'The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress' Coming To the Big Screen
HughPickens.com writes: According to the Hollywood Reporter, Twentieth Century Fox recently picked up the movie rights to The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, based on the classic sci-fi book by Robert A. Heinlein. It will retitled as Uprising. Heinlein's 1966 sci-fi novel centers on a lunar colony's revolt against rule from Earth, and the book popularized the acronym TANSTAAFL (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch), a central, libertarian theme. The novel was nominated for the 1966 Nebula award (honoring the best sci-fi and fantasy work in the U.S.) and won the Hugo Award for best science fiction novel in 1967. An adaptation has been attempted twice before — by DreamWorks, which had a script by Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio, and by Phoenix Pictures, with Harry Potter producer David Heyman attached — but both languished and the rights reverted to Heinlein's estate. Brian Singer, who previously directed X-Men: Days of Future Past, will adapt the screenplay and reportedly direct. Several of Heinlein's works have been adapted for the big and small screen, including the 1953 film Project Moonbase, the 1994 TV miniseries Red Planet, the 1994 film The Puppet Masters, the 2014 film Predestination, and — very loosely — the 1997 film Starship Troopers.
Predestination was a "decent' attempt at "All you Zombies" and was very watchable.
All the other attempts kind of sucked out loud with a bamboo umbrella.
"Gravity is a harsh mistress"
But seriously, that's pretty fun. I hope they don't screw it up.
When I was in high school. I didn't think of them as being polemics; nobody is going to confuse Heinlein with Ayn Rand when it comes to message versus storytelling. With him, it was mostly about the storytelling and the adventure, not spouting off.
I just hope they don't butcher it the way they did with Starship Troopers. That one completely missed the point of the novel. It was as if the screen writers hadn't even read the book.
But it was a great movie despite not really following the source material.
On-topic, I haven't actually read this Heinlein book but I've liked every one of his books I've read. Hope the movie turns out good.
I suspect I'm much more likely to go and watch a film called "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" than one called "Uprising".
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Starring COLLIN FARRELL and JESSICA BIEL and lots of pew pew pew and oh, the story? That's lining my birdcage because BOOM special effects.
Fuck this.
There was also Starship Troopers 2, Starship Troopers 3, and Starship Troopers: Invasion. Of those, I only watched Invasion (all CGI). It was OK, which made it way better than the 1997 one. The others frankly look even worse. Anyway, I have high hopes and low expectations with Uprising.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
...has a Harsh moon!
I can't wait for the entire political atmosphere of the colony (particularly the emphasis on personal freedom, polygamy and a self organized community) and the political message (that a one world government is dangerous, and that different styles of government fit different people) to be completely glazed over in favor of a love story with Wyoh, a shootout, and a yearning for a pure American democracy completely replacing the socialist elements.
and, of course, the ending for the computer will be altered.
If they do this right it could be an awesome movie, but I'm afraid they will do all the stupid things Hollywood always does when they "adapt" a book for a movie. Like dumb it down, oversimplify the plot and leave out key plot elements, throw in lots of action scenes that weren't originally in the story and then tack on a fake happy ending for Mike,
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
...only surpassed when I read Ender's Game.
I hope this is a reasonably true adaptation.
My mind goes back to the ideas in this book from time to time. Perhaps it is responsible for my not-liberal, not conservative nature.
Before the movie comes out I will encourage my older offspring to read the book.
Bryan Singer? Heinlein source material?
Oh yeah, this will be a success...
In the movie, the instructor throws a knife through the recruit's hand, and says, "Hard to push a button now, eh?"
I get that the movie is satire. I even get that there's a lot in the book that can be fairly satirized. The problem is, the movie is lazy, unfair, incompetent satire.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
I have read and re-read most of Heinlein. Much of my political philosopy is heavily colored by his writings. He did get a bit strange in his old age, but that was OK by me. At least he was interesting and strange.
Starship Troopers the movie was lots of fun, but had very little to do with the book. The book was infinitely better and far, far deeper.
I would love to see this book done right. In some ways it would be easier to do than the others mentioned. I am dubious though. I have little confidence in Hollywood when it comes to transitioning a book to film. They almost always do serious damage. I have learned to always read the book first so that I know what kind of destruction is going on rather than have the movie sour me on the book.
