Conference noted::sf

It's a repeat.  There have been changes but all-in-all the basic story is there
and they did a reasonably decnet job.  

    Re .1, Um, someone's been dealing with network transports too
    frequently...

RE: .1

Well, I watched the first part, and was quite disappointed.

For one thing, they weren't on Mars, they were on Beta-Earth.  They added 
an entire new sub-plot which was very reminiscent of "Outland", where the
miners are becoming sick from some substance in the mines, and the doctor
who is trying to figure it out is being thwarted by this actively *evil*
administrator from the company which owns the mines.  (Hey, I don't mind
portraying administrators and senior executives as un-caring about the
health of their workers: this is a well established literary tradition
with some cases in human history.  But I think having the administrator
gloating and laughing out loud over the number of miners falling ill was
a little too much).  They made far too much about water-seekers, which 
were a fairly minor threat in the book.  The whole thrust of the episode
(which was also the basis of the TV Guide blurb) about Jim being sent away 
to school was completely ignored in this episode, in favor of a miner 
going crazy and blowing up part of the mine, killing himself and trapping
Jim such that he needed Willis's help to get out.  Finally, they completely 
changed Willis from a furry ball which could extrude whatever manipulative or
sensory organs needed, to a standard fuzzy alien pet complete with large
limpid eyes, permanent feet with claws, and an elongated cat-like body.
And they completely dropped the entire "licensed gun-wearer" discussion,
though I guess I understand why they did that.

On the other hand, the animation was decnet (:-)), the plot wasn't bad,
they included the atmosphere creation discussion, and they made Jim's mother
the Chief Medical Officer with Doc MacRae working for her (something even
Heinlein could not have done in 1949).

If I hadn't read the book I might have liked it more, but as it was, I won't
bother seeing the rest of it...

-- Ken Moreau

I wouldn't give up on it entirely just yet.  I had seen the last installment
the last time it played, and wished I had seen the earlier episodes.
I wasn't sure that beta-earth wasn't just the name for the colony,
which could still be on Mars.  Part of the problem about bringing
a classic SF novel to the screen (be it the small one in 256 colors, or
the large one in techni-color) is that we now know more about Mars
than we did before hand, and trying to place large size animals on
a present day Mars would be rather laughable.  Of course, if you're a 
fan of the "Face on Mars" theory, please ignore my remarks ;-)
But, maybe go read "Labyrinth of Night" by Alan Steele, who gets into
the martian face and pyramids and city a bit more intensively.

PeterT

You have a valid point: maybe I am just disappointed at how the focus was
changed from the book.  I am a big book fan, and have only once seen a
book and a movie which complemented each other and which exploited each of
the strengths of the respective mediums (words vs visuals), and which add
to your enjoyment if you read/saw both of them.  That pair is, of course,
Orson Scott Card's and James Cameron's "Abyss".  The only other movie and
book combination that was not disappointing (but which did not complement
each other as "Abyss" did) was "Hunt for Red October", in which the movie
was a fair treatment of a subset of the book.  I must admit, though, that
the casting was *superb*: Sean Connery, James Earl Jones, Baldwin, the guy
who played the Presidents advisor, everybody was really well cast.

But in this case it seemed to me that they took some ideas out of the book,
ignored the details of those ideas (I respectfully disagree that they did
a fair treatment of Willis), stirred in some politically correct sub-plots
from other movies ("Outland"), and in general didn't have any reverence
for the book.

Maybe if I had not read the book I might have liked it more.  That was 
certainly the case for film version of "Patriot Games" which my wife (who 
has not read the book) liked and which I (who read the book) did not.

But I did read the book, and so was disappointed in the mini-series.

Of course, I am the kind of person who stopped going to Boskone when
ReaderCon started.

-- Ken Moreau

    I also watched the first installment (having been alerted by this
    note) and was also disappointed.  I'd say the show was:
    
    	90 % generic saturday morning SF stuff
    	10 % Red Planet
    	 0 % Heinlen
    
    I'd really like to see a video (tv or movie) adaptation of one of
    Heinlen's books that really captures the flavor of the story (and
    it would be a plus if it followed the story line as well :-)
    
    Vince
    

    Well, I'm pretty sure that I've read the book.  But since it was an
    early Heinlein, it has to have been over 25 years ago that I did read
    it, so my memory of other than it took place on Mars is a bit
    suspect.  Had they done "The Star Beast" or "Tunnel in the Sky"
    or "The Door into Summer", I'd have a better chance of matching
    them up.  But then, I'm searching for a book to read now, so maybe
    I'll see if they have "Red Planet" in the library.  Maybe my
    daughter would be interested in having it read to her.
    
    PeterT
    

    And, just as an aside.  The book/movie combination that worked best
    for me was "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" by Ken Kesey.  Saw the
    play too, and all 3 were, in my opinion, superb examples of their
    respective crafts.
    
    PeterT
    

	I'm reaching way back for this one, but in the fifties they did
a movie of Heinlein's DESTINATION MOON that was excellent and followed
the book very closely.  We would find this pretty tedious today, because
they had to explain much that we take for granted.

