[geeks] Heinlein, was Re: [rescue] replacing an Ultra2

[Charles Shannon Hendrix]

velociraptor wrote:
> On 4/28/07, Charles Shannon Hendrix <shannon at widomaker.com> wrote:
>> Then look at Starship Troopers. They kept the base storyline, but
>> removed most of the guts of the story. They should not have used the
>> same title.
>>
>> Starship Troopers was a vehicle for Heinlein's political ideas, and they
>> watered it down so much it barely showed up in the movie.
>>
>> Of course, that's no surprise: Hollywood hates Heinlein.
> 
> It goes a lot farther than that.  Virginia Heinlein actually sued to
> prevent Paul Verhoeven & from releasing the movie, due to the fascist
> bent that they put to the story.   Unfortunately, she was only able to
> get RAH's name taken off the film.  Verhoeven didn't just "gut" the
> novel, he twisted it to his own political agenda--after not even
> reading the entire novel.  I refuse to watch any more of his work as a
> result.

I heard about that, but didn't follow it.  The courts are well paid by
Hollywood and the news media it seems.

> Hollywood won't support the position that people should be independent
> and think for themselves because that doesn't turn people into
> "consumers".  

You can see this in department stores.  When I was a kid, most any of them had
workers who knew their products, and actively helped you find what you needed.

Now they barely acknowledge you, except to be rude.  The stores have tons of
products, but mostly variations not different ones, and they are sold with
almost no support.  In fact, most stores sell products but none of the parts
or accessories.

It's all designed to fall apart in a year so you buy it again.

I remember when there was a difference between Sears and something like
K-Mart.  Now there isn't.

> The only filmmakers of recent vintage who are successful
> at getting widely distributed movies with non-Hollywood messages are,
> IMO, those willing to make comedies or disguise their viewpoint in the
> form of four-color comic conversions.

You also have people with enough money to do it.  Mel Gibson is basically
paying for all of it himself, because he has the money now.  That's how he
gets things out.  I just wish he's stick to historical fact better.

For example, Braveheart was a great film, but not very accurate.  William
Wallace wasn't a poor guy living in a hut, he was a wealthy land owner.  He
didn't run around in a kilt, he would have been very well equipped.

Would be nice to see Gibson's money and movie making knowledge paired up with
Ron Maxwell's military reenactment and historical knowledge.

Gibson is supposed to be making a movie about Bodicea.  I hope he can do it,
and focus more on the real history than he did in Braveheart.

> Of course, with the internet and the long tail, it's just a matter of
> time before movies go the way of music--small film makers will realize
> they are better off selling directly to the public rather than going
> through IP "brokers"--i.e. movie distribution companies.

The problem is that movies are not the same as music.  Two people can get
together and produce music every bit as good as anything the "industry" can.

Movies are different. It's a far different level of technical knowledge.

In order to break the ice there, we need movie production companies to become
almost like labor farms for movie creators, divorced from Hollywood
completely.  Basically they would just sell their movie making ability as a
service.

Or something anyway, to get Hollywood out of the picture but still have the
knowledge it has for producing movies.



-- 
shannon           | I wish life was not so short. Languages take such a time,
                  | and so do all the things one wants to know about.
                  |        -- J. R. R. Tolkien