Heinlein Books and Movies

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
21

OK I’m going to behave. :::Must:::Be:::Good!:::

CRUNCH!

[/quote]
Straship T has been done(& I think OK, but…)
[/quote]

Ok, daniel. Look… you may have had a reasonable shot at having me think your opinions were worth considering, but then you had to go off and say that you think Starship Troopers was adapted well?!?!

I refer you back to my original post where I think I said it quite well:
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.
You really think that ST remained true to either the themes or tone of Heinlein’s novel?!?

Pardon me but if you do, you’re just plain wrong. Flat wrong. Couldn’t be wronger. Sheesh :roll: .

[/quote]
That leaves the absolutely horrible "Time enough for Love, (sic)
[/quote]

:::Careful::: Now I’m getting a bit angry. Not because you insulted a book that I really, really loved and think that most breathing people could learn from, but because you did so without attempting to support your claims. It’s not like you’re stating the obvious, daniel, what you’re asserting flies in the face of most educated popular opinion. TIFL is not a cult classic like Stranger or arguably pulp, like Friday. It’s a solid piece of American Literature, worthy of a spot on most college-level modern-fiction reading lists.

“all of whoms”? "WHOMS"? -No comment. :roll:

“fairly racist”? What? Where? Which? What did Heinlein write that is racist? Better yet, what juvinile fiction did he write that is racist?

Based on what you’ve said so far, you’re probably going to say that Farnahm’s Freehold is racist, aren’t you?

Whoops, you forgot about wanting to set up a test you could pass. :stuck_out_tongue: I figured that this thread would draw people who had read Heinlein… I assumed that it would draw people who understood it!

Maybe for you we should ask them to rely on an urine test.

'Night. (I guess I need sleep - I’m not usually like this.)

22

Heinlein didn’t have a racist bone in his body. The book that some people claimed was ‘racist’ was “Sixth Column” (the one where the Panasians invade North America, and are fought by a ray that can be tuned to specific race). The thing is, John Campbell wrote the original treatment, and gave the stub of the story to Heinlein to finish. Heinlein balked because Campbell WAS racist, and the book had racist overtones. Heinlein worked very hard to remove as much of that as he could.

I don’t know how many here are aware of it, but Dreamworks bought the option to “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” and have it on their list of upcoming projects (although I’m pretty sure it’s still in embryonic state).

Tom Hanks owns the rights to “Stranger in a Strange Land”, and keeps planning to get it made. He’s a big space fan, and a big Heinlein fan. He has mentioned Heinlein’s name in interviews as a major influence.

IMO, the only way a ‘good’ Heinlein film will get made is if someone with the star power of a Tom Hanks and a real love for the material does the project. Otherwise, the studio system will crush the movie under the weight of 8 zillion script revisions and marketing decisions.

23

So, can someone convince me that Time Enough for Love is worth my while? I have read and enjoyed several of Heinlein’s short stories/novellas (including ones he wrote as Anson McDonald), but only a couple of his novels.

I very much enjoyed Starship Troopers(the novel). The other two I’ve read, Stranger in a Strange Land and The Cat Who Walked Through Walls I thought were crummy. I was especially disappointed with Stranger because it had come highly recommended. A bunch of hippy-dippy New Age crapola if you ask me.

Back to the OP, I really enjoyed Starship Troopers (the movie). Not because I thought it was faithful to the book, but because I like movies with giant bugs and vicious bug army wars. It took me back to my childhood when I would wait all week to catch a late showing of Them or The Beginning of the End.

But someone please do comment on Time Enough for Love for me.

24

It’s a nice addition to his various Lazarus Long stories. A bit talky, but generally good. Not one of his best by a long shot, though. Those would be DOUBLE STAR, THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS, STRANGER, FRIDAY (if you’re willing to forgive the rampant sexism), STARSHIP TROOPERS, PUPPET MASTERS, and THE STAR BEAST. DOUBLE STAR is especially overlooked – many think it’s his best – though it would make a lousy movie.

