On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 18:54:08 -0000 (UTC), Magewolf
<Magewolf@nc.rr.com> wrote:

>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.

Perhaps the writer had read the book in his youth and modeled the
story on it.

Kind of like /The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms/, where Bradbury,
recruited by his friend Harryhausen to improve the script, noted that
it clearly included one of his stories, unlicensed.

At least he didn't have to sue after it came out, as Heinlein did with
/The Thing/.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

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?).

That was Haldeman.

This is Heinlein.

Different ideas entirely.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 03:08:31 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>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.

Particularly in the Marines.

I mean, they don't even have their own medics in the infantry (the
Navy supplies them).

Some time back, I read an article suggesting that the USMC was
considering closing /Parris Island/ because they could find no way to
make it work as a co-ed training facility. Space problems, cost of new
construction, that sort of thing.

The locals, about 90% of whose local economy /depends/ on Parris
Island, were, understandably, upset.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

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,

Typical sexist nonsense.

And /ignorant/ sexist nonsense, at that.

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

When the WAC was disbanded, female soldiers became eligible for any
and all /non-combat/ units.

This included combat support units, some of which operate on or near
the front line (or the forward zone or whatever it is called now) and
are, if anything, more dangerous to be in than the combat units are
because they are trained to do other things than hide from the enemy.
There is no point in digging holes in the ground when your equipment
is mounted on a truck. And what the enemy can /see/, they can /kill/.

When the Big Red One (1st Mech Inf Division) deployed for Reforger in
the early 80s, it was about 30% female. Just none in the combat
batallions -- that is, the sharp end.

Sexual assault is something they were exposed to even when they were
WACs. It is nothing new. What /is/ new is the Army so messing up that
Congress is considering not allowing commanders to decide whether or
not to prosecute for it. Because they have mostly been deciding not
to, and the higher levels have done nothing to correct the situation.

Integrating female soldiers into a unit does pose some problems, but
most of them have been solved -- TRADOC, at its non-combat-arms
schools, solved the housing problem and also learned a few things
about how male and female soldiers must be expected to interact. These
lessons were passed on to the rest of the Army, and this mass of
experience, regulation, and (by now) custom and tradition is available
to the combat arms.

>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.

That's being proposed. By Democrats. Republicans, of course, are agin
it. So, what else is new?

>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.

Typical sexist nonsense.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 09:03:52 -0700, Paul S Person wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 18:54:08 -0000 (UTC), Magewolf <Magewolf@nc.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> Perhaps the writer had read the book in his youth and modeled the story
> on it.
>
> Kind of like /The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms/, where Bradbury, recruited
> by his friend Harryhausen to improve the script, noted that it clearly
> included one of his stories, unlicensed.
>
> At least he didn't have to sue after it came out, as Heinlein did with
> /The Thing/.

The funny thing is(I think it is this movie) the main bit they pointed
out as a problem never made it into the movie after they got the rights.
Movie making is a funny business.

On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 19:41:38 -0000 (UTC), Magewolf
<Magewolf@nc.rr.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 09:03:52 -0700, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 18:54:08 -0000 (UTC), Magewolf <Magewolf@nc.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>> Perhaps the writer had read the book in his youth and modeled the story
>> on it.
>>
>> Kind of like /The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms/, where Bradbury, recruited
>> by his friend Harryhausen to improve the script, noted that it clearly
>> included one of his stories, unlicensed.
>>
>> At least he didn't have to sue after it came out, as Heinlein did with
>> /The Thing/.
>
>The funny thing is(I think it is this movie) the main bit they pointed
>out as a problem never made it into the movie after they got the rights.
>Movie making is a funny business.

What was Heinlein's interest in "The Thing"?

On 2021-07-25, Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:

> Kind of like /The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms/, where Bradbury,
> recruited by his friend Harryhausen to improve the script, noted that
> it clearly included one of his stories, unlicensed.
>
> At least he didn't have to sue after it came out, as Heinlein did with
> /The Thing/.

Something got mixed up there. _The Thing_ is an (excellent)
adaptation of John W. Campbell's "Who Goes There?", which preceded
Heinlein's first ever published story by a year.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

On 7/25/2021 9:16 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> I don't recall the Marine Infantry in the novel Starship Troopers having female

Nit. Mobile infantry.

