Re: [OT] Re: Tired of the stupid comments about SST...

At 18.01 06/03/99 -0800, you wrote:
>On Sat, 6 Mar 1999, John M. Atkinson wrote:
>> devans@uneb.edu wrote:
>People get the book and the movie confused. 

Probably true.

I don't agree with much of the politics, and they take up a lot of
>the book, but the whole thing is a pretty good book.

Now, there our opinions differ quite sharply!:)

>I'm willing to grant that the spaceship scenes are very good looking.
If
>you overlook the moron-level tactics shown there as well. Purely as
drama,
>the ground combat scenes (esp. the fort scenes) are decent; as any sort
of
>half-sensible combat squence, they're rubbish. Overall, I stand by my
>earlier comment about feeding Paul Verhoven (the director) and the
>scriptwriters to Bugs.

Yes, yes, yes and, referring to the last note, could we make it a
popular
demand? Should I sign somewhere?

>Try reading Heinlein's book some time. You'll be surprised at how much
>Verhoven got wrong. True story: Verhoven has never even read
>the book, and was only interested in the fairly-well-known name to
front
>his own version of the story, which contains what he claims are the
>'essential elements' of the book's story. 

IMO, you are dead right. I even heard that the original script wasn't
tied
to SST and the idea to buy the rights and graft the "well-known title"
to
the film only came in later stages. Wouldn't know if it makes sense from
a
practical point of view.
Now, I think Voerhoven had a nice idea in using his tried and true (from
Robocop) "news spots" to show the "large view": hinting to the
background
is always a difficult thing in film productions (hence, the superior
popularity of TV series).

>This is very OT, and YMMV,

What?

Bye
Enzo De Ianni