect cast, set, camera angles, sound effects etc. You can choose what characters to focus on, what subplots to assign weight and interest to. When the book is made into a movie, someone (the screenwriter, the director) is making those decisons for you. Is it any wonder that you don’t often agree exactly?
And yes, starship troopers (the movie) was awful. My opinion is that the idea that exploring space would require a fascist society was the most interesting idea in the book. The conciet of “citizenship through service” was interesting and tragic at times. I read it focusing on that. But the director (the same guy who directed “Speed” and “Twister”, I believe) saw it more as hot-looking young people shooting up really cool CG alien insects. He and I disagreed, so I hated the flick.

stoli

“There’s always a little dirt, or infinity, or something.” -Feynman

4

P.S. You can e-mail either Manhattan or Nickrz and ask them to fix the word wrap. You’ll probably get more posts hereif people don’t all have to horizontal scroll.

Sometimes they’ll fix it without being asked, but sometimes they won’t.

:slight_smile:

“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!” - the White Queen

5

There was a time in my life when i read a lot of science fiction. Why I read very littleof it now is another story. But I still beleive it has enourmous potential to tell truly important and magnificent stories. An eternal optimist, I actually went to see Mission to mars. 'Nuff said. But what I’m getting around to is this. I would love to see a good science fiction movie. What worthy while science fiction movies have there been? The only two I think highly of are 2001 and Blade Runner (the latter of which had many flaws). Solaris was also very good, but I saw that only once a long time ago. Can you recommend other science fiction films?

Tony

Two things fill my mind with ever-increasing wonder and awe: the starry skies above me and the moral law within me. – Kant

6

Heinlein’s timelines Heinlein’s timelines Heinlein’s timelines Heinlein’s timelines

Yeah, I’ll hafta agree with internalization being hard to translate to screen. An excellent example of a miserably failed attempt was Dune, where the voice-overs got way out of hand. Heinlein’s such a people person that trying to tell his story visually just doesn’t work. “Starship Troopers” was a visual feast, but left Heinlein fans hungry.

An old friend of mine was admamant that he never wanted to see a video for “Skate Away,” by Dire Straights – the song painted such a mental picture that anyone else’s interpretation of it would ruin it for him. If you know the song you understand. Likewise with most of Heinlein’s works – Michael Whelan painted the cover for “Friday” without using a live model. He says that Heinlein paints such colorful characters that no model was necessary, although I think she looks like Julie Newmar…

I lead a boring life of relative unimportance. Really.

7

:smiley:

Obviously. As stolichnaya pointed out in an earlier post, “One reason is that the storytelling devices are phenomenally different.” Movies and books are different - no question about it. But Get Shorty was a good movie that started out as a book. For that matter, so were To Kill a Mockingbird and The Grapes of Wrath. There are many, many others, but I don’t want to bore…

My point is that there seems to be something unique about Heinlein. Lots of authors write internal monologue - it’s a staple of long ficiton. So why can Leanord and Steinbeck translate while Heinlein can’t.

I think it has to do with the Sci-Fi aspect of his work. Here comes an understatement… It’s easy to misunderstand Heinlein. Lots of people think that Heinlien’s works fall into the Spaceship/Ray-gun class of fiction. They don’t get that he wrote about the people on the spaceships, not the spaceships themselves.

Notthemama, you were getting at this earlier. But I think I disagree with your point. There is nothing “unfilmable” about people-centered stories. There is nothing “unfilmable” about TEFL.

I think that most scriptwriters are afraid of material that is as deep as Heinlein’s. I mean, sure, people write movies like American Beauty, Saving Private Ryan, Magnolia and The Thin Red Line nowadays, but they write a lot more like South Park, the Movie and Ace Ventura VI, He Gets Stoopider!.

It’s sad. :frowning:

8

It’s also sad that I can’t get the &%@$! UBB code right.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

9

Same thing with Michael Crichton’s books…it’s disturbing.

I read Congo- Brilliant
I saw part of Congo- Couldn’t stomach the rest.

I read Jurassic Park- Brilliant
I saw Jurassic Park- You’re kidding right?

I read Sphere- Brilliant
I saw Sphere- Uhmm…Yeah?!?

