Books becoming movies

[novaste...@gmail.com]

https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/books-becoming-tv-and-streaming-series/

Here are 125 books becoming movies and series,
Some good SF in there. Beacon 23, Wool and Ringworld, and others.

[-dsr-]

Anything with Network: TBD should be discounted heavily.

I see that they cast a Jack Reacher who is only two inches short of his
plot-relevant height, rather than 10 inches short.

-dsr-

[novaste...@gmail.com]

You are probably right. I have been hearing about a Ringworld movie for 20 years

[-dsr-]

On 2021-06-29, novaste...@gmail.com <novaste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 10:52:06 AM UTC-6, -dsr- wrote:
>> On 2021-06-28, novaste...@gmail.com <novaste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/books-becoming-tv-and-streaming-series/
>> >
>> > Here are 125 books becoming movies and series,
>> > Some good SF in there. Beacon 23, Wool and Ringworld, and others.
>> Anything with Network: TBD should be discounted heavily.
>>
>> I see that they cast a Jack Reacher who is only two inches short of his
>> plot-relevant height, rather than 10 inches short.
>>
>

> You are probably right. I have been hearing about a Ringworld movie for 20 years

On the other hand, Amazon says the first three episodes of FOUNDATION will be
available on September 24th this year.

I will guess that covers the Seldon-on-Trantor arc, but it could be anything.

-dsr-

[novaste...@gmail.com]

Standard policy now is to give the first couple of episodes at once, then dribble them out at 1 per week.
Also it's on Apple+ not Amazon.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <slrnsdnaea.d...@randomstring.org>,

I believe they've cast someone fairly well-known as Seldon. They
might string his part of the story further along than Asimov did.

And then, of course, they have to film his various taped
appearances.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 6/29/2021 9:27 AM, -dsr- wrote:
> On 2021-06-28, novaste...@gmail.com <novaste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/books-becoming-tv-and-streaming-series/
>>
>> Here are 125 books becoming movies and series,
>> Some good SF in there. Beacon 23, Wool and Ringworld, and others.
>
> Anything with Network: TBD should be discounted heavily.
>

Anything that isn't "in the can" or actively filming currently should be
discounted completely.


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

[edstas...@gmail.com]

> Steve Dodds

>
> https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/books-becoming-tv-and-streaming-series/
>
> Here are 125 books becoming movies and series,
> Some good SF in there. Beacon 23, Wool and Ringworld, and others.

Sadly, the standard operating procedure nowadays in Hollywood
is to loot the original story for the title and a few character names,
then hire no-name hack screenwriters and completely change it
and produce a shit version that's full of politically correct woke
propaganda.

As we can see from the just released trailer, the up-coming adaption
of Asimov’s "Foundation" novels will clearly have almost nothing to
do with the original stories, as the trailer has all kinda screaming,
chase scenes, explosions and fist-fights.

But then I never saw how those stories could be successfully adapted
anyways, as they mostly consist of the characters standing around
talking about events?

[art...@yahoo.com]

For some reason, my computer is having trouble loading that link, but apparently "The Forever War" is becoming a movie.

[Steve Coltrin]

begin fnord

-dsr- <dsr-u...@randomstring.org> writes:

> On the other hand, Amazon says the first three episodes of FOUNDATION will be
> available on September 24th this year.

An odd thing for them to do, considering they have fuck all to do with
the project.

Already people are complaining because the trailers show women doing
things other than fetching coffee, and nobody is smoking.

--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org Google Groups killfiled here
"A group known as the League of Human Dignity helped arrange for Deuel
to be driven to a local livestock scale, where he could be weighed."
- Associated Press

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <m2tulfs...@kelutral.omcl.org>,

Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>begin fnord
>-dsr- <dsr-u...@randomstring.org> writes:
>
>> On the other hand, Amazon says the first three episodes of FOUNDATION will be
>> available on September 24th this year.
>
>An odd thing for them to do, considering they have fuck all to do with
>the project.
>
>Already people are complaining because the trailers show women doing
>things other than fetching coffee, and nobody is smoking.

Whaaat? The stories were *written* in the 1940s, but they take
place in a future so distant that the origin of the human species
is a matter of fruitless debate. (Just ask Lord Dorwin.)

And let's not forget Bayta Darrell, and her daughter Arkady.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:qvIzu...@kithrup.com:

> In article <m2tulfs...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
> Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>>begin fnord
>>-dsr- <dsr-u...@randomstring.org> writes:
>>
>>> On the other hand, Amazon says the first three episodes of
>>> FOUNDATION will be available on September 24th this year.
>>
>>An odd thing for them to do, considering they have fuck all to
>>do with the project.
>>
>>Already people are complaining because the trailers show women
>>doing things other than fetching coffee, and nobody is smoking.
>
> Whaaat? The stories were *written* in the 1940s, but they take
> place in a future so distant that the origin of the human
> species is a matter of fruitless debate. (Just ask Lord
> Dorwin.)

And in science fiction, the figure always looks like the present. And
in the 40s, a woman's place was in the kitchen and everybody smoked.

The complaints are that it's not *just* like the books. It doesn't
matter *how* it's different, only *that* it is, for people to
complain. This is routine when adapting existing written works of any
kind to a different medium.

(And as often as not, the stuff people complain about is either
irrelevant to the actual story, or stuff that would make the move/TV
show suck because movies and TV are not books.)

--
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

[Steve Coltrin]

begin fnord

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:

> In article <m2tulfs...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
> Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>>
>>Already people are complaining because the trailers show women doing
>>things other than fetching coffee, and nobody is smoking.
>
> Whaaat? The stories were *written* in the 1940s, but they take
> place in a future so distant that the origin of the human species
> is a matter of fruitless debate. (Just ask Lord Dorwin.)

I'm not saying I understand it.

> And let's not forget Bayta Darrell, and her daughter Arkady.

Oh, and characters who were men in the stories being women in the series
is apparently some sort of war crime.

[William Hyde]

On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <m2tulfs...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
> Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
> >begin fnord
> >-dsr- <dsr-u...@randomstring.org> writes:
> >
> >> On the other hand, Amazon says the first three episodes of FOUNDATION will be
> >> available on September 24th this year.
> >
> >An odd thing for them to do, considering they have fuck all to do with
> >the project.
> >
> >Already people are complaining because the trailers show women doing
> >things other than fetching coffee, and nobody is smoking.

Asimov would probably be happy with that.

> Whaaat? The stories were *written* in the 1940s, but they take
> place in a future so distant that the origin of the human species
> is a matter of fruitless debate. (Just ask Lord Dorwin.)
>
> And let's not forget Bayta Darrell, and her daughter Arkady.

In the category of women in the series who do a lot behind the scenes but don't show up
much in the text, there's the second foundation agent on Kalgan who poses as a
ditzy courtesan but is anything but, and Preem Palver's wife (enough in the background
that I can't recall her name) who is also second foundation. Both could have expanded
roles in a movie.

William Hyde

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <m2tulfg...@kelutral.omcl.org>,

Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>begin fnord
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>
>> In article <m2tulfs...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
>> Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>Already people are complaining because the trailers show women doing
>>>things other than fetching coffee, and nobody is smoking.
>>
>> Whaaat? The stories were *written* in the 1940s, but they take
>> place in a future so distant that the origin of the human species
>> is a matter of fruitless debate. (Just ask Lord Dorwin.)
>
>I'm not saying I understand it.
>
>> And let's not forget Bayta Darrell, and her daughter Arkady.
>
>Oh, and characters who were men in the stories being women in the series
>is apparently some sort of war crime.
>

Bah.

But it's in keeping with the outcry* about _Ghostbusters 2_, with
a mostly female cast, with the dumb-blonde-secretary slot filled
by the cute, blond, and definitely male Chris Hemsworth.

_____
*From men, of course.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <qvJ3u...@kithrup.com>,

Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <m2tulfg...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
>Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>>begin fnord
>>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>
>>> In article <m2tulfs...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
>>> Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Already people are complaining because the trailers show women doing
>>>>things other than fetching coffee, and nobody is smoking.
>>>
>>> Whaaat? The stories were *written* in the 1940s, but they take
>>> place in a future so distant that the origin of the human species
>>> is a matter of fruitless debate. (Just ask Lord Dorwin.)
>>
>>I'm not saying I understand it.
>>
>>> And let's not forget Bayta Darrell, and her daughter Arkady.
>>
>>Oh, and characters who were men in the stories being women in the series
>>is apparently some sort of war crime.
>>
>Bah.
>

>But it's in keeping with the outcry* about _Ghostbusters 2016_, with

>a mostly female cast, with the dumb-blonde-secretary slot filled
>by the cute, blond, and definitely male Chris Hemsworth.