Seriously, this is great. When we look at all the great SF books and stories that turned into movies like:
I robot
Starship troopers
We Can Remember It for You Wholesale
Minority Report
and the greatest of all
I am legend
Seriously, what could go wrong?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Let's see, just how badly could they mess this up . . . Well, I still have the paperback with the reversed artwork, showing Mannie with the WRONG ARM being cybernetic, so messing up a book has a long and storied history.
The obvious problem is that the story takes place over a multi-month or year-long period, which never comes across well in a movie. This would need a miniseries to do it justice.
Starship Troopers was an enjoyable movie, but it was far from a great movie.
the book was an homage to non-commissioned officers. The movie pretty much misses that aspect of the story.
The USA is only 4X older than me...perspective
The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress is an interesting, thoughtful story.
Hollywood doesn't do interesting and thoughtful.
QED
I'd be much more confident if this was being done in England or Scandinavia (cf Real Humans).
...laura
10-20 years ago Libertarians were smiled at and politely dismissed with a shrug. These days Statists on /. and elsewhere assault us with their comments, signatures, and mod-points. And Heinlein — whether or not he was a Libertarian himself — did push many people into Libertarianism.
It certainly is not popular among the lunch-recipients...
He is right up there with Azimov and Clark with numerous Hugo and other awards to his name (including a Hugo for this novel). But unlike those two, he was "violently" anti-Collectivism (perhaps in atonement for his Socialist youth of the 1930-ies). And he hated the Commies and the USSR with passion — which I, an escapee from the evil empire especially appreciate.
In addition to science fiction, where he extolled virtues of the Individual while dissing the Collective, he also published a number of opinion-pieces mocking the things dear to "progressive" Illiberal minds advocating for strong military (against USSR), mocking schools and colleges, and asking tough questions (along with unpleasant answers) about race-relationships.
Could this be coloring your perspective, AC? Just a little?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Check this stunning version from avant garde guitarist Bill Frisell, jazz pianist Fred Hersch and Renee Fleming (yes, the opera singer).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You are welcome on my lawn.
I've yet to see a good Hollywood adaptation of a Heinlein novel, and certainly not one in which Heinlein's voice comes through. I think part of the problem is that Heinlein's worldview was so much at odds with the mindset of the entertainment industry. Someone else mentioned Predestination as an OK adaptation of a Heinlein story, but it's a perfect example of Hollywood just not getting it. A fundamental premise of "All You Zombies" was the consistency criterion -- there is no changing the past, only fulfilling it, because whatever effect your actions in the past are going to have, have already occurred. Yet the first thing Predestination does is make the Temporal Corps into a "make it didn't happen" strike force. And as for Starship Troopers... they completely turned that one on its head.
The book glosses over how computers and robots takeover society and how (relatively) bloodless it would be.
However it is still a coup d'tat "For our own good". The computer in the movie follows the same zeroth law reasoning but with less subtlety.
Please, don't hate.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The fascism was largely a creation of the movie's director, Verhoeven. He had his own agenda that he thought the movie would be a good vehicle for. He even admits not reading the book.
As you point out the book is quite different. I would like to emphasize that the book is quite clear that federal service is not necessarily military service. That the federal service required hardship and a risk of severe bodily injury or death, for example construction in harsh environments (asteroids, space, etc). In fascism the military and combat is held above all else, mere laborers even doing hazardous construction would never be considered to have equivalent service.
Heinlein also used the basic income model in many of his stories. Its not all libertarian, its a balance between a social safety net and libertarian capitalism.
Not all libertarians are against a safety net and basic services like police, fire/rescue and the military. Its more about keeping gov't to an absolute minimum. To match, limit and scale gov't to a clear definable needs, not to have gov't engage in "well meaning" wants.
The accusation of fascism wasn't just Verhoeven, though - many others have made the same complaint (again, I think it's unfair, but it is a widespread view). Heinlein was clearly bothered enough by some of the reactions to his book that he wrote an entire essay defending himself and clarifying what he meant (I think it's in the collection Expanded Universe). One of the key points was that fascism tends to involve universal conscription - his "federal service" was absolutely voluntary.