	It is a shame that Heinlein's books - especially the juveniles -
were not made into movies.  Most of them could be technically updated
without losing the point.

RE: .9

>	It is a shame that Heinlein's books - especially the juveniles -
>were not made into movies.  Most of them could be technically updated
>without losing the point.

I would also *love* to see some of the juveniles made into movies.  How
about "Have Space Suit Will Travel" (can you imagine doing either Mother
Thing or the chief bad guy), "Between Planets" (some decent spaceships
and good ground action), or my personal favorite, "Citizen of the Galaxy".
But even some of the non-juveniles would be interesting, such as "Glory
Road" or "Methusalahs Children" or "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".

And I agree with you about not needing major changes in the technology.  The 
only serious technology which Heinlein did not predict was the incredible
explosion in computer technology, how cheap it became, and how pervasive it
became such that a very large percentage of the population uses computers
on a daily basis.

But the problem with all of his books is that they are not filled with the
kind of action that Hollywood believes today's audiences demand.  Look at
the treatment of P.K. Dick's "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale", which
turned into "Total Recall" with Arnold Schwarzeneggar.  There is *no* action
in "Have Space Suit..." or "Citizen..." or "Methusalahs Children" of the
kind that people automatically think of when they think of SF movies, and
there is very little of it in "Between Planets" (1 take-over of a city,
some peripheral ground action which happens mostly off-camera, and 1 space
battle between ships which is over in a few seconds).

The sole exception that I can think of is "Starship Troopers", which has
lots of good battle scenes (the battle suits could be well done today).
But the political theories of that book would have made it impossible to do
prior to 1990, and I am not sure it is possible today.  Too much talk about
patriotism and duty to country and personal responsibility and personal
sacrifice and commitment to ideals even at the cost of your own life and
even (horror of horrors) approval of the military as an honorable profession, 
to be acceptable in American society today (partial smiley here).

-- Ken Moreau

Ken

>>>The sole exception that I can think of is "Starship Troopers", 

    From the Web

            Coming Attractions

STARSHIP TROOPERS

THE PLAYERS: Neil Patrick Harris
THE PLOT: After the debacle that was Showgirls, director Paul 
Verhoeven abandons bare thighs for sci-fi.  This big budget space 
flick depicts an Earth overrun by tenacious insects.  The flick is 
based on a Robert Heinlein tale.  
THE DIRECTOR: Paul Verhoeven
DISTRIBUTOR: Columbia
RELEASE DATE: TBA

    
    I fear for this film.  The book has a small amount of action and the
    rest is taken up with the tale of the lead character with lots of
    remeniscence about his youth.  The film will no doubt be loosely based
    on the story but mainly an action-fest involving lots of battles with
    giant insect-things.  Not that I'm saying this is bad but it would
    probably be better to have this as a film in its own right rather than
    a book adaptation.
    
    
    I.

RE: .11

This sounds good, but I have seen many projects be proposed and never
completed in Hollywood.  But here's hoping...

RE: .12

>    I fear for this film.  

I agree with you (as I stated in my original comment on it).  But other
films have done the "callow youth goes to war and grows up" scenario and
done it well.  "The Big Red 1", "All's Quiet on the Western Front", and
even parts of "Battle of the Bulge" did it, so why couldn't "Starship
Troopers"?  But I do fear for many of the political themes in the book,
such that the initial story treatment deliberately junks them in favor
of raw action sequences.

But, boy, the raw action sequences could be really great!

-- Ken Moreau

    
    re .13
    
    I agree, I think a story about the lead character's experience of war
    would make for a good film and it has been done well in the past.  What
    I hope is that they won't mangle the plot of the book just to make a
    movie with lots of high-tech hardware and explosions in it, because
    that wasn't what the book was all about.  As long as they strike a good
    balance then it should be a good film.
    
    Having said that, I agree about the raw action sequences, they would be
    blistering!
    
    
    I.

    re .previous
    
    Be very afraid for the film version of Startship Troopers. As far as
    I've been able to glean from a number of sources, the story has been
    badly emasculated. The movie plot is supposed to be something like...
    
    Rico and his girlfriend, Carmen, both join the new armed forces. Rico
    ends up in the Infantry whilst Carmen becomes a starship pilot. When
    Carmen is capture by aliens, it is down to Rico and his unit to rescue
    her.
    
    Worrying, isn't it?
    
    Clive

    
    Oh, yikes.
    
    That'll be enough to put Harlan Ellison back in the hospital.
    
    DFW

    
    re .15
    
    
    Bloody hell!  I knew it would end up like that, all explosions and
    special effects with the original plot waving sadly from a distant
    hilltop.
    
    That's not to say that it won't be any good though.  I'll just have to
    pretend I've never read the book.
    
    
    
    I.

    You'd be better pretending that you'd never even heard of the book, or
    Heinlein. Somehow, I doubt that any of his books will make a successful
    transition to the big screen. The recent version of The Puppetmasters
    failed abysmally, so I don't expect anything more from Starship
    Troopers.
    