(Addendum: apparently _Ghostbusters 2_ was a different film, with
the same cast of frat-boys as the first one.

>
>_____
>*From men, of course.
>

Oh, yes: remember the film version of _The Andromeda Strain_,
with Kate Reid playing the scientist with attitude and epilepsy?
In the book, all the scientists were men. I don't know who made
the decision to cast Reid instead of yet more male person, but
Reid and David Wayne saved that movie.

[Kevrob]

On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 2:34:38 PM UTC-4, Steve Coltrin wrote:
> begin fnord

[snip]

> Oh, and characters who were men in the stories being women in the series
> is apparently some sort of war crime.

It's worse than that. It has become a cliche.

--
Kevin R

[Magewolf]

That would require thought and some desire to stay true to the story.
Much easier to gender and race swap characters at random until you have
the perfect mix for twitter of the current five minutes. And
"improve"(piss on) the story to bring it up to current day standards(when
the people improving it are talentless hacks who will never produce
anything that anyone will remember 10 years from now not to mention 70+).

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in

news:qvJ3u...@kithrup.com:

> In article <m2tulfg...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
> Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>>begin fnord
>>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>
>>> In article <m2tulfs...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
>>> Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Already people are complaining because the trailers show women
>>>>doing things other than fetching coffee, and nobody is
>>>>smoking.
>>>
>>> Whaaat? The stories were *written* in the 1940s, but they
>>> take place in a future so distant that the origin of the human
>>> species is a matter of fruitless debate. (Just ask Lord
>>> Dorwin.)
>>
>>I'm not saying I understand it.
>>
>>> And let's not forget Bayta Darrell, and her daughter Arkady.
>>
>>Oh, and characters who were men in the stories being women in
>>the series is apparently some sort of war crime.
>>
> Bah.
>
> But it's in keeping with the outcry* about _Ghostbusters 2_,
> with a mostly female cast, with the dumb-blonde-secretary slot
> filled by the cute, blond, and definitely male Chris Hemsworth.
>

I suspect that, where the fans are concerned, it's not so much "but
gurls has cooties" as it is "it's different than the original that
is the mostest bested classic movie ever made so it has to suck."
You'd see the same sort of reaction from mostly the same people if
you remade a class that originally starred women with men in the
same roles. If such things ever happened.

How about recasting Wonder Woman as a man? Prince Dane of the all
male island of something-mumble, and so on. You *really* think
there wouldn't be the same (only more so) reaction to a Wonder Man
movie?

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in

news:qvJ48...@kithrup.com:

Yeah, it was just so bad most people drill holes in their brains to
forget seeing it. You're thinking of the recent remake, which was
not a sequel.

>>
>>_____
>>*From men, of course.
>>
> Oh, yes: remember the film version of _The Andromeda Strain_,
> with Kate Reid playing the scientist with attitude and epilepsy?
> In the book, all the scientists were men. I don't know who made
> the decision to cast Reid instead of yet more male person, but
> Reid and David Wayne saved that movie.
>

The book was a lot better, though.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:ec52822a-02d7-47e4...@googlegroups.com:

I honestly believe the elevator pitch for the Battlestar Galactica
series was "We'll make everything in the exact opposite of the
original, and give half the characters tits."

On the other hand, I believe it still has the highest ratings of any
series in the history of the network. Which is how it *got* to be the
cliche. (Though Starget blazed the trail.)

[Martin]

I'd like to see a Forever War movie, but worry that it would take centuries to film. ;)

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <XnsAD5985E3A55...@85.12.62.232>,

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>news:qvJ48...@kithrup.com:
>
>> In article <qvJ3u...@kithrup.com>,
>> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>But it's in keeping with the outcry* about _Ghostbusters 2016_,
>>>with a mostly female cast, with the dumb-blonde-secretary slot
>>>filled by the cute, blond, and definitely male Chris Hemsworth.
>>
>> (Addendum: apparently _Ghostbusters 2_ was a different film,
>> with the same cast of frat-boys as the first one.
>
>Yeah, it was just so bad most people drill holes in their brains to
>forget seeing it. You're thinking of the recent remake, which was
>not a sequel.

OK, I sit corrected. I never saw the other one.

>>>
>>>_____
>>>*From men, of course.
>>>
>> Oh, yes: remember the film version of _The Andromeda Strain_,
>> with Kate Reid playing the scientist with attitude and epilepsy?
>> In the book, all the scientists were men. I don't know who made
>> the decision to cast Reid instead of yet more male person, but
>> Reid and David Wayne saved that movie.
>>
>The book was a lot better, though.
>

Well, I disagree. I still have the book somewhere about, I think,
but haven't read it in years. I have the movie on DVD, and watch
it about once a year. IMNSHO the movie was better.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <e1841106-62b4-4dab...@googlegroups.com>,

So they well might.

It's on Apple+, isn't it? I don't think my daughter subscribes
to that. I'll have to wait for reviews after it launches, to see
if I want to save my nickels and dimes and get the DVDs.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in

news:qvJE3...@kithrup.com:

> In article <XnsAD5985E3A55...@85.12.62.232>,
> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>news:qvJ48...@kithrup.com:
>>
>>> In article <qvJ3u...@kithrup.com>,
>>> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>But it's in keeping with the outcry* about _Ghostbusters
>>>>2016_, with a mostly female cast, with the
>>>>dumb-blonde-secretary slot filled by the cute, blond, and
>>>>definitely male Chris Hemsworth.
>>>
>>> (Addendum: apparently _Ghostbusters 2_ was a different film,
>>> with the same cast of frat-boys as the first one.
>>
>>Yeah, it was just so bad most people drill holes in their brains
>>to forget seeing it. You're thinking of the recent remake, which
>>was not a sequel.
>
> OK, I sit corrected. I never saw the other one.

Lucky you.

>>>>
>>>>_____
>>>>*From men, of course.
>>>>
>>> Oh, yes: remember the film version of _The Andromeda Strain_,
>>> with Kate Reid playing the scientist with attitude and
>>> epilepsy? In the book, all the scientists were men. I don't
>>> know who made the decision to cast Reid instead of yet more
>>> male person, but Reid and David Wayne saved that movie.
>>>
>>The book was a lot better, though.
>>
>
> Well, I disagree. I still have the book somewhere about, I
> think, but haven't read it in years. I have the movie on DVD,
> and watch it about once a year. IMNSHO the movie was better.
>

Heretic. (Or perhaps tastes vary. One or the other.)

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in

news:qvJE8...@kithrup.com:

Does Apple release DVDs of their original productions? Amazon has a
habit of not always doing so (because then you won't subscribe to
Prime).

[Kevrob]

Have you been reading the comics' fan sites?

https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Earth-11

A whole "gender-flipped" parallel world - 15
years ago.

https://www.comics.org/issue/278256/cover/4/

https://www.comics.org/issue/395161/cover/4/

https://www.cbr.com/wonder-woman-fight-counterpart-multiverse-wonder-man/

Take it back to 1980. I bought this at the comic shop.

https://www.comics.org/issue/34518/cover/4/ [SUPERMAN #349]

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GenderFlip

Sometimes a "gender-flip" adds something. My favorite is
Roz Russell as Hildy Johnson, turning "The Front Page" into
"His Girl Friday."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Girl_Friday

--
Kevin R

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:a1bc43c3-ed22-4bd4...@googlegroups.com:

That's not excatly a blockbuster movie.

[J. Clarke]

There's not a lot on Apple+ (literally--it seems to be a showcase
service with very limited content) and there's a free trial--you can
get the trial and binge just about everything that's on it before the
trial expires.

[Kevrob]

On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 7:47:05 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
> news:a1bc43c3-ed22-4bd4...@googlegroups.com:

[snip]

> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Girl_Friday
> >
> That's not excatly a blockbuster movie.
> --

Pretty high up on the list of classic Hollywood comedies,
{screwball category} though.

