Lawrence Watt-Evans <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> wrote in
news:b8imfgpgd39rb2didao74li7qnqermuj47@4ax.com:

> On 23 Jul 2021 16:53:57 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
> <tednolan>) wrote:
>
>>In article <N3CKI.7894$Pn7.7781@fx16.iad>,
>>Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>>On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 04:33:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>><jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The movie, on the other hand, took the position that the
>>>>>society depicted was facist and bad, period. Although that is
>>>>>more borne out in comments by those who made the movie; the
>>>>>movie itself was... an entertaining action movie, and little
>>>>>more.
>>>>
>>>>IIRC, I have read/heard in a special feature that it was
>>>>intended to be an anti-war film, with the opening sequence
>>>>explicitly based on Nazi propaganda films.
>>>>
>>>>The movie was ... not that good, actually. I would say it was
>>>>a "war film". I would not say it was "entertaining". IMHO, of
>>>>course.
>>>
>>>Wasn't that the one where the high point was the Denise
>>>Richards shower scene?
>>>
>>>https://ew.com/movies/2017/11/07/starship-troopers-shower-scene-
>>>fascism/
>>
>>That was a nice scene. You got nice eye-candy, and it also made
>>the point that these people were not 20th century Americans.
>>
>>I found the movie entertaining -- it had nothing to do with the
>>book, but was OK for what it was.
>
> It wasn't NOTHING to do with the book; there were three or four
> scenes, even a couple of lines of dialogue, that were taken from
> the book. They were presented sarcastically, but they were from
> the book.
>
"Based on the title of a popular novel we haven't read, but were
told to hate."

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

In article <b8imfgpgd39rb2didao74li7qnqermuj47@4ax.com>,
Lawrence Watt-Evans <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 23 Jul 2021 16:53:57 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
><tednolan>) wrote:
>
>>In article <N3CKI.7894$Pn7.7781@fx16.iad>,
>>Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>>On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 04:33:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>><jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The movie, on the other hand, took the position that the society
>>>>>depicted was facist and bad, period. Although that is more borne
>>>>>out in comments by those who made the movie; the movie itself
>>>>>was... an entertaining action movie, and little more.
>>>>
>>>>IIRC, I have read/heard in a special feature that it was intended to
>>>>be an anti-war film, with the opening sequence explicitly based on
>>>>Nazi propaganda films.
>>>>
>>>>The movie was ... not that good, actually. I would say it was a "war
>>>>film". I would not say it was "entertaining". IMHO, of course.
>>>
>>>Wasn't that the one where the high point was the Denise Richards
>>>shower scene?
>>>
>>>https://ew.com/movies/2017/11/07/starship-troopers-shower-scene-fascism/
>>
>>That was a nice scene. You got nice eye-candy, and it also made the point
>>that these people were not 20th century Americans.
>>
>>I found the movie entertaining -- it had nothing to do with the book,
>>but was OK for what it was.
>
>It wasn't NOTHING to do with the book; there were three or four
>scenes, even a couple of lines of dialogue, that were taken from the
>book. They were presented sarcastically, but they were from the book.
>

Yes, I realize that. Especially the recruiting seargeant iirc. I suppose
I could have said "essentially nothing".

I have to say I enjoyed it more than the Donald Sutherland one. (I haven't
seen the "All You Zombies" one).
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On 7/23/2021 3:57 PM, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On 23 Jul 2021 16:53:57 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
> <tednolan>) wrote:
>
>> In article <N3CKI.7894$Pn7.7781@fx16.iad>,
>> Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 04:33:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The movie, on the other hand, took the position that the society
>>>>> depicted was facist and bad, period. Although that is more borne
>>>>> out in comments by those who made the movie; the movie itself
>>>>> was... an entertaining action movie, and little more.
>>>>
>>>> IIRC, I have read/heard in a special feature that it was intended to
>>>> be an anti-war film, with the opening sequence explicitly based on
>>>> Nazi propaganda films.
>>>>
>>>> The movie was ... not that good, actually. I would say it was a "war
>>>> film". I would not say it was "entertaining". IMHO, of course.
>>>
>>> Wasn't that the one where the high point was the Denise Richards
>>> shower scene?
>>>
>>> https://ew.com/movies/2017/11/07/starship-troopers-shower-scene-fascism/
>>
>> That was a nice scene. You got nice eye-candy, and it also made the point
>> that these people were not 20th century Americans.
>>
>> I found the movie entertaining -- it had nothing to do with the book,
>> but was OK for what it was.
>
> It wasn't NOTHING to do with the book; there were three or four
> scenes, even a couple of lines of dialogue, that were taken from the
> book. They were presented sarcastically, but they were from the book.
>
There's a reason the movie had so little to do with the book. The
script had been written and they were well into pre-production when one
of the producers found out that the movie rights to the book were
available pretty cheap. So they bought the rights so they could name
the movie 'Starship Troopers' to cash in on the name recognition. The
movie was never intended to actually BE a film adaptation of the book.

