Re: TANSTAAFL

Brian Burger wrote:
> 
> Mark A. Siefert wrote:
> 
> >	However, I could be wrong.  Hollywood may want to take a chance
> > with a thought-provoking sci-fi movie with good acting and a decent
> > plot. And maybe I'll flap my arms and fly to Venus--either that, or
find
> > a girlfriend.
> 
> Send us a postcard from Venus, Mark.

	I would... but the acidic rain keeps eating away at the card and
the
atmospheric pressure flattens the mail box like a soda can.

> "Harsh Mistress" is my favorite RAH book - it stikes a nice balance, I
> think, between his earlier 'juvenile' stuff (Tunnel in the Sky, etc)
and
> the later strange politics/stranger sex books (Time Enough for Love,
et
> al).

	Funny you should mention it... I'm going to start "Time Enough
For
Love" as soon as I finish "Sharpe's Eagle."

	HM is also my fav RAH novel.  It was hard to start at first
given the
broken english that was most of the narration.	However, once you get
past mannie's truncated grammar, it becomes a fantastic read.
 
> The multi-spoused 'clan marriages' & similar are also unlikely to
fly...

	I good old "traditional-family-vaules" America?  How can you say
that?

> There'd be great 'asteroid-smacking-Terra' scenes in HM: The Movie,
but
> the rest would probably be orgies & political frothing after the film
> types got thru with it. The Luna native characters would probably wind
up
> as astro-hillbillies. Besides, Hollyweird thinks it's already done
'big
> rocks form space' w/ "Deep Impact" & that Bruce Willis vehicle.

	I'm more afraid that the producers would try to change the
political
message of the story to meet their bias.  I'm sure that the Lunar
Authority will become some "evil corporation" and the lunies will be the
"opressed workers struggling against capitalist greed" or such.  It
would probably be a more palitable message to most modern movie-goers
than Heinlein's anarcho-capitialism.
 
> And just imagine - Paul Verhoven 

	I don't want to imagine him... except poor and unemployed.
 
> Sorry, but I can't see any 'serious' SF movies soon.

	Well, first of all, the people who make movies would have to
start
seeing SF as a serious genre.  They don't.  To most average people, SF
is for kids and geeks.	Sure they'll tolerate a Star Wars or Star Trek
as long as they can drag their kids to it (or vice versa). But a film
that attempts to actually get these drooling yahoos to "think?"  "Where
are the cute aliens?  Where are the special effects?  Where is the co-ed
shower scene? I WANT MY MONEY BACK!!!"

 
> Kubrick's dead,

	Stanley, Stanley, STANLEY.  Explains to us again WHY you had to
make
"Eyes Wide Shut?"

> I don't imagine that I'm the only listee still ticked off about
Starship
> Troopers: The Movie...(Commitee to Lynch Mr. Verhoven, anyone?)

	I'll bring the rope.  The rest of you can bring the torches and
pitchforks.
-- 
Later,
Mark A. Siefert

Fall not in love, therefore, it will stick to your face. Gracefully
surrender the things of youth: the birds, clean air, tuna, Taiwan - and
let not the sands of time get in your lunch. Hire people with hooks. For
a good time, call  606-4311, ask for Ken.  Take heart in the deepening
gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese. And reflect that
whatever misfortune may be your lot, it could  only be worse in
Milwaukee.
						
						--Deteriorata
						National Lampoon

E-MAIL: cthulhu@csd.uwm.edu		WWW: http://www.uwm.edu/~cthulhu
========================================================================
=