--
Kevin R

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <XnsAD59A604980...@85.12.62.245>,

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

Damfino. I've described the time I had a secretarial job where
everyone in the lab used Macs, and I had to too. If by any
chance Apple did release DVDs, they'd likely be some format I
couldn't play.

That, if you please, was me distrusting Apple.

>Amazon has a
>habit of not always doing so (because then you won't subscribe to
>Prime).

Well, I do subscribe to Prime, because I consider (for example)
getting cat food delivered on time worth it. YM almost certainly
will V.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <p6cqdg9shvrvk6u0e...@4ax.com>,

Hmmmmm.

I might just try that. Maybe. Thanks!

[Robert Carnegie]

On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 16:54:45 UTC+1, Steve Coltrin wrote:
> begin fnord
> -dsr- <dsr-u...@randomstring.org> writes:
>
> > On the other hand, Amazon says the first three episodes of FOUNDATION will be
> > available on September 24th this year.
> An odd thing for them to do, considering they have fuck all to do with
> the project.
>
> Already people are complaining because the trailers show women doing
> things other than fetching coffee, and nobody is smoking.

To check: who is complaining, and do they possibly
think that they are being ironic?

I mean, this is - at first - 1940s science fiction,
a great work by one of the best authors of the time,
so I expect that someone as dumb as you describe
has never heard of it.

As for smoking... probably most 1940s writers
were kippered up to their elbows, but stories of
the distant future either regarded the human body
as a secular temple with sacred flame not required,
or represented new drugs with no connection to
present-day ones except for superiority. What
people actually consume in the Foundation, I don't
remember, but after all... it's a library!...

[edstas...@gmail.com]

> Steve Coltrin
> > Dorothy J Heydt

> >
> > And let's not forget Bayta Darrell, and her daughter Arkady.
>
> Oh, and characters who were men in the stories being women in the series
> is apparently some sort of war crime.

It's a valid complaint, as these remakes that change the cast into women
or minorities are presented as being somehow "empowering" when they’re
actually all about attacking and tearing down White men and Western
civilization.

The result is they only further the belief that women and minorities can't
create their own art and have to steal it from White men.

[Steve Coltrin]

begin fnord
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:

> It's on Apple+, isn't it? I don't think my daughter subscribes
> to that. I'll have to wait for reviews after it launches, to see
> if I want to save my nickels and dimes and get the DVDs.

I wouldn't give good odds of it ever showing up on DVD.

While I'm well aware money doesn't grow on trees, you might also be
interested in Apple+' _For All Mankind_, whose opening scenes take place
on June 26, 1969, as the world watches Alexei Leonov take the first
steps on the Moon...

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in

news:qvJqt...@kithrup.com:

If they *callI it a DVD, it will play. Otherwise, they'd be in
violation of the licensing agreement on the trademarks, and Apple
has very deep pockets.

On the other hand, they're far more likely to release is in Blue
Ray. A lot of stuff doesn't actually get DVD releases any more.

>
> That, if you please, was me distrusting Apple.

And not without reasons. They're very protective of their walled
garden. But they still have to abide by contractual obligations.

>
>>Amazon has a
>>habit of not always doing so (because then you won't subscribe
>>to Prime).
>
> Well, I do subscribe to Prime, because I consider (for example)
> getting cat food delivered on time worth it. YM almost
> certainly will V.
>

I live across the street from a grocery store. :) (There's nothing
I need from Amazon that I need that quickly without paying extra
for fast delivery. Plus, where I live, normal delivery is very,
very quick anyway. And in a real pinch, I could order through the
work account, which doesn't have Prime but has the same benefits
regarding fast, free delivery. Just makes payment a bit more
complicated.)

Amazon, BTW, is every bit as much an evil empire as as Apple, if
not more so. Their latest bad PR is because they won't do business
with small supplies unless you sell them shares of your company at
below market rates.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

"edstas...@gmail.com" <edstas...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:0d10ac3b-cf07-4cb4...@googlegroups.com:

>> Steve Coltrin
>> > Dorothy J Heydt
>> >
>> > And let's not forget Bayta Darrell, and her daughter Arkady.
>>
>> Oh, and characters who were men in the stories being women in
>> the series
>
>> is apparently some sort of war crime.
>
> It's a valid complaint, as these remakes that change the cast
> into women or minorities are presented as being somehow
> "empowering" when they’re actually all about attacking and
> tearing down White men and Western civilization.

What it' about is making money. If you make a movie that offends a
significant part of the potential audience, you won't get to make
any more movies.

Movies (like science fiction) reflect the society they're made for,
not the other way around. And right now, you're in a minority. How
small a minority is hard to say, but definition a minority of the
movie going public, at least.

>
> The result is they only further the belief that women and
> minorities can't create their own art and have to steal it from
> White men.
>

Shiny side in, or out? A tough question. Shiny side out reflects
the orbital tracking satellites, but shiny side in absorbs the mind
control lasers.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <m2tulem...@kelutral.omcl.org>,

Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>begin fnord
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>
>> It's on Apple+, isn't it? I don't think my daughter subscribes
>> to that. I'll have to wait for reviews after it launches, to see
>> if I want to save my nickels and dimes and get the DVDs.
>
>I wouldn't give good odds of it ever showing up on DVD.

Well, then, I'm saving some money by not buying it.

>While I'm well aware money doesn't grow on trees, you might also be
>interested in Apple+' _For All Mankind_, whose opening scenes take place
>on June 26, 1969, as the world watches Alexei Leonov take the first
>steps on the Moon...

No, thanks.

[a425couple]

On 6/28/2021 2:06 PM, novaste...@gmail.com wrote:
> https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/books-becoming-tv-and-streaming-series/
>
> Here are 125 books becoming movies and series,
> Some good SF in there. Beacon 23, Wool and Ringworld, and others.
>

I enjoyed "Beacon 23".
Seems to me it could be made reasonably into a
movie or TV show.

Here is more on that idea:
https://deadline.com/2020/10/beacon-23-tv-zak-penn-spectrum-amc-1234606701/

‘Beacon 23’ TV Adaptation From Zak Penn Scores Series Order At
Spectrum & AMC
By Peter White
Zak Penn’s television adaptation of Hugh Howey’s sci-fi novel
Beacon 23 has finally received a series order via Spectrum Originals
and AMC.
Penn has adapted the series, which was co-commissioned by Spectrum
Originals and AMC Networks and will be co-produced by
Platform One Media and Spectrum Originals.
-----
“Beacon 23 is a series in a class all its own – it’s a thriller,
it’s a love story, it’s a character drama, it’s a sci-fi exploration
of our own interconnectivity and disconnection, and it’s been
beautifully adapted by the brilliant Zak Penn,” said Katherine Pope

[a425couple]

On 7/1/2021 9:16 AM, a425couple wrote:
> On 6/28/2021 2:06 PM, novaste...@gmail.com wrote:
>> https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/books-becoming-tv-and-streaming-series/
>>
>>
>> Here are 125 books becoming movies and series,
>> Some good SF in there.  Beacon 23, Wool and Ringworld, and others.
>>
> I enjoyed "Beacon 23".
> Seems to me it could be made reasonably into a
> movie or TV show.
>
> Here is more on that idea:
> https://deadline.com/2020/10/beacon-23-tv-zak-penn-spectrum-amc-1234606701/

> -----
> “Beacon 23 is a series in a class all its own – it’s a thriller,
> it’s a love story, it’s a character drama, it’s a sci-fi exploration
> of our own interconnectivity and disconnection, and it’s been
> beautifully adapted by the brilliant Zak Penn,” said Katherine Pope

and, there is this:
https://collider.com/lena-headey-beacon-23-amc-spectrum/

Lena Headey Once Again Caters Exactly to Our Interests With New
Sci-Fi Thriller Series 'Beacon 23'
BY KRISTEN SANTER
PUBLISHED MAR 17, 2021
The Queen of Westeros headlines a different kind of sci-fi/fantasy show.