We can predict that:
- The libertarian theme will be inverted by the writers and directors. The actual message will be something entirely different from what Heinlein said, wrote, and believed.
- There will be product placement, somehow. Just, somehow. If Will Smith can pimp shoes in I, Robot, and Captain Kirk can pimp Nokia in a post-nuclear-apocalyptic, post-capitalistic, post-currency society, then somehow they will ruin that aspect as well.
- They already changed the title. There's zero chance it will have much in common.
Hollywood, depicting a real anarchy. What could go wrong? (That's sarcasm.)
Ten to one, the politically correct SJW crowd will make it unrecognizable. About global warming, or something.
A very great many people are stupid. Old news at 11.
Good for Heinlein and Pohl (Gateway-wasnt that going to be on TV?) and Andy Weir (The Martian). Too bad there is nothing on the radar for the more lengthy series like Ringworld or Asimov's Foundation.
[In no particular order] - ever seen a little thing called Gone With the Wind? Lawrence of Arabia? Doctor Zhivago?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
If this works out well they can then do The Cat Who Walks Through Walls! :D
In the book, it the example of uncontrolled force was actually cutting a baby's head off, not a puppy. The summary is otherwise accurate.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Discussion point: Can it be said to be voluntary if it's necessary for a major societal function?
Also, look at the example of Rico's father. At the beginning of the book, he's dismissive, possibly even contemptuous, in a non-malicious way, of Federal Service. He proclaims that voting isn't important anyway, and that people should do 'real work.'
Of course, once Bueno Ares is hit, he changes his tune right quick and signs right up, for military service, thus proving that his original statements were, short-sighted and wrong.
SST the book wasn't, I think, fascist, but it was awfully fetishistic of the military. It was St Crispin's Day/Band of Brothers in Space.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Discussion point: Can it be said to be voluntary if it's necessary for a major societal function?
Given that only half of the voting population actually votes in the US, I'm not so sure that suffrage is considered to be a major societal function.
Even in the book, Rico's old man is a successful businessman, and had never enlisted (at least not until way later in the book after shit got real, as you yourself mention), and basic human rights (outside of voting) were allegedly guaranteed to all regardless.
SST the book wasn't, I think, fascist, but it was awfully fetishistic of the military. It was St Crispin's Day/Band of Brothers in Space.
I disagree, but only a little - the military was mostly a vehicle from which to tell the story, and it portrayed quite vividly many of the morals and weltanschauung (for lack of a better term) that military service imparts on those who enter it. More importantly, it explained it in a way that civilians could put to use in their own daily lives.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
The fact that it is not altruistic, service yields a reward albeit at some risk, does not change its voluntary nature. Neither does its necessity. As long as there are sufficient volunteers this necessary task can accomplished. Now if there were insufficient volunteers then the model they based their society on would fail.
Harsh Mistress indeed.
Good for Heinlein and Pohl (Gateway-wasnt that going to be on TV?) and Andy Weir (The Martian). Too bad there is nothing on the radar for the more lengthy series like Ringworld or Asimov's Foundation.
Be careful what you wish for.
Honestly, though, if anything Nolan's general failing has been in the emotional department, he's actually pretty good with grand, sweeping ideas. And anything to do with the Foundation series is going to work best as something along the lines of an HBO series, certainly at least in terms of budget and length (and we-don't-need-no-stinking-ratings). So although it certainly could go really badly, I think there's a chance that a Foundation series could work out.
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
As a mashup of We Can Remember It For You Wholesale and Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?, it was admittedly somewhat different in tone than Dick's works but still paid attention to his ideas and created an interesting, thoughfully constructed world to explore them through. And on the typical shoestring Canadian budget, to boot (and with an amazing theme, but that's another story). I think you're right that Big Ideas science fiction tends to flail and fail when squished onto the "big" screen, but TV is where you have enough room to breathe that these ideas can actually be explored.
