Thanks for the input. Maybe I will get to Time Enough for Love one of these days. I do plan on giving it a shot.
Right now, I’m about to go out of town for 4 days. I’ve picked up Dune off my shelf. Never read it. I hope to be able to give a good report on it!
**Again :::must:::be:::good!:::
Finagle:
Your questions all answer each other! Look:
[list=a][li]How can you say that the novel was a “script treatment” when the movie adaptation ignored the finer parts of the novel? (see c)[/li][li]OK - this one I will answer - Did you read The Time Machine? It’s just a time-travel story. Real Original :rolleyes: It is original if you’re the first one to do it. How many other “Scientists use DNA re-sequencing to bring dinosaurs back to life to create fun-filled theme park that goes horribly awry” books did you read before Jurassic Park?[/li]<sigh> :rolleyes: That “gibberish” about chaos-theory was the heart of the story’s theme. Let me guess: You read the book after you saw the movie, din’cha? Tell the truth![/list=a]
Nopers. Read the book first. I know a script treatment when I see one. Throw in a mad scientist, a couple of cute kids, an attractive female scientist, a studly male scientist, and someone whose main purpose is to hiss “There are things MAN WAS NOT MEANT TO KNOW, HERR DOKTOR!”. Then have all the bad guys die horribly.
Crichton knew just enough about chaos theory to babble about it, but not enough to actually make sense.
And damn it, there’s lot of ways you could take the existence of dinosaurs without turning it into another King Kong remake. What if the dinosaurs had turned out to be intelligent?
Waste of a good premise.
[quote]
Originally posted by sdimbert:
****Again :::must:::be:::good!:::
Finagle:
Your questions all answer each other! Look:
[list=a][li]How can you say that the novel was a “script treatment” when the movie adaptation ignored the finer parts of the novel? (see c)[/li][li]OK - this one I will answer - Did you read The Time Machine? It’s just a time-travel story. Real Original :rolleyes: It is original if you’re the first one to do it. How many other “Scientists use DNA re-sequencing to bring dinosaurs back to life to create fun-filled theme park that goes horribly awry” books did you read before Jurassic Park?[/li][li]<sigh> :rolleyes: That “gibberish” about chaos-theory was the heart of the story’s theme. Let me guess: You read the book after you saw the movie, din’cha? Tell the truth![/list=a]**[/li][/quote]
Oh man! I was looking for a good fight! 
BTW, I am a HUGE Chan fan. Just don’t tell my Theatre students!
Why not? The more the merrier!
PS - I checked out your website - nicely done. I’ve often wondered about using the web to share my opinions of movies… but then I realize that I am just too lazy to keep things like that up to date. (I would work better writing them free-lance.)
OK - now for a serious post…
Finagle:
Allright. You’re smarter than I thought. 
I concede that JP (the movie) left a lot to be desired. But I maintain that it’s problems stemmed from it’s focus on the book’s lesser parts, not a formulaic structure.
I think Creighton’s novel deserves more credit than that.
I can’t believe I just typed that.
Let me get this out all in one breath:
Creighton usually writes shit. Calling him a “novelist” is an insult to the giants on whose shoulders he stands.
There.
That being said, I think that his dinosaur story had some credit. His sequel was awful and the movie was simply forgettable.
So, let’s forget it.
Returning to my OP…
I still say that we haven’t yet identified that certain thing that makes RAH so hard to get onto the screen.
**Originally posted by Irishman:
[quote]
…[Heinlein’s] real depth… 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…
[/quote**
Well-put, Iman! Remember, the fiction makes up only a fraction of the writing that Heinlein produced during his life. This was a man whose writings addressed the government concerning some of the most volatile issues in the history of mankind.
His fiction is, neccesarily, more than just fiction. Someone in this thread mentioned Shakesperian remakes; specifically The Ten Things I Hate About Shitty Modernizations of Classic Stories.
I rented and watched that waste of celluloid because I was told that it was a remake of the Bard’s Taming of the Shrew. As Finagle would say, Nopers! Not even close. In the process of “modernization,” (shudder) the story’s themes and plot were diluted and lost.