The estimable Darrell Schweitzer (one of the two most astute observers of science fiction – the second being Samuel R. Delaney) divided Heinlein novels into four periods: juvenile, adult, senile, and the post-senile.

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

www.sff.net/people/rothman

25

I agree with the OP, and also about Chrichton books.

The other author who I just HATE to see in cellulose in Dean R. Koontz. He’s my favorite novelist, and I have all of his books, but EVERY single time he’s put together a movie, it’s turned out worse than Home alone III…

I don’t get it. My guess is it’s partially Hollywood, and partially the fact that Dean is a master of description in print. He paints the most vivid, true-to-life, intense scenes and they just cannot be taken over to film and work.

ME

26

Note to Little Nemo, re the Martian Chronicles miniseries:

You didn’t miss much. :rolleyes:

The best I can say for it is that it wasn’t TOTALLY lame. A noble effort, but…

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

27

GaWd,

I’m confused. You keep using the pronoun “he” to refer to the team of writers collectively known as “Dean R. Koontz, Inc, Ltd.”

I think it’s the same bunch of people who pump out crap for that Lawyer guy whose name is on the cover of The Firm, Brief Pelican Lawyer… or whatever.

28

Basically, there are 3 kinds of fiction:
[list=a][li]Plot Driven[/li][li]Character Driven[/li][li]Theme Driven[/list=a][/li]
Time Enough for Love is a textbook-example of the second kind, Character Driven fiction. It is the stories, nay the ramblings of a single character, Lazarus Long (aka, W.W. Smith, aka etc, etc, etc.), who lives forever and relishes in life. If “the Universe As Seen By a Really Old, Hedonistic, Intelligent Realist” sounds interesting, then you will enjoy it. If not, try it on anyway… it’s a lot more than that.

I agree with your comments regarding Stranger in a Strange Land. “Hippy-dippy” indeed! :smiley: It’s an interesting story, to a point, but RAH got dragged away from character-driven fiction and into the realm of the theme-driven… which usually means that an author is going to haul out his or her soapbox and lecture us all for a while.

That’s about all it was. I thought that some of the details were cute (I enjoyed “Ace Levy!”) and appreciated that they put so much effort into realizing some pretty elabotate special-effects. But, equating the Mobile Infantry (MI) of Heinlein’s novel with that machine-gun-toting buch of sex-maniacs in silly helmets (MGTBOSMISH’s) is absurd.

Remember the scene where Johnny shoots his friend dead during training? “Medic!” Medic, indeed.

That’s what most of this film needed: A compassionate medic named Kevorkian in a silly helmet to put it out of its misery.

29

Damn! :mad: I always screw up the final potshot.

What I meant to say was:

BThat’s what most of this film needed: A compassionate Kevorkian in a silly helmet to put it out of its misery.**

Sounds better that way, doesn’t it? :wink:

30

:gleeful giggle:
I just re-read your post, GaWd:

Main Entry: cel·lu·loid
Pronunciation: 'sel-y&-"loid
Function: noun
Etymology: from Celluloid, a trademark
Date: 1871
1 : a tough flammable thermoplastic composed essentially of cellulose nitrate and camphor
2 : a motion-picture film <a work… making its third appearance on celluloid (Emphasis is mine.)

Main Entry: cel·lu·lose
Pronunciation: 'sel-y&-"lOs, -"lOz
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from cellule living cell, from New Latin cellula
Date: 1848
: a polysaccharide (C6H10O5)x of glucose units that constitutes the chief part of the cell walls of plants, occurs naturally in such fibrous products as cotton and kapok, and is the raw material of many manufactured goods (as paper, rayon, and cellophane)

Based on these definitions and my stated feelings about Koontz, I think I have to disagree. I would LOVE to see him covered in cellulose! :stuck_out_tongue:

31

In Heinlein’s Number of the Beast, the four characters have figured out that their space/time twister can take them to the universes where beloved fictional settings are real, e.g. Oz, Barsoom, and so on. They compile a list of stories they all re-read for pleasure when they don’t have the energy to tackle a new book. In the process of tallying the votes, Zeb asks if Heinlein got any votes, and Hilda answers, “four votes, split: two for his “future history,” and two for Stranger in a Strange Land.” Zeb sniffs and remarks, [I’m paraphrasing] “I won’t embarrass anyone by asking who voted for Stranger. The tripe some people will write for money!”