--
Troll, troll, troll your post gently down the thread
Angrily, angrily, angrily, the net's a nut's scream.

On 7/23/2021 7:03 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <b8imfgpgd39rb2didao74li7qnqermuj47@4ax.com>,
> Lawrence Watt-Evans <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 23 Jul 2021 16:53:57 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>> <tednolan>) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <N3CKI.7894$Pn7.7781@fx16.iad>,
>>> Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 04:33:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The movie, on the other hand, took the position that the society
>>>>>> depicted was facist and bad, period. Although that is more borne
>>>>>> out in comments by those who made the movie; the movie itself
>>>>>> was... an entertaining action movie, and little more.
>>>>>
>>>>> IIRC, I have read/heard in a special feature that it was intended to
>>>>> be an anti-war film, with the opening sequence explicitly based on
>>>>> Nazi propaganda films.
>>>>>
>>>>> The movie was ... not that good, actually. I would say it was a "war
>>>>> film". I would not say it was "entertaining". IMHO, of course.
>>>>
>>>> Wasn't that the one where the high point was the Denise Richards
>>>> shower scene?
>>>>
>>>> https://ew.com/movies/2017/11/07/starship-troopers-shower-scene-fascism/
>>>
>>> That was a nice scene. You got nice eye-candy, and it also made the point
>>> that these people were not 20th century Americans.
>>>
>>> I found the movie entertaining -- it had nothing to do with the book,
>>> but was OK for what it was.
>>
>> It wasn't NOTHING to do with the book; there were three or four
>> scenes, even a couple of lines of dialogue, that were taken from the
>> book. They were presented sarcastically, but they were from the book.
>>
>
> Yes, I realize that. Especially the recruiting seargeant iirc. I suppose
> I could have said "essentially nothing".
>
> I have to say I enjoyed it more than the Donald Sutherland one. (I haven't
> seen the "All You Zombies" one).

Interesting. I had no idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_(film)

Lynn

In article <sdg0mm$7hp$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 7/23/2021 7:03 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> In article <b8imfgpgd39rb2didao74li7qnqermuj47@4ax.com>,
>> Lawrence Watt-Evans <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 23 Jul 2021 16:53:57 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>>> <tednolan>) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <N3CKI.7894$Pn7.7781@fx16.iad>,
>>>> Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 04:33:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>>>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The movie, on the other hand, took the position that the society
>>>>>>> depicted was facist and bad, period. Although that is more borne
>>>>>>> out in comments by those who made the movie; the movie itself
>>>>>>> was... an entertaining action movie, and little more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IIRC, I have read/heard in a special feature that it was intended to
>>>>>> be an anti-war film, with the opening sequence explicitly based on
>>>>>> Nazi propaganda films.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The movie was ... not that good, actually. I would say it was a "war
>>>>>> film". I would not say it was "entertaining". IMHO, of course.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wasn't that the one where the high point was the Denise Richards
>>>>> shower scene?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://ew.com/movies/2017/11/07/starship-troopers-shower-scene-fascism/
>>>>
>>>> That was a nice scene. You got nice eye-candy, and it also made the point
>>>> that these people were not 20th century Americans.
>>>>
>>>> I found the movie entertaining -- it had nothing to do with the book,
>>>> but was OK for what it was.
>>>
>>> It wasn't NOTHING to do with the book; there were three or four
>>> scenes, even a couple of lines of dialogue, that were taken from the
>>> book. They were presented sarcastically, but they were from the book.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I realize that. Especially the recruiting seargeant iirc. I suppose
>> I could have said "essentially nothing".
>>
>> I have to say I enjoyed it more than the Donald Sutherland one. (I haven't
>> seen the "All You Zombies" one).
>
>Interesting. I had no idea.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_(film)
>

Come to think of it, I've never seen Destination Moon either.