Lena Headey returns to the small screen with her newest venture
for Spectrum Originals and AMC Networks: Beacon 23. Serving as
one of the lead characters, Headey will star as “Aster,” a woman
who mysteriously becomes a beacon keeper on a remote lighthouse.
---
Beacon 23 follows Halan and Aster as they find themselves trapped
at the end of the known universe as beacon keepers. There are
responsible for ensuring the safe passage of ships in the 23rd century.
Unable to tell if the other is trustworthy, a tense battle of
wills unfolds at the edge of space.
---
Beacon 23 will run exclusively for nine months on Spectrum, and
then become an AMC original

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 11:16:43 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in

>news:qvIzu...@kithrup.com:
>
>> In article <m2tulfs...@kelutral.omcl.org>,

>> Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>>>begin fnord

>>>-dsr- <dsr-u...@randomstring.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> On the other hand, Amazon says the first three episodes of
>>>> FOUNDATION will be available on September 24th this year.
>>>
>>>An odd thing for them to do, considering they have fuck all to
>>>do with the project.
>>>
>>>Already people are complaining because the trailers show women
>>>doing things other than fetching coffee, and nobody is smoking.
>>

>> Whaaat? The stories were *written* in the 1940s, but they take
>> place in a future so distant that the origin of the human
>> species is a matter of fruitless debate. (Just ask Lord
>> Dorwin.)
>

>And in science fiction, the figure always looks like the present. And
>in the 40s, a woman's place was in the kitchen and everybody smoked.
>
>The complaints are that it's not *just* like the books. It doesn't
>matter *how* it's different, only *that* it is, for people to
>complain. This is routine when adapting existing written works of any
>kind to a different medium.

Indeed it is.

This is because they haven't discovered the First Rule of Adaptations:

an Adaptation is /not/ a Transcription

and so are looking for a Transcription, not an Adaptation.

>(And as often as not, the stuff people complain about is either
>irrelevant to the actual story, or stuff that would make the move/TV
>show suck because movies and TV are not books.)

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

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 19:17:03 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:

>In article <qvJ3u...@kithrup.com>,
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:

>>In article <m2tulfg...@kelutral.omcl.org>,

>>Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>>>begin fnord

>>>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>>

>>>> In article <m2tulfs...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
>>>> Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Already people are complaining because the trailers show women doing
>>>>>things other than fetching coffee, and nobody is smoking.
>>>>
>>>> Whaaat? The stories were *written* in the 1940s, but they take
>>>> place in a future so distant that the origin of the human species
>>>> is a matter of fruitless debate. (Just ask Lord Dorwin.)
>>>

>>>I'm not saying I understand it.
>>>

>>>> And let's not forget Bayta Darrell, and her daughter Arkady.
>>>
>>>Oh, and characters who were men in the stories being women in the series
>>>is apparently some sort of war crime.
>>>

>>Bah.
>>
>>But it's in keeping with the outcry* about _Ghostbusters 2016_, with

>>a mostly female cast, with the dumb-blonde-secretary slot filled
>>by the cute, blond, and definitely male Chris Hemsworth.
>

>(Addendum: apparently _Ghostbusters 2_ was a different film, with
>the same cast of frat-boys as the first one.

Yes, /Ghostbusters 2/ was a sequel.

In which the "dumb blond" is revealed to be not "dumb" at all, albeit
a bit strange.

But I thought the main complaint was that the remake was an R-rated
raunch fest instead of a PG-rated comedy. But perhaps the reviews I
read were a bit ... biased.

Note: I didn't see the remake because of the reviews. /Scary Movie/
was enough of an R-rated raunch fest for me.

>>
>>_____
>>*From men, of course.
>>
>Oh, yes: remember the film version of _The Andromeda Strain_,
>with Kate Reid playing the scientist with attitude and epilepsy?
>In the book, all the scientists were men. I don't know who made
>the decision to cast Reid instead of yet more male person, but
>Reid and David Wayne saved that movie.

Somehow, I think the movie would have worked with an all-male cast. No
need for it to be "saved". The selling point (as it were) was the
frantic internal tower climb at the end.

As the trailer said, "Rated G, but may be too /intense/ for younger
children". This while show a direct laser hit to the cheek, IIRC.

That said, Kate Reid certainly did add value to the story.

[Paul S Person]

Thanks for your insight into what the Alt-Right is thinking.

Always nice to have another data-point.

Even for forms of insanity.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <XnsAD5A5912432...@85.12.62.245>,

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>"edstas...@gmail.com" <edstas...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:0d10ac3b-cf07-4cb4...@googlegroups.com:
>

>>> Oh, and characters who were men in the stories being women in
>>> the series
>>
>>> is apparently some sort of war crime.
>>
>> It's a valid complaint, as these remakes that change the cast
>> into women or minorities are presented as being somehow
>> "empowering" when they’re actually all about attacking and
>> tearing down White men and Western civilization.
>

>What it's about is making money. If you make a movie that offends a

>significant part of the potential audience, you won't get to make
>any more movies.

Ayup. Remember the ruckus when _Doctor Strange_ came out, and
the Ancient One was portrayed as Irish or something instead of
Tibetan? That was because if it showed even an ersatz Tibetan in
a positive role, they'd never sell the movie in China.

(Also a female instead of a male, but that's irrelevant; Tilda
Swinton can portray any gender she wants to, and has done.)

>
>> The result is they only further the belief that women and
>> minorities can't create their own art and have to steal it from
>> White men.
>>
>Shiny side in, or out? A tough question. Shiny side out reflects
>the orbital tracking satellites, but shiny side in absorbs the mind
>control lasers.

A hit, a palpable hit.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <XnsAD5A58301AC...@85.12.62.245>,

Well, that's you. The nearest place that sells cat food is a Petco
in a shopping mall several miles away; I don't drive; and
currently I can't even walk without something to hold onto. If I
need to buy something, it's Amazon or else persuade Hal to go out
and get it for me, when he'd rather be sitting in front of his
computer watching live videos of the current eruption in Iceland.

We do what we can, and cope with what we can't.

[Scott Lurndal]

Magewolf <Mage...@nc.rr.com> writes:

>On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 12:18:01 -0700, William Hyde wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> In article <m2tulfs...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
>>> Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>>> >begin fnord -dsr- <dsr-u...@randomstring.org> writes:
>>> >
>>> >> On the other hand, Amazon says the first three episodes of
>>> >> FOUNDATION will be available on September 24th this year.
>>> >
>>> >An odd thing for them to do, considering they have fuck all to do with
>>> >the project.
>>> >
>>> >Already people are complaining because the trailers show women doing
>>> >things other than fetching coffee, and nobody is smoking.
>>
>> Asimov would probably be happy with that.
>>
>>> Whaaat? The stories were *written* in the 1940s, but they take place in
>>> a future so distant that the origin of the human species is a matter of
>>> fruitless debate. (Just ask Lord Dorwin.)
>>>
>>> And let's not forget Bayta Darrell, and her daughter Arkady.
>>
>> In the category of women in the series who do a lot behind the scenes
>> but don't show up much in the text, there's the second foundation agent
>> on Kalgan who poses as a ditzy courtesan but is anything but, and Preem
>> Palver's wife (enough in the background that I can't recall her name)
>> who is also second foundation. Both could have expanded roles in a
>> movie.
>>

>> William Hyde
>
>That would require thought and some desire to stay true to the story.
>Much easier to gender and race swap characters at random until you have
>the perfect mix for twitter of the current five minutes. And
>"improve"(piss on) the story to bring it up to current day standards(when
>the people improving it are talentless hacks who will never produce
>anything that anyone will remember 10 years from now not to mention 70+).

How many people in the world have actually read _Foundation_ et alia?

The people funding the series hope for a much larger audience. Much, much
larger, or they're just throwing their money away; if they piss off a few
hard-core science fiction fans in the process of making loads of money,
they'll cry all the way to the bank.

Sad, but true.

[Scott Lurndal]

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> writes:
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in

>> But it's in keeping with the outcry* about _Ghostbusters 2016[ed.]_,

>> with a mostly female cast, with the dumb-blonde-secretary slot
>> filled by the cute, blond, and definitely male Chris Hemsworth.
>>

>I suspect that, where the fans are concerned, it's not so much "but
>gurls has cooties" as it is "it's different than the original that
>is the mostest bested classic movie ever made so it has to suck."
>You'd see the same sort of reaction from mostly the same people if
>you remade a class that originally starred women with men in the
>same roles. If such things ever happened.
>
>How about recasting Wonder Woman as a man? Prince Dane of the all
>male island of something-mumble, and so on. You *really* think
>there wouldn't be the same (only more so) reaction to a Wonder Man
>movie?

