Starship Troopers promo
Gary Cavender
Saw Star Trek: First Contact tonight
One of the previews was for Starship Troopers
- fast moving shots
- armor wasn't too bulky
- bugs were very impressive
Can't wait for summer 97
Russ Taylor
On 23 Nov 1996 18:03:17 GMT, pmccu...@aol.com put forth into the Codex of Shub-Internet:
> The bugs looked like B5 Shadows, except they probably cost twenty times as
> much. And they don't even have weapons -- because, supposedly, the
> filmmakers thought they would look silly firing weapons. That makes a lot
> of sense -- an advanced spacefaring race that prefers to fight
> hand-to-hand rather than equip themselves with guns. And if they're _not_
> an advanced spacefaring race, then what's the reason for fighting them?
One interesting thing about the book is that it implies the bug don't
use weapons (the problems confusing workers with warriors -- wouldn't
it be relatively easy to tell if the warriors were carrying military
equipment?)
--
From the files of Russ Taylor (rta...@efn.org)
"Inconceivable!"
pmccu...@aol.com
gary...@wilmington.net (Gary Cavender) wrote:
>Saw Star Trek: First Contact tonight
Me too.
>One of the previews was for Starship Troopers
Yes.
> - fast moving shots
Allways a good sign -- previews that move so quickly you can't see much of
the underlying movie.
> - armor wasn't too bulky
Is this supposed to be a good thing? The armor was _supposed_ to be
bulky. It's like a spacusuit with strength-enhancment.
> - bugs were very impressive
The bugs looked like B5 Shadows, except they probably cost twenty times as
much. And they don't even have weapons -- because, supposedly, the
filmmakers thought they would look silly firing weapons. That makes a lot
of sense -- an advanced spacefaring race that prefers to fight
hand-to-hand rather than equip themselves with guns. And if they're _not_
an advanced spacefaring race, then what's the reason for fighting them?
>Can't wait for summer 97
I can.
________________________
Pete McCutchen
Matt Hickman
In <577s1g$9...@mars.efn.org>, Russ Taylor <rta...@efn.org> writes:
>On 23 Nov 1996 18:03:17 GMT, pmccu...@aol.com put forth into the Codex of Shub-Internet:
>One interesting thing about the book is that it implies the bug don't
>use weapons (the problems confusing workers with warriors -- wouldn't
>it be relatively easy to tell if the warriors were carrying military
>equipment?)
Wrong.
The warrior caste bugs are explicitly described as having weapons.
Juan says they "keep on shooting" despite having their legs blown off -
even after a hit in their brain case (although their shooting is aimless
after that).
A quote from p. 166 of the Putnam hardcover edition:
Their personal weapons aren't as heavy as ours, but they are
lethal just the same - they've got a beam that will penetrate
armor and slice flesh like cutting a hard boiled egg...
Apparently their weapons are not obvious and other bodily features
distract the human observer from their weaponry.
att Hickman bh...@chevron.com TANSTAAFL!
OS/2 Systems Specialist, Chevron Information Technologies Co.
...If a bug bites me, he dies horribly. (Sam Anderson)
- Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988)
_Starman Jones_ (c. 1953)
Dr. P.A. Lewis
I saw the same promo. I'll probably see the movie, but I fully expect that
the Hollywood team that made it won't get it right. The book explored many
themes which can only be briefly touched upon, if at all, in the movie. It
would take a very long movie to do the book any justice. It will probably
concentrate on special effects. However, it could still be an entertaining
movie. We can only hope.
Gary Cavender <gary...@wilmington.net> wrote in article
<575tb5$9...@news.wilmington.net>...
> Saw Star Trek: First Contact tonight
> One of the previews was for Starship Troopers
> - fast moving shots
> - armor wasn't too bulky
> - bugs were very impressive
Salt
Been awhile since I read ST - but I thought I remembered the warriors have a
beam-like weapon that could cut thru anything including their personal armor.
Salt
In article <577s1g$9...@mars.efn.org>, rta...@efn.org says...
>
>On 23 Nov 1996 18:03:17 GMT, pmccu...@aol.com put forth into the Codex of
Shub-Inte
>rnet:
>
>> The bugs looked like B5 Shadows, except they probably cost twenty times as
>> much. And they don't even have weapons -- because, supposedly, the
>> filmmakers thought they would look silly firing weapons. That makes a lot
>> of sense -- an advanced spacefaring race that prefers to fight
>> hand-to-hand rather than equip themselves with guns. And if they're _not_
>> an advanced spacefaring race, then what's the reason for fighting them?
>
>One interesting thing about the book is that it implies the bug don't
>use weapons (the problems confusing workers with warriors -- wouldn't
>it be relatively easy to tell if the warriors were carrying military
>equipment?)
>
Stephen Taylor
> Apparently their weapons are not obvious and other bodily features
> distract the human observer from their weaponry.