I think the same has happened thus far to Heinlein. All of the reasons previously mentioned in this thread combine to result in lousy screen adaptations because Heinlein (like Shakespeare (how presumptuous is that?!?)) is simply too deep to be repackaged into a McMovie.
Comments?
Before I stop, two quick potshots:
slythe:
You’re absolutely right. Anime is just the thing to solve this problem. As a matter of fact, I think that, given enough government funding, anime artists could abolish world-hunger, the hole in the ozone layer and the evils of lousy service in resteraunts. :rolleyes: sheesh.
Irishman:
There’s a sub-genre all about mechanized armor? Sounds great… But what about the “speeder-bike” sub-genre spawned by Return of the Jedi? Or the “giant mechanical spider that shoots out balls of fire despite the fact that it was built in the 1800’s” sub-genre spawned by Wild WIld West?*
double-sheesh* :rolleyes:
This would be an appropriate time to show off my new sig. Thanks, Tanstaafl!
“I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea – a practice I shall always follow.”
-Robert A. Heinlein
As a big RAH fan from way back, who’s read all of his works, I’ve been reading this thread with interest and waiting until I had a the time to give the answer it deserves. Sdimbert’s restatement of the is the perfect jumping off point.
To me, the thing that makes RAH’s novels and stories so interesting is they are all about ideas. Yes, they have interesting characters and neat scientific gadgets, but what they really do is explore an idea (or several ideas).
Take Starship Troopers, for example, one way to look at it is as a story about a young man who goes through military training and off to fight a war against the bugs with futuristic weapons. Neat Hollywood concept, throw in some special effects, and blammo, let’s make a movie. Only problem is it misses the point of the book.
To me, the book is really an exploration of what sort of commitment a person should be expected to give as an obligation of citizenship. Though the fact that it’s a cracking good story helps a lot, this idea is what pulls the disparate parts of the book together and makes the story move along. Yes, it’s a coming of age story, but what really happens when he comes of age is not that he has some great personal revelation, but rather that he begins to understand what is involved in being a full citizen in a government that requires service from its citizens.
I haven’t seen the movie (when I heard the reviews, I didn’t bother) but I cannot believe they used – or could have used – this theme as the central point of the movie. I certainly heard no mention of the theme in any reviews I read or other discussions I heard.
Anyway, Starship Troopers was originally written as a juvenile. As a book aimed at teenagers, it had a relatively simple and straightforward theme. But still I think that its theme is just too subtle for a film to catch, particularly with all of that neat action going on all around. Maybe some filmmaker could do it, but I bet that a true treatment of the theme in film would have almost none of the bug warfare action, and focus almost entirely on the character’s development.
Each of RAH’s works explores one or more themes through the device of the characters and technology. It is the interaction between the elements that makes them great. Almost any films that would be made based on one of his works will concentrate on the characters and technology and, due to the limits of the medium, will miss the important theme or themes that bring the works together.
–Bill
You don’t have a thing to worry about. I’ll have the jury eating out of my hand. Meanwhile, try to escape.
Sig by Wally M7, master signature architect to the SDMB
Billdo:
I was with you buddy, right up to the end when you said that RAH’s stories can’t be adapted to the screen because of “…the limits of the medium [film]…”. Sorry, I gotta disagree.
You are on the money when you say that most of his stories are great because they “are all about ideas.” But, many, many excellent films exist that meet that same standard.
I mean, I can’t provide a list (though Cervaise probably can ), but I’m sure you’d agree that some of the best films you’ve seen are not at all about the action that makes up their storyline but are rather about something deeper and more important!
For example, one of the best movies I have ever seen is Legends of the Fall. For many reasons. Firstly, it’s a pleasure to sit and watch Sir Anthony Hopkins play everything from a thiry-something up to and beyond an eighty-five year-old stroke victim.
But that’s not why I bring it up. I mention it because it portrays a theme similar to the one found in (the novel) Starship Troopers, namely, a young man discovering the responsibilities incumbent upon him as a member of a group. LotF is **not[/] about growing up on the frontier or fighting in WWI, or meeting the girl of your dreams, or losing her to your brother, or losing your wife, etc, etc.