It was interesting to see that sort of self-deprecating humor…it’s the sort of thing that I’d sooner expect to see Stephen King do.

Live a Lush Life
Da Chef

32

Sdimbert, NO, I do not think “Starship” was adapted well, I said it was “OK” (ie if you forget it was supposed to be an adaptation of
one of RH’s best, and consider it as a great action flick, it is “OK”.) 6th Column is pretty racist. (NOT a juvenile, but an “early”). Knowing how Campbell was, I could only shudder to think how bad it was prior to RH doing it. I never said RH was racist, only that some of his earlier books have some racist themes.

I agree with REALITY re RH’s stages. Moon was his peak, with Stranger starting to slide. “Time” shows flashes of the old RH greatness, true, which makes it all that much more painful to read. I want to add Glory Road as one of the best.

33

I’m a movie guy, so I’m going to weigh in here on a couple of items.

As a screenwriter, I can concur one hundred percent with what stolichnaya said towards the beginning: Stories work different on screen. As a good example, go check out Orson Scott Card’s site; he’s been trying to shepherd Ender’s Game to the screen, and he’s kept his fans updated by publishing parts of the script he’s been working on. I know he’s proud of it, but what he’s written will not, repeat will not, work as a script. You can’t say, “A character thinks such-and-such.” The character has to do or say something that tells the audience how they feel.

For an excellent example of a film adapted from a book that changes almost everything in order to wind up with the same effect, check out Never Cry Wolf. The film couldn’t be more different, compared to Farley Mowat’s original book, at least superficially, in terms of plot and tone. But you’ll notice, in the end, the movie winds up with the same thematic conclusions, and has largely the same emotional impact as the book. As I said, it’s an excellent example of a movie that is forced to make superficial choices different from the book in order to have the same result.

Notthemama expressed trepidation about the upcoming Lord of the Rings adaptation. Although it’s true that no book-to-film project will please all of the original’s fans, particularly the purists, I believe that this adaptation will be more successful than anyone expects. First, the director, Peter Jackson, is enormously talented. If you haven’t seen Heavenly Creatures, I recommend it highly. He’s a responsible and inventive storyteller; he can go wildly over the top (Meet the Feebles), or he can be restrained and subtle (Forgotten Silver). In online Q&A sessions, he has made it clear that this is his own interpretation, and that as much as he tries to stay responsible to the source material (he hired at least one Tolkien linguist on the production, to supervise the various Middle Earth languages), there are people who will be displeased. He maintains that even if he screws it up, he won’t have “ruined” the books, because they’ll still be there on the shelf, long after the film is forgotten. Still, there is the purist faction to worry about, people who will complain if “Cirith” is prounounced with a soft C, or if the elves have pointy ears, or other such (IMHO) insignificant details. Me, I have faith in Mr. Jackson, particularly after a 90-second advance trailer was made available for download (check out www.apple.com’s previews section); the footage is truly awe-inspiring. I think Jackson’s getting it right – this is not going to be another Bakshi travesty.

Now, a shameless plug: For information on upcoming movies, such as the Stranger in a Strange Land, a new version of The Martian Chronicles, and Mel Gibson’s long-stalled remake of Fahrenheit 451, among others, check out my website, Movie Geek Central – http://moviegeek.homestead.com . I put it up after many people requested I make all of my past movie reviews available; I’ve also fleshed it out with a whole lot of news, analysis, and other information. You can find status reports on various productions, buzz on upcoming projects, and all kinds of information.

Okay, shameless plug over.

Oh, one more thing: To sdimbert, who knocked the South Park movie: Sorry, but it was absolutely brilliant. The juvenile and gratuitously profane surface was merely a facade for one of the wittiest, cleverest, most ingeniously structured satires on social mores I’ve seen in many years.