Exactly - I suspect that to a trooper who hasn't fought bugs before the
fact that one is being charged by an eight foot tall insect tends to
distract from the little details like what it might be carrying in its
mandibles.
Steve
Ed Swiedler
Did anyone see who directed Starship Troopers? I was always hoping
Cameron would do it, but he's in the Titanic now.
The best advice I could ever give a man in regard to movies is to see
movies because of directors. Actors don't make movies.
BTW, Star Trek was pretty good. Much better than any of the others.
Michael Bonnes
>. Bugs are as good as any illustration I ever saw but I fear that the
>. story will be a faint shadow of Heinlein's work. Too bad the general
>. public isn't aware. -- M
jedu...@aol.com
this may amuse you:
my friend rick and i went to see "first contact" and saw a trailer for a
movie that had what appeared to be space marines fighting an onslaught of
very fast-moving buglike creatures. neither one of us made the connection
until the final moment when the title came up. at that point, to the
amusement of a packed house, rick and i both, unconsciously shouted
"COOL!" (we can't wait for the film!)
also, rick's girlfriend was embarrassed to be with us until the house
lights went down.
KAZ Vorpal
In Newsgroup alt.fan.heinlein, Ed Swiedler (esw...@atl.mindspring.com) wrote:
])BTW, Star Trek was pretty good. Much better than any of the others.
You're not implying that Star Trek is even SLIGHTLY "science
fiction", are you? It's so fucking far into the space fantasy genre that
you can't see it's whiney Liberal-utopian tail from the border of Science
Fictionland.
I mean, this is a perfect example of it: Yet another episode
which violates knowledge we ALREADY have with yet another stupid trip
back through time...something which must happen in every third episode or
so. Stack this along with the utterly insane concept of matter transport,
everyone looking like a human with bumps on their head and being capable
of interbreeding with any other sentient alien(when humans can barely
interbreed with chimps who share their direct evolution), and a long list
of other pseudo-scientific crapola(the time they were incorporeal, yet
could breath and stand on the deck, for example), and you have something
which is slighly less realistic than, say, Star Wars.
--
Words of the Sentient:
We don't have to put people out of work to control inflation. The goal of the
next decade should be to fight inflation and unemployment through supply-side
incentives to put more goods on the shelves. That's the way to cut prices and
boost employment.
--Lloyd Bentsen, Statement of Joint Economic Committee of Congress, 1980
mailto:k...@upx.net | http://*/ | telnet://umb.upx.net:22
http://www.upx.net/ http://www.heinlein.org/ http://www.polyamory.com/
See also #Polyamory, #Heinlein, and #Libertarian on the Undernet...
* http://www.upx.net/kaz/ temporarily replaces http://www.kaz.org/
(until I pay for it, screw NIC)
jedu...@aol.com
ease up, jerk
Ty Margheim
On 7 Dec 1996 03:11:32 GMT, jedu...@aol.com says something funny...
>
>ease up, jerk
I'm so glad that AOL went to a flat monthly rate.
1)Please provide context when you are responding to a post.
This is done by quoting part of the message you are responding
to. It is possible to do this with the AOL newsreader.
I don't know how, but you can find out from someone there.
You might email nims...@aol.com. He seems to have the
hang of it.
2)You will want to read the Faqs that are in the newsgroup
news.announce.newusers. They are filled with info and
tips that will help you on Usenet.
3)Try using capital letters sometimes. HERE'S A FEW EXTRA
SO YOU DON'T RUN OUT. HAVE ONE OF EACH. ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP
QRSTUVWXYZ.
Ty
Abe D. Lockman
> In Newsgroup alt.fan.heinlein, Ed Swiedler (esw...@atl.mindspring.com) wrote:
>
> ])BTW, Star Trek was pretty good. Much better than any of the others.
>
> You're not implying that Star Trek is even SLIGHTLY "science
> fiction", are you? It's so fucking far into the space fantasy genre that
> you can't see it's whiney Liberal-utopian tail from the border of Science
> Fictionland.
Now now, Star Drek did have one virtue: it "borrowed" a number of the
classic themes of science fiction and expressed them in a form that might
be vaguely interesting to a retarded 6 year old. lcd.
{rest deleted}
adl
jedu...@aol.com
uh, yeah. huh huh. that was cool. huh huh.
KAZ Vorpal
In Newsgroup alt.fan.heinlein, jedu...@aol.com wrote:
])ease up, jerk
Quote, prole.
--
Words of the Sentient:
Above all he was amazed to hear me talk of a mercenary standing army in the
midst of peace, and among a free people. He said, if we were governed by our
own consent in the persons of our representatives, he could not imagine of
whom we were afraid, or against whom we were to fight; and would hear my
opinion, whether a private man's house might not be better defended by
himself, his children, and family, than by half a dozen rascals picked up at
a venture in the streets, for small wages, who might get an hundred times
more by cutting their throats. -- Jonathan Swift, /Gulliver's Travels/
KAZ Vorpal
In Newsgroup alt.fan.heinlein, Ty Margheim (tlm...@unix.tamu.edu) wrote:
])On 7 Dec 1996 03:11:32 GMT, jedu...@aol.com says something funny...
