Slashdot Mirror
'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.
All I know is, I'm praying "...please don't fuck it up as bad as you did Starship Troopers..."
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
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!
Starting off by fucking with the title tells me they have no interest in actually bringing the book to the screen, which is a real pisser, because it's one of my favorite books and it would make a great movie.
There is one way of looking at the movie in relation to the book that actually sort of makes sense. For all of the criticism leveled at Heinlein for being too militaristic or even "fascistic", the society he describes is basically a multicultural libertarian utopia: people of all nationalities seem to be relatively happy and well-off, the government is relatively minimal, and the federal service is open to absolutely anyone (even cripples). And that's precisely the problem - utopian ideals rarely turn out well in practice. Actually, the even more specific problem is that Heinlein assumes the society would basically be run by people like him. Verhoeven's version, although it badly misrepresents what the book actually says, is probably a more realistic vision of how such a society would turn out.
That said, I'd still love to see an adaptation that plays it straight. Or at least gets the mobile infantry right, complete with orbital drops and mechanized armor.
Starship troopers is a fantastic movie.
You just have to acknowledge that it's a parody piece that (rightly) shits all over the source material for the war worshiping jingoistic crap that it is. :)
Did we read the same book? I took out of it that war is horrible, leaving the lucky ones dead and the unlucky ones in broken bodies and scarred souls, but still a necessary evil to allow the people back home to live peaceful, happy lives. It also implies that drafts are bad and the only soldiers should be volunteers who willingly measure the rewards vs the risk of dying/getting injured, realizing that their sacrifice benefits the whole. Remember that the general feeling of the cap troopers was that they would be happy if the war was over tomorrow and no one was ever forced into a capsule if they did not want to go, and they weren't even punished for doing so besides getting discharged.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Robert Heinlein graduated 20th in a class of 243 Annapolis cadets and spent five years stationed on the Pacific Ocean until forced to retire in 1939 because of tuberculosis, so calling Robert Heinlein a frustrated Naval Officer wannabe is a bit contemptuous of a person who was in the process of making a success along one career path, was forced to discontinue, and made an even greater success along a totally different career path.
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.
Don't forget that was one of the real arguments for the revolution.
Trade with Earth was bleeding them of water and would eventually lead to the colony's collapse.
They could probably have been self-sufficient if they hadn't been forced to send grain to Earth. But being a bunch of transportees and convicts, they didn't get a say in the matter.
Good luck explaining the finer points of a closed-cycle ecology, economics and politics in a 2-hour movie.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Heinlein's thoughts were so far above the cookie cutter "isms" as to be on a different plane altogether.