'Stranger In a Strange Land' Coming To TV (ew.com)

HughPickens.com writes: EW reports that Paramount TV and Universal Cable Productions are teaming up to develop Robert A. Heinlein's classic 'Stranger in a Strange Land' into a TV series on Syfy. The 1961 sci-fi book, set in the aftermath of a third world war, centers on Valentine Michael Smith, a human born on Mars and raised by Martians, who, as a young adult, has returned to Earth. The true driving forces of the novel are religion and sex, which Heinlein's publisher at the time wanted him to cut out. But as the author noted to his literary agent, if religion and sex were removed from the text, what remained would be the equivalent of a "nonalcoholic martini." "From my point of view, Stranger in a Strange Land isn't just a science fiction masterpiece [...] it also happens to be one of my favorite books ever!" says NBCUniversal Cable Entertainment Chairman Bonnie Hammer. "The story is timeless and resonates more than ever in today's world. As a fan, I can't wait to see it come to life as a world-class television event." A previous attempt at adapting Heinlein's novel came in 1995, when Batman Returns' Dan Waters penned a script designed for Tom Hanks and Sean Connery.

Comments

All Grown Up

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, when one grows up, one realises that it's an entertaining, but fairly trivial work.

Re:All Grown Up

[Anonymous Coward]

As is most sci-fi. Sadly, many nerds grow up into Space Nutters because they think entertaining pulp sci-fi written by hacks in the 1960s is somehow the Guide To Humanity's Future...

Re: All Grown Up

[Anonymous Coward]

This time the fiture is all china-nlggerish, and faggy-butt-fuckerish.
Libs and dems strike back.

Re:All Grown Up

[110010001000]

I'm not sure why this is modded down, but it is 100% correct. Most Space Nutters get their "knowledge" from scifi, not reality. The reality is that engineering is tough, very tough. I am not talking about programming either. Anyone who has engineered anything even moderately complex knows we are not going to be living on Mars.

Re:All Grown Up

[Geoffrey.landis]

Stranger in a Strange Land was, perhaps, groundbreaking for 1961 when it was written, but I'd say the "religion and sex" are quaint and tame fifty years later. What little sex there is, that is-- back in 1961, even hinting people were actually enjoying sex was apparently racy.

I suspect that it's the movie The Space Between Us that allowed this to get the green light for production-- Hollywood loves to latch on to an idea, once somebody else has broken the way.

Re:All Grown Up

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny because at one time the same thing was said about flying. The engineering was too tough and there is no way humans would ever fly.

We'll get to, colonize, and live on Mars someday. Not in yours or my lifetime, maybe not even 100 years from now, but eventually.

Re:All Grown Up

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny because we solved flying with late 19th century technology while working in a bicycle repair shack by two people with no engineering background, and it was done in a few years.

How long have you Space Nutters been drawing up your plans for living in space? Just the *plans*. You haven't even put a single bolt in orbit for any of your delusional twaddle.

"We'll get to, colonize, and live on Mars someday."

No, we, won't.

" Not in yours or my lifetime, maybe not even 100 years from now, but eventually."

AKA religion.

Re:All Grown Up

[thomn8r]

That's funny because at one time the same thing was said about flying. The engineering was too tough and there is no way humans would ever fly.

That's a bogus comparison; there were already things flying, we just needed to figure out how to emulate them. There no things living on Mars that we can emulate.

Re: All Grown Up

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't feed it. He keeps bringing up the Space Nutter topic even on threads that have nothing to do with it, then replies to his own rants patting himself on the back. He only waits for someone to actually reply to go on a tangent and jerk off in his own feces. Any moment now he'll pull an Elliot Rodger and go on a spree. I'm only worried about the stray shots, really: actually planning and executing (or even aiming) is beyond his abilities. He got himself thrown out of the high school computer club, for Christ's sake! How can you get any lower than that? Rejected by nerds?

Re: All Grown Up

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you showed me! Clearly, this means that humanity will be living on Mars within weeks.

Re:All Grown Up

[Ol Olsoc]

I'm not sure why this is modded down, but it is 100% correct. Most Space Nutters get their "knowledge" from scifi, not reality. The reality is that engineering is tough, very tough. I am not talking about programming either. Anyone who has engineered anything even moderately complex knows we are not going to be living on Mars.

There is no breakthrough technology needed to put a colony of humans on Mars. And I've been heavily involved in a lot of engineering. The questions are method, cost, and will to do it, not inventing new things.

This might be thought of as submarine level technology, not so much on the details, but on the concept of keeping humans alive and healthy in a hostile environment. In fact much of putting people long term on a planet like Mars is in many respects easier.

Questions of "should we?" are valid, and always worth discussing. Questions of "could we" have already been answered. We can.

Re:All Grown Up

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you're not much of an engineer.

Re:All Grown Up

[VAXcat]

Your statement is especially ironic, since many of the scientists and engineers of the space program of the 60s, that put men on the moon, were inspired by the science fiction of the 30s, 40s and 50s that they read as young people.

Re:All Grown Up

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny because we solved flying with late 19th century technology while working in a bicycle repair shack by two people with no engineering background, and it was done in a few years.

The technology and engineering used in the late 19th century would have seemed incredible to those who were just starting with manned heavier than air flight in the late 1600's early 1700s.

Give it 200 years and the people trying to solve the challenges of space flight of today will be the Burattini's to the Sir George Cayleys and then Wright Brothers in the future. Manned heavier than air flight wasn't something that just went *click* oh hey now we do this once the 1800s hit, people had to struggle through the challenges and build further theory and methodology from the mistakes and failures of those before them.

Re:All Grown Up

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm with you and the parent 1e50% and watching you both go down in flames proves your point.

Re:All Grown Up

[Ol Olsoc]

Then you're not much of an engineer.

You've decided to stop making sense? What technology needs to happen that does not exist already?

This isn't even a concept that we shouldn't incorporate new technology as it happens, merely that the whole thing could be accomplished today, without any new inventions.

Imagine the work that had to happen to create say, the F1 engine. This was applied science, but a lot of new things had to happen to pump out that much power from a single engine. And we've built on that since then.

So we can get into orbit and leave Earth's gravity well. We can build structures in space that can maintain human life indefinitely. We can move those structures. We can get to Mars, We can land things on Mars. Questions remain about growing food, but no deal breakers are seen so far. All with present day technology.

And as new technology is learned/developed, it can only get easier.

Re:All Grown Up

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahem...There are no things living on Mars THAT WE KNOW ABOUT....

Re:All Grown Up

[Anonymous Coward]

" What technology needs to happen that does not exist already? "

Since we have not sent even a rat to Mars, the answer to your asinine question is: EVERYTHING. Until you've BUILT and DONE it, all you have is WISHFUL THINKING.

Re:All Grown Up

[Rick Schumann]

You're forgetting a few Ultimate Truths that you, as an engineer, should know:

• It always costs more and takes longer
• Murphy's Law, in general

Can we get them there? Sure. Will they survive the trip? Maybe. Will they survive long living on Mars? Coin-flip, at best. By the time we got anyone there and established, there'll be a thousand little problems that nobody thought of, or thought wouldn't be as serious as they turn out to be, any one of which will kill everyone. Anyone volunteering to be in the first wave of 'colonists' to Mars should consider it to be not only a one-way trip, but a suicide mission.

Re:All Grown Up

[Tom]

The problem is not only technological. The problem is psychological and problem management.

Psychological, being in a submarine is a thing in itself. So much that even the russian navy put only volunteers into subs. Now imagine living in an enclosed space not for a few months, but for the rest of your life.

Problem management is going to be a biggie. Basically, no matter what goes wrong, you are on your own. Even in the most remote places on earth, if things go really, really bad, you can radio for help and if you can hold out for a few days, you will be ok. Not to mention that even the most hostile places on earth are several orders of magnitude more friendly to human life than Mars.

Re:All Grown Up

[Anonymous Coward]

The science fiction of the 30s was inspired by the scientists of the 20s DOING THINGS. You monkeys ALWAYS get your cause and effect 180 degrees out of phase.
Your religion comes from Russian Cosmism. That's another thing common with you guys, a complete lack of understanding of history, and social and psychological forces. You mastered a few equations at school, built a few simple systems and now you think Star Trek is simple because someone built a plane a hundred years ago.
And you overlook the hundreds of thousands of failed ideas that ran aground against the shores of reality.

Re:All Grown Up

[Insanity Defense]

I'm not sure why this is modded down, but it is 100% correct. Most Space Nutters get their "knowledge" from scifi, not reality. The reality is that engineering is tough, very tough. I am not talking about programming either. Anyone who has engineered anything even moderately complex knows we are not going to be living on Mars.

Actually it is modded down for being bullshit. Adult SciFi fans tend to be the type to learn the science out of curiosity and to be annoyed when the shows get it wrong. Many scientists and engineers are what they are because of Sci Fi inspiring them.

Read Armageddon 2419 (the original Buck Rogers novel), it predicts telecommuting, 3D TV, teleoperated machinery and rocket guns (bazookas) just for a few things. It was published in 1928. Sure it got other things wrong like anti gravity metals and disintegration rays. But it INSPIRED a whole generation of scientists and engineers.

You naysayers are the modern day William Proxmire voting down everything you don't understand. Guess you will LOVE having Trump as your President.

Re:All Grown Up

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny because at one time the same thing was said about flying. The engineering was too tough and there is no way humans would ever fly.

That's a bogus comparison; there were already things flying, we just needed to figure out how to emulate them. There no things living on Mars that we can emulate.

We don't need to emulate anything on Mars. We already know how to live, on Earth. All we need is the engineering to bring what we need from Earth to Mars and sustain it.

And we will get there.

Re:All Grown Up

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny because at one time the same thing was said about flying. The engineering was too tough and there is no way humans would ever fly.

That's a bogus comparison; there were already things flying, we just needed to figure out how to emulate them. There no things living on Mars that we can emulate.

Ok, you think the flying one is bogus...fine. How about no one ever thought we'd go to space or to the moon? It was pure science fiction and the engineering was too tough. No way humans could survive in space. No way we could get people to the moon AND get them back. There was no blue print to follow.....no "things" to emulate.

Re:All Grown Up

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's just hope they don't do to it what Verhoeven did to Starship Troopers.
As for "religion and sex", you're right the sex is downright quaint compared to modern levels of behavior, and it has nothing to do with religion. You might be able to stretch it's definition of "religion" to include any ill defined reference to things not covered by secular science, but that's a very soft and fuzzy definition of religion.