])>
])>ease up, jerk
])I'm so glad that AOL went to a flat monthly rate.
I shudder to think of it...reminds me of when the C=64 came out,
or modems for the Mac became common, or when aol first got the nifty
interface...tools for the idiots mean they start showing up where the
sentient once resided...so swings the online world.
])1)Please provide context when you are responding to a post.
]) This is done by quoting part of the message you are responding
]) to. It is possible to do this with the AOL newsreader.
]) I don't know how, but you can find out from someone there.
]) You might email nims...@aol.com. He seems to have the
]) hang of it.
I have developed a rule that says you don't explain their error
so clearly, because then even idiots may understand, and an easy means of
identifying and ignoring them is eliminated. Better to say something more
concise, so that an intelligent person will get it and change, and an
idiot will repeat the error for the rest of his idiotic days...and be
ignored.
])2)You will want to read the Faqs that are in the newsgroup
]) news.announce.newusers. They are filled with info and
]) tips that will help you on Usenet.
"Stay off" would work...we should make a "How To Use the Internet
from aol" FAQ that says pretty much that.
])3)Try using capital letters sometimes. HERE'S A FEW EXTRA
]) SO YOU DON'T RUN OUT. HAVE ONE OF EACH. ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP
]) QRSTUVWXYZ.
Hmmm...with any luck, HIS NEXT POST WILL LOOK LIKE THIS.
--
Words of the Sentient:
Close down congress, fire everyone who works for Congress, close down the
military, close down foreign aid, close down everything else, and by the year
2012 entitlements and the interest on the debt alone will still be greater
than the entire income of the Federal government. --John Danforth
JeDugrnot
"prole"
that better?
first, make your friends
then, make your enemies
snoochie boochies!
James Gifford
KAZ Vorpal wrote:
>> I'm so glad that AOL went to a flat monthly rate.
> I shudder to think of it...reminds me of when the C=64 came out,
> or modems for the Mac became common, or when aol first got the nifty
> interface...tools for the idiots mean they start showing up where the
> sentient once resided...so swings the online world.
Wow! You use a C64, a Mac and AOL simultaneously? I'm *impressed*.
--
============== NOTE NEW E-MAIL AND WEB PAGE ADDRESSES! ==============
James Gifford * gif...@ns.net * See http://www.ns.net/~gifford
for the Heinlein FAQ & _Robert A. Heinlein: A Reader's Companion_
=====================================================================
Barry DeCicco
And don't think that *that* didn't take some skill with the
cutting torch.
Barry
p
<insert soul here>
In article <58pd3h$r...@news.smart.net>, vor...@upx.net (KAZ Vorpal) wrote:
<snip>
> --
>
> Words of the Sentient:
>
> Close down congress, fire everyone who works for Congress, close down the
> military, close down foreign aid, close down everything else, and by the year
> 2012 entitlements and the interest on the debt alone will still be greater
> than the entire income of the Federal government. --John Danforth
>
> mailto:k...@upx.net | http://*/ | telnet://umb.upx.net:22
>
> http://www.upx.net/ http://www.heinlein.org/ http://www.polyamory.com/
>
> See also #Polyamory, #Heinlein, and #Libertarian on the Undernet...
>
> * http://www.upx.net/kaz/ temporarily replaces http://www.kaz.org/
> (until I pay for it, screw NIC)
My God, when did fascism return to popularity? I _thought_ I lived in
America, but I could be wrong. How odd.
God forbid the man was actually being helpful towards those who needed
help. Which makes me wonder what the hell you're doing in a Heinlein
newsgroup.
-a Mac user
o -=Thomas J. Boyer<cy...@lamere.net>=- o
| -=www: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/3705=- |
O>///////<|>=========================----=========================<|>\\\\\\\<O
| -=Cyng Swiftwind <roa.sunyit.edu 4000>=- |
o -=Tsaim Kurros<pen.mip.net 4000>=- o
. . . . . . . . . d u m v i v i m u s , v i v a m u s ! . . . . . . . . .
Michael Bonnes
>I have seen 2 slightly different promos for Starship Troopers. Both
>feature the Bugs, which appear to be chitinous, fast, deadly, and
>approximately the nastiness of a velociraptor. The uniforms still look
> O.K. but they're not powered armor and I'm afraid the movie will
>satisfy those who haven't read the book. Does anybody still care?