–Cervaise

P.S. Okay, sorry, one more thing: Most sci-fi (or, strictly speaking, SF) movies suck pretty hard, it’s true; Mission to Mars wasn’t worth a teaspoon of monkey spit. But there’s a movie coming out that’ll make M2M look like Kubrick’s 2001 – the adaptation of Battlefield Earth, starring John Travolta as an evil Psychlo. He was on Leno last week pimping the film, and brought along a clip. This thing won’t just be bad – it’ll be bad with raisins in it, a knee-slapping must-see bomb of epic proportions. I can’t wait…

Movie Geek Central – Reviews, news, analysis, and more! http://moviegeek.homestead.com

34

**Cervaise[\b]:
Man, people like you are why I spend so much time here; I probably would have never met you in person, and I get to “hang out” with you online.
Cool! :cool: Cool! :cool: Cool! :cool:

Of course they do. That’s why people like us (who love to read) love to see movies… They’re both powerful, yet different, ways to tell a story.

As you said yourself:

I direct plays - a medium similar to film in a number of ways. You’ve hit the nail on the head regarding a major difference between the written word and the performed action.

**Regarding LOTR you said:

Sorry :frowning: that doesn’t hold water (or, as LL would say, “I saw you palm that card!”). Notthemama but it best:
**Originally poseted by Notthemama:

Good point. If a movie adaptation of a good novel is lousy (again, by “lousy” I mean only in terms of being faithful to the novel’s themes and plot) than many, many people will never give the book a chance.

And can I go out on a limb here and say that reading a novel is a more culturally rich experience than watching a movie? By that I mean that *generally speaking[/], a person stands to gain more from the experience of reading a novel than he or she does from watching a movie.

If that’s true, than a well-meaning-but lousy novel-adapter is doing a disservice to those many, many lost readers.

**Originally posted by Cervaise:

**

Thanks for the link - I’m looking forward to reading more of your thoughtful commentary.

**Originally posted by Cervaise:

Nope. Wrong. :wink:

**Originally posted by Cervaise:

ROFLMAO!! :smiley:

35

WOah…ignorance abounds! Thank you for pointing out that error. In retrospect, Dean Koontz in cellulose would be pretty gross!

ME

36

Sorry, guys. I left this thread here for a couple of days because it ended a hijacking and because this is where I suspect many of the Heinlen readers post. But you know where “survey” style questions go. I’m sending this one to MPSIMS on account of you’re not really debating all that much.

37

Hey there sdimbert. It may interest you to know, I’m not a born-and-bred movie guy; my BFA’s in Stage Acting, so it’s good to run into another theatre maven.

Anyway: This thread drifted quite a bit; I suspected that if we ended up talking about movies in general, we’d get bumped to MPSIMS. And hey, look what happened! Anyway, I hope that by at least sticking to a discussion of adaptations, we can at least stay in orbit around the original question. To wit:

Please allow me to respectfully disagree, and provide several contrary examples.

First: David Lynch’s well-intentioned misfire didn’t hurt the popularity of Dune any, at least not in the long term. In fact, as bloated and frustrating as the movie was, it spurred interest in Herbert’s books.

Second: When Gus Van Sant’s interesting but ultimately unsuccessful experimental remake of Psycho was in cinemas, rentals of Hitchcock’s original went through the roof. A conspiracy-minded observer might suggest, as I did, somewhat facetiously, in my own review (available on Movie Geek Central), that this was Van Sant’s actual secret purpose. (Subtle but no less shameless re-plug over. Hee hee.)

Third: In the case of Lord of the Rings, we actually have a specific counterexample: Ralph Bakshi’s virtually unwatchable cartoon arrived with a huge splash, and is today virtually forgotten.

Fourth, fifth, sixth, etc: Laurence Fishburne in Oliver Parker’s misguided Othello, Jet Li in Romeo Must Die, Lloyd Kaufman’s Tromeo and Juliet, that teen gagfest 10 Things I Hate About You, and any number of second-rate Shakespearean knockoffs.