I'm not sure I get the attraction of "Wonder Woman" (aside from the
eye-candy). The 30 minutes of "Wonder Woman 1984" I caught on TV
last week was _bad_. Bad acting, bad writing. Almost down to the
level of Batman vs. Superman bad.

[Michael F. Stemper]

On 30/06/2021 14.18, William Hyde wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <m2tulfs...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
>> Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:

(potential film of _Fouondation_)

>>> Already people are complaining because the trailers show women doing
>>> things other than fetching coffee, and nobody is smoking.
>
> Asimov would probably be happy with that.
>
>> Whaaat? The stories were *written* in the 1940s, but they take
>> place in a future so distant that the origin of the human species
>> is a matter of fruitless debate. (Just ask Lord Dorwin.)
>>
>> And let's not forget Bayta Darrell, and her daughter Arkady.
>
> In the category of women in the series who do a lot behind the scenes but don't show up
> much in the text,

Actually, in the five stories that compose _Foundation_ proper, only in
"The Merchant Princes" (o/t "The Big and the Little") are any women at
all even mentioned, the Comdorra and one of her serving girls. Neither
of them is given a name.

> there's the second foundation agent on Kalgan who poses as a
> ditzy courtesan but is anything but, and Preem Palver's wife (enough in the background
> that I can't recall her name)

Referred to only as "Mamma".

> who is also second foundation.

As is Palver himself.


--
Michael F. Stemper
Indians scattered on dawn's highway bleeding;
Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <RRnDI.6080$Tf7....@fx26.iad>,

You are aware that there are 80 years of Wonder Woman comics, a number
of good animated takes, a tv series and a first modern movie? Not all
were stellar by any means, but I don't think anyone would say, "I saw
30 minutes of Superman IV, and I don't see the attraction."
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[Michael F. Stemper]

On 01/07/2021 06.40, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 16:54:45 UTC+1, Steve Coltrin wrote:

> To check: who is complaining, and do they possibly
> think that they are being ironic?
>
> I mean, this is - at first - 1940s science fiction,
> a great work by one of the best authors of the time,
> so I expect that someone as dumb as you describe
> has never heard of it.
>
> As for smoking... probably most 1940s writers
> were kippered up to their elbows,

dead fish? huh?

> but stories of
> the distant future either regarded the human body
> as a secular temple with sacred flame not required,
> or represented new drugs with no connection to
> present-day ones except for superiority. What
> people actually consume in the Foundation, I don't
> remember,

Although Asimov was a non-smoker, he portrayed Salvor Hardin
as being an enthusiastic cigar smoker.

> but after all... it's a library!...

What is? Not the Foundation. That was (briefly) camoflaged
as a group chartered with writing an Encyclopedia.

A library (the big one on Trantor) is portrayed in two of the
nine original stories.


--
Michael F. Stemper
Galatians 3:28

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <sbl3e7$m6e$1...@dont-email.me>,

Michael F. Stemper <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 01/07/2021 06.40, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 16:54:45 UTC+1, Steve Coltrin wrote:
>
>> To check: who is complaining, and do they possibly
>> think that they are being ironic?
>>
>> I mean, this is - at first - 1940s science fiction,
>> a great work by one of the best authors of the time,
>> so I expect that someone as dumb as you describe
>> has never heard of it.
>>
>> As for smoking... probably most 1940s writers
>> were kippered up to their elbows,
>
>dead fish? huh?

Kippers are herring that have been preserved by smoking. I never
saw "kippered up" as an adjectival phrase before, but then I'm a
Yank. It was easy enough to decipher.

[Magewolf]

No offense intended but I have heard that argument a lot and it never
made any sense to me. You pay money(often a lot of money) for the rights
to something and then act like it is a set of chains you have to
destroy. It seems to me if you are so much better than the property you
are working on then you would be better off making your own story and
putting the rights money into the budget for your own personal story.

[Magewolf]

On Thu, 01 Jul 2021 08:45:21 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:

> "edstas...@gmail.com" <edstas...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:0d10ac3b-cf07-4cb4...@googlegroups.com:
>
>>> Steve Coltrin
>>> > Dorothy J Heydt
>>> >
>>> > And let's not forget Bayta Darrell, and her daughter Arkady.
>>>
>>> Oh, and characters who were men in the stories being women in the
>>> series
>>
>>> is apparently some sort of war crime.
>>
>> It's a valid complaint, as these remakes that change the cast into
>> women or minorities are presented as being somehow "empowering" when
>> they’re actually all about attacking and tearing down White men and
>> Western civilization.
>
> What it' about is making money. If you make a movie that offends a
> significant part of the potential audience, you won't get to make any
> more movies.

Who would not having the correct percentage of minorities(determined by
who?) actually offend? A few people on twitter and their sock-puppet
accounts? It is not like I said to myself I can not go to Black Panther
because there are not enough white people in it.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in

news:qvKtv...@kithrup.com:

Indeed. I would never presume to claim otherwise.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:8frrdgho4jvopdg7h...@4ax.com:

> Note: I didn't see the remake because of the reviews.

I didn't see the remake because I don't boether with remakes.

(Though the presence of Melissan McCarthy would have done it, too.
Like Will Ferrell, she's very good at what she does, and what she
does is annoying as shit to me.)

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in

news:v8srdghrf1ifdg11r...@4ax.com:

It compares and contrasts nicely with your own instanity, doesn't it?

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
news:8QnDI.6079$Tf7....@fx26.iad:

And very traditional.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Magewolf <Mage...@nc.rr.com> wrote in
news:sbl7se$ch1$1...@dont-email.me:

A lot more people have heard *of* Foundation - and know it's "one
of the all time classics" than have actually *ready* it.

"Based on the title of a popular novel. That we haven't read. But
it's very popular. Now give us money."

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in

news:RRnDI.6080$Tf7....@fx26.iad:

Is there some reason you believe that's representative of the
character overall? Or is it just that you don't think gurls and their
nasty cooties should be allowed into the superhero treehouse?

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Magewolf <Mage...@nc.rr.com> wrote in
news:sbl9ir$ch1$2...@dont-email.me:

> On Thu, 01 Jul 2021 08:45:21 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha wrote:
>
>> "edstas...@gmail.com" <edstas...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:0d10ac3b-cf07-4cb4...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>> Steve Coltrin
>>>> > Dorothy J Heydt
>>>> >
>>>> > And let's not forget Bayta Darrell, and her daughter
>>>> > Arkady.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, and characters who were men in the stories being women in
>>>> the series
>>>
>>>> is apparently some sort of war crime.
>>>
>>> It's a valid complaint, as these remakes that change the cast
>>> into women or minorities are presented as being somehow
>>> "empowering" when they’re actually all about attacking and
>>> tearing down White men and Western civilization.
>>
>> What it' about is making money. If you make a movie that
>> offends a significant part of the potential audience, you won't
>> get to make any more movies.
>
> Who would not having the correct percentage of
> minorities(determined by who?) actually offend?

If you're really interested, go read . . . pretty much anything
about any movie in the last 10 years, and note the bylines.

> A few people on
> twitter and their sock-puppet accounts? It is not like I said
> to myself I can not go to Black Panther because there are not
> enough white people in it.
>

And yet, there are those did just that.

[David Johnston]

On 2021-07-01 5:57 a.m., edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Steve Coltrin
>>> Dorothy J Heydt
>>>
>>> And let's not forget Bayta Darrell, and her daughter Arkady.
>>
>> Oh, and characters who were men in the stories being women in the series
>> is apparently some sort of war crime.
>
> It's a valid complaint, as these remakes that change the cast into women
> or minorities are presented as being somehow "empowering" when they’re
> actually all about attacking and tearing down White men and Western
> civilization.

Oh Eek. The Horror. I feel so attacked by Oceans Whatever.

[J. Clarke]

On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 17:28:34 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
wrote:

I don't know about where you are but where I am Instacart will deliver
from Petco. Whether that's more economically attractive than Amazon
is an open question. They typically deliver in a few hours.

[J. Clarke]

On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 15:44:05 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
wrote:

>In article <m2tulem...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
>Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>>begin fnord
>>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>
>>> It's on Apple+, isn't it? I don't think my daughter subscribes
>>> to that. I'll have to wait for reviews after it launches, to see
>>> if I want to save my nickels and dimes and get the DVDs.
>>
>>I wouldn't give good odds of it ever showing up on DVD.
>
>Well, then, I'm saving some money by not buying it.
>
>>While I'm well aware money doesn't grow on trees, you might also be
>>interested in Apple+' _For All Mankind_, whose opening scenes take place
>>on June 26, 1969, as the world watches Alexei Leonov take the first
>>steps on the Moon...
>
>No, thanks.

