Kevin's Watch

Heinlein's point was to make an argument for the necessity of war. Verhoeven ignored the message of the book, and used the movie to promote his message, which is 'War makes fascists of us all'. Getting back on topic; in my opinion, Verhoeven's treatment of Henlein's book is a bigger injustice to literature than Anderson's treatment of Nolan's & Johnson's book.

I thought Starship Troopers was a great parody, and I haven't read the book.

sindatur wrote:...and I haven't read the book.

Recommend that you find time to do so. With the exception of a few late-career stinkers like The Number of the Beast, Heinlein is always worth reading.

I barely remember Logan's Run. I just remember at the time young boys my age were supposed to be interested because Farrah Fawcett was in it and it was sci-fi. I think Farrah was in about 10 minutes of it, right?

As for Dune, I'm in the same camp as LZ. I differ in that I usually can't stand Lynch, but this is one of his films I find pretty watchable. And I got a lot of the themes of politics, religion and power from the movie before I was ever able to actually read through the book. I had tried reading the book earlier, and I was bored as well. I did enjoy the book when I read it, and, while this is probably going to piss you off Blanksy, I do feel it followed the book pretty well. My only objection from the movie was the depiction of the Navigators.

Never read Dune either, but, I find the Lynch movie boring. The SciFi Channel Mini-series, IMHO was much better (wether it was more faithful to the book or not)

The Sci-Fi version of Dune was a lot more faithful to the book. Like Cag, I don't like Lynch's work. Unlike Cag, I think Dune was his worst movie. I was in my early teens when Farrah was at her peak popularity, but I never thought she was all that attractive. In Logan's Run, Jenny Agutter was way prettier, and in Charlie's Angels, both Jaclyn Smith and Cheryl Ladd were more attractive.

The Sci-Fi version of Dune was a lot more faithful to the book. Like Cag, I don't like Lynch's work. Unlike Cag, I think Dune was his worst movie. I was in my early teens when Farrah was at her peak popularity, but I never thought she was all that attractive. In Logan's Run, Jenny Agutter was way prettier, and in Charlie's Angels, both Jaclyn Smith and Cheryl Ladd were more attractive.

On this we agree 100% !

Sin, you should make time to read Dune, it is a very good book!

finn wrote:Sin, you should make time to read Dune, it is a very good book!

Absolutely true. While upthread I recommmended you read another book, put a higher priority on reading Dune. Fist and Faith may be overstating the case when he said in another thread that Dune was the best book ever written, but it is an amazing read and not to be missed.

Savor Dam wrote:

finn wrote:Sin, you should make time to read Dune, it is a very good book!

Absolutely true. While upthread I recommmended you read another book, put a higher priority on reading Dune. Fist and Faith may be overstating the case when he said in another thread that Dune was the best book ever written, but it is an amazing read and not to be missed.

I need to re-read Dune. It's been a long time since the last re-read, which I used to do often.

Words cannot express the disappointment I felt upon watching Lynch's Dune. The actors in that were misused, since the reasons for their casting were completely corrupted by the freak show script. Herbert left the ugliest aspects of Baron Harkonnen off the page for good reason. Lynch decided we didn't need to imagine it. Violence wasn't the point; corruption was.

I am not the biggest fan of the 1980s Dune film however I'm quite familiar with it as I've seen it many times since it became available on VHS/DVD etc. I have never read the book and probably never will so I have never had any preconception of the story while watching either the Lynch film or the Sci Fi version.
Having said that there are aspects of the Lynch film that I detest and frequently fast forward through the rough spots however the bulk of the film I enjoy. It wasn't until recently that I watched the Sci Fi version and found myself quite bored with the presentation. I didn't sit in awe at the "closer to the book" depiction I just found the entire film kind of bland. I now understand why Lynch made at least some of his narrative changes. His approach was at least more colorful if not bizzare at times. I realize the faithful have reason to be annoyed but I'm not one of them.
The same goes for Starship Troopers. Didn't read the book and probably won't anytime soon. The film is frequently heavy handed with regard to its propaganda however its so obvious I have no problem looking past it. Therefore I also have no real issues with SST in general. And as I've mentioned before I feel the same way about Logan's Run.
Now when and if a Thomas Covenant film is made I most certainly could end up in the camp of "I hate the film because it wasn't faithful to what was on the page".
However I am a lifetime Iron Man fan and that character's portrayal in film is astonishingly accurate to what I've always believed Iron Man was and is so it's possible for Hollywood to get it right on occasion. At least as far as my opinion goes.

I was in Wyoming when they were filming the Klendathuu scenes, and got to see the "planet" first hand, plus I think my Ruidoso home boy Neil Patrick Harris is one of the coolest peeps on the planet.
Not only that, they used kick ass David Bowie music at the dance-- and "Outside" album is very special to me. Tin Machine was the Bowie I expected, but "Outside" exceeded my wildest expectation.
And f*ck, it was just a bad ass, FUN war movie...
Oh yeah, you can not make a bad film with Clancy Brown.

Lord Zombiac wrote:Oh yeah, you can not make a bad film with Clancy Brown.

Actually, I can. So can Verhoeven. My favorite critique of it started off with "Lacking the sophistication of the average comic book....."


And again, no amount of profanity from you is going to make it a good movie.

aTOMiC wrote:Having said that there are aspects of the Lynch film that I detest and frequently fast forward through the rough spots however the bulk of the film I enjoy. It wasn't until recently that I watched the Sci Fi version and found myself quite bored with the presentation. I didn't sit in awe at the "closer to the book" depiction I just found the entire film kind of bland. I now understand why Lynch made at least some of his narrative changes. His approach was at least more colorful if not bizzare at times. I realize the faithful have reason to be annoyed but I'm not one of them.

Your take on the 2 versions is precisely what concerned me about both films. There are aspects of the book that are impossible to portray without straying from the intended arc. Lynch seemed to forego the pretext of faithfulness in favor of style and flash. The SciFi version, while more accurate, paled in spectacle to Lynch's. Neither could fully succeed in portraying the inner (Paul's struggles to avoid a violent future) and galactic scope of the book.

But I'm not one of those who thinks that making a cinematic Dune faithful to text and subtext is impossible.

Lord Zombiac wrote:it was just a bad ass, FUN war movie....

If you want a fun war movie, watch Kelly's Heroes.

___ wrote:

Lord Zombiac wrote:it was just a bad ass, FUN war movie....

If you want a fun war movie, watch Kelly's Heroes.

Or Heartbreak Ridge. (Which may not be, technically, a war movie, but great fun, non-the-less).

Lord Zombiac wrote:Everyone who has read the novel knows the movie was the worst cinematic crap ever to have raped literature.

Wow, such hyperbole. I think the movie is amazing (in my top five favourite films of all time). Anyway, it's true to spirit of the book.