> --- Mike, Bremerton, WA
JeDugrnot
i think two apologies are in order for this thread. the first comes from
me. let me explain. (first of all, it will help all who read this to
backtrack and catch all that has gone before, because there is too much
for me to "cut and paste" here, and I'm not going to waste everyone's time
doing it).
it started when this vorpal person wrote a particularly nasty response to
a person who stated that he liked (gasp!) the new star trek movie. i
responded, if not diplomatically, directly to someone i thought was being,
as i stated, a jerk.
at least one person took HUGE offense at my choice of adjectives and
proceeded to roast me (or is that flame? i'm still new to this ng stuff).
when i read what was said, i got angry at the guy, but held my comments to
myself. then to add insult to injury, when i tried to lighten things up
with an admittedly juvenile beavis and butthead comment (but NOT
off-colour!), more offense was taken by someone who has proven themselves
to be extremely thin-skinned, and another nasty comment was directed my
way. i did not appreciate this, but again held my comments to myself.
what i want to know is: who is kaz vorpal, and who the HELL elected
him/her god? i enjoy heinlein as well as the next "sentient" and would
like to be able to participate in this newsgroup unencumbered by jerks who
flame others who do not agree with their opinions. if anyone here thinks
i acted in a manner not in keeping with their enjoyment of this ng, e-mail
me personally at: jedu...@aol.com, and i will reply with a more detailed
explanation of my (possibly) foolish actions. i promise to be civil at
the very least, and polite and friendly to those who treat me the same.
also, what i want is an apology from the party or parties who have
demonstrated a remarkable lack of maturity considering whose name this ng
is dedicated. that's all i have to say in this matter, and until i hear
otherwise, i will consider the matter dropped.
i enjoy this ng, as stated before, and would like to be able to share
facts and opinions in a friendly environment with you all. thank you for
reading this far and PLEASE let me know what you think.
"Autocracy is base on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million
men.
Let's play that one over again... Who decides?"
RAH, "Time Enough for Love"
James Gifford
Michael Bonnes wrote:
Nah. We're just a bunch of hardcore Heinlein fans here who discuss his
works daily, try to own everything he ever wrote and (mostly) admire him
greatly.
Why would we care if Hollywood takes one of his best, most powerful
books and turns it into a blow-up-the-bugs CGI extravaganza devoid of
any intellectual content greater than, "Aw, shit, I'm outta ammo AGAIN!"
:)
There's been a lot of discussion of the movie here. Lurk a bit and stick
around. If you care. :)
John Mozena
In article <19961215033...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
JeDugrnot <jedu...@aol.com> wrote:
>i think two apologies are in order for this thread. the first comes from
>me.
I dunno. Seemed like your basic clueless-but-well-meaning AOL post. :)
>what i want to know is: who is kaz vorpal, and who the HELL elected
>him/her god? i enjoy heinlein as well as the next "sentient" and would
>like to be able to participate in this newsgroup unencumbered by jerks who
>flame others who do not agree with their opinions.
[snip]
Well, the first thing you need to do is leave AOL and go to an online
service that allows you to use newsreaders with a killfile.
I quote my killfile:
/^From: *kaz@upx\.net/h:=:j
/^From: *vorpal@upx\.net/h:=:j
I read alt.fan.heinlein in peace, only having to read the more idiotic
bits of drivel of his that get quoted by people I don't have killfiled.
I've also banished from my screen those dumb threads like "Japan and big
bombs" and anything having to do with RAH & the 2nd Amendment. The
signal/noise ratio there is too low for it to be worth my time.
>also, what i want is an apology from the party or parties who have
>demonstrated a remarkable lack of maturity considering whose name this ng
>is dedicated. that's all i have to say in this matter, and until i hear
>otherwise, i will consider the matter dropped.
If everybody on Usenet who demonstrated a remarkable lack of maturity
apologized, we'd have to create an entire new hierarchy, apology.*. You'd
have all these new groups like apology.flame.spelling,
apology.i-posted-mmf, apology.spammed.surveys and of course the moderated
group apology.bill-palmer.misc.
News servers would crash from the unprecedented load. AOL would see its
outgoing newsfeed triple. The Net as we know it would end. So, I suggest
you withdraw your demand and live content in the knnowledge you've saved
Usenet.
--
John C. Mozena -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Now residing at m...@crl.com
"Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind." -- Kipling
JeDugrnot
If everybody on Usenet who demonstrated a remarkable lack of maturity
apologized, we'd have to create an entire new hierarchy, apology.*. You'd
have all these new groups like apology.flame.spelling,
apology.i-posted-mmf, apology.spammed.surveys and of course the moderated
group apology.bill-palmer.misc.
thanks! i haven't laughed so hard in days!
\
Mike Gannis
James Gifford <gif...@ns.net> wrote:
:Why would we care if Hollywood takes one of his best, most powerful
:books and turns it into a blow-up-the-bugs CGI extravaganza devoid of
:any intellectual content greater than, "Aw, shit, I'm outta ammo AGAIN!"
Does anyone know whether some sort of promotion is planned for the book
as a tie-in to the movie? Who's the current publisher of the book, Baen?