I read Disclosure- Excellent
I saw Disclosure- WTF?!?

I read Lost World- Very good
I won’t watch Lost World- Why waste the 2 hours?

I read Airframe- Excellent
I’m desperately hoping they don’t attempt a movie!

-SS

If “knowledge is power,” why does stupidity reign?

10

I’ll admit that I subscribe to the somewhat elitist idea that pure Heinlein is considered too much for the popcorn-snarfing masses.

Check the two I’ve seen: The Puppet Masters and Starship Troopers

Both written works start from rich backstory, deep characterization, good-natured philosophical rambling, scientific postulation, and political commentary. Heinlein adds a nice dollop of shoot-em-up suspense and action.

Both screenplays start with quick exposition, move quickly to shoot-em-up suspense and action, and then add a small dollop of characterization. Forget everything else, there isn’t enough time.

I think Heinlein could be done well on screen, but it will take the kind of risk that brought, say, American Beauty. It is not traditional material, and it can get expensive to do justice some of the vistas that Heinlein conjures up.

Also, I think that avid readers of Heinlein are so posessive of the material, and the work is so dependant upon the reader’s personal spin on it, that it would be a very risky proposition indeed to satisfy them all, and that’s your guaranteed audience! Case in point: I kind of liked The Number of the Beast.

But don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see someone give it the old college try.

stoli

“There’s always a little dirt, or infinity, or something.” -Feynman

11

I place the blame on the screen writers. For some reason, sci-fi scripts seem to be dropped off with people like the producer’s brother-in-law for a series of rewrites (“be sure to put some hooters in there so we can get the young male audience”). It is a theological fact that such people have no immortal soul. As has already been mentioned, making a film match the visualizations that you have had for years/decades would be tough. But the bastardization of any author’s work and flagrant disregard for the devoted fans, well, it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling when such a movie tanks at the box office. There was some 19th century Italian play producer who rewrote “Romeo and Juliet” because he wanted it to have a happy ending. This stuff has been going on for a long time.

12

It’s always difficult to make movies from books, for all of the reasons given above. One additional reason is that if you like a book you read, you aren’t going to like the changes necessary to transfer the book to film. Also, a book has a much smaller audience than a movie (it’s a phenomenal best seller if a book sells one million copies, but that amount of attendance at a film spell F-L-O-P).

There have been very few successful adaptations of SF books into SF films, where both turned out good. Offhand, I can think of A BOY AND HIS DOG (though Harlan disagrees), ENEMY MINE (though Barry Longyear strongly disagrees), THE TIME MACHINE, WAR OF THE WORLDS, and DEATHWATCH. There have been cases also where good movies were made from bad SF books (INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS).

However, Hollywood doesn’t see the need to adapt SF books when they can write the screenplays themselves. They’re even proud of the fact that they don’t read science fiction and think they’re being clever when they come up with some overused cliche of the genre and think it’s new.

“What we have here is failure to communicate.” – Strother Martin, anticipating the Internet.

www.sff.net/people/rothman

13

The only problem with that is that the society in the book is not Fascist. Almost none of the qualities of a Fascist state can be applied to it. No compulsary military service, no state control over industry, no dictator, no militarism of society (in fascist societies you tend to hear a lot of martial music and pseudo-military organizations for youth, etc). In the ST world, the non-citizens are living almost a libertarian existance, and many (judging by Rico’s Mom and Dad) actually disdain the notion of service.

The notion of Citizenship=Service was just Heinlein’s way of exploring ‘improvements’ to Democracy, as a thought experiment. In his non-fiction he has offered lots of them (i.e. you go into the voting both, and have to solve a quadratic. No solution=no vote). Limited democracy does not equal fascism.

14

Notthemama:

I can think of a Heinlien novel that could be sold in 25 words or less:

“It’s Lord of the Flies on another planet. And there are no expensive space scenes to sim.”

The book is called(crossing my fingers) Hole in the Sky, I think.

Not the best work obviously. However it is fast paced and the plot is simple enough for Hollywood.

Look out Sky Slash, I saw a promo for another Crichton movie.
Eaters of the Dead, his Beowulf experiment.(I thought the book was so-so)

Just putting my 2sense in.