Actually it wasn't bad at all. On their _second_ lunar mission the
Soviets send a woman, so the US has to hurriedly put the Mercury 13 on
official status. I'm looking forward to the third season, although
two of my favorite characters are leaving. They do do the usual
modern hatchet job on von Braun though.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:r6isdgllc8elpngdq...@4ax.com:

> They do do the usual modern hatchet job on von Braun though.
>

Can't be any worse than how The Right Stuff treated him.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <XnsAD5A9D9C0FE...@85.12.62.232>,

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:8frrdgho4jvopdg7h...@4ax.com:
>
>> Note: I didn't see the remake because of the reviews.
>
>I didn't see the remake because I don't boether with remakes.
>
>(Though the presence of Melissan McCarthy would have done it, too.
>Like Will Ferrell, she's very good at what she does, and what she
>does is annoying as shit to me.)
>

Well, the only thing I've seen her in was the _Ghostbusters_
remake, which I liked a lot. Suum cuique.

[Dimensional Traveler]

The first Gal Gadot Wonder Woman movie was very good.

The second (WW84) was not very good.

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

[Dimensional Traveler]

Movie/TV Rights to books are not bought with the intention of being
faithful to the book. The Rights are bought so they can use the well
know title to draw people in to seeing their piece of crap personal
story with some names slapped on it.

[Moriarty]

On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:06:04 AM UTC+10, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 15:44:05 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
> wrote:
> >In article <m2tulem...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
> >Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
> >>begin fnord
> >>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> >>
> >>> It's on Apple+, isn't it? I don't think my daughter subscribes
> >>> to that. I'll have to wait for reviews after it launches, to see
> >>> if I want to save my nickels and dimes and get the DVDs.
> >>
> >>I wouldn't give good odds of it ever showing up on DVD.
> >
> >Well, then, I'm saving some money by not buying it.
> >
> >>While I'm well aware money doesn't grow on trees, you might also be
> >>interested in Apple+' _For All Mankind_, whose opening scenes take place
> >>on June 26, 1969, as the world watches Alexei Leonov take the first
> >>steps on the Moon...
> >
> >No, thanks.
> Actually it wasn't bad at all. On their _second_ lunar mission the
> Soviets send a woman, so the US has to hurriedly put the Mercury 13 on
> official status.

Did you see that Jeff Bezos has invited one of the women who was on Mercury 13 to accompany him into space? She's 82.

-Moriarty

[pete...@gmail.com]

Sadly, it's just a suborbital hop, land ping right where it took off. Space Is Hard.

Pt

[Ninapenda Jibini]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:qvLA8...@kithrup.com:

> In article <XnsAD5A9D9C0FE...@85.12.62.232>,
> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>news:8frrdgho4jvopdg7h...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Note: I didn't see the remake because of the reviews.
>>
>>I didn't see the remake because I don't boether with remakes.
>>
>>(Though the presence of Melissan McCarthy would have done it, too.
>>Like Will Ferrell, she's very good at what she does, and what she
>>does is annoying as shit to me.)
>>
> Well, the only thing I've seen her in was the _Ghostbusters_
> remake, which I liked a lot. Suum cuique.
>

I can absolutely guarantee you that you and I have different tastes
in humor. And could have before today.

(Mind you, again like Will Ferrel, I'm sure Ms. McCarthy has done
some work that's not her usual stuff. Possibly even stuff I'd like.
But I've never seen it, and am unlikely to because when she steps out
of her typecast role, it's not the sort of movie that gets
advertised.)

--
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

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in
news:sblqnr$8hf$2...@dont-email.me:

> On 7/1/2021 11:31 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>
>>>> But it's in keeping with the outcry* about _Ghostbusters
>>>> 2016[ed.]_, with a mostly female cast, with the
>>>> dumb-blonde-secretary slot filled by the cute, blond, and
>>>> definitely male Chris Hemsworth.
>>>>
>>> I suspect that, where the fans are concerned, it's not so much
>>> "but gurls has cooties" as it is "it's different than the
>>> original that is the mostest bested classic movie ever made so
>>> it has to suck." You'd see the same sort of reaction from
>>> mostly the same people if you remade a class that originally
>>> starred women with men in the same roles. If such things ever
>>> happened.
>>>
>>> How about recasting Wonder Woman as a man? Prince Dane of the
>>> all male island of something-mumble, and so on. You *really*
>>> think there wouldn't be the same (only more so) reaction to a
>>> Wonder Man movie?
>>
>> I'm not sure I get the attraction of "Wonder Woman" (aside from
>> the eye-candy). The 30 minutes of "Wonder Woman 1984" I
>> caught on TV last week was _bad_. Bad acting, bad writing.
>> Almost down to the level of Batman vs. Superman bad.
>>
> The first Gal Gadot Wonder Woman movie was very good.

In a very old school way. Reminded me in some ways very much of the
Christopher Reeve Superman.

>
> The second (WW84) was not very good.
>

I have not seen it. I also have not seen much to incline me to do
so, even when it's on a basic cable channel. Though I probably will
anyway just for the eye candy.

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in

news:sblqte$8hf$3...@dont-email.me:

Which occasionally, very rarely, turn out to be better than the
book. (I believe we've had that discussion more than once here.)

[edstas...@gmail.com]

> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > It's a valid complaint, as these remakes that change the cast
> > into women or minorities are presented as being somehow
> > "empowering" when they’re actually all about attacking and
> > tearing down White men and Western civilization.
>

> What it' about is making money. If you make a movie that offends
> a significant part of the potential audience, you won't get to make
> any more movies.

Making money is a secondary consideration to promoting an agenda
and those in Hollywood are True Believers at the forefront of the
propaganda campaign.

> Movies (like science fiction) reflect the society they're made for,
> not the other way around. And right now, you're in a minority. How
> small a minority is hard to say, but definition a minority of the
> movie going public, at least.

Then why for instance, base the new Star Wars movies around female
characters (as well as the new Star Trek tv show and Doctor Who, etc.)
when the fanbase is overwhelmingly male and gals aren’t particularly
interested in sci-fi?

> > The result is they only further the belief that women and
> > minorities can't create their own art and have to steal it from
> > White men.
>

> Shiny side in, or out? A tough question. Shiny side out reflects
> the orbital tracking satellites, but shiny side in absorbs the mind
> control lasers.

And yet we see this happening again and again while at the same
time, the occasional production with a White actor replacing the
original non-White character (such as Scarlett Johansson in “Ghost
in the Shell”) are vilified as “cultural appropriation!”.

Meanwhile, the Brits just released a _historical_ tv drama series
about Anne Boleyn with a Black actress in the staring role and when
many pointed out how utterly ridiculous this is, they were told it
doesn’t matter who the actor is and it's racist to complain about it.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article23534869.ece/alternates/s615/3_Anne_Boleyn_played_by_Jodie_Turner-Smith_5995_jpg_m14736ed.jpg

I wonder what the reaction would be if the shoe was on the other foot?

https://ibb.co/gD75bVT

[Jack Bohn]

Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> How many people in the world have actually read _Foundation_ et alia?

Enough people, cumulatively over its first thirty-some years to put the fourth book on the best-seller list when it came out.

I don't know if this had knock-on effects for the later books in the series, or even "best-selling author Isaac Asimov's" other works like _Robots of Dawn_, they weren't written like best-sellers. (None of their first paperback editions proclaim it on their covers.)

> The people funding the series hope for a much larger audience. Much, much
> larger, or they're just throwing their money away;

True, there is some rule of thumb about the relative popularity of TV, the movies, and books, in which disappointing numbers in one industry would be spectacular success in the next. I think I saw it illustrated with actual figures once.
--
-Jack

[Jack Bohn]

Magewolf wrote:

> No offense intended but I have heard that argument a lot and it never
> made any sense to me. You pay money(often a lot of money) for the rights
> to something and then act like it is a set of chains you have to
> destroy. It seems to me if you are so much better than the property you
> are working on then you would be better off making your own story and
> putting the rights money into the budget for your own personal story.