Or - Ghu help us all - has the studio commissioned somebody to write a
"novelization" of the movie script (with the title _Starship Troopers_,
of course) that will eclipse the real book in terms of bookstore exposure
and distribution? <shudder>
<insert soul here>
In article <E2II9...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>,
> Discussing the size of a national debt is fascism?
I was commenting upon the 'put the intelligent minority in power to
protect the moronic masses from themselves' flavour, voiced earlier in the
article.
Barry DeCicco
In article <19961215033...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jedu...@aol.com (JeDugrnot) writes:
|>
|> what i want to know is: who is kaz vorpal, and who the HELL elected
|> him/her god? i enjoy heinlein as well as the next "sentient" and would
|> like to be able to participate in this newsgroup unencumbered by jerks who
|> i acted in a manner not in keeping with their enjoyment of this ng, e-mail
|> me personally at: jedu...@aol.com, and i will reply with a more detailed
|> explanation of my (possibly) foolish actions. i promise to be civil at
|> the very least, and polite and friendly to those who treat me the same.
|>
Kaz Vorpal is an "interesting" individual. He is the most
rigidly 'programmed' person whom I've met on the net (counting
only those from whom I've seen a dozen or more posts, which would
still be over a hundred people). In fact, I wouldn't bet my paycheck
that he's not a 'bot.
He elected himself god.
He rolls in from time to time. There will be a few-day period in
which he posts 10-30 times per day, and then nothing for a while.
After a while, you'll realize that his arguments are either recognizably
canned, or have that canned smell.
Barry
p
JeDugrnot
"
After a while, you'll realize that his arguments are either recognizably
canned, or have that canned smell.
well, *something* about him smells! Heh heh
\
Stephen P. Kelner
Mike Gannis <mga...@sdsc.edu> wrote:
> Or - Ghu help us all - has the studio commissioned somebody to write a
> "novelization" of the movie script (with the title _Starship Troopers_,
> of course) that will eclipse the real book in terms of bookstore exposure
> and distribution? <shudder>
It's happened before. _Enemy Mine_ by Barry Longyear had a "novelization"
by, of all people, Alan Dean Foster. At approximately the same time it
was impossible to obtain the original short story and Barry had also
published a terrific sort-of-sequel called _The Tomorrow Testament_.
Anyone read that? I didn't think so...
Steve Kelner
G.E. Rule
On 19 Dec 1996 20:09:13 GMT, Mike Gannis <mga...@sdsc.edu> wrote:
>James Gifford <gif...@ns.net> wrote:
>
>:Why would we care if Hollywood takes one of his best, most powerful
>:books and turns it into a blow-up-the-bugs CGI extravaganza devoid of
>:any intellectual content greater than, "Aw, shit, I'm outta ammo AGAIN!"
>
>Does anyone know whether some sort of promotion is planned for the book
>as a tie-in to the movie? Who's the current publisher of the book, Baen?
>
>Or - Ghu help us all - has the studio commissioned somebody to write a
>"novelization" of the movie script (with the title _Starship Troopers_,
>of course) that will eclipse the real book in terms of bookstore exposure
>and distribution? <shudder>
>
>
At Worldcon in LA they (the promo people from the studio) were
handing out copies of the current edition of the paperback to pretty
much anyone who wanted one. I hope that means they wouldn't do a
novelization. My first instinct would be, "Oh, Mrs. H would never
allow that" but that story of Joan Collins and TMIAHM shakes my
confidence.
They also had really cool buttons that had a starfield
background and "JOIN THE MOBILE INFANTRY AND SEE THE UNIVERSE --
STARSHIP TROOPERS" on them.
Lastly, they were trolling for folk who wanted to be extras in
a scene they were going to film the next week. Some type of sports
scene in a stadium. They needed a stadium crowd. Anyone know someone
who was an extra in that scene?
Boomer
Stephen P. Kelner wrote:
>
> Mike Gannis <mga...@sdsc.edu> wrote:
>
> > Or - Ghu help us all - has the studio commissioned somebody to write a
> > "novelization" of the movie script (with the title _Starship Troopers_,
> > of course) that will eclipse the real book in terms of bookstore exposure
> > and distribution? <shudder>
>
> by, of all people, Alan Dean Foster. At approximately the same time it
> was impossible to obtain the original short story and Barry had also
> published a terrific sort-of-sequel called _The Tomorrow Testament_.
> Anyone read that? I didn't think so...
>
> Steve Kelner
Has anyone tried to find a copy of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"
by Philip K. Dick lately? I liked the original title.
"Blade Runner" just lacks something.
- Boomer
moebius
In article <32BE1B...@orion.sk.sympatico.ca>,
david_...@orion.sk.sympatico.ca wrote:
>Has anyone tried to find a copy of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"
>by Philip K. Dick lately? I liked the original title.
>
>"Blade Runner" just lacks something.
>
Yeah, it was pretty easy to find at Bookstop. It's in an oversized
paperback with a cool black cover.
LOTS different than the movie.
Carl Abrams
I read it several years ago in college. Has Hollywood ever gotten
anything close to the book?
