Ridley Scott's Forever War In 3D

bowman9991 writes "Ridley Scott's next science fiction film, his first since Blade Runner, will be a 3D adaptation of Joe Haldeman's The Forever War, an action packed novel about the impact of the time dilation effect on soldiers returning from an interstellar war against the mysterious Tauran species. Scott recently decided to move to 3D after watching footage of James Cameron's yet to be released science fiction epic Avatar. The Forever War, Cameron's Avatar, and Scott's other upcoming science fiction project, Brave New World, will make the next five years a fantastic time to be a science fiction movie enthusiast."

Comments

Forever War is fantastic

[SpuriousLogic]

I read the first time this years ago in high school. It is an absolutely fantastic story. I'm hoping Ridley Scott repeats his Aliens and Blade Runner magic on this.

Re:Forever War is fantastic

[radtea]

I just keep thinking about how this was supposed to be a response to Heinlein's Starship Troopers (or vice versa?)

Response to. "Starship Troopers" was first published in '59, "The Forever War" was published in the early '70's.

Heinlein's book tries to be pro-military rather than pro-war, but it's sometimes a distinction without a difference. On the other hand I know people who read Haldeman's book as a pro-war story, missing the larger point entirely.

Heinlein was a naval officer who never saw action. Haldeman a combat engineer who did. Differences in experience and generational differences are important to understanding the differences between the books.

I personally find "The Forever War" a more satisfying story, both morally and narratively, although the resolution of the conflict with the Taurans is tantamount to magic, which I found disappointing. On the other hand, Heinlein asks, "Why do people fight?" and ultimately gives us no deeper answer than "Unit cohesion", although the quasi-nationalist racial hygiene stuff clouds that conclusion at times.

Re:Forever War is fantastic

[oliderid]

I have never read the book but I remember that I had the comic books while student. I don't know how well preseverd the story was, but I really enjoyed it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forever_War_(comics)

Re:Forever War is fantastic

[Nursie]

You do know that Starship Troopers is a deliberate satire on the source material, right?

It's not perfect in its execution, but whilst you can (and I did when I first saw it as a young teenager) see it as just a gung-ho action movie that's basically content-free. When you then put it into the context of Heinleins original glorification of war and armed service it becomes clear that the film is actually a somewhat clever satire of the original, whilst also being entertaining and action-y enough to satisfy those that prefer not to think too much.

Re:Forever War is fantastic

[Mycroft_VIII]

It's already been done, a bit heavy on the action and light on the other parts, but it was done.
      It's also set in modern times so no flying cars.

Mycroft

Re:Forever War is fantastic

[QuantumPion]

Limited warfare was the norm until the late 1700's: the past 200 years of total war are the anomaly,

Eh? Alexander? Caesar? Ghengis Khan? Ottoman Empire?

There wasn't a distinction between total war and limited war until there were countries which were so rich and prosperous that they could engage in war without having to conscript their entire population and resources.

Re:Forever War is fantastic

[Geoffrey.landis]

flat-out to-the-death conflict is extremely rare in nature, and even in human history until fairly recently. Limited warfare was the norm until the late 1700's: the past 200 years of total war are the anomaly,

A limited "yes" to the first part (the limit is "within species"), an unqualified "no" to the second. Limited war was most certainly not the norm until the late 1700s, unless by "limited" you include "kill all the men and all the male children and all the women who are not virgins. Take the remaining female children captive."

Re:Forever War is fantastic

[Areyoukiddingme]

I don't see it happening. Exploring alternative forms of marriage scares the crap out of a large chunk of the US population, including a whole lot of California. If even the left coast can't handle the idea, I don't see how the Midwest could take it.

Not to mention the shots he took at racism. Offend the south, the midwest, and half of the west coast? Sounds like a no-go to me.

Even if it was a fascinating book. I'm not so sure, as other people have already observed in these comments, that the result would be a polite society, but the modified marriages actually sound plausible.

Any movie adaptation is likely to be even worse than I, Robot (which I haven't seen, but I could tell from the trailers it was a disaster).

Re:How gimmicky is this 3D stuff?

[DinDaddy]

It is always going to be disorienting for many people as long as your eyes want to focus and converge on something as if it were in the place it appears to be. 3D suffers from the innate problem of trying to make things appear closer to you when they are really still on a screen 30 feet away. Your eyes don't like to focus a one range but converge at another.

Things that make you go bleh.

Re:Thanks an effn lot

[whopis]

Out of curiosity, how does being blind in one eye effect your experience like that?

I don't mean to be offensive - I am just missing something here...

If I am watching a 3D movie (wearing the glasses) and close one eye, I just see a regular image. Of course, I loose the 3D effect, but other than that, it looks perfectly normal (other than the cheesy attempts to wow people with the 3D just start looking silly).

If you were to wear the polarized glasses, wouldn't it just look normal to you as well?

Re:NOOOOOOO!

[pavon]

It's going to have a live cast, it's just going to be filmed with a 3D camera.

Re:You'd think they'd have gotten it right by now.

[Sockatume]

No, shutter glasses are on the way out. That's why 3D's gone mainstream again, you can do a cheap pair of plastic or paper specs with a different polarising film in each side and sell them for two bucks extra per movie ticket, compared to the expensive and fragile shutter glasses. The circular polarisation is maintained upon reflection.

Re:You'd think they'd have gotten it right by now.

[EdZ]

They've called Silver Screens, and they're in common use in cinemas everywhere. And yes, they preserve both linear and circular polarisation. Shutter glasses have framerate and synchronisation problems (ESPECIALLY keeping a large room full of glasses synced at the correct rate for their position relative to the screen), and rarely get the same wrong-eye isolation that circular polarisation can. Plus they're bulky, expensive and need batteries.