In movies and TV it's not a single person making a personal story. It's a hydra satisfying a variety of demands. (Some may be able to wrest enough control to be satisfied that the final product tells a personal tale, pays respect to a friend, or says hi to the kids.)

In copyright-happy times, the project may have started out as a personal story, or at least thought to be original, found not to be so, and rights to a pre-existing work bought to prevent lawsuit -- either from that work, or as cover protecting from a third work.

(Of course, they could also have been intended ripoff, and still seeking cover. My first step into cynicism was seeing Glen Larsen and Universal rip of Star Wars with "Battlestar Galactica," get sued for ripping it off, then make "Buck Rogers" into a ripoff of Star Wars, and not get sued.)

(Actually, there's an answer to the false dichotomy of "if it pisses off a few fans, but makes money, who cares?" Look at "The Shape of Things to Come" (which may actually have the official title of "H. G. Wells' The Shape of Things to Come"). Could it have actually made less money if it had tried to at least be as intelligent as Wells?)

--
-Jack

[Ninapenda Jibini]

"edstas...@gmail.com" <edstas...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:f2dd9006-e490-4ac7...@googlegroups.com:

>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>> > Ed Stasiak
>> >
>> > It's a valid complaint, as these remakes that change the cast
>> > into women or minorities are presented as being somehow
>> > "empowering" when they’re actually all about attacking and
>> > tearing down White men and Western civilization.
>>
>> What it' about is making money. If you make a movie that
>> offends a significant part of the potential audience, you won't
>> get to make any more movies.
>
> Making money is a secondary consideration to promoting an agenda
> and those in Hollywood are True Believers at the forefront of
> the propaganda campaign.

You are an idiot. Not that this hasn't been obvious for some time.

Again: shiny side in or out?

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Jack Bohn <jack....@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6e848b33-3137-4873...@googlegroups.com:

> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>> How many people in the world have actually read _Foundation_ et
>> alia?
>
> Enough people, cumulatively over its first thirty-some years to
> put the fourth book on the best-seller list when it came out.

Aside from the inherent flaws in the concept of best seller lists
[1], a book that sells 100,000 copies is a smashing success. A
movie that only sells 100,000 tickets is an epic failure.

>
> I don't know if this had knock-on effects for the later books in
> the series, or even "best-selling author Isaac Asimov's" other
> works like _Robots of Dawn_, they weren't written like
> best-sellers. (None of their first paperback editions proclaim
> it on their covers.)

A new book on a bestseller list really only means that the
publisher is pushing it, so the book stores are pre-ordering enough
copies. Hell, bestseller lists don't even reflect the consumer
buying it, only the bookstores.

>
>> The people funding the series hope for a much larger audience.
>> Much, much
>
>> larger, or they're just throwing their money away;
>
> True, there is some rule of thumb about the relative popularity
> of TV, the movies, and books, in which disappointing numbers in
> one industry would be spectacular success in the next. I think
> I saw it illustrated with actual figures once.

[1]According to this:

https://scribemedia.com/get-best-seller-list/

bestseller lists are based on a very small number of retail
channels, and are - by the admission of those who publish them -
not a reflection of sales, they are an "editorial product."

And you only need 5,000-10,000 copies pre-ordered to get on even
the most prestigious lists.

[Scott Lurndal]

Jack Bohn <jack....@gmail.com> writes:
>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>=20
>> How many people in the world have actually read _Foundation_ et alia?=20
>
>Enough people, cumulatively over its first thirty-some years to put the fou=

>rth book on the best-seller list when it came out.

Today it takes selling 5000 copies a week to be a best seller. Not sure what
it was back in the 1970s.

On the scale of a potential global television audience, that's still in the noise.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in

news:7EGDI.17513$Vj7....@fx46.iad:

There are commercials that get better ratings than that.

--
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

[Alan Baker]

On 2021-07-02 5:08 a.m., edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>
>>> It's a valid complaint, as these remakes that change the cast
>>> into women or minorities are presented as being somehow
>>> "empowering" when they’re actually all about attacking and
>>> tearing down White men and Western civilization.
>>
>> What it' about is making money. If you make a movie that offends
>> a significant part of the potential audience, you won't get to make
>> any more movies.
>
> Making money is a secondary consideration to promoting an agenda
> and those in Hollywood are True Believers at the forefront of the
> propaganda campaign.

LOL! Good one!

Oh, wait... ....you were serious?

LOLLOLLOLOLLOLOLOLLLOLOLLLOLOLOL

[Paul S Person]

On Thu, 01 Jul 2021 18:31:13 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> writes:
>>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>
>>> But it's in keeping with the outcry* about _Ghostbusters 2016[ed.]_,
>>> with a mostly female cast, with the dumb-blonde-secretary slot
>>> filled by the cute, blond, and definitely male Chris Hemsworth.
>>>
>>I suspect that, where the fans are concerned, it's not so much "but
>>gurls has cooties" as it is "it's different than the original that
>>is the mostest bested classic movie ever made so it has to suck."
>>You'd see the same sort of reaction from mostly the same people if
>>you remade a class that originally starred women with men in the
>>same roles. If such things ever happened.
>>
>>How about recasting Wonder Woman as a man? Prince Dane of the all
>>male island of something-mumble, and so on. You *really* think
>>there wouldn't be the same (only more so) reaction to a Wonder Man
>>movie?
>
>I'm not sure I get the attraction of "Wonder Woman" (aside from the
>eye-candy). The 30 minutes of "Wonder Woman 1984" I caught on TV
>last week was _bad_. Bad acting, bad writing. Almost down to the
>level of Batman vs. Superman bad.

For the most part, neither Marvel's Avengers nor DC's Justice League
(and precursor films) (those starting with /Man of Steel/, at least)
live-action films seem to me to be particularly great. Some were
definite snooze-fests when I watched them.

I rent them all and watch them, but, except for the /Suicide Squad/ of
a couple years ago, none have impressed me in a positive sense. Not
necessarily bad, but certainly not good.

DC's Animated films, OTOH, while often pedestrian, often rise to
providing real value for the time needed to watch them.

IMHO, of course.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

[Paul S Person]

On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 20:46:20 -0000 (UTC), Magewolf <Mage...@nc.rr.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Jul 2021 08:45:21 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>wrote:
>

>> "edstas...@gmail.com" <edstas...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:0d10ac3b-cf07-4cb4...@googlegroups.com:

>>
>>>> Steve Coltrin
>>>> > Dorothy J Heydt
>>>> >

>>>> > And let's not forget Bayta Darrell, and her daughter Arkady.
>>>>

>>>> Oh, and characters who were men in the stories being women in the
>>>> series
>>>
>>>> is apparently some sort of war crime.
>>>

>>> It's a valid complaint, as these remakes that change the cast into
>>> women or minorities are presented as being somehow "empowering" when
>>> they’re actually all about attacking and tearing down White men and
>>> Western civilization.
>>
>> What it' about is making money. If you make a movie that offends a
>> significant part of the potential audience, you won't get to make any
>> more movies.
>

>Who would not having the correct percentage of minorities(determined by

>who?) actually offend? A few people on twitter and their sock-puppet

>accounts? It is not like I said to myself I can not go to Black Panther
>because there are not enough white people in it.

It had white people in it? (No, seriously: I saw it but memory fades).

My take was that it was like watching a good Tarzan movie -- without
Tarzan.

Guess which part of Burrough's works I was reading at the time?

[Paul S Person]

And they missed ... a not-too-bad Marvel's Avengers movie.

Ho, hum!

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 14:17:41 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>"edstas...@gmail.com" <edstas...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:f2dd9006-e490-4ac7...@googlegroups.com:
>
>>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>>> > Ed Stasiak
>>> >
>>> > It's a valid complaint, as these remakes that change the cast
>>> > into women or minorities are presented as being somehow
>>> > "empowering" when they’re actually all about attacking and
>>> > tearing down White men and Western civilization.
>>>
>>> What it' about is making money. If you make a movie that
>>> offends a significant part of the potential audience, you won't
>>> get to make any more movies.
>>
>> Making money is a secondary consideration to promoting an agenda
>> and those in Hollywood are True Believers at the forefront of
>> the propaganda campaign.
>
>You are an idiot. Not that this hasn't been obvious for some time.
>
>Again: shiny side in or out?

Is there some reason it can't have /two/ shiny sides?