It’s about discovering and living up to responsibilities. That’s an idea, and it shines through that movie like a beacon.
In one of his columns, Jonathan Rosenbaum (film critic for the Chicago Reader, and the guy in the ad at the top of this page)said that he thinks that movies can change the world (I’m paraphrasing). I believe Rosenbaum to be correct, and I think that, if a movie can do that, it it because the production team wills it to be that way.
Short story - movie adaptations of RAH’s novels to date have suck so loudly (with raisins! ) because whoever made them did a lousy job.
Hey - lots of movies suck, right? Why can’t these? But, it’s sad that no one has gotten their crap together enough to do it right yet. 
Hey! Maybe we we should all pool our money…
“I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea – a practice I shall always follow.”
-Robert A. Heinlein
I HATE UBB codes!
I HATE UBB codes!
I HATE UBB codes!
I HATE UBB codes!
I agree… and also have always craved a film treatment of If This Goes on…
Sure, it was a short, but they’ve made movies out of short stories before. :eek:
I am a redhead, you see, and I do not tempt. I insist. -Cristi
I thought about this when I was posting, and my “maybe some filmmaker could” make a good Starship Troopers comment reflects this, but I guess that I was a little overblown in the conclusion.
Yes, there are a few Sci Fi films that seem to be about ideas rather than action. Blade Runner and 2001, each mentioned above, would fit into this category, I would say. Though in my view Blade Runner really took a few of the concepts in Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep (and ignored many others), and built a an entirely different movie around them. (This may be one example of RealityChuck’s idea that you can make a good Sci Fi movie out of a bad book.) 2001 the book and 2001 the movie are too muddled in my mind for me to draw a conclusion about how well the film adapted the book.
Anyway, I think that almost any filmmakers (and clearly any Hollywood studios) trying to do a RAH novel will be so drawn in by the characters or the technology or the sex or the aliens or the fighting or the other story elements that they will produce a film that misses the central idea.
An independent filmmaker might be able to do one of his novels, though an adequate treatment of a short story or novella is more likely. Hell, they could do a good job with one of the juveniles. Citizen of the Galaxy was mentioned above, and it could work as a movie, but it would inevitably have to stay focused on the main character and his development, and treat very lightly the exploration of the different societies he’s thrown into. It could be a great film, and stay true to the main theme, but would miss some of the really interesting side issues that build up to the conclusion.
Anyway, I suppose that given the right filmmaking team a good idea-driven movie adaptation of one of RAH’s stories or novels could be made. But, unfortunately, it’s not bloody likely that it will ever happen.
Bill
You don’t have a thing to worry about. I’ll have the jury eating out of my hand. Meanwhile, try to escape.
Sig by Wally M7, master signature architect to the SDMB
sdimbert remarked:
Well, perhaps sub-genre was too strong a word - sometimes I can’t find the right word and substitute the one that comes to mind that is similar. But there have been several repeats of that idea. Body Armor 2000 was a collection of short stories that came out in the '80s, all about soldiers and mechanical armor. Then there’s Armor, a book about, interestingly enough, a guy who joins the army, wears a mechanical suit, and goes off to war to fight giant alien bugs. Oh hell, do I really need to make a list?
A lot of Heinlein ideas got copied, revisited, duplicated, or otherwise used again. Hell, another of my favorite authors is David Gerrold. I noticed he has a similar writing style to Heinlein. Of course it helps that he seems to have taken a number of Heinlein stories and “covered” them. Off the top of my head,
I think there are others, but that’s what I recall. I happen to like Gerrold anyway, because even though he takes a Heinlein theme, he expands upon the concept, or takes a new view. For instance, TTWT used the Tribbles as a resolution, a key plot device, that was absent from the original. So their voracious eating and reproduction was duplicated, but then another factor was added.
Of course there’s the time I read a short story in Science Fiction Age Magazine that was all about a flood in LA, and filling the Salton basin, with the heros running to the high ground in the Chocolate Mountains. A couple weeks after reading that story, I got around to a Heinlein short story with the exact same plot. Okay, the characters were different and the format was different, but the whole part about the flood, the Salton Sea, the Chocolate Mountains - very precise in details. Guaranteed rip-off, no, but eerily similar. So much so I wrote Sci Fi Age.