Re:All Grown Up

[Anonymous Coward]

The technology that allows humans to survive in radiation fields that exist outside the Van Allen belts for more than a few days does not exist. The fact is that the combination of adequate shielding and power to boost ratio for moving that amount of mass is beyond what we can now accomplish with existing technology. Putting a structure in low earth orbit, where it is protected from the balance of solar radiation and moving that same structure outside the protective fields provided by the Earth's magnetic fields is not trivial. Nor do we know how to do the technology yet that will allow us to do so. A two week trip to the moon gave Apollo 14 astronauts 1.4 rem in 2 weeks. Exposure getting to Mars would be 15 times the allowed exposure, provided there were no unforeseen radiation events, such as a solar flare. On the planet itself perhaps we could build underground to prevent excess exposure, but that would still mean severely limiting time on the surface, perhaps so much so that little actual work could get done.
So no we don't have all of the know how we need to do Mars yet.

Re:All Grown Up

[ceoyoyo]

There are no things that ride around on wheels either.

Re:All Grown Up

[clovis]

" What technology needs to happen that does not exist already? "

Since we have not sent even a rat to Mars, the answer to your asinine question is: EVERYTHING. Until you've BUILT and DONE it, all you have is WISHFUL THINKING.

How is that an asinine question?

Make a list of the technology needed to send and land humans on the moon.
Make a list of the technology needed to send and land the Curiosity rover to Mars.
Make a list of the technology needed to support humans in the ISS for the last 18 years.

You've just made a list of almost all of the technology needed to send humans to Mars.

So the next question is exactly, " What technology needs to happen that does not exist already? "
I think that the radiation problem, that is, how to lift how much shielding is going to be a big one.

Re:All Grown Up

[Plumpaquatsch]

That's funny because at one time the same thing was said about flying. The engineering was too tough and there is no way humans would ever fly.

That's a bogus comparison; there were already things flying, we just needed to figure out how to emulate them.

No, what you just claimed was a bogus comparison, because flapping your wings didn't work.

Re:All Grown Up

[Anonymous Coward]

How long have you Space Nutters been drawing up your plans for living in space? Just the *plans*. You haven't even put a single bolt in orbit for any of your delusional twaddle.

We've been putting things in space since 1957. Everything is a step and every step has been taking us towards the goal of leaving Earth and colonizing elsewhere.

"We'll get to, colonize, and live on Mars someday."

No, we, won't.

" Not in yours or my lifetime, maybe not even 100 years from now, but eventually."

AKA religion.

I don't think you know what religion actually is.

Re:All Grown Up

[capebretonsux]

Pffft, engineers!

I've seen the damn movie - all you need is Matt Damon and some fucking potatoes, Iron Man up already!

Re:All Grown Up

[Anonymous Coward]

" How about no one ever thought we'd go to space or to the moon? I"

For all practical purposes, it was a stunt. Compare the number of people who fly in airplanes every day with the number of human in recorded history who went into space. That gives you an idea of how the two are not at all comparable. At all.

" There was no blue print to follow.....no "things" to emulate."

Strange, I keep reading how it was exactly the same as the European "exploration" (read: invasion) voyages. That being said, there was nothing to emulate, and there is certainly also no reason to repeat it either. Face it: space is a dead end.

Re:All Grown Up

[rogoshen1]

Though, the only reason he was able to pull it off is because everyone else got killed.

Re: All Grown Up

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but the space nutter troll is certain to snap soon. One just hopes he shoots himself in the foot right away so nobody else will get hurt. Rejected by the nerds! Can you imagine that? I thought computer nerds were the lowest lifeform ever, and I brown-swirlied quite a lot of them, but finding out one can go lower than that... Wow. Just wow.

Re:All Grown Up

[Ol Olsoc]

" What technology needs to happen that does not exist already? "

Since we have not sent even a rat to Mars, the answer to your asinine question is: EVERYTHING. Until you've BUILT and DONE it, all you have is WISHFUL THINKING.

I can easily build a lot of things in my garage, I have a mill, lathe, and the materials needed. If I decide to build a steam engine - already existing technology, I can do that, and it will work. No wishing needed, just doing.

Make certain to type your reply to me in all caps. That shows that you know what you are talking about, and really turns the ladies on.

Re:All Grown Up

[Ol Olsoc]

I think that the radiation problem, that is, how to lift how much shielding is going to be a big one.

Radiation will be a big problem, especially if there is a solar storm during transit. Mass helps, but not as much as most of us think. Water would be helpful, since we obviously need a good bit, but then there is a plastic named RXF1. It shows a lot of promise. This is a link from 2005. https://science.nasa.gov/scien...

It has 3X the tensile strength of Aluminum, yet around a third of the weight. Bring polyethylene based, it is good protection against radiation - I don't know if NASA's product is borated or not, but the nuc industry is already using borated polyethylene. http://www.radiationproducts.c....

Regardless, most people like AC think that you need something like lead as shielding. Problem is, lead makes for a lot of secondary radiation when it is hit, so it isn't as good as people think.

It's amusing, but a bigger concern is making the poly based shielding fireproof. And a bonus is it is a ballistic shield - always a really good thing in space.

So while people like AC are busy calling this stuff a pipe dream or fantasy, We have a lot of stuff happening. Things like Orion and the Ares Rocket are parts that are pretty well known. the BEAM expandable modules are another. Wonder what that's made of, eh? https://www.nasa.gov/sites/def...

Looking at the mass of the thing, it's almost ridiculously doable. Don't even need a big expensive Ares rocket to boost it to orbit.

Shit got real everyone, not a bit of wishful thinking needed. We got the tools, and we have the talent.

Re:All Grown Up

[Anonymous Coward]

No, everyone else left.

Re:All Grown Up

[Anonymous Coward]

The technology that allows humans to survive in radiation fields that exist outside the Van Allen belts for more than a few days does not exist.

Posting as anon to keep mods. This statement is untrue, we've got a very good idea of how to shield humans from said radiation. Creating an electromagnetic bubble around them will do the trick, and we know how to create those too. The only real issue whether other more practical methods exist.

Re:All Grown Up

[Ol Olsoc]

You're forgetting a few Ultimate Truths that you, as an engineer, should know:

• It always costs more and takes longer
• Murphy's Law, in general

Can we get them there? Sure. Will they survive the trip? Maybe. Will they survive long living on Mars? Coin-flip, at best. By the time we got anyone there and established, there'll be a thousand little problems that nobody thought of, or thought wouldn't be as serious as they turn out to be, any one of which will kill everyone. Anyone volunteering to be in the first wave of 'colonists' to Mars should consider it to be not only a one-way trip, but a suicide mission.

Sounds like a good idea to do nothing at all ever, just gather berrys and scavenge the occasional dead animal.

Re:All Grown Up

[Ol Olsoc]

Problem management is going to be a biggie. Basically, no matter what goes wrong, you are on your own. Even in the most remote places on earth, if things go really, really bad, you can radio for help and if you can hold out for a few days, you will be ok. Not to mention that even the most hostile places on earth are several orders of magnitude more friendly to human life than Mars.

Its a little strange and sad that for all of the advances we have made, that one of the results is people with free-floating fear. So many are one thought away from being afraid to live more than a block away from a Hospital - just in case.

Not all people are like that though. Some people have a sense of adventure and wanderlust. Whereas once upon a time, we might hop a sailing vessel, or take wagons to new places. Some just want to live a life consisting of as little risk as they can expose themselves to.

Myself? I'd hop on a rocket to Mars one way for the adventure as well as the research. Robots are cool and all, and serve a good purpose, but I can tell you that for every interesting fact they turn up, a scientist is frustrated as hell because there are ten new questions that the robot can't test for. Simple questions.

If I were to die out there, well so what? Is the rest of humanity's fate going to be any different? If you iive ten years longer than me and spend it watching reality shows, has your life been more worthwhile than mine?

If I had the choice of meeting my death on a cold windswept world, I'd choose to die that way than live 25 more years as rather demented, hooked up to tubes or in a nursing home, drugged to keep me handleable, steadily draining away my entire estate like the older members of my family.

By the way - you know when they died? When their estate was emptied. Have fun! And be safe. Always be safe.

Re:All Grown Up

[Ol Olsoc]

The technology that allows humans to survive in radiation fields that exist outside the Van Allen belts for more than a few days does not exist.

And we hear more from the post truth faction. Read my other posts with the links, and thn give a reasoned response, not just completely unattributed made up bullshit.

Re:All Grown Up

[Tom]

Its a little strange and sad that for all of the advances we have made, that one of the results is people with free-floating fear. So many are one thought away from being afraid to live more than a block away from a Hospital - just in case.

Never heard of such people, and I think you are making a classic argument here that 0.01 should be rounded to 1.0

Understanding that you are 6-12 months away from any help, and without a guarantee that it will come at all is not a fear, it's a fact. Understanding that there is nothing you can do by yourself, contrary to earth where you can always at least try (to live off the land, to build a raft, to treck to the nearest village, etc.) is another fact.

Making your base so that it can handle even unexpected emergencies under these circumstances is not a small challenge, mostly due to the consequences inherent in the word "unexpected". In such a mission, you have to plan for black swans, and that's not a very easy thing to do.

The problem isn't that in the end you'll die on Mars. The problem is avoiding to die in the beginning, before you've had a chance for any of the fun stuff.

Re:All Grown Up

[Ol Olsoc]

Never heard of such people, and I think you are making a classic argument here that 0.01 should be rounded to 1.0

Surely you jest? Your continuing argument is proof of my point. Safety culture is ascendant now, and almost everyone I know is more concerned about staying safe than doing anything the least risky. The interestinf part is that safety is now so inculcated that it is interfering with normal activities.

I catch shit all the time from friends and my wife catches shit from her friends because she "allows" me to engage in risky behavior.

My crimes? Hiking alone. 4 wheeling in the woods. Riding a motorcycle.

The question is whether this would be considered a sample size of one, or maybe a hundred - I never took an actual count of those who think I'm crazy.

Understanding that you are 6-12 months away from any help, and without a guarantee that it will come at all is not a fear, it's a fact.

It's a fact that you and a lot of others fear.

Its also a little silly to think that people are going to be sent off with no medical provisions at all. No, there won't be facilities to do heart transplants, but treatments will be available.

Making your base so that it can handle even unexpected emergencies under these circumstances is not a small challenge, mostly due to the consequences inherent in the word "unexpected". In such a mission, you have to plan for black swans, and that's not a very easy thing to do.

And yet, humans crossed oceans on wooden sailing ships or trekked to the polar regions. And even live in some really remote places even now, some of which are just about as inhospitable as Mars. Places where if you are outside overnight, you gonna die. And black swan events are pretty much unpredictable by definition. I'm going to take a guess that you have some sort of concept of going to Mars as an old Mickey Rooney movie where he suddenly blurts out "Hey gang - let's make a musical!", and everyone just puts on the musical. All of this other Mars exploration has been stepping stones toward putting people on Mars and doing it as safely as possible.