How about When Worlds Collide? Or the sequel book, After Worlds
Collide? Am I the only one who's ever read them?
<insert soul here>
I saw the trailer before (figure that misnomer out) the Star Trek movie. I
saw it before I'd read _Starship Troopers_. I have since read and greatly
enjoyed the book and look forward to seeing the movie.
In my mind, the two are separate. Sure, the movie may do the novel some
justice, but I'm not crossing my fingers. Regardless, I'm sure that I'll
enjoy the movie, even if only because I happen to love sf movies wih
well-done effects (I hope that the acting is decent).
I loved the book. I look forward to this movie. I'm happy. :)
Sean Malloy
_When Worlds Collide_ has been made into a movie; it surfaces
periodically in the 'weekend morning SF filler' slots. Within the
limits of what they had to work with at the time, they did a fairly
good job with it. They dropped the multiple spacecraft being built
(probably for time/money's sake), and the spacecraft and other special
effects are very period, of course, but on the whole I thought it was
a reasonable adaptation.
I read _When Worlds Collide_ and _After Worlds Collide_ in high
school; I'd like to be able to find copies again, as it's been decades
since I read it last. Only bits and pieces of the details stick with
me, like fragments of the poetry of the previous inhabitants of
Bronson Beta: "...And now the winds flow liquid/The sole cascades to
seek the sea..."
--
Sean R. Malloy | American Non Sequitur
Naval Medical Center | Society
San Diego, CA 92134-5000 |
mal...@cris.com | "We may not make sense,
srma...@snd10.med.navy.mil | but we do like pizza"
*NOTE* Remove the '_' in my email address for replies;
it is there to stop automatic remailers
advo...@ix.netcom.com
In <32bd3918...@News.Prodigy.Net> Geo_...@msn.com (G.E. Rule)
writes:
>On 19 Dec 1996 20:09:13 GMT, Mike Gannis <mga...@sdsc.edu> wrote:
>
>>James Gifford <gif...@ns.net> wrote:
>>
>>:Why would we care if Hollywood takes one of his best, most powerful
>>:books and turns it into a blow-up-the-bugs CGI extravaganza devoid
of
>>:any intellectual content greater than, "Aw, shit, I'm outta ammo
AGAIN!"
>>
>>Does anyone know whether some sort of promotion is planned for the
book
>>as a tie-in to the movie? Who's the current publisher of the book,
Baen?
>>
a
>>"novelization" of the movie script (with the title _Starship
Troopers_,
>>of course) that will eclipse the real book in terms of bookstore
exposure
>>and distribution? <shudder>
>>
>>
>
>handing out copies of the current edition of the paperback to pretty
>much anyone who wanted one. I hope that means they wouldn't do a
>novelization. My first instinct would be, "Oh, Mrs. H would never
>allow that" but that story of Joan Collins and TMIAHM shakes my
>confidence.
>
I am a new reader of this newsgroup, and have not read anything about
it. I do not pay much attention to anything that Jaon Collins does
either. Thanks, Rosella Alm
Eric
> enjoyed the book and look forward to seeing the movie.
> In my mind, the two are separate.
Man, they better be separate...
I've seen stills, promo shots, and trailers for the movie in a number of
places. One HUGE problem in my mind... I haven't seen a SCRAP of
power-armor in any of them, let alone a full suit.
My favorite aspect of the whole book was the main character's fear of
the cocoons (can't remember his name, haven't read the book in about 12
years). It looks like the cocoons are going to be completely replaced
by landing craft. Yuck.
David Nasset, Sr.
On Mon, 23 Dec 1996 07:17:37 -0600, moe...@airmail.net (moebius)
wrote:
>In article <32BE1B...@orion.sk.sympatico.ca>,
>david_...@orion.sk.sympatico.ca wrote:
>
>
>>Has anyone tried to find a copy of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"
>>by Philip K. Dick lately? I liked the original title.
>>
>>"Blade Runner" just lacks something.
You can order it at most bookstores, I believe it is still in "Books
in Print". Barnes and Noble probably has it, as well.
>Yeah, it was pretty easy to find at Bookstop. It's in an oversized
>paperback with a cool black cover.
>
>
>LOTS different than the movie.
You can say _that_ again. One of the few cases where a movie didn't
resemble the book it came from _and_ was very good.
Filksinger
Raj Rijhwani
In article <32BE1B...@orion.sk.sympatico.ca>
david_...@orion.sk.sympatico.ca "Boomer" writes:
> Stephen P. Kelner wrote:
> > Mike Gannis <mga...@sdsc.edu> wrote:
> > > Or - Ghu help us all - has the studio commissioned somebody to write a
> > > "novelization" of the movie script (with the title _Starship Troopers_,
> > > of course) that will eclipse the real book in terms of bookstore exposure
> > > and distribution? <shudder>
I've never read the RAH original (though it's one of the few of his I
haven't read). Haven't seen it since my days as a 10 year-old trawling
the junior library. There and a few domestic bookshelves.