The bottom line is this: The only time a movie can truly supplant the source material in popular consciousness is if the original book isn’t that well-known or established to begin with. Nobody reads Jude the Obscure any more, for example; if anybody knows it today, they know it from the Michael Winterbottom film Jude, starring Kate Winslet. (Or, of course, the compulsory reading list in English Lit 201.) Ditto for Atom Egoyan’s film version of Russell Banks’s The Sweet Hereafter, among others. If the new film version of Lord of the Rings blows chunks (and I don’t think it will), the only people who would be scared away from reading it are the knuckle-dragging forehead monsters who wouldn’t have read it anyway.

On a related topic:

You can sure say it, and I have no problem with your believing it. I would assert, though, that it’s a matter of personal opinion and preference, rather than an outright fact.

It’s difficult to generalize, naturally: I get more out of the average Jackie Chan movie than I’d get from reading a Harlequin Romance. But by the same token, I would hardly suggest that reading Proust’s Remembrance of Things Past is surpassed by sitting through Scream 3.

It seems to me that you’re entering into some fuzzy gedankenexperiment here, asking about an idealized Best Possible Novel vs. Best Possible Movie, and which provides the more fulfilling experience. Even then, I don’t think it’s a resolvable question, because the two forms are so different. Which is better, the taste of a really good chocolate mousse, or the fun of watching a hyperactive puppy chasing its tail? Can you even compare them?

P.S. By the way, there’s already a Lord of the Rings thread running in MPSIMS. Should we cross-link so as to pick up both readerships, in case the Tolkein buffs ran screaming from the Heinlen subject line? :slight_smile:

Movie Geek Central – Reviews, news, analysis, and more! http://moviegeek.homestead.com

38

Whoa, wait a minute here. I read Jurassic Park. Awesomely bad.

a. Clearly a script treatment, not a book.
b. Given an admittedly interesting premise (cloning dinosaurs), where does he take it? Oh yeah, they get loose and kill people. Real original.
c. What’s with the chaos theory gibberish?

39

Any of RAH’s books could be made into a movie, but not in the way all of you are thinking. Anime is the answer to all of the problems outlined in the previous posts. Special effects, casting, extra-long stories, etc. would be no problem if Japanese-style animation were used.

Eagles may soar free and proud, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines.

40

Okay, I want to chime in.

I like Heinlein. His works are very different, though. I laughed at the breakdown.

His later works do go off on very different themes, explore different angles, and get weird. But I very much enjoyed them for that.

Why don’t Heinlein films come across like the books? As has been mentioned, the difference in the media, the attitude by the writers/directors/producers/marketing, and the depth of material. Starship Troopers was an excellent novel that spawned a subgenre of SF books - the mechanized armor books. But in truth, the ME was really a small part of the book - a flashy detail to be sure, but ultimately not the point of the book. (Sure would have been cool, though.) In fact, the real depth of the book comes from exploring the social conditions, the societal structure, the shaping of the character, etc. That was what is often missed in Heinlein movie adaptations. The movie was enjoyable (to me), but it wasn’t the novel, it was sort of taking the concept and redoing it. Kinda like Blade Runner to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Only mildly related.

Some of his early stories would make better adaptations than his later works. Minor reworks might be needed for details (placing them in far away star systems instead of on Mars or Venus, say).

One completely overlooked book that I thought was excellent was Job: A Comedy of Justice.

Divemaster, you probably won’t enjoy Time Enough For Love. It has all the weird stuff that The Cat Who Walks Through Walls has. It is a bit of a ramble, with rampant sex, ideological rants, alternate views of morality, and other fun stuff.

I read Stranger once a long time ago. I’m thinking I should read it again. (Oh hell, I want to read most of the books again.) I thought the beginning and set up of the theme was good, but it did go off course with the hippy cult stuff. It did make a few good points, though.

Friday is good, and so is Glory Road. But I really like his “senile” stuff.

Maybe Citizen of the Galaxy would work.