In article <5s2rfgldggcoge9hka4stlf997pn09djpm@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:

> 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?).
>
> That was Haldeman.
>
> This is Heinlein.
>
> Different ideas entirely.

It is everything else in the movie that was offensive - girls in Space
Infantry, just a bagatelle at most.

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

On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 15:13:21 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> 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.

I assumed you meant "from their own side".

On the other hand, being armed and fighting, they'll probably
just be killed. So why worry.

> 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 7:48:48 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> 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.

Odd. 1991's "Prospero's Books" (a magnificent movie, btw) has full frontal nudity
in nearly every scene, but got an 'R'. The MPAA replaced 'X' with 'NC-17' in 1990.

Perhaps because it was an 'art film', and the nudity was non-sexual.

pt

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
news:9ea571ea-19ba-488b-b79d-990567a44dc3n@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 7:48:48 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Odd. 1991's "Prospero's Books" (a magnificent movie, btw) has
> full frontal nudity in nearly every scene, but got an 'R'. The
> MPAA replaced 'X' with 'NC-17' in 1990.
>
> Perhaps because it was an 'art film', and the nudity was
> non-sexual.
>
You say that like the MPAA uses some objective criteria to determine
ratings. The closest they get to objective criteria is "how rich is
the producer/studio?"

--
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

On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 16:22:48 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 19:41:38 -0000 (UTC), Magewolf
><Magewolf@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 09:03:52 -0700, Paul S Person wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 18:54:08 -0000 (UTC), Magewolf <Magewolf@nc.rr.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>> Perhaps the writer had read the book in his youth and modeled the story
>>> on it.
>>>
>>> Kind of like /The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms/, where Bradbury, recruited
>>> by his friend Harryhausen to improve the script, noted that it clearly
>>> included one of his stories, unlicensed.
>>>
>>> At least he didn't have to sue after it came out, as Heinlein did with
>>> /The Thing/.
>>
>>The funny thing is(I think it is this movie) the main bit they pointed
>>out as a problem never made it into the movie after they got the rights.
>>Movie making is a funny business.
>
>What was Heinlein's interest in "The Thing"?

I'm sorry.

It was Campbell who had to sue after-the-fact.

Well, maybe.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_from_Another_World> says
nothing about this.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 21:57:12 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber
<naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:

>On 2021-07-25, Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Kind of like /The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms/, where Bradbury,
>> recruited by his friend Harryhausen to improve the script, noted that
>> it clearly included one of his stories, unlicensed.
>>
>> At least he didn't have to sue after it came out, as Heinlein did with
>> /The Thing/.
>
>Something got mixed up there. _The Thing_ is an (excellent)
>adaptation of John W. Campbell's "Who Goes There?", which preceded
>Heinlein's first ever published story by a year.

My (alleged) mind got mixed up.

Sorry for the confusion.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 21:46:26 -0700, Robert Woodward
<robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:

>In article <5s2rfgldggcoge9hka4stlf997pn09djpm@4ax.com>,
> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>> 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?).
>>
>> That was Haldeman.
>>
>> This is Heinlein.
>>
>> Different ideas entirely.
>
>It is everything else in the movie that was offensive - girls in Space
>Infantry, just a bagatelle at most.

On the contrary, it is a fundamental denial of one of Heinlein's
points: that men fight wars to protect their women.

That doesn't work when they are right there beside them.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On 2021-07-26, Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>>>> At least he didn't have to sue after it came out, as Heinlein did with
>>>> /The Thing/.
>>
>>What was Heinlein's interest in "The Thing"?
>
> I'm sorry.
>
> It was Campbell who had to sue after-the-fact.

Campbell died in 1971. _The Thing_ is from 1982.

> Well, maybe.
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_from_Another_World> says
> nothing about this.

Oh, _that_ Thing, that wretched 1951 movie.

Campbell is right there in the opening credits:

Screen Play by
Charles Lederer

Based on the Story
"WHO GOES THERE?"
by
John W. Campbell,Jr.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 12:30:09 PM UTC-6, Christian Weisgerber wrote:

> Oh, _that_ Thing,

Which Thing did you think it was, Aunt Petunia's favorite nephew, the
ever-lovin blue-eyed Benjamin?

