DEMO - Starship Troopers released

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Mean_Chlorine wrote:
> Thusly "knight37" <knight37m@gmail.com> Spake Unto All:
>
>
>>Briarroot wrote:
>>
>>>Are you suggesting that some people actually *liked* that movie?
>>
>>I liked it. I loved all the sarcastic social commentary.
>>
>>Crippled guy: "The Mobile Infantry is what made me the man I am today!"
>
>
> I think many don't get that the whole movie is a political satire,
> exactly like Robocop (from the same director) and that it's *supposed*
> to play like a propaganda movie from the future. The whole format
> reminds me of WWII and cold war propaganda movies like John Mills'
> "Ice Cold In Alex" (and, although less so, of modern propaganda movies
> like 'Rules of Engagement' for that matter). It isn't supposed to
> portray war realistically, it's supposed to portray war as a rousing
> adventure.
>

You're right; I don't get that. I think if that *was* the director's
original intention, he completely flubbed his chance.

Have you seen the modern version (1998) of "The Thin Red Line," written
and directed by Terence Malik? What did you think of it?
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Hubbard wrote a lot of stuff, and not just for sci-fi; he's the esteemed
founder of the Church of Scientology. Hubbard is noted for a lot of things.
He wrote some stories i liked. One is Battlefield Earth. The movie was
interesting in a number of ways. There is one author i keep reading. I've
always found more room for thought on a number of 'human' issues each time i
read his two sets of "Nathan Brazil" (The Wellworld Saga) and the "Soulrider
Saga". I think he explores 'obsessive compulsive' in some interesting ways
:)
McG.

"Doug" <pigdos@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:35GTe.2874$LZ6.387@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> Did you ever read any of L. Ron Hubbard's sci-fi works? I read one:
> Battlefield Earth. In the forward, L. Ron. Hubbard goes on and on about
> what a genius he is (inventing the sci-fi genre, etc.). The book wasn't
> bad, but it didn't hold a candle to say, Isaac Asimov or Bradbury.
>
> --
> there is no .sig
> "DocScorpio" <docscorpio@strupra-spammeros.com> wrote in message
> news:qppTe.17628$QN4.7781@trnddc02...
>>
>> "McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:gGnTe.42501$Nx.28633@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>>>
>>> "knight37" <knight37m@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1126013392.146831.142920@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> DocScorpio wrote:
>>>>> I originally read ST when it was first published and didn't much like
>>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> Wow, the book was published in 1959.
>>>>
>>>
>>> <still laughing at that one! :) >
>>>
>>> I read my very first book in 1961. It was thrilling! It took me almost
>>> a year to wade through! It was "Tarzan" by Edgar Rice Burroughs 😱)))
>>> McG.
>>>
>> I don't recall when I read my first book (think it was "Kit Carson" in
>> the Beal book series), but I read my first sci-fi novel, Lester Del Rey's
>> (pseud. Philip St. John) "Rocket Jockey" in 1952. I was a big fan of
>> those Winston sci-fi novels. After I read "Rocket Jockey," there was no
>> turning back. Sci-fi was the only fiction I read for the next decade or
>> so. The sad part is that a great many of those novels had us colonizing
>> the solar system by the 1970's. What a joke! It's a human disgrace that
>> we landed on the moon nearly 40 years ago and literally have done nothing
>> since.
>>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Brian Siano" <siano@mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:dfnb19$87bu$1@netnews.upenn.edu...
> Doug wrote:
>
>> Did you ever read any of L. Ron Hubbard's sci-fi works? I read one:
>> Battlefield Earth. In the forward, L. Ron. Hubbard goes on and on about
>> what a genius he is (inventing the sci-fi genre, etc.). The book wasn't
>> bad, but it didn't hold a candle to say, Isaac Asimov or Bradbury.
>
> Might want to look for better SF and fantasy writers. I'd suggest Neal
> Stephenson, Robert Silverberg, Bruce Sterling, Harlan Ellison, Harry
> Harrison, Ray Bradbury, Philip Jose Farmer, the great Alfred Bester...