    Clive

    This is fast digressing into a depressing conversation. Allow me to
    suggest a different point of view. What if a decent SF movie was
    released without any reference to a specific book? After seeing it you
    thought it was well done, but the plot reminded you of something you
    had read once? You would still evaluate the movie on its own merits and 
    the book as something separate. 
    
    The point is, a well written book challenges the authors powers of
    description and imagination and the job of interpretation and visualization
    challenge our senses. That's one of the things, at least to me, that
    makes SF reading so great. 
    
    Movies on the other hand, do the visualization and interpretation for
    us - we just absorb. Sometimes, the screen writer takes great liberties,
    and when he's done, there's nothing left of the original book but the
    title. Try reading Ian Fleming's Dr. No and On Her Majesty's Secret
    Service and then watch the movies. The Dr. No's are close - the other
    two - not recognizable.  While I may be disapointed that the movie
    didn't match or perhaps, even "prove" my visualization of the book, I
    try to enjoy the movie on it's own merits. It's much more positive
    that way.
    
    I'll never forget seeing Dune for the first time. Two things struck me
    right off. First, the movie was trying like hell to be true to the
    book; second, the movie was going to disappear in less than 7 days.
    Why? With the original plot as complex as it is, a movie would have to
    last 6 hours to get it all in. On the otherhand, the SFX and many
    of the plot subleties were just outstanding - but the audience HAD to
    have loved the book to even remotely be able to understand the movie.
    That movie was a box office dead duck from the outset. (I've watched it 
    - the video - at least four times and even own the sound track).
    
    In order for Dune as the movie to have done well, it would have needed
    serious screen writing, which might have saved it at the box office,
    but would have destroyed it as a film based on the novel. 
    
    I really believe that good SF is very very difficult to put on screen.
    Why has no-one tried to do The Foundation yet? Hey, without rewrites,
    it would be a snoozer - appealing only to the purists, and there aren't
    enough of us to make a movie profitable. (Can you imagine a half hour
    movie session explaining Hari Seldon's physcho-history mathmatics
    theory?) 
    
    I am holding out great hopes that computer graphics among other things,
    will spin off a whole new genre of top drawer SF movies. We have
    already seen some of the results and the potential is fantastic. 
    
    In the meantime, I enjoy the books and the movies and try not to let
    myself get too upset if the movie strays far from the book. Somtimes,
    it just has to happen.   
         

    I think part of the problem with SF in cinema at the moment is an
    almost unhealthy obsession with action. Some of the best (IMHO) SF
    Films were very low on action, for example: 2001, Close Encounters,
    Forbidden Planet, etc. By action, I mean explosions, guns, chases,
    space battles, etc.
    
    I don't know whether it was Star Wars that caused the change, but it
    does seem that Hollywood feels that SF is all about good guys and bad
    guys trying to wipe each other out. If you ignore E. E. "Doc" Smith and
    some of the other "pulp" authors, most written SF is a lot more
    cerebral than that, even such novels as Starship Troopers and The
    Forever War.
    
    Next, add in Hollywoods current fad, in which novel and comic
    adaptations are popular, and the film-makers eyes turn to SF novels.
    Problem is, they're looking primarily at the "action" aspect. As a
    result, a novel which functions on a number of levels, such as Starship
    Troopers, is made in to a film in which the "action" elements are
    enhanced to the detriment of the original.
    
    I personally, would rather see a SF movie which, while not dependant on
    any one novel, drew on the rich heritage of written SF. It is possible
    and I would cite Cameron's The Abyss as a good example. Alien was
    another. And some novels do lend themselves to film. Given that we were
    talking about Heinlein, then how about movie versions of Starman Jones,
    The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Methusalah's Children?
    
    Clive
    
    PS. Personally, I thought Dune was a brave attempt at an impossible
    task. If they had remained completely faithfull to the novel the film
    would have lasted hours, and appealed only to Dune fans. Do a serious
    screen-writing job, and Dune fans would have slagged it to death.
    
    PPS. Babylon 5 does seem to prove that it is possible to do good SF on a
    low budget, average episode cost is $900,000. 

    
    <---  Well said, that man.
    
    I think Clive has hit the proverbial nail on the head, "starship
    troopers" needn't necessarily be a faithful adaptation for me to enjoy
    it.  I'd prefer to see a movie that took the basic idea of the book and
    built the storyline around it, in the aforementioned "youth goes to war
    and is changed as a result" way, rather than what (as Clive rightly
    pointed out) appears to be the current hollywood obsession with loud
    bangs and a flimsy plot.  
    
    I object to films which try to follow the
    plot and then suddenly make a glaring omission or change halfway
    through (see any Tom Clancy adaptation) but I have no problem with a
    movie based around the original plot, even if a few omissions are made
    for the sake of continuity.
    
    I.

    
    While I'm on the subject:
    
    Not only would "starman jones" make a good film (as mentioned
    previously) but I think "the door into summer" would be a very good
    choice.  Nice "time travel" type plot and happy ending.  What more
    could you ask?
    
    
    
    I.

    Along that vein, the new Outer Limits should do "All You Zombies...";
    cable could get away with it.
    
    							Don