John Savard

On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 4:00:44 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 12:30:09 PM UTC-6, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>
> > Oh, _that_ Thing,
>
> Which Thing did you think it was, Aunt Petunia's favorite nephew, the
> ever-lovin blue-eyed Benjamin?

No, "Thing" from 'The Addams Family'.

Pt

Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 16:22:48 -0400, J. Clarke
> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 09:03:52 -0700, Paul S Person wrote:
> >>>
> >>> At least he didn't have to sue after it came out, as Heinlein did with
> >>> /The Thing/.
> >
> >What was Heinlein's interest in "The Thing"?
> I'm sorry.
>
> It was Campbell who had to sue after-the-fact.
>
> Well, maybe.
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_from_Another_World> says
> nothing about this.

The only even secondhand account I can put my hand on is illustrator Vincent Di Fate, who got to have meetings with Campbell. Campbell brought up "Who Goes There?" as part of a point he was making, Di Fate asked his opinion on the movie, which was mostly regret that it lost the most important idea of the story. Now that was just hearsay, and may have missed nuances of talking around a complex reality, but there was no mention of lawsuit.

(Ray Bradbury did respond to his stories being plagiarized into comics form, but in a low-key manner:
https://www.cbr.com/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-146/
which seems in accord with his "Beast from 20,000 Fathoms" response.)

--
-Jack

On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 17:31:52 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber
<naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:

>On 2021-07-26, Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>> At least he didn't have to sue after it came out, as Heinlein did with
>>>>> /The Thing/.
>>>
>>>What was Heinlein's interest in "The Thing"?
>>
>> I'm sorry.
>>
>> It was Campbell who had to sue after-the-fact.
>
>Campbell died in 1971. _The Thing_ is from 1982.
>
>> Well, maybe.
>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_from_Another_World> says
>> nothing about this.
>
>Oh, _that_ Thing, that wretched 1951 movie.

You mean, of course, that /amazing/ 1952 movie.

Nonstop action. Romance. Humor. Terror.

All in glorious black and white!

>Campbell is right there in the opening credits:
>
> Screen Play by
> Charles Lederer
>
> Based on the Story
> "WHO GOES THERE?"
> by
> John W. Campbell,Jr.

Well, yes, but the story I recall was that that was /after/ he sued.

Still haven't found any backup for that, however.

As to Bradbury -- IIRC, that was from a "special feature" including
reminiscenses of others. I haven't found any backup for /that/,
either.

Apparently, those "special features" are more ... dubious ... than I
had supposed.

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

In article <28cd12e1-f56d-4071-862f-594fa29db896n@googlegroups.com>,
Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> wrote:
>Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 16:22:48 -0400, J. Clarke
>> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 09:03:52 -0700, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> At least he didn't have to sue after it came out, as Heinlein did with
>> >>> /The Thing/.
>> >
>> >What was Heinlein's interest in "The Thing"?
>> I'm sorry.
>>
>> It was Campbell who had to sue after-the-fact.
>>
>> Well, maybe.
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_from_Another_World> says
>> nothing about this.
>
>The only even secondhand account I can put my hand on is illustrator
>Vincent Di Fate, who got to have meetings with Campbell. Campbell
>brought up "Who Goes There?" as part of a point he was making, Di Fate
>asked his opinion on the movie, which was mostly regret that it lost the
>most important idea of the story. Now that was just hearsay, and may
>have missed nuances of talking around a complex reality, but there was
>no mention of lawsuit.
>
>(Ray Bradbury did respond to his stories being plagiarized into comics
>form, but in a low-key manner:
>https://www.cbr.com/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-146/
>which seems in accord with his "Beast from 20,000 Fathoms" response.)
>

"Dark Star" clearly plagiarized Bradbury's "Kaleidoscope" and as far as
I can tell, there's still no official acknowledgement of it.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On 27 Jul 2021 17:04:37 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:

>In article <28cd12e1-f56d-4071-862f-594fa29db896n@googlegroups.com>,
>Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 16:22:48 -0400, J. Clarke
>>> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 09:03:52 -0700, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> At least he didn't have to sue after it came out, as Heinlein did with
>>> >>> /The Thing/.
>>> >
>>> >What was Heinlein's interest in "The Thing"?
>>> I'm sorry.
>>>
>>> It was Campbell who had to sue after-the-fact.
>>>
>>> Well, maybe.
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_from_Another_World> says
>>> nothing about this.
>>
>>The only even secondhand account I can put my hand on is illustrator
>>Vincent Di Fate, who got to have meetings with Campbell. Campbell
>>brought up "Who Goes There?" as part of a point he was making, Di Fate
>>asked his opinion on the movie, which was mostly regret that it lost the
>>most important idea of the story. Now that was just hearsay, and may
>>have missed nuances of talking around a complex reality, but there was
>>no mention of lawsuit.
>>
>>(Ray Bradbury did respond to his stories being plagiarized into comics
>>form, but in a low-key manner:
>>https://www.cbr.com/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-146/
>>which seems in accord with his "Beast from 20,000 Fathoms" response.)
>>
>
>"Dark Star" clearly plagiarized Bradbury's "Kaleidoscope" and as far as
>I can tell, there's still no official acknowledgement of it.

First, the film is a satire. This (IIRC) is a "reasonable use"
exception to copyright (note: IANAL).

Second, the ending may be similar, but what about the rest of the
film?

Third, when, exactly, do they get "millions of miles" away from each
other?

OK, one of them joins the Phoenix Asteroids, but another is sent forth
in a block of ice, and one surfs down into the atmosphere of a planet.
Any of those fates match those in the story? It's been a while since I
read /The Illustrated Man/ and, sadly, this was not one of the three
stories picked for the movie.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

In article <4403gg9m215o3k8jrgog16mkapjstf9s09@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On 27 Jul 2021 17:04:37 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
><tednolan>) wrote:
>
>>In article <28cd12e1-f56d-4071-862f-594fa29db896n@googlegroups.com>,
>>Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 16:22:48 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 09:03:52 -0700, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> At least he didn't have to sue after it came out, as Heinlein did with
>>>> >>> /The Thing/.
>>>> >
>>>> >What was Heinlein's interest in "The Thing"?
>>>> I'm sorry.
>>>>
>>>> It was Campbell who had to sue after-the-fact.
>>>>
>>>> Well, maybe.
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_from_Another_World> says
>>>> nothing about this.
>>>
>>>The only even secondhand account I can put my hand on is illustrator
>>>Vincent Di Fate, who got to have meetings with Campbell. Campbell
>>>brought up "Who Goes There?" as part of a point he was making, Di Fate
>>>asked his opinion on the movie, which was mostly regret that it lost the
>>>most important idea of the story. Now that was just hearsay, and may
>>>have missed nuances of talking around a complex reality, but there was
>>>no mention of lawsuit.
>>>
>>>(Ray Bradbury did respond to his stories being plagiarized into comics
>>>form, but in a low-key manner:
>>>https://www.cbr.com/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-146/
>>>which seems in accord with his "Beast from 20,000 Fathoms" response.)
>>>
>>
>>"Dark Star" clearly plagiarized Bradbury's "Kaleidoscope" and as far as
>>I can tell, there's still no official acknowledgement of it.
>
>First, the film is a satire. This (IIRC) is a "reasonable use"
>exception to copyright (note: IANAL).
>
>Second, the ending may be similar, but what about the rest of the
>film?
>
>Third, when, exactly, do they get "millions of miles" away from each
>other?
>
>OK, one of them joins the Phoenix Asteroids, but another is sent forth
>in a block of ice, and one surfs down into the atmosphere of a planet.
>Any of those fates match those in the story? It's been a while since I
>read /The Illustrated Man/ and, sadly, this was not one of the three
>stories picked for the movie.
>--

Two of three I think.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On 28 Jul 2021 16:40:38 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:

>In article <4403gg9m215o3k8jrgog16mkapjstf9s09@4ax.com>,
>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>On 27 Jul 2021 17:04:37 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>><tednolan>) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <28cd12e1-f56d-4071-862f-594fa29db896n@googlegroups.com>,
>>>Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 16:22:48 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>>> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 09:03:52 -0700, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> At least he didn't have to sue after it came out, as Heinlein did with
>>>>> >>> /The Thing/.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >What was Heinlein's interest in "The Thing"?
>>>>> I'm sorry.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was Campbell who had to sue after-the-fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, maybe.
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_from_Another_World> says
>>>>> nothing about this.
>>>>
>>>>The only even secondhand account I can put my hand on is illustrator
>>>>Vincent Di Fate, who got to have meetings with Campbell. Campbell
>>>>brought up "Who Goes There?" as part of a point he was making, Di Fate
>>>>asked his opinion on the movie, which was mostly regret that it lost the
>>>>most important idea of the story. Now that was just hearsay, and may
>>>>have missed nuances of talking around a complex reality, but there was
>>>>no mention of lawsuit.
>>>>
>>>>(Ray Bradbury did respond to his stories being plagiarized into comics
>>>>form, but in a low-key manner:
>>>>https://www.cbr.com/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-146/
>>>>which seems in accord with his "Beast from 20,000 Fathoms" response.)
>>>>
>>>
>>>"Dark Star" clearly plagiarized Bradbury's "Kaleidoscope" and as far as
>>>I can tell, there's still no official acknowledgement of it.
>>
>>First, the film is a satire. This (IIRC) is a "reasonable use"
>>exception to copyright (note: IANAL).
>>
>>Second, the ending may be similar, but what about the rest of the
>>film?
>>
>>Third, when, exactly, do they get "millions of miles" away from each
>>other?
>>
>>OK, one of them joins the Phoenix Asteroids, but another is sent forth
>>in a block of ice, and one surfs down into the atmosphere of a planet.
>>Any of those fates match those in the story? It's been a while since I
>>read /The Illustrated Man/ and, sadly, this was not one of the three
>>stories picked for the movie.
>>--
>
>Two of three I think.

I'm fairly sure the three stories in the film were from the book:

The Veldt
The Long Rain
The Last Night of the World

although it has been so long since I read it that I am reduced to
going by the titles.

I suppose I /could/ dig it out and see, if I really had to.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

In article <fvh5gghphc5hbnfago8637maihp83vnu7h@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On 28 Jul 2021 16:40:38 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
><tednolan>) wrote:
>
>>In article <4403gg9m215o3k8jrgog16mkapjstf9s09@4ax.com>,
>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>On 27 Jul 2021 17:04:37 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>>><tednolan>) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <28cd12e1-f56d-4071-862f-594fa29db896n@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 16:22:48 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>>>> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >>On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 09:03:52 -0700, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> At least he didn't have to sue after it came out, as Heinlein
>did with
>>>>>> >>> /The Thing/.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >What was Heinlein's interest in "The Thing"?
>>>>>> I'm sorry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was Campbell who had to sue after-the-fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, maybe.
>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_from_Another_World> says
>>>>>> nothing about this.
>>>>>
>>>>>The only even secondhand account I can put my hand on is illustrator
>>>>>Vincent Di Fate, who got to have meetings with Campbell. Campbell
>>>>>brought up "Who Goes There?" as part of a point he was making, Di Fate
>>>>>asked his opinion on the movie, which was mostly regret that it lost the
>>>>>most important idea of the story. Now that was just hearsay, and may
>>>>>have missed nuances of talking around a complex reality, but there was
>>>>>no mention of lawsuit.
>>>>>
>>>>>(Ray Bradbury did respond to his stories being plagiarized into comics
>>>>>form, but in a low-key manner:
>>>>>https://www.cbr.com/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-146/
>>>>>which seems in accord with his "Beast from 20,000 Fathoms" response.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Dark Star" clearly plagiarized Bradbury's "Kaleidoscope" and as far as
>>>>I can tell, there's still no official acknowledgement of it.
>>>
>>>First, the film is a satire. This (IIRC) is a "reasonable use"
>>>exception to copyright (note: IANAL).
>>>
>>>Second, the ending may be similar, but what about the rest of the
>>>film?
>>>
>>>Third, when, exactly, do they get "millions of miles" away from each
>>>other?
>>>
>>>OK, one of them joins the Phoenix Asteroids, but another is sent forth
>>>in a block of ice, and one surfs down into the atmosphere of a planet.
>>>Any of those fates match those in the story? It's been a while since I
>>>read /The Illustrated Man/ and, sadly, this was not one of the three
>>>stories picked for the movie.
>>>--
>>
>>Two of three I think.
>
>I'm fairly sure the three stories in the film were from the book:
>
>The Veldt
>The Long Rain
>The Last Night of the World
>
>although it has been so long since I read it that I am reduced to
>going by the titles.
>
>I suppose I /could/ dig it out and see, if I really had to.

My "Two of three" was "fates match[ing] those in the story".
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..