Cool song though

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbc6jz24QH0
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 22:16:27 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/23/2021 7:03 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> In article <b8imfgpgd39rb2didao74li7qnqermuj47@4ax.com>,
>> Lawrence Watt-Evans <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 23 Jul 2021 16:53:57 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>>> <tednolan>) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <N3CKI.7894$Pn7.7781@fx16.iad>,
>>>> Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 04:33:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>>>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The movie, on the other hand, took the position that the society
>>>>>>> depicted was facist and bad, period. Although that is more borne
>>>>>>> out in comments by those who made the movie; the movie itself
>>>>>>> was... an entertaining action movie, and little more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IIRC, I have read/heard in a special feature that it was intended to
>>>>>> be an anti-war film, with the opening sequence explicitly based on
>>>>>> Nazi propaganda films.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The movie was ... not that good, actually. I would say it was a "war
>>>>>> film". I would not say it was "entertaining". IMHO, of course.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wasn't that the one where the high point was the Denise Richards
>>>>> shower scene?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://ew.com/movies/2017/11/07/starship-troopers-shower-scene-fascism/
>>>>
>>>> That was a nice scene. You got nice eye-candy, and it also made the point
>>>> that these people were not 20th century Americans.
>>>>
>>>> I found the movie entertaining -- it had nothing to do with the book,
>>>> but was OK for what it was.
>>>
>>> It wasn't NOTHING to do with the book; there were three or four
>>> scenes, even a couple of lines of dialogue, that were taken from the
>>> book. They were presented sarcastically, but they were from the book.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I realize that. Especially the recruiting seargeant iirc. I suppose
>> I could have said "essentially nothing".
>>
>> I have to say I enjoyed it more than the Donald Sutherland one. (I haven't
>> seen the "All You Zombies" one).
>
>Interesting. I had no idea.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_(film)

Predestination was the closest to Heinlein's story. The problem I had
with "Puppet Masters" was that they chose to make it a present-day
story--it lost Heinlein's future. Of course to tell that story right
it would have had to be x-rated.

ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
>In article <b8imfgpgd39rb2didao74li7qnqermuj47@4ax.com>,
>Lawrence Watt-Evans <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 23 Jul 2021 16:53:57 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>><tednolan>) wrote:

>
>Yes, I realize that. Especially the recruiting seargeant iirc. I suppose
>I could have said "essentially nothing".
>
>I have to say I enjoyed it more than the Donald Sutherland one. (I haven't
>seen the "All You Zombies" one).

I thought _Puppet Masters_ was closer to the actual book than
most adaptations (absent the nudity, anyway).

In article <oCVKI.8713$yU3.1393@fx05.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
>>In article <b8imfgpgd39rb2didao74li7qnqermuj47@4ax.com>,
>>Lawrence Watt-Evans <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On 23 Jul 2021 16:53:57 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>>><tednolan>) wrote:
>
>>
>>Yes, I realize that. Especially the recruiting seargeant iirc. I suppose
>>I could have said "essentially nothing".
>>
>>I have to say I enjoyed it more than the Donald Sutherland one. (I haven't
>>seen the "All You Zombies" one).
>
>I thought _Puppet Masters_ was closer to the actual book than
>most adaptations (absent the nudity, anyway).

Interesting, very Hollywood, story of the script here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070218211614/http://www.wordplayer.com/columns/wp15.Building.the.Bomb.html

Building the Bomb
Screenwriting Column 15
by Terry Rossio

A screenwriter wrote to me marveling that my name is in the
writing credits of the god-awful 1994-released film Robert
A. Heinlein's THE PUPPET MASTERS. After all, I seem like a
sensible enough guy, and yet the film is piss-poor terrible.
He was quite relieved to find out I know quite well that
the movie is awful. So here's how THE PUPPET MASTERS came
to be. Let it serve as an illustrative example, a case study
in the Hollywood development process. In its death, then,
perhaps the film can find some meaning -- perhaps it can
do some good. Besides, you guys need to know what you're
getting into.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> Come to think of it, I've never seen Destination Moon either.
>
> Cool song though
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbc6jz24QH0

I'm picturing that as the theme song and Maurice Binder 007-style opening credits.
In 1950?
Well, they're just silhouettes, maybe Walter Lantz can animate them.