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
"The Longest sunrise of Ena" - one of the top 3 science fiction books (and continuation of "The Mist Season" ) I have read in my teenage years ( over 300 total in span of about 7 years ).
why am I mentioning it here. The author, represented by a neutral, super-being foreign-unverse-intelligence, presented via "God-like fluid, in our universe, in sentence at the end of the book expresses the profound idea:
"The World where the Intellect has understood its destiny is a Holly World."
Now, having this in a movie, immediately will provoke the question. Is OUR world a holly one?
Every one is to answer for him/her self.
Funny this story should come up. I picked this story up at a library book sale a while back and hadn't gotten around to it until recently.
Not a bad story, typical Heinlein. I had read The Cat Who Walks Through Walls and it was better, up until he went off topic with the timeline stuff and the ending, wtf? Maybe I missed something.
So far this book is good. Understandable, logical, and interesting.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Well, I still have the paperback with the reversed artwork, showing Mannie with the WRONG ARM being cybernetic,
Ha!. Just looked at mine since I'm finishing this book (see my post lower down) and my Mannie's arm is the correct one. Left.
However, is it just me or does Mannie look like Bruce Greenwood (Captain Pike of the Enterprise a la J.J. Abrams)?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
TANSTAAFL might not be a popular acronym, but it is a popular saying among libertarian-minded crowds.
Of course, once Buenos Aires is hit [,which kills his beloved wife], he changes his tune right quick and signs right up for military service
227-3517
I'm going to be picky, but that's not fascism. Fascism is the corporate state, i.e. the corporations and the state working hand in glove. In Mussolini's case he took a bit of time picking sides in WWII, and finally picked what he thought was the winning side BECAUSE he thought it was the winning side, not because he agreed with it. His fascism became militarist because of the environment that it developed in, it wasn't a part of his central ideas, merely a tool in making Italy strong. And though he was anti-intellectual, he wasn't racist, he was nationalist. There really *is* a big difference. His central goal was to make Italy strong, and his choice of how to do it was the corporate state. Everything else was derivative from that, if you include mistakes as being derivative.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
It is a popular misrepresentation of fascism to say that it is a partnership between state and corporations.
The actual definition of fascism involves syndicalism. Syndicates not corporations control industry, and more importantly syndicates are controlled by workers. This is somewhat socialist in nature. Additionally the syndicalism has a strong nationalist flavor. It kind of replaces the socialistic class conflict with a national/regional conflict. Fascism is a fusion of elements of the far right and the far left.
Fascist Italy recognized both the owners and the workers as distinct groups however the workers were empowered through syndicates and both the owners and syndicates were expected to cooperate as necessary to serve the needs of the state. The state put restrictions on both the owners and worker syndicates. They considered this model an alternative to both capitalism and marxism.
Militarism was central to Mussolini's beliefs. He viewed Fascist Italy as the heir to the Roman Empire spiritually and wanted to "restore" some of that old glory via military conquest and colonization. And that on an individual level it was the military and combat that helped a "man" to reach his full potential. This predates the rise of the Nazis. Matter of fact Hitler was Mussolini's understudy in the early days, Hitler looking up to him as a role model.
Mussolini was also racist, though a more moderate form than exhibited by the Nazis. He thought the aryan mediterranean "race" and culture superior. However he differed from the Nazis in that he didn't believe in strict biological definitions. He believed a certain amount of assimilation was possible, somewhat consistent with old school Rome where allies and conquered peoples could eventually become full Romans by adopting Roman culture and demonstrating fealty to Rome. That said, he absolutely made claims of white racial "superiority" as part of his justification for Italian colonies in Africa.
Moon is a Harsh Mistress was good. But if they want to do the best quick read by Heinlein why not "Glory Road?"
I'd love to see Lady Vivamus on screen.
Like most I never quite figured out where he was on the Political Scale. Live and Let Live?
But he had a quality of mind that let him see the worth of a totally different type of SF writer like PK Dicks. That is always the sign of good mind.
And the feeling was returned.
Bob Nagel. Not an anonymous coward. LOL. Just looking for some info.
How can something about a space colony where mere survival requires a vast amount of teamwork be libertarian?
You can't just "shrug" like in Rand and expect everyone to work around the misfit and do their job for them.