Just askin'.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in

news:phhudg92crspm6uui...@4ax.com:

It was highly regarded, to be sure. But for me, it's unforgivable
sin was that it came out after I was over superhero movies.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in

news:0mhudgdkf84d8d4qp...@4ax.com:

That would both enhance the tracking satellites *and* absorb even
more of the mind control alsers, you fool!

--
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

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 05:08:33 -0700 (PDT), "edstas...@gmail.com"
<edstas...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>> > Ed Stasiak
>> >
>> > It's a valid complaint, as these remakes that change the cast
>> > into women or minorities are presented as being somehow
>> > "empowering" when they’re actually all about attacking and
>> > tearing down White men and Western civilization.
>>
>> What it' about is making money. If you make a movie that offends
>> a significant part of the potential audience, you won't get to make
>> any more movies.
>
>Making money is a secondary consideration to promoting an agenda
>and those in Hollywood are True Believers at the forefront of the
>propaganda campaign.

Well, then they won't be in business much longer, will they?

"Bums on seats" is all its about.

>> Movies (like science fiction) reflect the society they're made for,
>> not the other way around. And right now, you're in a minority. How
>> small a minority is hard to say, but definition a minority of the
>> movie going public, at least.
>
>Then why for instance, base the new Star Wars movies around female
>characters (as well as the new Star Trek tv show and Doctor Who, etc.)
>when the fanbase is overwhelmingly male and gals aren’t particularly
>interested in sci-fi?

Do you actually have to be /told/ why a mostly-male fanbase would be
attracted to a female cast?

>> > The result is they only further the belief that women and
>> > minorities can't create their own art and have to steal it from
>> > White men.
>>
>> Shiny side in, or out? A tough question. Shiny side out reflects
>> the orbital tracking satellites, but shiny side in absorbs the mind
>> control lasers.
>
>And yet we see this happening again and again while at the same
>time, the occasional production with a White actor replacing the
>original non-White character (such as Scarlett Johansson in “Ghost
>in the Shell”) are vilified as “cultural appropriation!”.

Appropriation or not, it wasn't that good a film. I liked it better
than the animated version, but not by much.

>Meanwhile, the Brits just released a _historical_ tv drama series
>about Anne Boleyn with a Black actress in the staring role and when
>many pointed out how utterly ridiculous this is, they were told it
>doesn’t matter who the actor is and it's racist to complain about it.
>
>https://www.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article23534869.ece/alternates/s615/3_Anne_Boleyn_played_by_Jodie_Turner-Smith_5995_jpg_m14736ed.jpg

Now, now, they just want to have their cake and eat it too. Just as
the alt-right does.

What goes around, comes around.

I fairly recently saw a Dicken's adaptation that did something like
that. It mostly worked fine. Not a bad adaptation, either.

>I wonder what the reaction would be if the shoe was on the other foot?
>
>https://ibb.co/gD75bVT

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in

news:onhudgltjfgirg39d...@4ax.com:

> Do you actually have to be /told/ why a mostly-male fanbase
> would be attracted to a female cast?
>

Indeed. When was the last time you saw a big budget film starring an
overweight actress that wasn't a comedy? And it's only be in recent
years that any female actress has been allowed to be the main
character without looking like a teenager.

[Paul S Person]

This last point was unclear until I did some spelunking and came
across a film of that name
(<https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079894/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_4>) which,
given the plot summary, would fit your description.

There are at least 3 films titled /Things to Come/; AFAIK, only the
1936 version claims any relationship to Wells.

[Titus G]

On 3/07/21 12:08 am, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> Meanwhile, the Brits just released a _historical_ tv drama series
> about Anne Boleyn with a Black actress in the staring role and when
> many pointed out how utterly ridiculous this is, they were told it
> doesn’t matter who the actor is and it's racist to complain about it.
>
> https://www.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article23534869.ece/alternates/s615/3_Anne_Boleyn_played_by_Jodie_Turner-Smith_5995_jpg_m14736ed.jpg

> I wonder what the reaction would be if the shoe was on the other foot?
>
> https://ibb.co/gD75bVT

Dear Ed,
As you can not make a distinction between those examples, it is not
surprising that you wear your shoes on the wrong feet. What really
puzzles me is how do you peel your bananas whilst wearing shoes?

[Moriarty]

On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 10:08:35 PM UTC+10, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
> gals aren’t particularly interested in sci-fi?

You really are an idiot, aren't you?

-Moriarty

[Paul S Person]

Ahh!

Thanks for the clarification!

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 09:05:54 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>news:7EGDI.17513$Vj7....@fx46.iad:
>
>> Jack Bohn <jack....@gmail.com> writes:
>>>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> How many people in the world have actually read _Foundation_
>>>> et alia?=20
>>>
>>>Enough people, cumulatively over its first thirty-some years to
>>>put the fou= rth book on the best-seller list when it came out.
>>
>> Today it takes selling 5000 copies a week to be a best seller.
>> Not sure what it was back in the 1970s.
>>
>> On the scale of a potential global television audience, that's
>> still in the noise.
>>
>There are commercials that get better ratings than that.

One of the reasons I stopped watching broadcast TV was that it was
apparent that the commercials had more effort and more money put into
them (on a per-minute basis) than the filler -- er, the actual shows.

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in

news:9q31egtu6nkvatfo7...@4ax.com:

About 90% of what I watch is reruns from the 70s (and even
earlier). Some shows hold up surprisingly well.

--
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

[Michael F. Stemper]

On 30/06/2021 18.41, Kevrob wrote:

> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 4:08:34 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:

>> How about recasting Wonder Woman as a man? Prince Dane of the all
>> male island of something-mumble, and so on. You *really* think
>> there wouldn't be the same (only more so) reaction to a Wonder Man
>> movie?

> Sometimes a "gender-flip" adds something. My favorite is
> Roz Russell as Hildy Johnson, turning "The Front Page" into
> "His Girl Friday."
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Girl_Friday

John Varley went one better in _Steel Beach_ by having Hildy start
out (in the novel) as male and then switch to female. Now I need to
reread it to see if some character is a Cary Grant analog.

--
Michael F. Stemper
This sentence no verb.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <sbqd3a$74b$1...@dont-email.me>,

Well, let us know. Now, if you'd generalized it as a
gender-switching story of any kind with a Cary Grant analog, I'd
recommend "Some Like It Hot," in which Tony Curtis's character,
when not hiding from the mob in female clothing, adopts a Cary
Grant accent to woo Marilyn Monroe's character. He came by the
accent almost honestly; he was in the US Navy during WWII and
stationed someplace where there was a projector but only a few
films, one of which starred Grant. The guys got to the point
where they knew every line of dialog, so they'd turn the sound
off and recite the dialog themselves. Curtis got to voice
Grant.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

[Paul S Person]

On Thu, 01 Jul 2021 09:41:42 -0700, Paul S Person
<pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:

Actually, thinking further about this

>In which the "dumb blond" is revealed to be not "dumb" at all, albeit
>a bit strange.

I think it was inaccurate.

I don't think she was a "dumb blond" at all. Or "strange"; perhaps
that is best regarded as a sign that I was (perhaps am) still
recovering from the heat wave.

At least, not if Marilyn Monroe's characters in /The Seven Year Itch/
and /Some Like It Hot/ are "dumb blonds".

I think the secretary was a person of normal intelligence who
graduated High School, having taken the Business Course option. She
may also have taken Night School classes to enhance her skills.

I should note that she does not appear to be intimidated at all by the
computer system they set her up with. The film came out in 1984, when
PCs were not all that common. But she appears to have seen them
before.

She is not, of course, on a par with the three founders, who were all
PhDs. OK, one may have had a PhD in underwater basket weaving for all
we could tell, but another might have had one in the scholarly study
of the paranormal, and the third was almost certainly some sort of
engineer. But that doesn't make her dumb; it makes her normal.

All this being, of course, IMHO.

[J. Clarke]

On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 21:55:47 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
wrote:

It's not really gender-switching, but Cary Grant spends about half of
"Bringing Up Baby" wearing Katherine Hepburn's bathrobe.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <lnc2eg5skvr46jk22...@4ax.com>,

That's because he just went gay all of a sudden.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[J. Clarke]

On 4 Jul 2021 06:10:08 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>)
wrote:

IIRC people making that assumption was part of the humor.