The problem isn't that in the end you'll die on Mars. The problem is avoiding to die in the beginning, before you've had a chance for any of the fun stuff.

Don't transfer your fear onto me. I'm gonna die sometime anyhow. There will be cool stuff going on after I'm dead. My outlook on life and exploration is fundamentally beyond your understanding. Your's is not beyond mine however, as I deal with the fearful every day. And safety culture is working on making that all of us.

So relax, no one that I know of is going to kidnap you and put you on a slave ship to Mars. You can stay safe as you like. This is all just humans doing what some of us feel compelled to do. Explore, go places, do stuff. It isn't safe at the bottom of the ocean, or on the moon, or Mars. Or orbiting space stations, Or near volcanoes, or collecting fossils while perched on the side of a cliff.

Bu then - you don't have to do any of that stuff. Now have a safe day.

Re:All Grown Up

[Rick Schumann]

...no, that's not at all what I'm getting at. I'm pointing out that the 'blue sky/rose-colored glasses/what-could-POSSIBLY-go-wrong' crowd is, as usual, ignoring the Murphy factor in an endeavor like this. We're going to go to Mars, sooner or later, but it's going to be messy, and perhaps catastrophic. Luckily for whoever is going, bigger brains than anyone on /. are thinking through What Can Go Wrong, and are making the best contingency plans they can.

Re:All Grown Up

[MercTech]

Is this any more of a hard thing to understand when there are still vocal idiots that think the writings of nutter Karl Marx have any workable solutions in reality?

Re:All Grown Up

[MercTech]

If you actually look at a lot of science fiction; you find a story that includes a problem and a potential solution. I'm talking about what is today "hard" science fiction as opposed to fantasy and simple space opera (sorry fans, Star Wars and Star Trek are space opera - the stories could be wild west or foreign country stories just as well).

      Being an old fart, 50+, I've seen enough science fiction become accepted reality not to blow raspberries and wild hair dreams. If you have a cellphone in your pocket; you have a 1960s pipe dream science fiction item that would never actually become reality.

Re:All Grown Up

[rogoshen1]

you must not have seen the director's cut.

Re:All Grown Up

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Jules Verne, "From the Earth to the Moon", and of course many others. Verne was far, far ahead of any engineers and scientists. So far ahead that it is implausible he was inspired by any specific engineering achievement or scientific breakthrough.

Inspiration is of course a bit difficult to pin down entirely. The true course of human affairs is to leapfrog continually, and concepts and building things are definitely part of the leapfrogging process. Anyone with a high degree of imagination can cobble together a new idea out of the most improbable set of experiences, facts and desires. Yet to build something, one must first conceive of it.

And the ideal example of science fiction preceding science fact is Jules Verne.

Re:All Grown Up

[Ol Olsoc]

...no, that's not at all what I'm getting at. I'm pointing out that the 'blue sky/rose-colored glasses/what-could-POSSIBLY-go-wrong' crowd is, as usual, ignoring the Murphy factor in an endeavor like this.

Don't confuse enthusiasm with the idea that there won't be problems. I don't even know anyone here who posits that idea.

I'm a little confused here, as I get the impression that you are trying to say that I'm one of those people. When in fact, the Yes men in the teams I've worked on - especially early in my career - have always thought I was a pessimist about everything until I saved their sorry asses, and worked harder than most to make sure the projects work. Later on, the Boss just told everyone new to shut the hell up and listen to me. As well as his favorite phrase "Dont try to Bullshit a Bullshitter."

In no way does that curb my enthusiasm for going to Mars. And after Mars, maybe some place else. Problems hell - I love problems. Opportunities to make things better. I suppose that sounds like one of those dumbass motivational posters.

Luckily for whoever is going, bigger brains than anyone on /. are thinking through What Can Go Wrong, and are making the best contingency plans they can.

Who knows - maybe some people working on these things are even on Slashdot.

Re:All Grown Up

[Tom]

Safety culture is ascendant now,

I'm not american. Your "crazy crimes" don't even raise an eyebrow over here.

Its also a little silly to think that people are going to be sent off with no medical provisions at all. No, there won't be facilities to do heart transplants, but treatments will be available.

Of course. I'm not talking about standard issues. I talked about problem management. If you have a standard procedure to handle it, it's not a problem.

Don't transfer your fear onto me.

Not talking about you specifically. I said that psychology and problem management will be major challenges. I didn't say they're a reason to not go to Mars or that it will be impossible or bla bla bla. I said that these are major challenges, beyond the purely technological.

Re:All Grown Up

[Keith Henson]

Your point about the engineering being tough is correct. I have been looking into maintaining a few hundred people in a 6 hour orbit. It takes about 6 meters of polyethylene to get the galactic cosmic ray does down to where people could live there long term.

Why people? They are there to deal with the unknown unknowns, i.e., unjamming the automation and fixing the machines that build power satellites. If some government or group of governments decides that we have to get off fossil fuels, that one of a very few options that scaled large enough to replace fossil fuels. Takes about 3000 5 GW power satellites to equal current fossil fuel production.

There are a couple of videos linked off www.htyp.org/DTC If you want to take part, there is a google group you can join, power satellite economics.

First or second part?

[OpenSourced]

Stranger in a Strange Land is really like two novels. The first part is good, classical Heinlein. The second part is some kind of rambling political pamphlet that always manages to bore me. I read somewhere that they were written with several years difference, and it shows.

I hope they base it in the first part, really. Well, probably, if it's a typical TV product, they will take the basic idea and massacre all else, so why do I care?

Re:First or second part?

[rmdingler]

I'll just leave this here:

“Thinking doesn't pay. Just makes you discontented with what you see around you.”

Re:First or second part?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like the Jack Vance's "Demon Princes" series: over a decade passed between him writing books 3 and 4 and it shows that he didn't have as much enthusiasm for finishing what he had started by then. Book 4 was still rather good but book 5 was a boring disappointment compared to the previous 4, especially the first 3.

Re:First or second part?

[jandrese]

Somehow I don't think the telekinetic sex cult chapters are going to translate well to TV. I also thought it was amusing that the writeup called the novel timeless when my thought while reading it was that it was a product of its era, the 1960s. At least for the second half of the book. The first half should be no trouble to translate to TV, but I really do wonder where they are going to end it.

Re:First or second part?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stranger in a Strange Land is really like two novels. The first part is good, classical Heinlein. The second part is some kind of rambling political pamphlet that always manages to bore me.

Reading the plot summary, it sounds a bit like something Ayn Rand might have written. I.e totally nuts.

Re:First or second part?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, probably, if it's a typical TV product, they will take the basic idea and massacre all else

They could combine it with Norman Lear and make "All in the Family" in space... Dummy up you dumb martian you. Would earth's gravity make Sally Struthers look fat?

Re:First or second part?

[mu22le]

Stranger in a Strange Land is really like two novels. The first part is good, classical Heinlein. The second part is some kind of rambling political pamphlet that always manages to bore me. I read somewhere that they were written with several years difference, and it shows.

I hope they base it in the first part, really. Well, probably, if it's a typical TV product, they will take the basic idea and massacre all else, so why do I care?

"Rambling political pamphlet" pretty much describes most of the Heinlein production :)

I think you consider the first part of Stranger in a Strange Land as "good Heinlein" just because you happen to be familiar with the ideas presented.

Re:First or second part?

[ZecretZquirrel]

I completely agree. The religious stuff got so bizarre and obsessed towards the end that I simply could not force myself to finish it. It's like the author had a minor stroke while writing it.

Re:First or second part?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, that sums up Heinlein. I don't get the love and appreciation he garners, except maybe that the people who heap praise on Heinlein simply don't have the capacity for more. Or they're emotionally stunted children, but we *are* talking about Space Nutters.

Re:First or second part?

[Anonymous Coward]

It came out in 1961, before the Sixties counterculture got started.

Re: First or second part?

[Anonymous Coward]

Back when America was great.

Re: First or second part?

[Anonymous Coward]

Back when America was great.

We'll soon make America grate again.

Re:First or second part?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just figured the sex and religious rebellion were there just to keep young people's attention long enough to push all his political ideas on them.

Re:First or second part?

[Z00L00K]

Depends on how daring the makers are.

I fear no evil.

Re:First or second part?

[Z00L00K]

OK, what would you like to present as a good production then?

Re:First or second part?

[Anonymous Coward]

One of my least favorite Heinlein novels. It just seems like he got horny and stoned at the half way point took a hard left turn.

I really enjoy Heinlein in general but his books that revolve around sex (with groups, grandparents, psychics, androids, etc...) tend to bore me. I think The Moon is a Harsh Mistress drew a great line where he got some interesting ideas on future relationships without beating you over the head with it.

Re:First or second part?

[painandgreed]

I completely agree. The religious stuff got so bizarre and obsessed towards the end that I simply could not force myself to finish it. It's like the author had a minor stroke while writing it.

It's been a long time since I've read it but it seemed a pretty standard story: guy comes to Earth with a message that people should love one another and the people kill him for it.

Re:First or second part?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny you should say that...or were you trying to be funny? It is well known that Heinlein suffered from a mentally debilitating illness which caused his ability to think to degrade. At one point his wife stated he could not write at all, being unable to master forms he himself had invented.
Certainly in a sense many of Heinlein's later novels reflected his own rather liberal sexual inclinations. However in a political sense Heinlein was a very strong libertarian, at least he was later in life. This is probably the basis for his strong views on individualism combined with liberal views on sex, and government controls on morality (that is against them.)

Re:First or second part?

[jandrese]

I feel that works like this were trendsetting. This was one of the causes of the counterculture movement, not an effect.

But seriously, there is a blatant free love narrative running through the second half of the book.

Re:First or second part?

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially Friday.

Re:First or second part?

[alexo]

Quite a number of Heinlein's novels are like that.

Re:First or second part?

[MercTech]

Ahem..... google "beat generation" to get information on the counter culture before "hippy" was a word.
Jack Kerouac was the patron saint of the beat generation and a huge influence on 60s counterculture. The counterculture was well in place before 1961 but it didn't get prime time airplay until it became part of the resistance to the Vietnam War.

Re:First or second part?

[MercTech]

Robert Heinlein was one of the first authors to ever discus alternative lifestyles without them having to ship in a plain brown wrapper. If you read his larger body of work he addresses polyamory, line marriage, group marriage, and some other variants of how to arrange a household. The bottom line I got out of the variants was that as long as the arrangement creates a safe place for progeny to grow and thrive; it would be a positive system.

    Heinlein even managed to do a take on transgender life without actually calling it that with "I Will Fear No Evil". Robert Heinlein managed to discuss topics in the 50s and 60s that were never ever not at all discussed in general society until at least the 1980s.

Return from the Stars

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather see Return from the Stars on TV. More pron.