Tyranny,* like Hell*,* is not easily conquered*.
-Thomas Paine (fugitive slave catcher)

15

I recently knocked off The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and realized that it would make a fine five-part miniseries. On PBS. Don’t get me wrong, I liked it better than when I read it as a kid. But it packs some concepts that are foreign to the, um, “entertainment industry.”

Hack it down to ninety minutes, throw in a line-marriage orgy, have Mycroft Holmes the computer appear in mirror-finish liquid metal hologram form right off the bat, and toss out all that commie pinko sissy anarchist bullshit so we can see some good old Americans Making the Moon Safe For American Revolutionaries And People Just Like Them while eviscerating black-suited space Mongols with loud, flashy lasers, and you’ve just made a hundred mil opening weekend. That’s Hollywood, baby!

16

Different director. Jan de Bont did SPEED. Paul Verhoeven did STARSHIP TROOPERS, as well as SHOWGIRLS and TOTAL RECALL.

I think any of the Heinlein juveniles would make for a good movie. THE STAR BEAST, for instance, might be fun.

“What we have here is failure to communicate.” – Strother Martin, anticipating the Internet.

www.sff.net/people/rothman

17

Originally posted by 2sense:

It’s Tunnel in the Sky, and I agree, it would make a good movie. It’s sorta the exact opposite of LotF, though… Human beings, thrust into the wilderness, will develop their own civiliazation. I’m not exactly hoping that they do make a flick of it, though… Starship Troopers would make a great movie, too… Too bad that nobody has made a movie based on it yet.

“There are only two things that are infinite: The Universe, and human stupidity-- and I’m not sure about the Universe”
–A. Einstein

18

Well, this I know will get my ass bitten off…Heinlien didn’t write that many good books. His peak was Moon…, and that with all the talking wouldn’t do, Straship T has been done(& I think OK, but…), Stranger…, again would make a poor movie. That leaves the absolutely horrible "Time enough for Love, and anything after, where H clearly has gone whoopsters. OR his juveniles, or early work, all of whoms themes are no longer palatable (some are fairly racist). The only one left is “Glory Road”, which (other than the anticlimatic ending & anti-democracy rant) make a good movie.

Re RH’s idea to have someone solve a Quadratic =… notice how everyone come up with a “test” THEY could pass? I’m pitching for: filling out a Long Form 1040, more practical that a Q=!

19

I agree… Lord of the Flies it ain’t. The Dean’s main point in Tunnel seems to me to be the ironic contrast he makes at the end between “savage” society and “civilized” society.

But, the idea that LOTF’s Beast is related to the Stobor from TitS (ahem… :o ) is an interesting one.

(BTW, at the risk of hijacking my own thread, I taught Lord of the Flies at a Boys’ Yeshiva High School (Jewish Private School) and we spent a lot of time on the Hebrew subtext behind the title. Anyone care to discuss what I’m referring to?)

** :smiley: ROFLMAO!!

20

Here’s a few SF novels and/or stories that have been adapted to film:

Amanda and the Alien by Robert Silverberg (really ripped apart the characterization which was the heart of Silverberg’s story)
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick (the book was very good, the movie, Blade Runner, was also very good, but there was actually very little resemblance between the two)
Dune by Frank Herbert (an admirable attempt, but the book was pretty much unfilmable)
Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury (one of the few Bradbury books I really like, I saw the movie but so long ago I don’t really remember it. I’ve heard that Mel Gibson is planning a remake)
I am Legend by Richard Matheson (a quasi-SF/horror novel which was given a more SF angle in the movie. A poor adaptation)
The Martian Chronicles by Ray Bradbury (I’m not much of a fan of the book and I never saw the mini-series)
Millenium by John Varley (I thought it was okay, but most people seem to hate it)
Nightflyer by George R.R. Martin (not great, but not terrible)
Planet of the Apes by Pierre Boulle (the book and the novel had fairly different plots but both were average)
The Postman by David Brin (haven’t seen it, hear it’s pretty bad. At least one of my favorite authors got some money out of the deal)
Sandkings by George R.R. Martin (a cable movie, never saw it, heard it was bad)