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

On Sun, 7 Mar 1999, David Brewer wrote:

> In message
<Pine.OSF.4.02A.9903061744300.18042-100000@ccins.camosun.bc.ca> Brian
Burger writes:
> 
> > The movie has silly satire pretending to be politics, military
tactics at
> > the 'drooling moron' level of sophistication, and so many
inconsistencies
> > as to be laughable.  
> I often wonder that people don't more often connect the first
> clause in this sentence, with the second.
> The tactics are at a "drooling moron" level... do you think the
> (*ex-marine*) director was trying to make a point or two? This is
> a satirical film, after all.

Good point, actually. Still, given that the book isn't satirical, the
movie was a _major_ departure from the book. Most people were expecting
something closer to the book; that's why we dislike the movie so
much.
 
> > Try reading Heinlein's book some time. 
> My advice would be, if you're over fifteen, don't bother. It's not
> really a book for adults. So many people make so much fuss over
> the book because it's such a childhood favourite. Much of the book
> consists of ranting polemic, of which the rest of the book exists
> only to validate. There is no plot worth the name.

That goes a bit far, I think. It's not the best book Heinlein ever
wrote;
the political parts & talking take up too much of the whole, and some of
the politics are damned strange, but there is an actual plot in between
the rants. It's also got an interesting part where the Powered Armour
they
use is discussed. (AFAIK, this is the book that _invented_ PA.)

> > 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.
> Not true. Verhoeven states that he read part of the book. You
> don't, so to speak, have to eat the whole apple to know that it's
> rotten.

If you're going to be making a movie based on a fairly well known novel,
you'd think that taking the time to read the book and at least try and
understand the author would be considered important. All Mr. Verhoven
wanted was a vehicle for his own views; SST happened to provide a
well-known title for him, and enabled him to plagarize character names
and
such.

> One presumes that he read numerous treatments and scripts.

Which means that it's not just Verhoven who screwed up the movie, but a
whole crop of idiots. Wonderful.

> The point Verhoeven made time and time again in interviews is that
> he made the film because he was interested in how this crypto-
> fascist society of Heinlein's would be very successful at
> repelling an external threat. The film's political message is
> wonderfully ambiguous.

Ambiguous? How about overblown, excessively corny, and badly done?
 
> It was the producers who jumped on SST as a vehicle for a giant
> insect sci-fi film.

Yes, and they failed there too. SST: the movie is a lousy film on a
number
of levels: It's a terrible adaptation of Heinlien's book; AND it's a
lousy
movie just as a movie. '90210 in Space', a friend called it, and he was
right. 

If the movie had been a decent movie while still being a lousy version
of
Heinlein's novel, that wouldn't have been so bad. Ditto if it'd been the
other way around. It failed at both levels, however.

> > This is from "The Making of SST" which has an interview w/ Verhoven.

> A *very* funny book. The producers claim that they are only
> interested in maing a faithful version of the book. They then get
> to explain why almost all of it gets thrown out. Verhoeven at
> least rescues the politics, IIRC he stuck in one or two of the
> diatribes almost word-for-word from the book.

Someone actually has the gall to claim they were making a faithful
version
of the book? Merde...

Verhoven butchers the politics. Look, I don't agree with most of
the
politics Heinlein uses in SST (or most of the rest of his politics), but
it was presented seriously. Verhoven can't be bothered. He's only
interested in the satirical aspects. (I'm not sure the politics of the
book _could_ have been presented seriously in a film. They're kind of
odd,
and fairly involved, and Hollywierd isn't good at involved, odd,
politics...)

Heinlien seems to have believed most of the politics he put into the
book.
They're damned strange politics, and not consistent or perhaps workable,
but he was taking them seriously at the time AFAIK. The book would
probably have been more interesting and readable if he'd left the
strange
politics out and concentrated more on the story, but he didn't, so any
adaptation needs to deal with the politics seriously, or actually show
that they wouldn't work. Verhoven does neither...

> Does anyone know if Verhoeven is back to working on his Hitler
> biopic?

Verhoven is doing a Hitler biopic? Cringe...

Enough on this. I've gone on too much, it's now way way OT. I don't
think
Verhoven did a good job; you might think he did, but never the twain
shall
meet...

Brian (burger00@camosun.bc.ca)			-DS2/SG2/FR!/HOTT-
      - http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebula/9774/games.html -
-SciFi & Fantasy Wargaming House Rules, Photos, GWAutobasher, & more-