Re:Return from the Stars

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that the sequel to Dancing with the Stars?

Re:Return from the Stars

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Why not The Invincible as a summer flick? ;)

I hope they don't ruin it!

[muons]

Think of the films made of Puppet Masters and Starship Troopers. Perhaps TV will be kinder. Never Thirst.

Re:I hope they don't ruin it!

[The Grim Reefer]

Think of the films made of Puppet Masters and Starship Troopers. Perhaps TV will be kinder. Never Thirst.

I'd probably agree, but it's the SyFy channel, so I'm not very optimistic. On the other hand, I thought Predestination was really well done. It's been at least 25 years since I read All You Zombies, but the way they set it in a Heinlin parallel universe seems as close as we're ever going to see to staying true to one of his stories.

Re:I hope they don't ruin it!

[Deadstick]

Perhaps TV will be kinder.

One word: Riverworld.

Re:I hope they don't ruin it!

[Anonymous Coward]

not a good example, "Riverworld" is shit even without a bad tv version...

Re:I hope they don't ruin it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the ultra-leftists in Hollywood, they will most certainly destroy it, deliberately.

Shocking at the time, tame now

[ContextSwitch]

I can see how, when the book was originally published, it would have been perceived as shocking, especially in the USA. These days though reality has cought up and overtaken it. Unless, of course, they decide to "up the stakes" but then it wouldn't only be loosly based on the novel.

Yay

[Anonymous Coward]

Something else for Syfy to cancel prematurely.

Re:Yay

[Feral Nerd]

Something else for Syfy to cancel prematurely.

Well, if they cancel The Expanse, I hope Netflix picks it up.

Oh great.

[Jethro]

I'm going to assume this is going to be a "Based On The Novel By" kind of thing, where they basically have a couple of plot elements from the book and nothing more. I'm not saying I didn't enjoy the book, nor that it's not an important book in science fiction history, but I'm not really sure the story holds up for the 21st century. Some of the themes that were controversial at the time, and which I'm sure Heinlein thought that by now would be the norm, kind of went the other direction, too.

It's one of those times where they should just call it something else rather than name it after a famous work.

Re:Oh great.

[houghi]

It's one of those times where they should just call it something else rather than name it after a famous work.

They should have done that with "I am legend". They took it, burned the story and then raped the corpse.
The only thing that aws left was the title that they used as a trophy to show their power over copyright.

Re:Oh great.

[Jethro]

They should've done it with lots of things. This is not even the first time a Heinlein book has got this treatment - remember Starship Troopers?

Re:Oh great.

[charon69]

In SyFy's *slight* defense, they have done some decent things recently.

I rather enjoyed the Childhood's End mini-series: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Was it 100% like the book? No. But it was pretty dang close. The acting was decent. The special effects were decent. I certainly didn't feel like my time had been wasted.

So I'm tentatively hopeful for this as well.

Re:Oh great.

[Jethro]

I lost all respect for "SyFy" when they changed their name to that "to appeal to women".

Also when they cancelled Farscape to churn out crappy movie after crappy movie.

That said, I did enjoy Childhood's End, but to call it "pretty dang close" to the book is pretty far off. "Inspired by", maybe. "Kind of similar", perhaps. "Shares some plot-points", definitely. But it also varies immensely from it, and while some of the story might be the same, it tells a completely different narrative.

Re:Oh great.

[Anonymous Coward]

I lost all respect for "SyFy" when they changed their name to that "to appeal to women".

Or that they were aiming for syphilis association. The expansion of viewership and the realization of universal appeal of series like Galactica may have waken them up, but that still doesn't explain the use of 'y' in the new name that means nothing.

Re:Oh great.

[Jethro]

that was their actual explanation. When they changed their name from "The Science Fiction Channel" to "SciFi", sure, I can see that. But when they changed to "SyFy" they did actually say that it was to appeal to women.

Re:Oh great.

[Curunir_wolf]

I lost all respect for "SyFy" when they changed their name to that "to appeal to women".

They may have made that claim, I don't know. But the real reason they changed the name was because the trademark for "SciFi" was rejected. SyFy is now a trademark.

Also when they cancelled Farscape

They cancelled a lot of decent stuff when the program director changed. It was a mistake to take off in that direction. But I think they have learned *some* lessons from it as evidenced by The Expanse, The Magicians, and even Killjoys is a decent effort. I've even been surprised by 12 Monkeys. I couldn't imagine trying to do that story line as a series, but they pulled it off as a solidly entertaining show, at least for the first two seasons.

Re:Oh great.

[TheRaven64]

I get the three adaptations of that book mixed up, but from what I recall the most recent one was fairly faithful for about the first half, missed out some of the worst bits of the book, and then jammed on a terrible ending that completely missed the point of the novel and killed the story.

Re:Oh great.

[Jethro]

I couldn't get into The Expanse and never even tried The Magicians. Killjoys is fun, but honestly the SyFy Low Effort is visible in it. I think the only way these shows are at all decent is the cheapo CG they use has finally got to the point where it looks decent.

Re:Oh great.

[Ol Olsoc]

that was their actual explanation. When they changed their name from "The Science Fiction Channel" to "SciFi", sure, I can see that. But when they changed to "SyFy" they did actually say that it was to appeal to women.

Why would the name SyFy appeal to women?

Re:Oh great.

[Jethro]

This is around the time where they cancelled Farscape, their highest rated show ever, claiming nobody was watching it. When they got over a million fan letters asking them to reconsider, they said that "rating figures don't correspond with that many people watching the show".

So they were saying all kinds of things that made no sense.

Though one might postulate that perhaps they thought "SciFi" appeals to males, so they were divesting from that.

Re:Oh great.

[The Grim Reefer]

Why would the name SyFy appeal to women?

, This is the first time I've heard of this, my guess is it's in reference to yy chromosome. But considering at the time of the name change they were showing a lot of pro wrestling, I'm not sure much of their target audience would even think of that. I have no idea of what their programing is these days as I have not watched it in several years.

Re:Oh great.

[Ol Olsoc]

So they were saying all kinds of things that made no sense.

Though one might postulate that perhaps they thought "SciFi" appeals to males, so they were divesting from that.

Sounds like cocaine might have reappeared on the scene.

Re:Oh great.

[Ol Olsoc]

Why would the name SyFy appeal to women?

This is the first time I've heard of this, my guess is it's in reference to yy chromosome. But considering at the time of the name change they were showing a lot of pro wrestling, I'm not sure much of their target audience would even think of that. I have no idea of what their programing is these days as I have not watched it in several years.

I can't remember the last time I watched either.

Re:Oh great.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Expanse was one of the best Sci-Fi shows in YEARS! It starts slow, but the payoff at the end of the season was FANTASTIC! Seriously, give it another shot!

Re:Oh great.

[Anonymous Coward]

Though one might postulate that perhaps they thought "SciFi" appeals to males, so they were divesting from that.

Pretty much this. The rationale I heard at the time of the name change was that male nerds (not people who watch garbage like The Big Bang Theory, but actual nerds) are incredibly difficult to market to because all the toys we buy are very niche, often DIY from components and the decision to buy or not buy is almost always made on the quality and specs wiithout regard to marketing. Similarly the same crowd is difficult to manipulate politically. Their job is to attract eyes to ads and push political propaganda, not make quality entertainment for everyone or even their biggest demographic.

Re:Oh great.

[Areyoukiddingme]

I'm going to assume this is going to be a "Based On The Novel By" kind of thing, where they basically have a couple of plot elements from the book and nothing more.

You'll be lucky to get that much. (I say "you" because I don't have cable.) Unlike the other responder, I think the telekinetic sex cult chapters translate fine to TV. HBO though, not a basic cable channel. So they won't. This is going to be one of those adaptations where they keep some of the character names, and basically none of the plot. And they'll introduce spurious characters demanded by marketing. And the named characters will not resemble the book characters either physically or behaviorally. It's going to be a travesty.

Re:Oh great.

[Opyros]

they changed their name to that "to appeal to women".

I'm surprised they didn't change their name to "OMG Ponies".

Re:Oh great.

[youngone]

Why would the name SyFy appeal to women?

It wouldn't. Marketing people are idiots.

Re:Oh great.

[Jethro]

I may. It /is/ still on the media server...

Re:Oh great.

[Ol Olsoc]

Why would the name SyFy appeal to women?

It wouldn't. Marketing people are idiots.

This has the ring ot truth.

Re:Oh great.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like what they did to "Starship Troopers"?

Re:Oh great.

[Anonymous Coward]

They have never made a movie of Starship Troopers.

Who writes these blurbs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do the people who write the blurbs actually read the book first? Aftermath of WWIII? WTF?

Re:Who writes these blurbs?

[Erbo]

Actually, that's right. In Stranger, World War III is set in time between the original Envoy expedition, which brought Mike's parents to Mars in the first place, and the Champion expedition, where they found Mike and brought him back. It's a "blink-you-miss" note that comes right near the start of the second chapter, something like "there would have been another manned expedition right away if World War III hadn't intervened."

Just a poor book in general

[Anonymous Coward]

People rave about Stranger in a Strange Land but quite frankly, the book is a complete waste of time in my opinion. Unless you are enamored by the hippy movement of the sixties, the book is pretty tedious. The basic idea isn't bad. Would a human raised in a completely alien environment by aliens still think like a human? Heinlein's execution of it however, is juvenile at best. It's also not getting any better with age, quite the opposite in fact.

Never Got It

[wisnoskij]

Never got Stranger. For me it is possibly not the worst Heinlein novel, but it far from being worth the read and has the biggest hype to quality ratio.

Other than it being edgy for its time, I cannot see any reason to enjoy it. Personally, I think it was more of a big F*** Y** to his past editors for censoring him than an actual novel.

And I do not see how you will adapt it to the screen. Like Heinlein said the novel is just religion and sex. You could adapt it to a porn film, but there is just not really a storyline. The biggest drama is a legal battle and the only choice any of the characters ever make is "Will I have sex with everyone, or nah?" and spoiler alert they all have sex with everyone.

Re:Never Got It

[PopeRatzo]

Never got Stranger.

I never understood the fascination with Heinlein. There are so many sci-fi writers I'd like to see adapted to the screen before him. Joe Haldeman and James Tiptree Jr come to mind, but there are many more.

Re:Never Got It

[Quirkz]

the only choice any of the characters ever make is "Will I have sex with everyone, or nah?" and spoiler alert they all have sex with everyone.

My first thought was they were looking for a lite Game of Thrones, but with some martians to make it a little more sciencey.

Re:Never Got It

[Anonymous Coward]

I've read the extended version of Stranger and I felt it was broken into three parts: Discovery/hospital/escape, followed by outside contact and learning and the legal battle, followed by the cult/religion stuff. Personally, I greatly enjoyed the first two parts, but the book sort of lost me with the final act.