Some of those are new-ish. Ellison, Harrison, Bradbury, Farmer I've been
reading for as much as 35 years on a couple of em. You did mention sf and
fantasy, not just sf. Ok, now the list has to get a lot longer :) Start
with Terry Brooks...
McG.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Briarroot" <woodsyl@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:11hupvd3h3n5n69@corp.supernews.com...
> knight37 wrote:
>> Briarroot wrote:
>>
>>>Are you suggesting that some people actually *liked* that movie?
>>
>>
>> I liked it. I loved all the sarcastic social commentary.
>>
>> Crippled guy: "The Mobile Infantry is what made me the man I am today!"
>>
>
> <laughter!>
>
> There was a good movie in there somewhere, struggling to get out.
> Unfortunately it didn't!

Hey, it was still entertaining! About like Battlefield Earth (the movie).
McG.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> once tried to test me
with:

> Thusly "knight37" <knight37m@gmail.com> Spake Unto All:
>
>>
>>Briarroot wrote:
>>> Are you suggesting that some people actually *liked* that movie?
>>
>>I liked it. I loved all the sarcastic social commentary.
>>
>>Crippled guy: "The Mobile Infantry is what made me the man I am today!"
>
> I think many don't get that the whole movie is a political satire,
> exactly like Robocop (from the same director) and that it's *supposed*
> to play like a propaganda movie from the future. The whole format
> reminds me of WWII and cold war propaganda movies like John Mills'
> "Ice Cold In Alex" (and, although less so, of modern propaganda movies
> like 'Rules of Engagement' for that matter). It isn't supposed to
> portray war realistically, it's supposed to portray war as a rousing
> adventure.

Yeah, I'm really shocked when people don't get it, though, because to me it
was blindingly obvious. They were poking fun at the book in some ways,
even, because they took the book's ideas and lampooned them. The only part
of the movie that I thought went a bit too far over the top into 1950's
land was the bit near the end with what the brain bugs did. All in all the
film had great comedy and decent action and CGI for its day. It's one of
the few movies I actually bought on DVD rather than just renting.

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

McGrandpa wrote:
> There is one author i keep reading. I've
> always found more room for thought on a number of 'human' issues each time i
> read his two sets of "Nathan Brazil" (The Wellworld Saga) and the "Soulrider
> Saga". I think he explores 'obsessive compulsive' in some interesting ways
> :)

That'd be Jack Chalker. Who passed away this year, sadly.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

McGrandpa wrote:

> "Brian Siano" <siano@mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote in message
> news:dfnb19$87bu$1@netnews.upenn.edu...
>
>>Doug wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Did you ever read any of L. Ron Hubbard's sci-fi works? I read one:
>>>Battlefield Earth. In the forward, L. Ron. Hubbard goes on and on about
>>>what a genius he is (inventing the sci-fi genre, etc.). The book wasn't
>>>bad, but it didn't hold a candle to say, Isaac Asimov or Bradbury.
>>
>>Might want to look for better SF and fantasy writers. I'd suggest Neal
>>Stephenson, Robert Silverberg, Bruce Sterling, Harlan Ellison, Harry
>>Harrison, Ray Bradbury, Philip Jose Farmer, the great Alfred Bester...
>
> Some of those are new-ish. Ellison, Harrison, Bradbury, Farmer I've been
> reading for as much as 35 years on a couple of em. You did mention sf and
> fantasy, not just sf. Ok, now the list has to get a lot longer :) Start
> with Terry Brooks...

I included fantasy mainly so that Harlan Ellison and Ray Bradbury'd be
included. But I'd also suggest, for fantasy, Mervyn Peake, Neil Gaiman,
Alan Moore, or Michael Moorcock. (Didn't care much for Terry Brooks,
which struck me as a Tolkien ripoff, and Piers Anthony got on my nerves
pretty quickly.)
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Brian Siano" <bsiano@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:XbNTe.632$0Q2.447@trndny01...
> McGrandpa wrote:
>> There is one author i keep reading. I've always found more room for
>> thought on a number of 'human' issues each time i read his two sets of
>> "Nathan Brazil" (The Wellworld Saga) and the "Soulrider Saga". I think
>> he explores 'obsessive compulsive' in some interesting ways :)
>
> That'd be Jack Chalker. Who passed away this year, sadly.

Yes, we lost a great mind there 🙁
McG.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Brian Siano" <bsiano@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:XbNTe.632$0Q2.447@trndny01...
> McGrandpa wrote:
>> There is one author i keep reading. I've always found more room for
>> thought on a number of 'human' issues each time i read his two sets of
>> "Nathan Brazil" (The Wellworld Saga) and the "Soulrider Saga". I think
>> he explores 'obsessive compulsive' in some interesting ways :)
>
> That'd be Jack Chalker. Who passed away this year, sadly.