Sorry, I digressed.
Billdo, great observations.
A true stoey. Many years ago at a Star Trek/SF convention, a freind of mine had a dealers table. A couple of the girls had made "tribbles’. Well, DG was there, and he was railing about “tribbles” and they were copyrighted & no one could sell them. At my suggestion, they changed the sign to “tribbles”(crossed out) now “Martian Flat Cats”. Apparently DG came by, saw the tribbles, started to come over, read the sign, then walked away VERY mad.
This is definitely a fascinating thread. I don’t have any strong feelings one way or another for Heinlein’s books; I’ve liked some, and I thought others were turgid to the point of being unreadable (Time Enough for Love). As I’ve said before, I’m not asserting this as some sort of Platonic fact; it’s merely a reflection of my taste and preferences, so don’t flame me.
However, I think I can expand on the discussion a bit, as suggested by sdimbert. (Thanks for the plug, by the way. :)) Specifically, I’d like to address the topic of movies covering ideas, as opposed to being purely about action.
I believe that movies work best when they communicate via action. Otherwise, it would be radio. It’s more interesting to see someone doing something, or barring human activity something simply happening (a fire burning, for example), than people discussing, or worse just sitting and thinking about, ideas. That doesn’t preclude a fascinating film being made up entirely of debate and dialogue; the best-known example is, of course, My Dinner with Andre, which as well-known a cliche as it might be seems to have been actually seen by next to nobody. A much less publicized film in the same genre is Mindwalk, which is very similar to Andre except that it has more people and they don’t sit at a table.
That said, talking-head movies are much, much more difficult to pull off (Spalding Gray’s monologues notwithstanding). It’s far easier to convey information through action and movement. Hence the detritus littering video shelves, those flicks that pander to chromosomally challenged viewers who just want to see Jeff Speakman or Michael Dudikoff bust heads and fire guns.
I would assert, however, that a truly good movie actually has at least one complex and provocative idea at its core – and expresses it via action. Examples, naturally, follow.
Two movies came out last year that I regard as among the best of 1999: Fight Club and Three Kings. Both are very well-made, both have complicated agendas, and neither, interestingly, did well at the box office.
Fight Club was criticized heavily for its violent presentation. This overlooks the fact that its body count amounts to a total of one, compared to, say, The World is Not Enough. Nobody seemed willing to consider the film’s deeper messages, or intent. The movie absolutely had something to say, a point to make, and effectively and efficiently conveys it via action, rather than exposition.
Similarly, Three Kings has a deeper point to make about the confusion of warfare. It was couched in a standard action/chase vehicle, and a lot of people missed the point, but it’s definitely there. The film constantly muddles the role of good guys and bad guys, and, often, what is actually going on on-screen. There’s a big idea here, about what conflict really amounts to, and again, it’s communicated via action and activity.
For more details on these movies, please see my full-length reviews on my site (link is in my sig).
The last example is a movie that opened yesterday (Fri 4/14): American Psycho. I haven’t finished my review yet, but it’ll be posted on the site soon. The general point of the film, though, is unmistakable: It’s got lots to say about the nature of identity and role-playing, and how insecure masculinity attempts to assert itself within the constraints of the social system. Whether the film is successful or not is another question, and will, no doubt, polarize viewers who argue one side or another. But what’s undeniable is that those themes are indeed present.
Certainly, it’s possible to make a successful movie that doesn’t have a brain in its head. The Matrix is a good example of a film that has a lot of excellent superficial storytelling ideas, but that is uninterested in any deeper philosophical ideas or in giving the audience anything other than an adrenaline-packed ride. Its themes are cobbled together from a lot of Philosophy 101 courses, from New Testament material down to parallels with the life of Siddhartha, but beyond that, there isn’t much going on. It’s a great escapist movie, but not much more.