I'm not a big Heinlein fan, I think his books are mostly libertarian, harem fantasies. However, I will say I get why Stranger is a classic and why people enjoy it so much. The concepts presented in the first two acts are pretty solid sci-fi writing. It gets weird/culty toward the end, but some of the ideas are very good. Heilein talked a lot abotu the nature of perseption, law, the nature of humour and active listening. Stranger may not hold up as well now, but at the time it was pretty powerful material.

Re:Never Got It

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of his sociopolitical status as America's Rudyard Kipling. Both authors were loved and hated for the same reasons.

Re:Never Got It

[del_diablo]

I guess its a combination of media, and breaktrough.
Some of the shorter stories feels like something out of a Light Novel, or reading a better paced comic(i.e Donald Pocket). And I don't mean anything by that: The pacing is just pretty high, and things happen at a radical rate.

A lot of the short stories is 20-30 pages. In contrast, a lot of books quickly use 200-400 pages to do the same thing.
The general formula for the more sci fi stuff seem to be:
1. Some introduction page
2. Something AMAZING HAPPENS
3. Background objects is described, exactly as fantastical and mundane as they are
4. More amazing stuff
5. Raw cynicism if the final part of the story is short, where what has played out is explored indirectly

The reading style is also rather enjoyable, which is further amplified by the pacing.
Some of the slower books, like Starship Troopers: still has a extreme pacing.
And if you watch older Sci Fi, or Non American Sci Fi, you can see the influence: There is a good amount of effort put into having background objects be background objects, even if they are described. Its very contrasted to the Hollywood way of "if you describe a object, its a important foreground object".

Re:Never Got It

[drinkypoo]

There are so many sci-fi writers I'd like to see adapted to the screen before him. Joe Haldeman and James Tiptree Jr come to mind, but there are many more.

My two favorites for this are Walter Jon Williams and Neal Stephenson, because I read fast and their books almost feel like movies to me anyway. I almost cannot believe that WJW's Hardwired has not been made into a movie yet, and Aristoi would be an absolute science fiction epic. The names of Stephenson's applicable works scarcely require repetition here — it is essentially everything he has ever written except for The Big U. I'd start with Zodiac because it would be cheap and it's environmentalist which is highly relevant these days.

Re:Never Got It

[LanMan04]

So you didn't....grok it? ;)

Re:Never Got It

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all of his books are that way, though I agree with your point. I really enjoy his YA novels ( The Rolling Stones, Have Spacesuit Will Travel, Citizen of the Galaxy, The Star Beast, ...) which obviously aren't harem fantasies. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is one of my favorite books and it barely mentions the harem like stuff. Star Ship Troopers is another one that avoids the whole group/casual sex thing pretty well and is a great read.

Stranger was one of my least favorite Heinlein books because of the harem fantasy aspect that you mentioned.

Re:Never Got It

[ChrisMaple]

If you're going to criticize Heinlein or Stranger, you should do it in comparison to authors and works available at that time. That eliminates both Haldeman and Tiptree, and I've only seen her works in Ace doubles which is hardly a recommendation.

By 1961, Heinlein's reputation was largely built on his juveniles and short stories. When the restrictions placed on his juvenile works by his publisher made him decide to stop making juveniles, he brought along his maturing audience to his more adult works. He was one of the first SF authors published in mainstream magazines. His viewpoint was generally patriotic-American and individualistic. In person, he was a nice guy, unlike Asimov. His stories were generally hard science, unlike Bradbury's emotionalism. He had a good feel for engineering. Those and other factors combined to make him fit well into mid-century America. By way of comparison, most of his competition fell short in some category.

Re:Never Got It

[wisnoskij]

He defined and built the genre. He has some less than stellar novels. But most of his catalog was not only great in thier own right but inspired the next generation's greats, like Star Trek. If you enjoy Star Trek, it the novel that featured the federation that was adapted to Star Trek is a must. And the novel that features the plot of TNG pilot is great. And why not see where they got tribbles from as well.

While Asimov was still saying that Scifi was a theme you could overlay onto any story, Heinlein was laying out the rules and style that would inspire every writer that came after him and transform the genre from fantasy with lasers pulp into the bedrock of the literary genres.

Some of the best scifi story ever told are still Heinlein novels; And the breadth of his work means that he has something for everyone. A lot of his older work got loads of press since he was famous already, but most of hims good work was published in the beginning and middle of his career.

Re:Never Got It

[wisnoskij]

Neill Blomkamp's films are really interesting, because film critics always view them thorough their own leftist lenses, while he himself is not that at all.
I forget the message behind D9, but Elysium, for example, was a warning about unrestrained immigration. The surface was literally his interpretation of what happens if Trump does not build The Wall.

Re:Never Got It

[Daetrin]

I agree 100%. I'm a huge fan of Heinlein's early period books and some of his middle period books. However Stranger in a Strange Land is, to me, exactly the point at which the quality of his books started to go down. Combine that with it also being the most hyped of all his books definitely left me with a bad taste in my mouth. (Insert jokes about cannibalism here.)

He produced a couple good books after that (most notable the Moon is Harsh Mistress) but far too much of the time took a couple good ideas and then stuffed in a bunch of weirdness about sex.

Not that i have a problem with sex in books in general, but Heinlein always had to make the sex "edgy", and unfortunately wasn't very good at writing it IMHO. In particular if i'm reading a book for the story (rather than just erotica/porn) i prefer to have better developed relationships than he was ever willing to take the time to invest in.

Re:Never Got It

[PopeRatzo]

If you're going to criticize Heinlein or Stranger, you should do it in comparison to authors and works available at that time.

Holy shit, lad. I didn't 'criticize" Heinlein, I just said I didn't get his popularity. I suppose I can understand how he might be popular with the young adult market from the 1960s.

That eliminates both Haldeman and Tiptree, and I've only seen her works in Ace doubles which is hardly a recommendation.

If you've only seen Tiptree in Ace doubles, you are poorer for it. She's won Hugo, Nebula, Locus, World Fantasy, Hayakawa and Seiun Awards, not to mention a bunch of SF magazine readers' choice awards. She's an inductee into the Science Fiction Hall of Fame. And, she can write circles around Heinlein, but your mileage may vary according to how much or how little you value good writing.

Re:Never Got It

[PopeRatzo]

He defined and built the genre.

You meant to say he, "defined and built the genre" after Isaac Asimov had already defined and built the genre.

Re:Never Got It

[wisnoskij]

Asimov did not write scifi. He wrote pulp fantasy set in worlds with robots, lasers, and space ships instead of knights, swords, and horses.
"illustrates an idea Asimov advocated, that science fiction is a flavor that can be applied to any literary genre, rather than a limited genre itself." - Wikipedia on The Caves of Steel

Re:Never Got It

[PopeRatzo]

I get the impression that you believe science fiction is something other than what it is. Science fiction is most certainly a flavor that can be applied to any literary genre. Stories are stories. Even Heinlein's stories are just recycled stories dressed in science-y cosplay. He didn't invent anything. There are classical roots all through Heinlein's novels. Even your favorite, Starship Troopers, is just a war story with fantasy weapons and aliens.

By your definition, there are very very few actual "science fiction" works, Only books such as Anathem by Stephenson would qualify.

Re:Never Got It

[wisnoskij]

Science fiction the theme, is a flavor that can be applied to any any literary work.
Science fiction the genre, is NOT just fantasy with the magic replaced with buzz words and lasers because that is still just fantasy.

Starship Troopers is not even a war story. It is a coming of age tale rapped in philosophy with the backdrop of an interstellar war. Science Fiction contains the concepts of psychology and sociology as well as lasers and warp drives. Starship Troopers is scifi, it is just just not generic center of the road scifi, and it is definitely not fantasy.

Re:Never Got It

[PopeRatzo]

Science Fiction contains the concepts of psychology and sociology as well as lasers and warp drives.

So, what you're saying is, just like Asimov.

Re:Never Got It

[wisnoskij]

No, Asimov himself said that scifi to him was just a theme to overlay onto stories. He wrote fantasy stories with cool blinky lights. His stories touched on space ships, robots, psychology and sociology; Just like Heinlein. But where Heinlein wrote science fiction including all of these elements, Asimov just used these elements as techno babble to magically set up or solve obstacles on demand.

Re:Never Got It

[MercTech]

Hmmm, Starship Troopers .... it sounds like many have only seen the movie and not bothered to read the book.

A good kickass description of mobile infantry tactics using personal powered armor and how to handle an airborne HALO drop with heavy powered armor done from orbit.

Interesting concept of psychological ordinance that sparked several papers done in the War College. "I'm a thirty second bomb! I'm a thirty second bomb! 29, 28..."

Alternative political organization of a society. To qualify as a full citizen with the right to vote and hold public office one must do a term of Federal Service which may or may not be military. (the movie just mentioned military) If you aren't willing to give a chunk of your life to society; why should you have a say in how society is run?

    A lot of RAH's work has a rare blend of a fun story with exploration of several other topics woven into the fun part.

Re:Never Got It

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Well, Joe Haldeman is on the Heinlein society board of directors, so he's probably got some appreciation for Heinlein. :-) But I agree. I'd much rather see the money spent on bringing "The Forever War" to the screen, than "Stranger..."

But it's apparently in production, so it might still happen.

Re:Never Got It

[PopeRatzo]

Gosh, I hope it's in production. I've been hearing rumors about a movie adaptation of TFW for years now.

And I'm not saying I have absolutely no appreciation for Heinlein. I just prefer science fiction that's written for adults. When I was in high school, I was all over Heinlein.

Of the current crop I like Paolo Bacigalupi, China Miéville and those guys.

Re:Never Got It

[RockDoctor]

A week or so ago I had the amusing (but highly unlikely) idea of one production team (writers, directors, actors, SFX-techs) doing both Starship Troopers and Forever War more-or less simultaneously.

It would be interesting. Very unlikely, but interesting.

Re:Never Got It

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Yes! I'd pay to see that! :-) Would as you say be very interesting, with one novel written as a direct response to the first; as you no doubt know, very much in a "What is this crap?" frame of mind.

Re:Never Got It

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Yes, I'm keeping my fingers crossed. (Then again, they'll probably mess it up completely. They usually do.)

And I was also captured by Heinlein in my teens, "Space Cadet" may have been the first SF I ever read (remember grabbing it in the school library in middle school). "Have spacesuit", "Wagon train", and then later "Moon" were great reads.

And I did enjoy "Windup girl", but otherwise I'm into lighter reading these days (to alleviate the stress), so I'm currently reading Jasper Fforde's Thursday Next novels. Perhaps not particularly for adults as much as "children of all ages". :-)

Re:Never Got It

[PopeRatzo]

Jasper Fforde's Thursday Next novels are now on my list. You're the second person in the past few weeks who recommended them.