--
-Jack

On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:07:28 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 7/23/2021 3:57 PM, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>> On 23 Jul 2021 16:53:57 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>> <tednolan>) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <N3CKI.7894$Pn7.7781@fx16.iad>,
>>> Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 04:33:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The movie, on the other hand, took the position that the society
>>>>>> depicted was facist and bad, period. Although that is more borne
>>>>>> out in comments by those who made the movie; the movie itself
>>>>>> was... an entertaining action movie, and little more.
>>>>>
>>>>> IIRC, I have read/heard in a special feature that it was intended to
>>>>> be an anti-war film, with the opening sequence explicitly based on
>>>>> Nazi propaganda films.
>>>>>
>>>>> The movie was ... not that good, actually. I would say it was a "war
>>>>> film". I would not say it was "entertaining". IMHO, of course.
>>>>
>>>> Wasn't that the one where the high point was the Denise Richards
>>>> shower scene?
>>>>
>>>> https://ew.com/movies/2017/11/07/starship-troopers-shower-scene-fascism/
>>>
>>> That was a nice scene. You got nice eye-candy, and it also made the point
>>> that these people were not 20th century Americans.
>>>
>>> I found the movie entertaining -- it had nothing to do with the book,
>>> but was OK for what it was.
>>
>> It wasn't NOTHING to do with the book; there were three or four
>> scenes, even a couple of lines of dialogue, that were taken from the
>> book. They were presented sarcastically, but they were from the book.
>>
>There's a reason the movie had so little to do with the book. The
>script had been written and they were well into pre-production when one
>of the producers found out that the movie rights to the book were
>available pretty cheap. So they bought the rights so they could name
>the movie 'Starship Troopers' to cash in on the name recognition. The
>movie was never intended to actually BE a film adaptation of the book.

So, the story is that, /just by coincidence/, they wrote a script with
Heinlein's character names and, more to the point, /very big bugs/ as
enemies, and then decided to license the name?

Or did they actually /rewrite/ the script to use Heinlein's character
names and change the original monsters to Heinlein's?

IOW, did they actually do an adaptation by changing their plans to
include elements from the book?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On 23 Jul 2021 16:53:57 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:

>In article <N3CKI.7894$Pn7.7781@fx16.iad>,
>Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 04:33:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>><jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>The movie, on the other hand, took the position that the society
>>>>depicted was facist and bad, period. Although that is more borne
>>>>out in comments by those who made the movie; the movie itself
>>>>was... an entertaining action movie, and little more.
>>>
>>>IIRC, I have read/heard in a special feature that it was intended to
>>>be an anti-war film, with the opening sequence explicitly based on
>>>Nazi propaganda films.
>>>
>>>The movie was ... not that good, actually. I would say it was a "war
>>>film". I would not say it was "entertaining". IMHO, of course.
>>
>>Wasn't that the one where the high point was the Denise Richards
>>shower scene?
>>
>>https://ew.com/movies/2017/11/07/starship-troopers-shower-scene-fascism/
>
>That was a nice scene. You got nice eye-candy, and it also made the point
>that these people were not 20th century Americans.
>
>I found the movie entertaining -- it had nothing to do with the book,
>but was OK for what it was.

It was Hollywood.

