Best Robert Heinlein novel?

[KESpires]

I'd just like to see a faithful adaptation, considering that they called that movie Starship Troopers.

[Lillyanna]

Wasn't there a movie called The Puppetmasters? I can't remember now whether that one was "based" on the Heinlein novel (the novel was good). I'll be really surprised if Hollywood ever puts together a genuine R.A.H. film.

[J-Sun]

The movie The Puppet Masters was a godawful piece of dreck, AFAIR, but did seem to be based on the novel. The novel was indeed good, though.

And, on Starship Troopers, I'm with j. d. worthington - those who take the movie seriously see one of the worst movies ever - maybe even worse than The Puppet Masters. But I take it as satire and, as much of a fan of Heinlein as I am, it's a brilliant satire.

-- Oops - make that "with j. d. worthington" on the nature of the adaptation, if not on the success thereof.

[j. d. worthington]

Yes, The Puppet Masters (at least, the most recent version, as I understand there was an earlier one -- television, perhaps? -- which I've not seen, though it was produced in the right era to capture the paranoia) was a godawful film, while the book was quite good, genuinely frightening in much the same way as Finney's Invasion of the Body Snatchers ... not surprising, considering both were on much the same theme and reflected the mindset of the times.

As a point of interest... there are two versions of the novel The Puppet Masters... the original, which was cut down for publication, and a restored version published much later:

The Puppet Masters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The restored version, it seemed to me upon reading it, actually gets into much more complex issues, and is in some ways even more unsettling....

[iansales]

Verhoeven's Starship Troopers is more than just an excellent satire, it's also the only sane response to the novel. I must admit I'm continually amused at the difference in responses to the book and film on either side of the Atlantic. The US reveres the book and hates the film; Europe hates the book and loves the film. (A generalisation, of course; the but the general trend holds true).

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by iansales

Verhoeven's Starship Troopers is more than just an excellent satire, it's also the only sane response to the novel. I must admit I'm continually amused at the difference in responses to the book and film on either side of the Atlantic. The US reveres the book and hates the film; Europe hates the book and loves the film. (A generalisation, of course; the but the general trend holds true).

How is it satire ? Its just another stupid action,hack the monster movie. Its what gives SF a bad name. Dump hollywood Sci-fi movies.

Im in europe and hate the movie to bits. Love the book !

I would respect the movie if it was a satire even if i thought it was a bad one. The narrator,the tv news showing their world doesnt make it satire.

I have seen people that like for being simple action movie but satire wow...

Its not like we are talking about Blade Runner here.

[KESpires]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that most of the people who think the movie was a brilliant satire also think the book was too pro-military, judging by iansales that it was the only "sane" response to the book.

I loved the book myself. I don't see the need to satire the book. I see the need to give the general audience, those who went to see that movie with no idea of the genius and originality of the book, an accurate and fair representation of what the book held.

I can't tell you how many times I've recommended Starship Troopers to people who've seen the movie and watch their faces turn sour.

[Lillyanna]

Hm. One of the things I thought was most brilliant about Starship Troopers, actually, was the concept that citizenship had to be earned. I wouldn't say that the book was pro-military; but I can see how others might view it that way.

The movie was goofy.

[jojajihisc]

Originally Posted by Connavar

How is it satire ? Its just another stupid action,hack the monster movie. Its what gives SF a bad name. Dump hollywood Sci-fi movies.

There are attempts to mock totalitarian governments (the Nazi looking uniforms and glorification of symbols), sensationalist media styles (the destruction of the cow and blood thrown wildly about off camera, "Do you want to know more?"), militarism (the intense jingoism of the recruits, "the only good bug is a dead bug.") and cultural stereotypes (the shower scene where everybody relates their ideals for life after their military careers end, the nerd scientist, etc.).

"the only good bug is a dead bug."

Does that not seem just a little bit similar to "better dead than Red" or "kill a commie for Mommy?" I guess you had to be in the U.S. during the Cold War to remember this sort of thing, but the parallel is clear.

[J-Sun]

Originally Posted by Lillyanna

Hm. One of the things I thought was most brilliant about Starship Troopers, actually, was the concept that citizenship had to be earned. I wouldn't say that the book was pro-military; but I can see how others might view it that way.