100% not worth seeing, unfortunately. I hope the producers don't ruin the reputation of a great book in this case.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Hollywood ruins ALL classic SciFi. They seem to follow a secondary script:
1. Don't bother READING the book, miss the whole point, and replace critical plot elements with CG explosions.
2. "make it relevent" by inserting some current political cause
3. insert a "wunder kind" (to attract young viewers)
4. insert a "hunk" (to give the female demo a reason to watch)
5. insert a "babe" (to attract tha male sports-and-beer demo)
6. run short of funds and just give up on the last ten minutes of the film; throw even the most basic laws of physics out the window just to get it over with
7. market it with trailers of the CG explosions and babes so it looks like any other ho-hum CGI "blockbuster"
8. title it so that even fans of the book may not recognize it
Actually, in this case, I worry that the studio execs heard the title (that "harsh mistress" bit) and jumped on it thinking it was related to 50-shades... and if there's ONE thing studios cannot resist it's jumping onto thte current bandwagon for "what's hot" at the box office
He made a devilishly anti-Heinlein propaganda piece - disguised as an anti-propaganda piece
His "troopers" is an entertaining romp, when viewed as a stand-alone bit of popcorn sales material BUT it's a full-on assault on, and insult to, one of the best SciFi writers. Hopefully somebody will someday make a PROPER "Starship Troopers" film and then audiences will see what an insulting mess the P.V. "interpretation" was. If diplomats used interpreters this inaccurate, the world would've ended in fire long ago.
I fully expect that Manuel (Man) Davis to be a hard nosed, chisel-jawed, Lunar cop working closely with his partner, Mycroft Holmes (probably a robot) to defeat a crime syndicate.
Make it a series on Netflix and I'm all on that. We haven't had a decent sci fi comedy on TV since Quark.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
This is probably my favorite book. The political philosophy discussions, the different culture, and the characters. I strongly suggest re-reading it a few times.
I believe they could get close to the book and still keep it interesting for general audiences.
Act I
Introduce main characters and explain political and economic situation including the discovery of "Food Riot Day". Aside from the initial riot, this will be mostly boring unless they fill it with comedy.
Act 2
Plan the Revolution and implement it. There are a few action sequences here and there that could be pieced together to keep things interesting until Revolution Day.
Act 3
Diplomatic relations with Terra and War. Plenty of action here. Lots of CG explosions and such.
The hard part is that they cannot totally ignore the difference in gravity between the Earth (9.8 m/s^2) and the Moon (1.6 m/s^2). It is central to the plot in Act 3. Might have to CG the human battle scenes too or perhaps do some sort of half-bullet time.
libertarianism! rand paul 2016! woohoo!
Militarism wasn't central to Mussolini's beliefs, it was derived...though I admit that the Roman model he used was strongly focused on militarism. The essentials was the binding together of the various interests of the state, as symbolized by the Roman fasces. Militarism was one tool to achieve this, and to allow that combined force to project its power. (Symbolized by the axe within the rods that were bound together.)
That part about syndicates sounds right though. I've got to admit that I don't understand the difference between syndicates and trade unions...unless they are intended to be company specific unions, which have a *very* bad history, and did even then, so I can't believe that he was pushing THAT.
About Mussolini's "moderate racism"... Just about everyone was racist to that extent at that time (with some major exceptions). Read some of the stuff that was being pushed on the public in the US. Hell, read Heinlein's "Fifth Column" or John W. Campbell's "Mightiest Machine". Or look into the history of IQ tests. And at that time there wasn't much hard evidence that race actually was unimportant. (There is now...but it's not totally solid, just essentially solid.)
OTOH, I guess I, also, tend to oversimplify Fascism, and think of it as the corporate state. I doubt that it would have been any better than the corporate state, but it sounds more like a traditional monarchy...without the "divine right of kings", or at least with that strongly backgrounded. Mussolini was a charismatic leader, but it's not clear what the follow on would have been, had that happened. (I wonder what Mao Tse Tung would think of modern China.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
-shame if something happened to it...
Laughed the whole time. Best satire of American Jingoism and Hollywood ridiculousness in years and years. I love that movie.
Considering the crazy sexual content of his work, the only way to do it right would be to have HBO do a mini-series with it...