Girls in the Space Infantry -- you can hear Heinlein's coffin rotating
every time the film is viewed.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 10:05:39 -0700, Paul S Person wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:07:28 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>On 7/23/2021 3:57 PM, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>>> On 23 Jul 2021 16:53:57 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>>> <tednolan>) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <N3CKI.7894$Pn7.7781@fx16.iad>,
>>>> Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 04:33:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>>>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The movie, on the other hand, took the position that the society
>>>>>>> depicted was facist and bad, period. Although that is more borne
>>>>>>> out in comments by those who made the movie; the movie itself
>>>>>>> was... an entertaining action movie, and little more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IIRC, I have read/heard in a special feature that it was intended
>>>>>> to be an anti-war film, with the opening sequence explicitly based
>>>>>> on Nazi propaganda films.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The movie was ... not that good, actually. I would say it was a
>>>>>> "war film". I would not say it was "entertaining". IMHO, of course.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wasn't that the one where the high point was the Denise Richards
>>>>> shower scene?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://ew.com/movies/2017/11/07/starship-troopers-shower-scene-
fascism/
>>>>
>>>> That was a nice scene. You got nice eye-candy, and it also made the
>>>> point that these people were not 20th century Americans.
>>>>
>>>> I found the movie entertaining -- it had nothing to do with the book,
>>>> but was OK for what it was.
>>>
>>> It wasn't NOTHING to do with the book; there were three or four
>>> scenes, even a couple of lines of dialogue, that were taken from the
>>> book. They were presented sarcastically, but they were from the book.
>>>
>>There's a reason the movie had so little to do with the book. The
>>script had been written and they were well into pre-production when one
>>of the producers found out that the movie rights to the book were
>>available pretty cheap. So they bought the rights so they could name
>>the movie 'Starship Troopers' to cash in on the name recognition. The
>>movie was never intended to actually BE a film adaptation of the book.
>
> So, the story is that, /just by coincidence/, they wrote a script with
> Heinlein's character names and, more to the point, /very big bugs/ as
> enemies, and then decided to license the name?
>
> Or did they actually /rewrite/ the script to use Heinlein's character
> names and change the original monsters to Heinlein's?
>
> IOW, did they actually do an adaptation by changing their plans to
> include elements from the book?

As I remember it,someone reading over the script pointed out that it was
close enough to Troopers(by complete accident,somehow) that they were in
danger of getting sued so they needed to make changes. Instead they
bought the rights and changed a few names and such.

ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
>In article <oCVKI.8713$yU3.1393@fx05.iad>,
>Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
>>>In article <b8imfgpgd39rb2didao74li7qnqermuj47@4ax.com>,
>>>Lawrence Watt-Evans <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On 23 Jul 2021 16:53:57 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>>>><tednolan>) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Yes, I realize that. Especially the recruiting seargeant iirc. I suppose
>>>I could have said "essentially nothing".
>>>
>>>I have to say I enjoyed it more than the Donald Sutherland one. (I haven't
>>>seen the "All You Zombies" one).
>>
>>I thought _Puppet Masters_ was closer to the actual book than
>>most adaptations (absent the nudity, anyway).
>
>Interesting, very Hollywood, story of the script here:
>
>https://web.archive.org/web/20070218211614/http://www.wordplayer.com/columns/wp15.Building.the.Bomb.html
>
> Building the Bomb

maybe it's time I rewatch it; memory can be fickle.

In article <k5iofgp3q67ai3j0ili5vt8v5uai97ib0f@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:

> On 23 Jul 2021 16:53:57 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
> <tednolan>) wrote:
>
> >In article <N3CKI.7894$Pn7.7781@fx16.iad>,
> >Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> writes:
> >>>On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 04:33:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> >>><jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>The movie, on the other hand, took the position that the society
> >>>>depicted was facist and bad, period. Although that is more borne
> >>>>out in comments by those who made the movie; the movie itself
> >>>>was... an entertaining action movie, and little more.
> >>>
> >>>IIRC, I have read/heard in a special feature that it was intended to
> >>>be an anti-war film, with the opening sequence explicitly based on
> >>>Nazi propaganda films.
> >>>
> >>>The movie was ... not that good, actually. I would say it was a "war
> >>>film". I would not say it was "entertaining". IMHO, of course.
> >>
> >>Wasn't that the one where the high point was the Denise Richards
> >>shower scene?
> >>
> >>https://ew.com/movies/2017/11/07/starship-troopers-shower-scene-fascism/
> >
> >That was a nice scene. You got nice eye-candy, and it also made the point
> >that these people were not 20th century Americans.
> >
> >I found the movie entertaining -- it had nothing to do with the book,
> >but was OK for what it was.
>
> It was Hollywood.
>
> Girls in the Space Infantry -- you can hear Heinlein's coffin rotating
> every time the film is viewed.

Joe Haldeman had girls in Space Infantry and Heinlein did not objection
(besides, wasn't Heinlein cremated and ashes scattered in the Pacific
Ocean?).

