Hopefully they won’t make the movie. After Starship Troopers was tranformed from a book discussing cititizenship and civil responsibilities in the subtext of a hyper-militaristic subculture of the larger Terran Federation to an action adventure movie, which painted the civilization as overtly fascist in nature while only briefly glossing over the larger issues of citizenship and civic responsiblity portrayed in the book. The film, instead ignored the larger issues in the book and focused instead on trying to be a movie about interstellar warfare. I just can’t find it in me to support bringing The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress to the movie screen. It will be screwed up, violated and trashed into a barely recognizable shell of it’s former self. Don’t do it guys. Don’t make the movie. Leave well enough alone. Anytime I want to see Manny, Mike or Wyo, I know where my bookshelf is located.
Link courtesy of Yahoo! Groups – smith2004-discuss.
[goodreviews isbn=”9780340837948″]
>>After Starship Troopers was tranformed from a book about a hyper-militaristic culture to an action adventure movie,
Sigh. For the twentieth time: the /book/ is not about a “hyper-militaristic” culture — but the film /is/, thanks to Messrs. Neumeier and Verhoeven (the latter understandably traumatized by up-close-and-personal experience of National Socialism) needing to project onto the screen their own biased interpretations of what the book was about.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no26/vo13no26_future.htm
http://www.kentaurus.com/troopers.htm
Anyway, Heinlein doesn’t need me to defend his book: read for yourself what he says about it in _Expanded Universe_ (1980).
All the same, I agree with you: leave well enough alone. (But wouldn’t it be fun to try to cast?)
6/26/2003 3:37:00
Not to nitpick, but I thought that the film seemed far more, shoot-up-the-bad-guys-ish and battle scene prone than really laying home the Terran Federation and citizenship issues Heinlein discussed. The film presented a fascist society in a matter of fact way, engaged in an interstellar war without exploring the philosophies or underlying themes that got them there. While it did show that aspect of the film, I think it was really attempting to be a shoot up the bugs picture more than anything, plot distortions aside. I mean, damn the producers and directors of the movie changed and expanded characters and really emphasized the war part rather than the philosophy discussed in the book. I wasn’t criticizing the book by the way, which took a different tact in exploring themes related to civil privileges and responsibility, I get RAH’s point and my post was a quick one made in a rush so I didn’t elaborate as well as I should have. I grok Heinlein’s messages in the book, even if has been 15 or so years since I read it. Serves me right for posting in haste.
I was referring to the concept that the way to citizenship is by giving years in service to the govt via the military or other federal agencies, which received about what, 2 minutes in the movie, which glossed it over then moved onto boot camp and battle scenes.
Granted the only way to citizenship wasn’t exclusively through military service, but a large portion of the book did focus on that aspect of it which is what I was really focusing on in my post, which was fairly badly worded and has been revised.
6/26/2003 4:36:00
James, I agree with all that, and I apologize for posting before giving you time to revise.
6/27/2003 6:31:00
Mark:
Don’t apologize. What I originally wrote was not very clear at all. If you hadn’t pointed it out, it would have stayed that way, embarrassing me into history. Thanks.
6/27/2003 6:47:00