> > It's happened before. _Enemy Mine_ by Barry Longyear had a "novelization"
> > by, of all people, Alan Dean Foster. At approximately the same time it
> > was impossible to obtain the original short story and Barry had also
> > published a terrific sort-of-sequel called _The Tomorrow Testament_.
> > Anyone read that? I didn't think so...
Until I saw it here, I didn't know it existed. I've read the original
story, and seen the film. They're not too disparate (by Hollywood
scales).
> Has anyone tried to find a copy of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"
> by Philip K. Dick lately? ...
Over here in the UK there are copies floating around. I bought mine
about 10 years ago (with the "Blade Runner" cover, but definitely not a
film novelisation).
> ... I liked the original title.
> "Blade Runner" just lacks something.
You have to remember that Blade Runner (the film) is most definitely NOT
the same as DADoES. Most of the same basic characters are there, and in
a similar setting. But the motivations and philosophy are entirely
different.
--
Raj Rijhwani (umtsb5/16) | This is the voice of the Mysterons...
r...@courtfld.demon.co.uk | ... We know that you can hear us Earthmen
sca...@fido.zetnet.co.uk | "Lieutenant Green: Launch all Angels!"
http://www.courtfld.demon.co.uk/raj/ (demon, and gods, willing...)
Robert Baker-Self
In article <kelner19-221...@boston-pm3-dyn102.pcix.com>,
"Stephen P. Kelner" <keln...@mail.idt.net> writes
>It's happened before. _Enemy Mine_ by Barry Longyear had a "novelization"
>by, of all people, Alan Dean Foster. At approximately the same time it
>was impossible to obtain the original short story and Barry had also
>published a terrific sort-of-sequel called _The Tomorrow Testament_.
>Anyone read that? I didn't think so...
>
I think you err, although it's easy to do (Fosters' output being
legendary). Drifting slightly off the topic, the Enemy Mine novelisation
is done by ...... Barry B. Longyear!
(and David Gerrold). This is kind of weird, writing the book of the film
of your own novella. Still, excellent novella, excellent film, excellent
book.
The exact title page reads (I have the book in front of me)
'ENEMY MINE
Barry B. Longyear and David Gerrold
From the screenplay by Edward Khmara
Based on the story by Barry B. Longyear'
Cheers!
- Robert
ObRAH : In Farnhams Freehold, when Hugh and Barbara are sent back in
time, events occur differently... This leads to an obvious paradox,
because how can they remember events which never happened? I find this
lapse strange, as most of the time-related books are notably free of
contradictions. Any comments?
-- Robert Baker-Self :: Rob...@fiddlers-green.demon.co.uk
'What a new found friend is honesty, to see ourselves as others see
To see the shy boy inside the man. Is that all I am, just starved of loving?'
James Gifford
Robert Baker-Self wrote:
>
> In article <kelner19-221...@boston-pm3-dyn102.pcix.com>,
> "Stephen P. Kelner" <keln...@mail.idt.net> writes
> >It's happened before. _Enemy Mine_ by Barry Longyear had a "novelization"
> >by, of all people, Alan Dean Foster. At approximately the same time it
> >was impossible to obtain the original short story and Barry had also
> >published a terrific sort-of-sequel called _The Tomorrow Testament_.
> >Anyone read that? I didn't think so...
> >
> >Steve Kelner
> time, events occur differently... This leads to an obvious paradox,
> because how can they remember events which never happened? I find this
> lapse strange, as most of the time-related books are notably free of
> contradictions. Any comments?
Because *their* time track is linear, and runs through both universes.
(In corkscrew fashion, but it's still rock and roll-- I mean linear-- to
them.)
Bob Bridges
Robert Baker-Self <Rob...@fiddlers-green.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<t1roMFAN...@fiddlers-green.demon.co.uk>...
> In Farnhams Freehold, when Hugh and Barbara are sent back in
> time, events occur differently... This leads to an obvious paradox,
> because how can they remember events which never happened? I find
this
> lapse strange, as most of the time-related books are notably free of
> contradictions. Any comments?
Two:
1) What events occured differently? There was still the nuclear
exchange? If you're supposing their house wasn't destroyed the "second
time around", I don't remember any evidence for it; they were simply
sent back to a different place and set up shop somewhere, no?
2) I like Heinlein's treatment of time travel better than some other
variants in which folks have to struggle mightily to keep the Bad Guys
from "changing history". In his later stuff he takes the pragmatic
view that, the Univese already being what it is, it's too late to make
it have been different, although you can try to insert things that you
didn't know about before. Like Maureen's rescue, in which they
substituted a body; there was no evidence that it hadn't happened that
way, and their success proved that in fact it *had*.
...But I don't insist that he have adopted that viewpoint in his
earlier writings.