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 21:58:01 -0700, Robert Woodward
<robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:

>In article <k5iofgp3q67ai3j0ili5vt8v5uai97ib0f@4ax.com>,
> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 23 Jul 2021 16:53:57 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>> <tednolan>) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <N3CKI.7894$Pn7.7781@fx16.iad>,
>> >Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> writes:
>> >>>On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 04:33:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> >>><jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>The movie, on the other hand, took the position that the society
>> >>>>depicted was facist and bad, period. Although that is more borne
>> >>>>out in comments by those who made the movie; the movie itself
>> >>>>was... an entertaining action movie, and little more.
>> >>>
>> >>>IIRC, I have read/heard in a special feature that it was intended to
>> >>>be an anti-war film, with the opening sequence explicitly based on
>> >>>Nazi propaganda films.
>> >>>
>> >>>The movie was ... not that good, actually. I would say it was a "war
>> >>>film". I would not say it was "entertaining". IMHO, of course.
>> >>
>> >>Wasn't that the one where the high point was the Denise Richards
>> >>shower scene?
>> >>
>> >>https://ew.com/movies/2017/11/07/starship-troopers-shower-scene-fascism/
>> >
>> >That was a nice scene. You got nice eye-candy, and it also made the point
>> >that these people were not 20th century Americans.
>> >
>> >I found the movie entertaining -- it had nothing to do with the book,
>> >but was OK for what it was.
>>
>> It was Hollywood.
>>
>> Girls in the Space Infantry -- you can hear Heinlein's coffin rotating
>> every time the film is viewed.
>
>Joe Haldeman had girls in Space Infantry and Heinlein did not objection
>(besides, wasn't Heinlein cremated and ashes scattered in the Pacific
>Ocean?).

It's the 21st century, the _infantry_ has girls in the infantry. And
many heads are exploding over it.

In article <bb3edcb2-f1fc-47e4-ad9f-8977025418d8n@googlegroups.com>,
Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> wrote:
>Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> Come to think of it, I've never seen Destination Moon either.
>>
>> Cool song though
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbc6jz24QH0
>
>I'm picturing that as the theme song and Maurice Binder 007-style
>opening credits.
>In 1950?
>Well, they're just silhouettes, maybe Walter Lantz can animate them.
>

He could rotoscope them, though I would rather Tex Avery use silhouettes
of "Red".
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 2:17:40 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> Of course to tell that story right
> it would have had to be x-rated.

I was going to say, surely you mean R-rated, but then I
remembered that the rating which is now NC-17 has
"constant nudity" as one possible criterion.

John Savard

On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 11:06:13 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:07:28 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:

> >There's a reason the movie had so little to do with the book. The
> >script had been written and they were well into pre-production when one
> >of the producers found out that the movie rights to the book were
> >available pretty cheap. So they bought the rights so they could name
> >the movie 'Starship Troopers' to cash in on the name recognition. The
> >movie was never intended to actually BE a film adaptation of the book.

> So, the story is that, /just by coincidence/, they wrote a script with
> Heinlein's character names and, more to the point, /very big bugs/ as
> enemies, and then decided to license the name?

> Or did they actually /rewrite/ the script to use Heinlein's character
> names and change the original monsters to Heinlein's?

If the situation he describes is accurate, I'm sure that your second alternative
would have been what would have had to happen. But I had thought the movie
was intended from the very beginning as a satire on facism, to hear those
responsible talking about it.

John Savard

On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 10:58:05 PM UTC-6, Robert Woodward wrote:
> In article <k5iofgp3q67ai3j0i...@4ax.com>,
> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:

> > Girls in the Space Infantry -- you can hear Heinlein's coffin rotating
> > every time the film is viewed.

> Joe Haldeman had girls in Space Infantry and Heinlein did not objection

That's all very well, but indeed in Starship Troopers (the original book)
it was specifically noted that the women were separated from the male
non-coms quite rigidly on board ship. So that was a significant departure
from the book.

John Savard

On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 1:08:34 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> It's the 21st century, the _infantry_ has girls in the infantry. And
> many heads are exploding over it.

Well,

1) It exposes them to a risk of sexual assault.

2) The question is raised of whether the country is now incapable of
defending itself, because it wouild be logically forced to conscript
women in the event of a new major war, but be still culturally
unprepared to do so.

I mean, although the supporters of Donald Trump have behaved
very badly of late, their side to the culture war is not without its
point. Progress towards equality has taken place *in some areas*
(even if not the ones that really count) at a dizzying pace, heedlessly
of any possible consequences.

John Savard

On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 04:58:01 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 1:08:34 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> It's the 21st century, the _infantry_ has girls in the infantry. And
>> many heads are exploding over it.
>
>Well,
>
>1) It exposes them to a risk of sexual assault.

