posted
Does anyone know why the plans for a Stranger in a Strange Land movie w/ Tom Hanks went down the drain?
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Stranger in a Strange Land movie that was being planned for release in --when was it-- 1994? Man, that hasn't been on the table for a long, long time. I have no idea why. Probably the usual reasons. Options expire, people lose interest, writers turn in drafts of screenplays which aren't as good as it was hoped they would be. Executives insist on taking out everything controversial..... I mean, who knows?
Well, but I also mean: If anybody *does* know, I've always been curious about the specific, real reasons myself.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Possibly because IMO the book is almost unreadable self indulgent tripe by an excellent author past his prime, that not only manages to waste valuable space in this world but also to rip off, in a sub-par way, one of his own earlier and far, far, better books.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a massive Heinlein fan, and have been forever, but his later works were, while occasionally philosophically interesting, IMO absolutely terribly written, overblown, overlong, terribly plotted and paced, and frankly a waste of time. It's a real, real pity. If only he hadn't been so succesful/famous that he was able to get away with out being decently edited by someone who knew what they were doing.
AW
[ December 26, 2006, 05:33 AM: Message edited by: Andrew W ]
Posts: 83 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, and IMO that's one stupid word for so many otherwise respectable sci fi fans to have adopted. No criticism of you personally of course.
I'll post an explanation for my view as soon as I get some time, have relatives over though, so I can't say when that'll be. Maybe this evening or tomorrow.
AW
[ December 26, 2006, 05:34 AM: Message edited by: Andrew W ]
Posts: 83 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes we are all waiting for your explanation breathlessly, after all we cannot judge it for ourselves...It might take us a whole afternoon to read it. (or in your case a month...)
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's been adopted because the book, like it or not, is a classic of the genre. Probably one of THE four or five classics, as far as most science fiction fans are concerned.
I disagree with your position about the book and its author, a position which seems (strangely) filled with some kind of irrational anger. And I just wanted to say so (that I disagree) lest your opinion go unchallenged.
posted
Wow General, much defensive? Much rude too? Feel I've personally insulted you by having an opinion, eh?
Grow up.
Oh, and I offered an explanation when questioned about my opinion by someone else, so, if you don't like it, just pull your head back in and leave it to the people interested in a discussion.
And TL, you've hit the nail on the head when you say it's supposedly a classic of the genre, according to people who probably in other veins, share taste with me - that's one of the things that irritates me. That and the fact that it distracts from the far better books he wrote.
posted
Ok, - this is why I dislike the book so much:
All that follows is my opinion about the book. This opinion is based on the reasons I give, which are of course also, opinion. Firstly - I think the tired, overused, and frankly always shite plot device of the ingenue who's naivete so cleverly skewers the falsitites and contradictions in our society that we are too caught up in it to see, is really, really, stupid. And irritating. How often have you met someone who's childlike naivete was anything but a hindrance to their interpretation of the world? The thing about life is this - it's complicated. Often these things that it is easy to say "Ah, but that doesn't make sense because of x or y seemingly naive thing, that is surprisingly clever seeming" actually do make sense. But in ignoring the subtleties and complexities of the situation, due to this (mostly faux-) naivete, you've actually missed the point, or the realities of life on this world.
Also, the book is one long indulgent didactic rant, practically. And what is ever more annoying and pointless than that? Especially when you have to ignore the - damn, church is calling, I'll have to finish this later.
AW
[ December 26, 2006, 05:36 AM: Message edited by: Andrew W ]
Posts: 83 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Spare us, maybe? Cause I don't think anybody's asking why you dislike the book so much. I don't know that it's anything we all need to hear.
Do you absolutely have to turn this thread into your personal raving space to attack a classic novel? Or can it be enough that you've already expressed, over and over again, that you hate the book?
posted
Well the thread was pretty dead before I came along anywho, and Tante expressed a lack of 'grok-ing' of my opinion, so I decided to explain so that she can 'grok'.