Another poster above suggested anime as a possible approach. This is thought-provoking, as the better anime flicks historically have had a lot more on their minds than just action and escapism: Akira, Ghost in the Shell, and the recent Princess Mononoke are three examples. That doesn’t mean all anime can accomplish this, however: Just look at Legend of the Overfiend or Vampire Hunter D. Instead, look at what anime does in its storytelling, because those techniques can be applied to live-action as well as to animation. Anime’s only advantage, as the poster observed, is that there are no budget limitations for the creation of the most outlandish worlds. We’ll see a similar sort of approach this summer, with Titan A.E., an animated science-fiction adventure being released by Fox. Buzz has been mixed, but is tending toward the positive, and may herald possible approaches for treating more serious SF themes.
As far as Heinlein goes, I just don’t think anybody’s gotten it really right so far. It is certainly possible to wed thematic exploration with active storytelling techniques; it’s just more difficult. It’s easier to string together a bunch of eye candy and explosions and call it a movie (Pitch Black) than it is to use the same superficial material in service of a deeper idea. It’s not impossible (A Clockwork Orange, Unforgiven), but it is more challenging, and the movies usually end up difficult and inaccessible (Altered States, Fitzcarraldo).
One last word: In Hollywood, nothing succeeds like success, and nothing is more frightening than a lack of precedent. Douglas Adams tried for years to put together a film adaptation of his Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, only to be told that “science fiction comedies don’t work, because if they did, somebody would have done one by now.” But then came Men in Black, and suddenly everybody “knew” that science fiction comedies worked just fine. (Hence, Galaxy Quest.) And Adams found a very receptive audience in Hollywood power halls, and the Hitchhiker project is on the fast track as we speak, to be directed by Jay Roach (the Austin Powers movies).
The lesson? Hollywood is leery of smart science fiction because it hardly ever works, and when it does, people don’t go see it (Gattaca). Eventually, somebody will have a Heinlein breakthrough, and then we’ll have a rash of those movies, just like we had a string of Grisham, Austen, and others.
Movie Geek Central – Reviews, news, analysis, and more! http://moviegeek.homestead.com
You guys are getting it wrong. Heinlein’s power is that he took SIMPLE themes and told them in incredibly powerful and emotional ways, without effort. He himself used to state that there were only four or five basic plots (I forget the exact list, but was someething like boy meets girl, man learns better, the little tailor, etc).
Take, for example the theme of a boy growing into a man. Heinlein explored this a million ways in many novels. Max in “Starman Jones”, Clark in “Podkayne of Mars”, the protagonist in “Farmer in the Sky”, Thorby in "Citizen of the Galaxy"and my favorite, Rod Walker from “Tunnel in the Sky”. What was especially powerful in this book was that he took this kid, turned him into a man, then plunged him back into a kid’s world. That made his character change more dramatic and poignant.
All of these books would make excellent movies, and the major themes in them are easily explored in film. I’m thinking particularly of “Starman Jones”. Here we have a poor kid who runs away from an abusive step-dad, cheats his way onto a ship as a crewman, and then discovers the meaning of courage, honesty, and integrity. Along the way he meets a beautiful girl and a wacky little pet animal. In the end, he confronts his mistakes, gets promoted several times, and winds up being a responsible adult. The story even blocks out well into a screenplay. There are no strange political themes or anything else that might alienate an audience. It’d make a fine family film.
Think hard about the other stories I mentioned - Tunnel in the Sky would work well. Lots of good dramatic scenes, strong character development, and a plot that moves into well-defined stages. Any competant director should be able to make that movie without losing the essence of the story.
“The Puppet Masters” wasn’t a huge failure as a Heinlein adaptation. It basically failed because it had no strong guiding presence, so the studio system watered it down through numerous script rewrites and the compromises of a small budget. If someone like James Cameron had made that movie, it could have been a blockbuster and true to Heinlein’s story.
Anyway, I think it’s a bit premature to claim that Heinlein’s stories all get made into bad pictures when we only have 2 examples to go from (Destination Moon was NOT a bad picture - it was a critical and economic success, and you have to admit that it was true to Heinlein’s story, since the only story it was based on was the screenplay - which Heinlein wrote).