So it's OK for men to be exposed to risk of sexual assault? And is
that really worse than the risk of death?

>2) The question is raised of whether the country is now incapable of
>defending itself, because it wouild be logically forced to conscript
>women in the event of a new major war, but be still culturally
>unprepared to do so.

It isn't required to put women in the infantry who can't complete the
training, and most apparently can't.

>I mean, although the supporters of Donald Trump have behaved
>very badly of late, their side to the culture war is not without its
>point. Progress towards equality has taken place *in some areas*
>(even if not the ones that really count) at a dizzying pace, heedlessly
>of any possible consequences.

I don't recall equality for women being an issue at any time during
the Trump administration. Gay marriage yes, trans soldiers yes, but
not women.

On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 04:54:15 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 10:58:05 PM UTC-6, Robert Woodward wrote:
>> In article <k5iofgp3q67ai3j0i...@4ax.com>,
>> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > Girls in the Space Infantry -- you can hear Heinlein's coffin rotating
>> > every time the film is viewed.
>
>> Joe Haldeman had girls in Space Infantry and Heinlein did not objection
>
>That's all very well, but indeed in Starship Troopers (the original book)
>it was specifically noted that the women were separated from the male
>non-coms quite rigidly on board ship. So that was a significant departure
>from the book.

No, women in the Navy were separated from men in the MI.

On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 6:43:33 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 04:58:01 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> >1) It exposes them to a risk of sexual assault.

> So it's OK for men to be exposed to risk of sexual assault?

No, but it seems reasonable to suspect that under normal
wartime conditions, the risk to women is orders of magnitude
higher.

It's the _prison system_ that poses an unacceptable risk of
men being subjected to sexual assault that needs to be
addressed.

> And is
> that really worse than the risk of death?

Death comes to us all eventually. Rape, on the other hand, is
a profoundly unnatural crime of torture that at least in some
cases devastates its victims for a lifetime.

And our culture is such that the emotionally natural response to
such incidents... is genocide. Thus, it has the potential for creating
complications of troop misbehavior on our own side that are best
avoided.

> >2) The question is raised of whether the country is now incapable of
> >defending itself, because it wouild be logically forced to conscript
> >women in the event of a new major war, but be still culturally
> >unprepared to do so.

> It isn't required to put women in the infantry who can't complete the
> training, and most apparently can't.

I'm not sure that numbers are the problem here.

> >I mean, although the supporters of Donald Trump have behaved
> >very badly of late, their side to the culture war is not without its
> >point. Progress towards equality has taken place *in some areas*
> >(even if not the ones that really count) at a dizzying pace, heedlessly
> >of any possible consequences.

> I don't recall equality for women being an issue at any time during
> the Trump administration. Gay marriage yes, trans soldiers yes, but
> not women.

Stuff like security around women's locker rooms and washrooms, or
fairness for female athletes, are still apparently valid objections to some
aspects of the struggle for equality for those who are trans.

This is another example of how the struggle for equality has gotten ahead
of what our culture can cope with.

Equality for women is not, _in itself_, controversial, but just as it has had
some controversial consequences, like legalizing abortion, it has the
potential for others in connection with conscription - this was noted in
connection with the substance of Starship Troopers, _not_ due to any
recent events under the Trump administration.

John Savard

On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 6:44:46 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 04:54:15 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> >That's all very well, but indeed in Starship Troopers (the original book)
> >it was specifically noted that the women were separated from the male
> >non-coms quite rigidly on board ship. So that was a significant departure
> >from the book.

> No, women in the Navy were separated from men in the MI.

I don't recall the Marine Infantry in the novel Starship Troopers having female
members (at least ones who weren't separated from the men in that way), but
then it's been a while since I read the book.

John Savard

On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 07:16:18 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 6:44:46 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 04:54:15 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> >That's all very well, but indeed in Starship Troopers (the original book)
>> >it was specifically noted that the women were separated from the male
>> >non-coms quite rigidly on board ship. So that was a significant departure
>> >from the book.
>
>> No, women in the Navy were separated from men in the MI.
>
>I don't recall the Marine Infantry in the novel Starship Troopers having female
>members (at least ones who weren't separated from the men in that way), but
>then it's been a while since I read the book.

The Navy was female (on that ship anyway), the MI was male.