--
...Bob Bridges, RHB...@ibm.net or (in emergencies)
Robert_...@USFG.com
/* Rule #3 for DYL-280II: You find out later whether it's a packed
field. -Blair Hatcher */
Chris and Elisabeth Zakes
"Bob Bridges" <RHB...@ibm.net> wrote:
>Robert Baker-Self <Rob...@fiddlers-green.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
><t1roMFAN...@fiddlers-green.demon.co.uk>...
>> In Farnhams Freehold, when Hugh and Barbara are sent back in
>> time, events occur differently... This leads to an obvious paradox,
>> because how can they remember events which never happened? I find
>this
>> lapse strange, as most of the time-related books are notably free of
>> contradictions. Any comments?
>Two:
>1) What events occured differently? There was still the nuclear
>exchange? If you're supposing their house wasn't destroyed the "second
>time around", I don't remember any evidence for it; they were simply
>sent back to a different place and set up shop somewhere, no?
Well, in the "initial" world, Barbara's car has automatic
transmission. When they are sent back, they take her car to escape
into the hills, and it's a *manual* transmission. I *think* the attack
in the second world might not have been as devestating, but I don't
remember offhand.
-Chris Zakes
C and E Zakes
Tivar Moondragon (Patience and Persistence)
and Aethelyan of Moondragon (Decadence is its own reward)
moon...@bga.com
Colin Campbell
kelner19-221...@boston-pm3-dyn102.pcix.com>
<t1roMFAN...@fiddlers-green.demon.co.uk> <01bbf3e8$ad77ea60$8cfc48a6@default>:
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
Distribution:
RHB...@ibm.net (Bob Bridges) writes:
>Robert Baker-Self <Rob...@fiddlers-green.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
>>t1roMFAN...@fiddlers-green.demon.co.uk>...
>> In Farnhams Freehold, when Hugh and Barbara are sent back in
>> time, events occur differently... This leads to an obvious paradox,
>> because how can they remember events which never happened? I find this
>> lapse strange, as most of the time-related books are notably free of
>> contradictions. Any comments?
> 1) What events occured differently? There was still the nuclear
> exchange? If you're supposing their house wasn't destroyed the "second
> time around", I don't remember any evidence for it; they were simply
> sent back to a different place and set up shop somewhere, no?
The evidence for a different universe was the gear shift on Barbara's
car was different. When they got into the car Barbara couldn't drive it
because she never learned to drive a stick shift--in the previous
universe, she'd had an automatic transmission. So Hugh had the hope that
in this slightly different universe, maybe this time Karen won't die.
Bob Bridges
> >Robert Baker-Self <Rob...@fiddlers-green.demon.co.uk> wrote in
article
> >>t1roMFAN...@fiddlers-green.demon.co.uk>...
> >> In Farnhams Freehold, when Hugh and Barbara are sent back in
> >> time, events occur differently... This leads to an obvious
paradox,
> >> because how can they remember events which never happened? I find
this
> >> lapse strange, as most of the time-related books are notably free
of
> >> contradictions. Any comments?
> RHB...@ibm.net (Bob Bridges) writes:
> > 1) What events occured differently? There was still the nuclear
> > exchange? If you're supposing their house wasn't destroyed the
"second
> > time around", I don't remember any evidence for it; they were
simply
> > sent back to a different place and set up shop somewhere, no?
Colin Campbell <col...@crl.com> wrote in article
<5a7jsp$i...@crl6.crl.com>...
> The evidence for a different universe was the gear shift on
Barbara's
> car was different. When they got into the car Barbara couldn't drive
it
> because she never learned to drive a stick shift--in the previous
> universe, she'd had an automatic transmission. So Hugh had the hope
that
> in this slightly different universe, maybe this time Karen won't die.
I don't remember that AT ALL! Must have been longer than I thought
since I've read it; I'll have to go back and try it again.
David Nasset, Sr.
On Thu, 26 Dec 1996 20:40:45 +0000, Robert Baker-Self
<Rob...@fiddlers-green.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>ObRAH : In Farnhams Freehold, when Hugh and Barbara are sent back in
>time, events occur differently... This leads to an obvious paradox,
>because how can they remember events which never happened? I find this
>lapse strange, as most of the time-related books are notably free of
>contradictions. Any comments?
>-- Robert Baker-Self :: Rob...@fiddlers-green.demon.co.uk
>'What a new found friend is honesty, to see ourselves as others see
>To see the shy boy inside the man. Is that all I am, just starved of loving?'
In the story, Heinlein suggested that they were in an alternate time
line than the one they started in. That is one option. Also, why
wouldn't people be able to remember a future that no longer exists, if
they were in it? Many time travel stories have people who travel
through time who can remember things that never happened, because they
visited or are from futures that no longer exist. If everyone in the
present has free will, then the Farnhams gave everyone else (such as
Grace) free will by making the past their present, allowing those
people to behave differently than in their previous incarnations.
Filksinger
"Keeping in mind that the notes we sang were never, ever wrong!"