It probably makes me a bad fan to believe that science fiction writing is as good or better today than ever. Writers are finally shedding this unwarranted reverence for a genre that was mostly pulp.

Re:Never Got It

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Well, with your literary background I think you'll enjoy a writer that finally takes literary crime seriously! :-) (Our heroine of course being an officer of a the police organisation that polices crimes against literature.) That said, while they are in the general tradition of "The Hitch-hikers guide...", they're perhaps not quite up to that standard in execution. So don't get your expectations up too high. But a very enjoyable read, still.

And yes. It was mostly pulp. I suspect it's not so much a question of sci-fi getting worse, as it is of us getting older and remembering the experiences of our youth with the perennial rose-tinted glasses.

Re:Never Got It

[RockDoctor]

That makes two of us. Say, ten beer's worth of whatever currency fits. 999998 more people that interested and we'd probably have a workable level of funding.

Bringing Heinlein to the screen works so well

[Chris Mattern]

I'm sure it'll be as true to the novel as Starship Troopers was!

Re:Bringing Heinlein to the screen works so well

[dunkelfalke]

I surely hope so. The movie was far better than the novel. I seriously don't get all that Heinlein hype - there were much better science fiction writers then.

Re:Bringing Heinlein to the screen works so well

[sosuke]

What 2 science fiction authors would you recommend? And perhaps a 3rd that is still writing if there are any good ones.

Re:Bringing Heinlein to the screen works so well

[barc0001]

If you don't think what Verhoeven did with ST was deliberate, then you didn't really get the point. The novel puts a positive-ish spin on society adopting fascist concepts, the movie is a primer of why that's a bad idea.

Re:Bringing Heinlein to the screen works so well

[drinkypoo]

I seriously don't get all that Heinlein hype - there were much better science fiction writers then.

I'm actually still kind of confused as to why nobody has made a big powered armor movie yet. The nerds of the world have been calling out for it for about as long as I've been alive. Personally I'd go with John Steakley's Armor but the fact is that Troopers would have made a perfectly good action film with some philosophical moments thrown in to keep it from being nothing but that without major changes. And nobody has made that movie yet. Maybe they're just anticipating (correctly IMO) that it would be a better game.

Re:Bringing Heinlein to the screen works so well

[kylemonger]

> I'm actually still kind of confused as to why nobody has made a big powered armor movie yet.

Robot Jox? (ducking) Joe Haldeman wrote the screenplay and impossible as it might seem after viewing the thing today, it did see theatrical release.

Re:Bringing Heinlein to the screen works so well

[drinkypoo]

Robot Jox? (ducking) Joe Haldeman wrote the screenplay and impossible as it might seem after viewing the thing today, it did see theatrical release.

I seem to have blocked that out of my memory. I mean, I dimly recall it being a thing...

Re:Bringing Heinlein to the screen works so well

[Anonymous Coward]

The movie is a left wing cartoon. The book is only considered fascist by people who don't believe that citizens have a responsibility to serve their country and the common good. It is quite obvious that no one involved with the movie have any idea of what it is like to be in a military organization, how armies actually fight, what kind of tactics a real military uses, or any of that. TO them a military is basically a bunch of people running around in a mob doing violent things.
Like I said a left wing cartoon.

Re:Bringing Heinlein to the screen works so well

[dunkelfalke]

Well, if we are talking about classic sf authors then Stanislaw Lem and Robert Sheckley. And a third that is still writing... hmm, maybe Stephen Baxter?

I suspect it will be an "okay" TV Show

[Mortimer82]

I get the feeling from SyFy in the last few years, particularly with 12 Monkeys, that they seem to focus on using "safe" formulas for their shows, they try appeal to science fiction fans with the core premise of the show, but also try to keep the show appealing enough for more mainstream viewers.

10 years ago when we had the Stargate franchise and Battelstar Galactica, things were pretty cool on SciFi, but they followed those up with Warehouse 13 and then later 12 Monkeys which are entertaining enough, but not the same kind of cool science fiction in my opinion.

I haven't read the book (which I now plan to rectify soon), but my gut feeling based on how things have been recently, is that the SyFy TV show will likely just be "okay", but watchable enough.

Have to wait and see

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

If they grok the memes in the original.

Re: Have to wait and see

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you feel like breakfast?

Ready-made Sponsor

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope Campbell Soup is a sponsor.

egg

[Anonymous Coward]

egg

I don't grok why they would do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Waiting is

TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP

[Anonymous Coward]

TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP

Suck it democrats!

TRUMP 2020!

Here's hoping...

[rocket rancher]

...they grok it rightly. SyFy can do justice to classic SF, if their Dune miniseries, which was surprisingly good, is any indicator. I remember reading twenty years ago, in alt.fan.heinlein, may it rest in peace along with the rest of USENET, that Tom Hanks had acquired the rights to both SiaSL and TMiaHM. Several current and future members of the board of the Heinlein Foundation were regulars in the group, along with Heinlein's wife Virginia, Heinlein's biographer Bill Patterson, and Heinlein's chief fan and fellow SF author Spider Robinson, who all independently confirmed the transfer of rights. The rumors never reached the level of casting a movie, though one thread was devoted to endless speculation about potential actors and actresses. I hope like hell SyFy repeats Dune's success with SiaSL; I think their decision with Dune to go with unknowns in the major roles (less money for acting => more money for writing, directing, costumes and scenery) was spot on and I hope they follow a similar decision process with SiaSL.

Re:Here's hoping...

[avgapon]

Dune was made when the channel was still SciFi, I tried watching SyFy recently and it feels like a very different channel.

Urgh...I hated that book.

[sbaker]

I don't know how Heinlen gets so much credit for this book...it's was a rambling, shambolic pulp thing with sex and politics wedged into it at every opportunity in a vain attempt to perk it up a bit. It's not a book that has "stood the test of time" at all. If there's money for classic SciFi, we need someone to get off their butts and make "RingWorld". It's time.

Re:Urgh...I hated that book.

[dwywit]

There are so many "known space" stories, they'd keep lots of cast and crew employed for years. Who's got the rights to Ringworld?

Should be on HBO as SCIFI will cut the sex

[Joe_Dragon]

Should be on HBO as SCIFI will cut the sex

Re: Should be on HBO as SCIFI will cut the sex

[Anonymous Coward]

All the sex scenes will be replaced with sharks and wrestling.

Re:Should be on HBO as SCIFI will cut the sex

[TheRaven64]

If you cut the sex, it's going to be a really short series. If you cut the trademark Heinlein sophomore political commentary as well then there's nothing left other than introducing the word 'grok'. Which is probably for the best.

Re:Should be on HBO as SCIFI will cut the sex

[BlueStrat]

trademark Heinlein sophomore political commentary

Of course, the freedom of political and religious thought and principles like TANSTAAFL illustrated in many Heinlein novels (which IMO is one of the major reasons Heinlein's work is so good) is anathema to Leftists, Socialists, Communists, Fascists, and other authoritarians/collectivists. It's no small wonder that Heinlein gets little love on Left-leaning Slashdot.

Strat

Re:Should be on HBO as SCIFI will cut the sex

[Anonymous Coward]

BS: I am as liberal as you will find and I like the vast majority of his work, his points tend to be polemic and simplistic but fairly well made. It's too bad many of today's "libertarians" aren't as educated as Heinlein clearly was. Also, I don't have to agree with his philosophy to enjoy his books.

Cought up

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the word "cought". Halfway between cough and caught.

Iconic

[Curunir_wolf]

Surprised to see all the hate (or lukewarm meh-ness) for Stranger in a Strange Land on here. Maybe it's younger folks that never understood the social shifts and conflicts occurring at the time, I don't know. But the novel actually had a major affect on culture when it came out. I found it to be incredibly insightful.

Updating it for current times might be a good idea for the series. Someone from Mars with no contact with human culture comes to earth. Religion has taken a backseat and sex has exploded into polyamorous and fluid gender orgies, with more labels than species of frogs. And group politics has divided humans into pools vying for elevated victimhood status while countries with world-ending nuclear arsenals fight proxy wars over energy pipelines. Could be quite entertaining.

Re:Iconic

[Anonymous Coward]

... sex has exploded into poly-amorous and fluid gender orgies ...

The correct word is multi-amorous.

I remember about 30 years, (some) teen women hoping for a world of casual sex and not being called a slut. That hasn't happened and by now, those women are probably glad that it didn't: Woman can say they like fucking and have casual sex with few repercussions, but they don't have sex with everyone. Women and society, are still geared towards sex == love and putting a price on sex. While the idea of unrestricted casual sex has appeared in fictional works such as 'Brave new world', 'Futurama', 'Red dwarf' and 'Barbarella'; only the 'Barbarella' comics and movie describe a society geared towards sex; where work is a secondary function of society, where sexual arousal can even be a weapon. I hope for screenwriters depicting a hyper-sexual society where all men can find a fuck.

Re:Iconic

[rcharbon]

RAH already did that with "I Will Fear No Evil", adding in 'rich bastards get whatever they want', too.

SiaSL is like what?!

[sosuke]

How is Stranger in a Strange Land like The Man Who Fell to Earth?! The plots have almost nothing in common.

don't knock nonalcoholic martinis

[Quirkz]

Hey, don't knock nonalcoholic martinis. That's just a pile of olives, and it's one of my favorite things. No, it won't get you drunk, but it's got a satisfaction of its own.

Re:don't knock nonalcoholic martinis

[nitehawk214]

I'll have a martini. Hold the vermouth... the gin.

Who cares?

[nospam007]

" to develop Robert A. Heinlein's classic 'Stranger in a Strange Land' into a TV series on Syfy."

On the Siffy channel? Then you can forget it. They are incapable of doing good adaptations or even mediocre ones.

Re:Who cares?

[PPH]

On the Siffy channel?

It's going straight to MST3K.

Re:Who cares?

[Daetrin]

I'm never going to forgive them for that stupid fucking name change, but they actually seem to have gotten their act together recently. Season one of "The Expanse" was great, (going by the post-analysis it probably would have been nominated for a Hugo if the fans could just have agreed on which episode to vote for) and I've heard mostly good stuff about their other new shows too.

Hollywood to rewrite classic sci-fi

[RogueWarrior65]

"Hollywood to completely rewrite Robert Heinlein's Stranger In A Strange Land because they don't like most of the ideas put forth by the original author."
There, fixed that headline for you.

Re:Hollywood to rewrite classic sci-fi

[Anonymous Coward]

SIASL was Tom Hanks' pet project for years. I don't know whether he had any part in this decision to finally greenlight.

Re:Hollywood to rewrite classic sci-fi

[MercTech]

I can hear it now, like the line from WOSAT, "We are going to use REAL Hollywood and none of that scifi shit".