TL - You seemed initially almost receptive to my posts - merely registering a disagreement, but on reflection, it seems that you're either stupid or not reading the same thread - You wrote that "And I just wanted to say so (that I disagree) lest your opinion go unchallenged." Yet the post directly above you challenged me. And now you say " I don't think anybody's asking why you dislike the book so much", well as I mentioned to G-Sax, I was asked - Tante didn't "Grok", so again, if you're not interested- sod off.
quote:TL - You seemed initially almost receptive to my posts - merely registering a disagreement, but on reflection, it seems that you're either stupid or not reading the same thread - You wrote that "And I just wanted to say so (that I disagree) lest your opinion go unchallenged." Yet the post directly above you challenged me.
I challenged you? I'm stupid? Sod off?
You know, what I was objecting to, more than anything, was the style of your posts above. It tends to irritate me when people make absurd statements of opinion as if they were fact. Of course -- it's particularly irritating when the absurd statements are meant to attack something I like. (Naturally.)
This could have been an interesting conversation. Instead it was turning into a rant.
Those kinds of rants don't leave much room for discussion.
It is better to speak as though there were the possibility that you might be wrong. Instead of saying something like: "That's one hell of a stupid word" or "absolutely terribly written, overblown, overlong, terribly plotted and paced, and frankly a waste of time," you might try saying something along the lines of "I loved Heinlein's earlier work but felt that something was missing from the later efforts..."
I mean, I don't know.
It's just a lot easier to talk to someone with a less confrontational tone.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Andrew, you are the one who is coming off defensive. BTW, check out my posting history if you want....any time I agree with General Sax....well, I am not sure what to call it because I don't think it has ever happened before.
You come in here and declare that one of the most famous sci-fi books is shit, and then give a bunch of half rational blurbs on why you think that, and we are all suppose to change our opinions right away?
You need to grow up.
BTW....I have a cousin who is autistic, and looks at things very differently than most people. He is at times confused, annoyed, and incomprehensible; but once in a while he comes out with an opinion or a question that cuts right through all the preconceptions we all have, and gets right to the quick of things.
Perhaps you opinion of that plot device is less about the weakness of the device and more about your inexperience with life in general. Or perhaps not.
What I DO know about you so far is your write like a angsty teen who is completely insecure and feels like he has to attack the character and opinion of anyone who disagrees with him. You posts are whiny, your opinions are uneducated, rude, and confrontational, not to mention uninteresting.
Why is it that half of my threads turn out like this? Am I just jinxed or something? *sigh* Anyway:
Blah blah blah - rehashes what Kwea and LT said, including discussion of the immaturity of attacking a novel incessantly, simply because you disagree with it - blah blah.
Now, if you all don't mind, can we please return to the original subject question? Does anyone know why the project was nixed, and if there are any future plans for a movie? If so... please tell me it won't be by the same people who destroyed Starship Troopers.
You know, what I was objecting to, more than anything, was the style of your posts above. It tends to irritate me when people make absurd statements of opinion as if they were fact. Of course -- it's particularly irritating when the absurd statements are meant to attack something I like. (Naturally.)
This could have been an interesting conversation. Instead it was turning into a rant.
Those kinds of rants don't leave much room for discussion.
Actually I didn't say that you challenged me, those were your own words. Again, you seem not to be reading this very carefully. This could indeed have been an interesting conversation, and hell, it still could be, (see above for edits.)
However, this seems mainly to be a difference in colloquial rythms of speech. Personally I'm a fan of the polemic (well balanced polemic) and of course of calling it how you see it (with due regard for politeness). I'm also not a fan of putting "I think" in front of every opinion that I express. It seems to me to be perfectly obvious that when I say "This is why I dislike the book so much" I'm clearly about to express an opinion. Unless I say "It killed my mother" in which case I'm clearly stating a fact. Of course, when in Rome, so, as I said, see above.
Kwea, don't worry I lurk a lot, and while I don't really pay too much attention, I have vague impressions as to the general styles, and likelyhood of people agreeing with each other. Also, if I seem a bit defensive, it might just be because I expressed an opinion (polemical or not) about a book, i.e. a thing, and was personally criticised. You seem to think that just because I state my opinion in stark terms, that I expect you all to change your opinions right away. Not at all. I definitely didn't say that, and if you feel it's implied, then you misunderstand my intention. I'm merely expressing an opinion about the qualities of a book we've all read, with reasons (still half written, so not yet a finished product). If one of you were to say - "actually the didactic nature of the book is really a wonderful thing because..." and express a convincing opinion (and no I don't require the words "I think" in front of the opinion, it's just not how people here express themselves) instead of attacking me personally, based on assumptions derived from my posting style, then I would absolutely agree with you.