I’m dying to see what a good director can do with a book like The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (admittedly much more thematically complex). Stranger in a Strange Land is the LAST Heinlein book I’d want to make into a movie, though. It’s hard to see how it could be done well. But almost any of the ‘Juveniles’ would be fairly easy to translate.
Ok, as I see it, the real tragedy of Tri-Star Troopers is this: The Heinlein book hasically had two components interweaved, the social commentary, and the shoot-em-up action. Now, it’s to be expected that Holywood will at best water down the first, and at worst, totally botch it. But in this case, they didn’t even manage to stay true to the second! I mean, if they’re just targeting the folks who want a mindless action flick (and admit it, we all go for a little mindlessness every now and again), then you can’t get much better than powered-armor MI, atomic hand-grenades, and twenty-second bombs. They were handed all of this, in a nice well-formed package. So what do they do with it? Trash it and start all over!
The biggest tragedy, though, I think, is that now the REAL movie to ST won’t be made, because folks will say, “It’s been done”.
“There are only two things that are infinite: The Universe, and human stupidity-- and I’m not sure about the Universe”
–A. Einstein
They didn’t use the powered armor, as then the battles would look too much like “bugs VS robots”. Us, the readers know there were real humans in that armor, but it wouldn’t LOOK like it.
OK second post in a day… Hold me Back.
I have not read much Heinlein until recently
when I was given 3 boxes of Old sci-fi books,
one of which I have read and enjoyed and could make a good movie with out stressing a movie director out and having him screw the whole thing up would be “Orphans of the sky” not a major book By Heinlein. Yet adaptable.
there is my two cents, and I damn well want my change!
Osip
OK - I am really enjoying this thread.
Someone above mentioned The Puppet Masters but I’m too lazy to go back and check who it was. Let me make one thing clear:
It Sucked. Sucked. Sucked. It sucked as much as a… well… a really suckey thing that happened to be going at an unusually high rate of sukage, even for it.
Clear enuff?
My question now is why in the world did the Heinlein estate allow RAH’s name to be attached? Remember, it was titled Robert A Heinlein’s ‘The Puppet Masters’. Did Virginia think it was going to be good?!?
Question #2:
Legally speaking, if I wanted to adapt a story to another form (eg, novel to screenplay) do I need the original creator’s permission? I know I do, but when do I need it?
Could I just show up on Virginia’s doorstep with a kick-ass screen adaptation of *TEFL[/], so good that even Cervaise would like it?
I think Starship Troopers was an okay movie, if you ignore the whole “Its only relation to the book was the title and the fact that people killed bugs”. It was an okay shoot-em-up action flick, and I enjoyed it on that level.
I mourned the loss of the introspection, the discussion of mans relation to society and Heinlen’s interpretation of the social contract. I did not mourn 2 hours of Denise Richards on screen.
One of the problems, as I see it, is that Heinlen crams so MUCH of the ideas into his books. Stranger in a Strange Land couldn’t work because it had all of these: a man’s adaptation from an entirely foreign environment into ours, all of how a complete stranger would react to our environment, the balancing of power within a complex govenrment (and the myriad developments that Mike brings about), comments on the difficulties of wealth, comments on human psychology, individual relationships, the idea of communal marriage (so would not pass the Conservative muster), cult psychology, and I don’t know how many others. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress might work better, because it’s mostly a work on the role and actions of government (with some social commentary tossed in), but what to do with a scene with three people sitting around, drinking, and discussing government for 5 pages?
People have said, and they’re entirely right, that Heinlen’s sroties are only secondarily science fiction. The sci-fi is just the setting, what’s important is everything else.
Fight Club and American Beauty dealt with concepts fairly easily expressed in action; discontent, a desire for self-definition, a search for happiness. How do you do the same with stories critiscizing religion, government, society, and social institutions, all in one novel?
I think I was drunk when watching Three Kings, but what I remember makes me want to see it sober. “I thought we were doing what was necessary! What was necessary just changed!”
I’d like to see The Moon is a Harsh Mistress in film, so long as they don’t go overboard with special effects.
I sold my soul to Satan for a dollar. I got it in the mail.