That kind of thinking is what crippled the DC Universe in movies when they took the two perennial boy scout characters with over 50 years of back story and made them sociopath ass-hats. Yep, talking about Batman and Superman. Not even going into turning the "Clown Prince of Crime" into a Juggalo.

Re:Hollywood to rewrite classic sci-fi

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if they can do it with "I, Robot", "I Am Legend", "World War Z" and many others, why not this one?

There's plenty of great movies that have little if anything to do with the original novels. Which is fine, but why name them the same if it really is something completely different?

Friday

[Anonymous Coward]

Friday would be a much better TV adaptation.

Promiscuous hot chick with super powers goes on secret missions for a vague private agency in a balkanized USA. And it resonate with a really divided country and current affairs - California was its own country in the book!

Re:Friday

[drakaan]

I'd vote for Number of The Beast, since they could essentially serialize it forever. For that matter, I'd be really happy to see Spider Robinson's Callahan novels (and/or the books about Lady Sally's place) brought to either the big or small screen.

Re:Friday

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd vote for Citizen of the Galaxy, I find the young-adult oriented books tend to transition to the screen better.

Re:Friday

[drinkypoo]

I'd vote for Citizen of the Galaxy, I find the young-adult oriented books tend to transition to the screen better.

On the basis that you're right I nominate Piers Anthony's Adept series. I don't think he's a great author or anything but I remember thinking that would translate pretty well.

Re:Friday

[Z00L00K]

That's something that would do great as a TV series. The book may not be that long but it contains a lot that can be played out quite a bit.

But even Stranger in a strange land is something that can be quite entertaining if it's done right.

Most people seem to underestimate Heinlein - he did write not just to please the readers but also to try out new sociological ideas as well as providing more or less subtle criticism of the current society.

Re:Friday

[Whibla]

On the basis that you're right I nominate Piers Anthony's Adept series. I don't think he's a great author or anything but I remember thinking that would translate pretty well.

I remember thinking the same about the Bio of a Space Tyrant series. It's a long long time since I read them but plenty of sex, plenty of violence, and plenty of both together iirc.

Re:Friday

[Whibla]

For that matter, I'd be really happy to see Spider Robinson's Callahan novels...

Damn, there was more than one? I came across a copy of Callahan's Crazy Cross Time Bar once, long ago, and it made me laugh / groan so hard. An entire novel written purely to set up the pun at the end. Genius!

Re:Friday

[drakaan]

Off the top of my head:

• Time Travelers: Strictly Cash
• Callahan's Crosstime Saloon
• Callahan's Place
• Callahan's Con
• Callahan's Key

And then Callahan's Lady and The Lady Slings The Blues (Booze?), which are about a different main cast of characters. I'm sure I missed a few, but there's a list here.

His collaborations with his wife are pretty good, too. He's probably my favorite sci-fi author, or at least in a 3-way tie with Heinlein and Asimov.

Re:Friday

[Erbo]

Well, there are kind of four parts to the overall Callahan's saga, grouped by their main setting:

• The original Callahan's Place, Suffolk County, NY: Callahan's Crosstime Saloon, Time Travelers Strictly Cash, Callahan's Secret
• Lady Sally's House, Brooklyn, NY: Callahan's Lady, Lady Slings the Booze
• Mary's Place, Suffolk County, NY: The Callahan Touch, Callahan's Legacy
• The Place, Key West, FL: Callahan's Key, Callahan's Con

The first two parts are more or less intertwined in time; Lady Sally's House ended up closing a year after the events of Lady Slings the Booze but before the events of Callahan's Secret. The third and fourth parts basically follow on in sequence from the events of the first part.

brightly brightly and with beauty!

[Anonymous Coward]

It engaged me emotionally, something which none other Heinlein novels did. I think the book expressed the zeitgeist very well, had believable/consistent characters and scenery, and dialogue. Personally, i think its a great piece of literature. Yes, it's not exactly "realistic", but it doesn't describe the world we live in... Somehow it reminds me of Hoffman's fairytales. The characters wouldn't make sense anywhere else, like. But it works.

The way it ends is also very nice. One can like or dislike Heinlein or perhaps the books overall message (if you notice it), but the craftsmanship is solid, imo.

Big question is, which parts are they gonna cut and how will the wonderful ideological message of the original text will be corrupted by making it into a movie?! :S

What 2 science fiction authors would you recommend

[bagofbeans]

Philip Jose Farmer, Jack L Chalker and Larry Niven. You'll find you don't like half the material, but simply appreciate the half you do like.

For series, get the first book from your library. Don't buy the set (used or otherwise) until you've had a bash at the first. For example, you may like PJF's World of Tiers series and hate Riverworld, because the settings are completely different.

Things Fall Apart

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

They were strangers in a strange land.
No longer at ease,

Definitely Heinlein's best work

[Locke2005]

However, most of Heinlein's fiction could best be classified as "Young adult" fiction. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress was also good. His last books, like The Cat Who Walks Through Walls, were kind of incoherent, and apparently finished by someone else.

Re:Definitely Heinlein's best work

[wyHunter]

His early stuff certainly was, but you can't really say that about his later stuff.

Re:Definitely Heinlein's best work

[Anonymous Coward]

His juvenile books are very good. His adult books are perverse to the extreme.

Re:Definitely Heinlein's best work

[Anonymous Coward]

His last books, like The Cat Who Walks Through Walls, were kind of incoherent, and apparently finished by someone else.

Thanks for reminding me about that steaming pile of crap. The cat wasn't even relevant to the plot!

Re:Definitely Heinlein's best work

[steveha]

I consider myself to be very much a Heinlein fan. His later novels were in fact not very good, and I say that as a fan. The best you can say is "they had their moments"... The Cat Who Walks Through Walls had a few fun moments that I remember, but I really don't recommend it.

I don't think any of Heinlein's novels were finished by someone else. However, Heinlein's notes for a novel were discovered, and Spider Robinson was given the task of writing a novel from the notes; this might be what you remembered.

Heinlein is justly famous for his "juveniles" (Young Adult novels), but those books are only about a dozen out of his total body of work, so I don't think you can fairly say they were "most" of his fiction. My all-time favorite Heinlein novel is one of the juveniles: Citizen of the Galaxy, a cracking good story full of interesting ideas.

Like you, I enjoyed The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I read it at an early age, and it convinced me logically that polyamorous marriages are a good idea. If a kid grows up with lots of parents, they can all take turns babysitting or going out, it would be easier for any of the parents to work a part-time job, and if one parent died it would be easier on kids and spouses than if there were only two parents and one died. If the highest purpose of a marriage is to raise children, which I think is a defensible proposition, then anything that improves the chances for success would be a good thing. (People argue that the idea of a one man/one woman marriage is the only time-tested and thoroughly understood kind of marriage; but we don't take kids away from a parent whose spouse dies, and you will never convince me that multiple parents in any combination of sexes will inherently do a worse job of raising kids than a single parent.)

Re:Definitely Heinlein's best work

[Anonymous Coward]

He could write excellent fantasy too. "Glory Road".

Re:Definitely Heinlein's best work

[MercTech]

Young adult fiction? Yep, RAH wrote a ton of it. Stories like "Have Spacesuit, Will Travel" were serialized in Boy's Life magazine in the 60s. That was the official publication of the Boy Scouts of America back in the 60s when I was working on merit badges. The stories about the Stone Family are certainly young adult fiction as is Starship Troopers. Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Stranger, Fear no Evil are written for adults. If you go back to the 60s and 70s; the prime market for scifi was the 13-24 age block. Today, it covers all generations.

The Cat Who Walks Through Walls was more of a yarn to appease the publisher with more stories in the milieu the editor liked. It makes more sense if you had read a lot of other novels in the same milieu.

You never "Grokked" it

[Spy Handler]

because you mentally turned yourself off after seeing moral/philosophical points that you disagree with. It's okay, this happens.

I know some people who are quite intelligent and big SF fans who never got why Dune is so popular. Precisely for the same reason.

Personally, I hated the movie District 9. I thought it was very shallow, just a not-so-subtle vehicle for the writer/director to push his leftist views. Super intelligent alien beings that have interstellar spaceships and artificial gravity, and yet act like idiots? Really? Aside from their high-tech stuff, their behavior is exactly like that of prison inmates with an IQ of around 80. Ruins the story for me, the whole time I was watching it I was thinking, "Why don't these aliens just do _____?"

However in retrospect, it is possible that District 9 is not entirely worthless, it may contain some good parts that I overlooked due to my disagreement with the parts that were stupid.

Stranger in a Strange Land on the other hand is a masterpiece -- a towering achievement that stands out even among the greats of science fiction -- because it's so original.

Re:You never "Grokked" it

[wisnoskij]

I posted this to the wrong reply originally:

Neill Blomkamp's films are really interesting, because film critics always view them thorough their own leftist lenses, while he himself is not that at all.
I forget the message behind D9, but Elysium, for example, was a warning about unrestrained immigration. The surface was literally his interpretation of what happens if Trump does not build The Wall.

Re:You never "Grokked" it

[Whorhay]

If I recall properly the aliens in District 9 were from a slave caste. The ruling caste of aliens which were presumably smarter, had all died through some catastrophe. The surviving aliens were locked out through genetics and couldn't make use of the technology to escape or exert power over the humans. The plot revolved around a human character that stumbled upon and was accidentally exposed to a fix. The fix starts changing him into an alien of the ruling caste which elicits fear and greed among various parties leading to the action scenes.

I believe District 9 was meant as a commentary on Apartheid. The aliens are treated as sub humans that have to be contained, controlled, and exploited. The main character starts out as a member of the empowered group, and transitions into being part of the oppressed group. In the end even though the main character is an alien to all outward appearances he retains his humanity as demonstrated by leaving gifts for his estranged human wife.

Re:You never "Grokked" it

[Anonymous Coward]

because you mentally turned yourself off after seeing moral/philosophical points that you disagree with. It's okay, this happens.

I know some people who are quite intelligent and big SF fans who never got why Dune is so popular. Precisely for the same reason.

Personally, I hated the movie District 9. I thought it was very shallow, just a not-so-subtle vehicle for the writer/director to push his leftist views. Super intelligent alien beings that have interstellar spaceships and artificial gravity, and yet act like idiots? Really? Aside from their high-tech stuff, their behavior is exactly like that of prison inmates with an IQ of around 80. Ruins the story for me, the whole time I was watching it I was thinking, "Why don't these aliens just do _____?"

However in retrospect, it is possible that District 9 is not entirely worthless, it may contain some good parts that I overlooked due to my disagreement with the parts that were stupid.

Stranger in a Strange Land on the other hand is a masterpiece -- a towering achievement that stands out even among the greats of science fiction -- because it's so original.