Didn't know he'd died. After reading your post, I checked out his site and
got the whole story. That's a real shame.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

McGrandpa wrote:
> "Briarroot" <woodsyl@iwon.com> wrote in message
> news:11hupvd3h3n5n69@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>There was a good movie in there somewhere, struggling to get out.
>>Unfortunately it didn't!
>
>
> Hey, it was still entertaining! About like Battlefield Earth (the movie).
> McG.
>

I guess you're right. After all, I *did* watch it all the way through
when it was broadcast on TV. ;-)
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Brian Siano wrote:

> Might want to look for better SF and fantasy writers. I'd suggest Neal
> Stephenson, Robert Silverberg, Bruce Sterling, Harlan Ellison, Harry
> Harrison, Ray Bradbury, Philip Jose Farmer, the great Alfred Bester...

You dare mentioning Neal Stephenson in that group 😉?

--
Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Briarroot" <woodsyl@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:11i08sdq3j6v2df@corp.supernews.com...
> McGrandpa wrote:
>> "Briarroot" <woodsyl@iwon.com> wrote in message
>> news:11hupvd3h3n5n69@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>There was a good movie in there somewhere, struggling to get out.
>>>Unfortunately it didn't!
>>
>>
>> Hey, it was still entertaining! About like Battlefield Earth (the
>> movie).
>> McG.
>
> I guess you're right. After all, I *did* watch it all the way through
> when it was broadcast on TV. ;-)
>

In the first few minutes of each movie, I felt they were social satire and
was able to get a few smiles and chuckles from each. ST is less thought
provoking than BE to me. I did find myself wandering around the thought
"well, what WOULD Earth be like IF it got ran over and humanity all but
stamped out and left to start over?" But that very theme has been written
over and over and over by a lot of writers. I've enjoyed the theme though.
McG.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly "McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> Spake Unto All:

>Hubbard wrote a lot of stuff, and not just for sci-fi; he's the esteemed
>founder of the Church of Scientology.

Esteemed? By whom? A guy who founds a church on a bar bet, after
having asserted at a Sci-Fi convention (and in the bar) that the only
way to make serious money as a sci-fi writer is to found a religion...

I will give Hubbard points for smartness, and for realizing that parts
of humanity are even dumber than even I thought, but I don't respect
him. While most other prophets, from Yeshua to Joseph Smith, may have
been untreated schizophreniacs, they at least seem to have believed in
their own teachings.

And I believe even scientologists don't refer to themselves a 'church'
except with regards to paying taxes.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly Briarroot <woodsyl@iwon.com> Spake Unto All:

>> I think many don't get that the whole movie is a political satire,
---
>> like 'Rules of Engagement' for that matter). It isn't supposed to
>> portray war realistically, it's supposed to portray war as a rousing
>> adventure.
>
>You're right; I don't get that. I think if that *was* the director's
>original intention, he completely flubbed his chance.

Oh, I disagree, but I can certainly agree that the movie would stink
if taken at face value. For me the movie was uneven and had plotholes
you could've driven one of those sorely missed tanks through, but
quite obviously a Verhoeven-style satire about a future fascist
society.

Verhoeven, who, judging by Robocop and Starship Troopers, seems to
have leftist leanings, might've been inspired by the fact that
Heinlein is thought to have had far-right views (let's not get in to
the discussion whether he did or not; it is sufficient that Verhoeven
probably thought he did).

>Have you seen the modern version (1998) of "The Thin Red Line," written
>and directed by Terence Malik? What did you think of it?

I hated it with a vengeance.
It was artsy, but I can live with that, but it was also the *dullest*
war movie I've ever seen, and being dull is a cardinal sin for a war
movie. IMO.

As for war movies, my favorites would be Full Metal Jacket, Das Boot,
and The Beast of War. And, if I could cut out the very Spielberg'esque
'make the audience leave in a good mood' tack-on fluff from the ten
first and ten last minutes, Saving Private Ryan.

Oh yeah, and Aliens. Very dated by now, and it loses focus towards the
end, but a quite good war movie.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly Knight37 <knight37m@gmail.com> Spake Unto All:

>> I think many don't get that the whole movie is a political satire,
>> exactly like Robocop (from the same director) and that it's *supposed*

>Yeah, I'm really shocked when people don't get it, though, because to me it
>was blindingly obvious.