The movie was goofy.

Yeah, I'd agree there - specific provision is made for non-military service to earn citizenship (which Heinlein must have been acutely aware of the need for, having served, yet having been given a medical discharge) - it's just that he chose a military narrative from personal interest, drama, and most effectively underscoring his thematic concerns. I don't think it's "pro-military" as much as pro-teamwork, pro-self-sacrifice, pro-etc. It could have been a book about football or other team sports, really, except that doesn't directly relate to the strength of a society and isn't usually a matter of personal life and death.

As far as the movie, I think taking the movie as a satire is the only sane response to it, actually. The scene with human children gathering up and stomping on terrestrial bugs because the enemy were "Bugs" can't really be anything but satire. But I thought it was a particularly acute satire of science fiction as a whole, not just of Heinlein's book in particular. (And I love SF dearly, but I can tolerate certain critiques of it.) It captured perfectly the feel of a 1997 movie looking at a 1959 view of 2058 (or whatever). To borrow a Sterling title, it was a portrayal of a "good old-fashioned future" whose vision most can no longer believe in - whether they'd like to or not. It was almost like a "Beaver Cleaver joins the Space Marines" effect. And the Battlestar Galactica-like sports (speaking of the original TV series - and speaking of team sports) contributed to this. Kind of techno-arena-football vs. whatever they were up to on BSG.

And, as far as being faithful to the book, it essentially was - at least it suffered less Hollywood manhandling than your average book adapted by them does. It just twisted everything so that it came out completely different. But Rico's there, even if he seems to be Northern European (for satirical purposes as I see it), and his teacher is promulgating the thematic points, and there are citizens and non-citizens and the citizens do fight the aliens and there are atypical sexual attitudes (unisex showers, IIRC) which all feel very Heinleinian.

I dunno - I'd be willing to see the movie either way, but I couldn't enjoy it if it were serious because it would be so "goofy".

I think you can like both. For instance, Haldeman's The Forever War is often taken as a direct response (in part) to Starship Troopers and many (including myself) enjoy both. It makes for interesting dialog vs. a monolog.

[J-Sun]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

As a point of interest... there are two versions of the novel The Puppet Masters... the original, which was cut down for publication, and a restored version published much later:

The Puppet Masters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The restored version, it seemed to me upon reading it, actually gets into much more complex issues, and is in some ways even more unsettling....

Oh, I almost forgot to thank you for that information. I knew about the "uncut" version of Stranger but didn't realize there was another. I suspect, for my taste, I'm glad I didn't read whatever Gold did to it (the guy who put the "edit" in "editor") but suspect I wouldn't care for the uncut version as much, either. Heinlein did probably benefit from sterner editing earlier on, in general. Still, I may check it out now that I know it's there to check out.

[KESpires]

Well my biggest irritation is that instead of making a movie that tries to capture the amazing imagery in the novel, they made what came across to me at the time as a run-and-gun movie that I didn't enjoy very much.

Also, Heinlein told Haldeman that The Forever War was probably the best far future war epic he'd ever read. I haven't read it yet, but I wiki'd it. It definitely sounds like something I should try once my pile of backlogged books gets whittled down a little.

[pyan]

Originally Posted by J-Sun

Yeah, I'd agree there - specific provision is made for non-military service to earn citizenship .

Umm...I don't think there is, J-Sun: in fact I think you'd be pushed to find anything in the book that suggests this, and a very clear indication the other way.

This has long been a contentious point...both POVs are set out very clearly in The Nature of "Federal Service" in Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers

[KESpires]

Well, they are obliged to find somewhere for you to serve. But if you lack aptitudes for trade skills you're likely to find yourself in Johnnie's position, part of the M.I..

But that is the nature of the beast in that particular novel. Those who are willing to show sacrifice are the ones who receive suffrage after their service has ended.

[ghost8772]

The discussion on it was the military would find work for someone to do in military service, even if they were silly enough to enlist blind, deaf, and missing limbs.

but to be a citizen required military service. Johnny's dad had issues with him joining up, basically that they didn't need citizenship to be successful.