I feel like I "grokked" SiaSL. I had to re-read it to overcome my initial shock at the religious and sexual values he was proposing. But I knew people considered it a masterpiece so I reread it again knowing what I was getting into so the shock would be less severe.

I tried hard to take in the arguments he was presenting about religion and sexuality, and in the end I found them worthless. I found the Fosterite cult to be a complete strawman as a boogeyman for Valentine's new religious order the Chruch of All Worlds and in no way representative of any modern church; the closest you could argue is perhaps some of the modern Prosperity Gospel churches or some Evangelical Churches or cults like Scientology but those groups are a shadow of what Fosterism was particularly in the level of political power and influence. I found his arguments about family structure and sexuality extremely lacking as well, as they support only the concept of what the individual wants at the expense of what would be a stable family unit to support the growth of future generations.

The whole book presents a world that essentially is one that is a negative view to support the culture of Valentine Michael Smith, which is essentially a mix of hippy-leftist, 60's/70's counter-culture values. Being a child of the 80's, and thus a child of people who grew up believing those values along with many of my friends who believes those values too, and quite frankly we see today the results of those values: those people either abandoned them to form a stable monogamous family unit that is some sort of suburban, typically Christian lifestyle, or they retained those values to teh detriment of the next generation's ability to form actual relationships or a steady life for themselves.

Stranger in a Strange Land is well written, worth reading, but ultimately a strawman to support a bunch of cultural values that turned out to be worthless and not sustainable, and to me because he had to create such an extreme earth-based society to contrast and define his own cultural beliefs, it makes ultimately a weak piece of literature as it's fundamental argument isn't based in anything real and flawed at it's core.

Just my opinion though. I won't be watching this show, and that probably has more to do with SyFy's production values and casting abilities than the content to be honest.

Re:You never "Grokked" it

[Spy Handler]

Stranger in a Strange Land is well written, worth reading, but ultimately a strawman to support a bunch of cultural values that turned out to be worthless and not sustainable, and to me because he had to create such an extreme earth-based society to contrast and define his own cultural beliefs

Exactly my point. You were unable to enjoy it because of moral/philosophical objections.

For me it helped that I had read other books by Heinlein before I got to Stranger in a Strange Land, so I was already familiar with his political leanings and his views on life. Believe me, Heinlein is very far from a 60's counter-culture hippie. Read Starship Troopers if you want an insight into his political views.

While reading "Stranger", I was not threatened by its moral implications and I did not at any point believe that this was a realistic scenario or something that the author wanted to impose on society. So I was able to suspend disbelief and just go along for the strange (yet wonderful) ride.

makes ultimately a weak piece of literature as it's fundamental argument isn't based in anything real

I would agree that "Stranger" is not great literature as most people define it. However it is great *science fiction*. It's entertaining, highly original, and a very interesting exploration of "what if?"

Re:You never "Grokked" it

[smugfunt]

Super intelligent alien beings that have interstellar spaceships and artificial gravity, and yet act like idiots? Really?

You've never run into naval ratings on shore leave from their nuclear powered aircraft carrier, I presume.

Re:You never "Grokked" it

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I think you misinterpreted what I said. It is great science fiction, but it is not literature or a masterpiece. I would qualify that great literature posits you to think and consider your moral and philosophical approach. This did not make me consider it at all, because the contrast he created of the world to highlight the morals he was displaying felt extremely artificial and not real.

It's science fiction, sure. But it fails to argue any moral point.

If Sean Connery isn't playing Jubal Harshaw.....

[Anonymous Coward]

...then fire upon you all!

HBO / Showtime / Cinemax not Syfy

[NormAtHome]

The book is way too R/X rated in parts to make a good Syfy movie, Childhoods End was reasonably good but this won't translate well to a PG/PG-17 movie but if it was done by HBO / Showtime / Cinemax it could be good.

Space Nutters

[fyngyrz]

You're wasting your time. To the GP, the only technological development that will ever matter to achieving space has already happened; the only engineering that will ever matter to achieving space has already been done. It's wholly loony, but it's not uncommon.

Eventually, we'll be all over the solar system. The available space, energy, manufacturing conditions and natural resources all better (and in some cases, dwarf) those we can achieve on earth. Market forces will make this happen. Assuming we don't get hit by a comet or an asteroid, or the ecology doesn't collapse, or we don't nuke each other into glowing dust, of course.

The tech to get into space is known. The tech to live in space is known too, although it is true that the engineering has yet to be done.

The "space nutters" are actually the ones that claim we'll be indefinitely planet-bound. It's a pretty clueless assertion.

Chemical rockets can bootstrap this, though the cost is high; something like a space elevator would change the entire picture, but we're still working on the material science for that, and again, no engineering has been done (because no materials as yet.)

Anyway, fear not the nay-sayers. They know not of what they speak. :)

Re: Space Nutters

[Anonymous Coward]

"Market forces will make this happen" -- and there we find the biggest nutter of them all....

Re: Space Nutters

[fyngyrz]

You understand what a market force is, don't you? It's demand. Works like this:

1- People want lots of stuff.
2- Stuff is made from resources.
3- There are lots of unclaimed resources out there.
4- Ergo, Resources ... Stuff == Gonna go get that.

I suggest you write that down. It'll help you understand a lot about the world. An area you clearly suffer from a deficit in, at present.

Here's how it doesn't work:

Someone knows where a seam of gold is. They also know it's unclaimed. They ignore it, because "that'd be hard to dig out of the ground."

Cuz (a), well, then you don't get the gold, and (b) someone else gets the gold.

Everything out there... everything is unclaimed. Resources - and so, riches - awesome amounts of riches. Someone's going to go get that. Not some guy sitting around muttering "we're never gonna be in space", but that won't affect the people who are actually, you know, paying attention.

I suggest you write all that down, too. Same reason.

Cheers. :)

Dear Diary

[fyngyrz]

We'll soon make America Grrr. Ate again today; food still arguably mediocre.

Bad idea

[Rick Schumann]

SIASL was fine as a stand-alone work of fiction; it had a point to make about human nature and human culture and society, and it accomplished that. I see no reason why, or even how it could be a weekly series.

You want to do something with a Heinlein novel? Make The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress into a feature-length film!

SF == movie wishes

[fyngyrz]

I'd call for James P. Hogan on the one hand, for good SF with a strong human element, and Keith Laumer's "Bolo" series for machine intelligence / war stories, and also Keith Laumer's "Galactic Odyssey" for the best... well, galactic odyssey story.

For fantasy, I think I'd like to see Naiomi Novak's Temeraire books, and/or anything by Robin Hobb.

For simple awesomeness, I'd like to see John Birmingham's "Weapons of Choice" series done.

The problem, as has been observed, is that generally speaking Hollywood makes an utter hash out of the books it makes into movies. Soylent Green being the poster child for Hollywood wrecking a great story. And that is something I would not like to see happen to any of these.

Hoping for the best...

[bobdehnhardt]

... but expecting the worst. Since this is on a non-premium channel, the abundant sex and nudity will have to be watered down, and since that's one of the central themes (the other being religion), I fear a bland, pale shadow of a sci-fi masterpiece. This concern is made greater by the fact that they're planning a "series," rather than a movie or miniseries. Stranger is a big book, and I could see source material for 6-8 episodes, but moving beyond that will be difficult without going on tangents or "extending the story."

Casting will be key, especially for Jubal Harshaw. The man is basically mentoring a god; if that character isn't larger-than-life enough, I fear the whole thing will fall flat.

I hope that I'm wrong, that the writers and producers truly grok what they're dealing with, and the whole thing is brilliant. But right now, I've got a bad feeling about this.

Syfy

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, Syfy will treat it with the same respect and care they gave to A Wizard of Earthsea.

On SyFy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. And they're not going to have any nudity... which is sort of like filming The Old Man And The Sea in the desert.

              mark

Dark Matter is also really good

[SuperKendall]

Not a book adaptation, but Dark Matter is a show I liked way more than I thought I would, and enjoyed a lot more than "The Expanse" (also produced by SyFy I think?).

Someone at SyFy seems to have figured out how to have them produce decent shows again. I think the free reign Netflix has been giving their own productions and the rewards they've reaped as a result, are affecting productions from other companies now...

Hippies

[Princeofcups]

It's a satire of the hippy movement. That is, the author is making fun of anyone who could find any deep meaning in the ridiculous views and obvious Christlike suffering of the protagonist. The smile at the end? Ah, I guess some people don't get it. Heinlein was laughing all the way to the grave with this one.

the syfy channel? Lame

[Anonymous Coward]

This book surely should have been on HBO, Netflix, Amazon, or ShowTime. Its going to be like Watching the Big Labowski or Pulp Fiction on cable. It will be so edited from the original to be barely be recognizable.

For the record, it is one of my favorite books too.

Re:If Sean Connery isn't playing Jubal Harshaw....

[Erbo]

Connery? I can't imagine Jubal Harshaw with a Scottish accent.

Now, if you really want to get people hot under the collar, James Earl Jones would be a sterling choice. Think Terence Mann in Field of Dreams, only more so.

Jesus motif

[Anonymous Coward]

How are they going to survive the ending of having Valentine Michael Smith getting killed in such a graphic fashion.

The Netflix Fix

[Rande]

It's the way Neilsen ratings worked then - if someone had 'non-normal' watching habits, eg. nerds who enjoy watching scifi and fantasy, they would be removed from the Nielsen ratings program as 'outliers'. As this happened all the time, even if scifi watchers increased, they would be culled from the ratings and therefore pretty much any scifi that wasn't watched by Joe 6pack got canned because apparently no one was watching it.

Now that we have Netflix, we _know_ exactly who is watching what, not just a (bad) statistical approximation. And hence we now have _lots_ of scifi and superhero movies and TV because they've not thrown away the data from all the people who would prefer to watch something other than reality TV.

Re:The Netflix Fix

[Jethro]

> Now that we have Netflix, we _know_ exactly who is watching what

Except that Netflix won't release that information.

Re:The Netflix Fix

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't need to release the information, you just need to see what the Netflix created shows they are releasing to see what their numbers are telling them.

most movies and tv adaptations are crud

[Anonymous Coward]

(Sturgeon's law).
I'll never understand this obsession to take written fiction and turn it into a move or tv show. Okay, I understand the money motivation. Other than that, a book/novel/literature that isn't made into a movie or book is like a fish without a bicycle.
I did see a movie that was a faithful adaptation of a book, Ender's Game. Anyone else think the movie was dull, boring, and wooden?

Re:If Sean Connery isn't playing Jubal Harshaw....

[MercTech]

I can't see Connery as Jubal Harshaw. I always saw Jubal as more of a Wilford Brimley type of characterization.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000979/?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm

A fine line to get the "curmudgeon with a heart" type of vibe.