Oh and this:
quote:What I DO know about you so far is your write like a angsty teen who is completely insecure and feels like he has to attack the character and opinion of anyone who disagrees with him. You posts are whiny, your opinions are uneducated, rude, and confrontational, not to mention uninteresting.
Frankly I have not attacked the character of anyone here, except those who had already been rude to me. General Sax implied I was stupid, and I only suggested TL might be a bit thick, after he made the statements I quoted, and basically just dismissed me as some sort of crazy ranting loon. I didn't at any point say anything that attacked anyone for disagreeing with me, and if you think I did, please point it out and I'll take this all back. In fact the only people who have been making personal attacks have been you three. And they have been considerably more direct and rude than anything I said (the worst (and only) being "you're either stupid or not reading the same thread").
But since I'm always interested in a good discussion - especially about things like this about which I feel strongly, being as I said, a massive Heinlein fan, - I'm willing to draw a line under this. I'll stick "I think" in front of everything I say, and tone down the polemic (though I'll still say overblown and self indulgent, when that's what I think it is) and you guys can stop being rude about me. How's that sound?
quote:BTW....I have a cousin who is autistic, and looks at things very differently than most people. He is at times confused, annoyed, and incomprehensible; but once in a while he comes out with an opinion or a question that cuts right through all the preconceptions we all have, and gets right to the quick of things.
Perhaps you opinion of that plot device is less about the weakness of the device and more about your inexperience with life in general. Or perhaps not.
And finally - here you make an interesting point, though one couched in personal experiences so not necessarily one I could accept for myself just like that, but certainly a good stepping point for discussion. But then, again, you head for the personal attack. (And no, putting "maybe not" after it doesn't change anything.) Somehow when I started writing this reply I had in my mind that you were a fairly nice and reasonable person, possibly because of other posts of yours I've read, but on reflection, you've actually been considerably the rudest of anyone in this conversation. You may feel you have occupied some sort of moral high ground, since my posting style is rough and abrasive, but I'd put it to you that in fact you've lowered yourself, not only to my level, but a good hundred feet below.
And I actually hate to say this because it makes me look like a right arrogant numpty, but I feel it's a point worth making, so I'll just go ahead and sacrifice the chance of anyone thinking good things about me and say it - I also find you guys posts rude, abrasive etc, but I've managed to express this in this post without making any personal attacks at all. This, I think ( ) , is a good thing, and it would be nice if you guys could find it in yourselves to do the same.
quote:JH (Doesn't leaving initials seem kind of pretentious?)
And again! Good God, just because you don't like a poster's style, or opinion, or the fact they're talking on a tangent to your thread, is it really necessary to be rude?
posted
Ok - all edited - IMO stuck in front of all opinions, with a few I Think's for good measure. Hope that helps. Sadly I've spent all my time when I could have spent elucidating the reasons for my opinion, responding to your attacks, so this will have to wait, till I get some more time, but that should sort you all out for the mean time, and maybe some cooling off time will allow you to re-evaluate my opinions without getting so boiling mad, now that I have stated baldly that they are indeed opinions.
I have to take one last moment to say though - JH:
quote:Blah blah blah - rehashes what Kwea and LT said, including discussion of the immaturity of attacking a novel incessantly, simply because you disagree with it - blah blah.
It's better to actually familiarise yourself with what people have said before you try to offer criticism of their posts. It looks a bit crass to jump in and start criticising straw men. I haven't said a thing about 'disagreeing' with the novel, so far (I do actually disagree with some things expressed in it, but that's irrelevant at this point) I've only criticised the style of the book, and such like that. Again I'd say what I said about "not reading the thread properly or being stupid", but I feel I'm on thin ice/most of you in this thread are finding yourselves tempted to just dismiss me for my posting style. So I won't. I'll just say this. You clearly didn't read what I said properly before deciding to criticise it, please do next time, it'll mean that I don't have to fight against straw men criticisms.
quote:Actually I didn't say that you challenged me, those were your own words. Again, you seem not to be reading this very carefully
quote:Yet the post directly above you challenged me.
Ah, I see. When you said "you" (meaning me) "challenged me" I took it to mean "I" (meaning me) had challenged you. I didn't realize you meant "you" to mean "your post" (meaning my post); this makes more sense. What you meant to say was: "Yet the post directly above yours challenged me." Now I understand. I think this is a question of a poor word choice, on your part, rather than a reflection of stupidity on mine.
quote:It seems to me to be perfectly obvious that when I say "This is why I dislike the book so much" I'm clearly about to express an opinion.
Sure, but you know, that wasn't really there until you went back, after the fact, and edited it in. And it isn't as if anyone really thinks that you were stating facts; the issue is that you were stating your opinions in a blanket vitriolic way. Which is taxing to read, and as I said, seems to leave no room for discussion. If I came to you and said, "Your mother is one hell of a stupid woman," that would be an insult, and you would take it as such. And when you apply the same (or similar) terms about an author or a book, it is an insult. Not a good beginning point for any kind of conversation.
quote:Frankly I have not attacked the character of anyone here, except those who had already been rude to me. General Sax implied I was stupid, and I only suggested TL might be a bit thick, after he made the statements I quoted, and basically just dismissed me as some sort of crazy ranting loon.
Well, yes, General Sax did imply that you were stupid. But no, I didn't dismiss you as some crazy ranting loon. Surely you can see that someone saying to you "You're ranting like a loon," is different from someone saying to you "You are a ranting loon." (For the record, I said neither.)
And technically, I suppose you're right: You haven't attacked my character, if you want to play a semantics game -- just my intelligence.
What is the difference, in your mind? Attacking a guy's character would have been nasty of you, whereas attacking his intelligence is perfectly polite? Just curious.
quote:You seem to think that just because I state my opinion in stark terms, that I expect you all to change your opinions right away. Not at all. I definitely didn't say that, and if you feel it's implied, then you misunderstand my intention. I'm merely expressing an opinion about the qualities of a book we've all read
I think you're misunderstanding what is being objected to, here. It isn't your own expectations of your power to change our opinions -- at least, I'm not hearing anyone suggest that. It is the way you have thrown around insult after insult.
quote:when I started writing this reply I had in my mind that you were a fairly nice and reasonable person, possibly because of other posts of yours I've read, but on reflection, you've actually been considerably the rudest of anyone in this conversation.
I humbly suggest that you (Andrew W) have been considerably ruder.
Why is it always that the person who initiates rudeness in a thread cries foul later on, when people are rude to him in return?
quote:I also find you guys posts rude, abrasive etc, but I've managed to express this in this post without making any personal attacks at all.
"In this post."
quote:TL - You seemed initially almost receptive to my posts - merely registering a disagreement, but on reflection, it seems that you're either stupid or not reading the same thread
If you think my initial post, in which I wondered why yours seemed filled with irrational anger, was receptive, then yes -- we're not reading the same thread.
edit: removed an ill-advised sentence.
(As opposed to all the other ill-advised sentences, which I left in there...)
posted
Hm, this thread has deviated from the original intent into that which is bordering flaming. I suggest we end this discussion now.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, having said all that, I am willing to put differences aside and go forward. Which I know seems hypocritical of me, but hey.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twas you who found the book dragged, I can only assume that means you need more time to read it then most...
Of course I know you also skimmed the 60 page historical lecture in the Fellowship of the Ring since it is just something you do not do to readers with 'normal' attention span.
Stranger might well be a good filter, if you cannot get it, you do not belong on the other side with those that do. Stick to your own kind and be happier...
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for the movie version, it kind of falls apart with what we know of Mars, unless you know RAH well enough to follow the various world lines, and that would involve movies for all the major works on the major lines.
You cannot have VMS be 'The Man from Mars' and any attempt to correct or re-plot that aspect results in a new story, a world government, air cars, it is hard to get there from here with any of the story intact, better to re imagine the whole concept in something like Kyle XY and acknowledge the source of the concept then try to make an artistic movie version of a book that will look foolish out of context.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) , is a good thing, and it would be nice if you guys could find it in yourselves to do the same.