Well, that's the risk you take with both irony and satire: if you make
it too obvious it will put people off, if you make it too subtle,
people may take it at face value. Although I do admit it was
blindingly obvious to me too, and it took me a while to realize that
many didn't see the satire in ST at all. It happened a lot to Robocop
as well, even though the satire was even more obvious there.

Incidentally, did you get the feeling from the movie that maybe, just
maybe, the humans were the expansionist aggressors, and the arachnids
simply defending themselves?

>film had great comedy and decent action and CGI for its day. It's one of
>the few movies I actually bought on DVD rather than just renting.

Ditto.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Mean_Chlorine" <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:v060i1ls5r75qbsvihb5prauhaua2n1kkj@4ax.com...
> Thusly "McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> Spake Unto All:
>
>>Hubbard wrote a lot of stuff, and not just for sci-fi; he's the esteemed
>>founder of the Church of Scientology.
>
> Esteemed? By whom? A guy who founds a church on a bar bet, after
> having asserted at a Sci-Fi convention (and in the bar) that the only
> way to make serious money as a sci-fi writer is to found a religion...

Oops, I didn't put a wink in there. Sorry about that. Esteemed Founder is
the phrase used on his official website :)

>
> I will give Hubbard points for smartness, and for realizing that parts
> of humanity are even dumber than even I thought, but I don't respect
> him. While most other prophets, from Yeshua to Joseph Smith, may have
> been untreated schizophreniacs, they at least seem to have believed in
> their own teachings.
>
> And I believe even scientologists don't refer to themselves a 'church'
> except with regards to paying taxes.

Right. I think Hubbard was smart, I think he was smarter than me and was
also someone to be cautious around. I don't think he was 'wicked' or
'evil', but definitely ambitious. I never considered him as any sort of
prophet or holy man at all. I saw him as a smart fella that did some good
stuff here and there, wrote some interesting stuff and also ran off in some
odd directions. Howard Hughes 'world' was more interesting to me.

McG.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 2005-09-08, Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> As for war movies, my favorites would be Full Metal Jacket, Das Boot,
> and The Beast of War. And, if I could cut out the very Spielberg'esque
> 'make the audience leave in a good mood' tack-on fluff from the ten
> first and ten last minutes, Saving Private Ryan.

Aren't the first 10 minutes of SPR the storming of the beaches? Hardly
"feelgood"!

--
Toby.
Add the word afiduluminag to the subject
field to circumvent my email filters.
Ignore any mail delivery error.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Mean_Chlorine wrote:
> Thusly Briarroot <woodsyl@iwon.com> Spake Unto All:
>
>
>>>I think many don't get that the whole movie is a political satire,
>
>>
>>You're right; I don't get that. I think if that *was* the director's
>>original intention, he completely flubbed his chance.
>
>
> Oh, I disagree, but I can certainly agree that the movie would stink
> if taken at face value. For me the movie was uneven and had plotholes
> you could've driven one of those sorely missed tanks through, but
> quite obviously a Verhoeven-style satire about a future fascist
> society.

Well, perhaps I'm just too thick to see it. :-/

>
>>Have you seen the modern version (1998) of "The Thin Red Line," written
>>and directed by Terence Malik? What did you think of it?
>
>
> I hated it with a vengeance.
> It was artsy, but I can live with that, but it was also the *dullest*
> war movie I've ever seen, and being dull is a cardinal sin for a war
> movie. IMO.

Unfortunately I bought the DVD without first having read the reviews.
Hey (I thought), it's WW2 with a big name cast, the original movie was a
good one, so what could go wrong? Sheesh! This movie should be used as
an example of what terrible results can occur when a director is also
the film's writer. :-(


> As for war movies, my favorites would be Full Metal Jacket, Das Boot,
> and The Beast of War. And, if I could cut out the very Spielberg'esque
> 'make the audience leave in a good mood' tack-on fluff from the ten
> first and ten last minutes, Saving Private Ryan.

Heh. The scenes in the cemetery were the only things that *I* thought
made SPR worthwhile! Yes, the combat scenes were as realistic as any
I've ever seen and the cast was uniformly wonderful, but the plot was
simply absurd, based on a tremendous bit of illogic and rife with
historical inaccuracies. That's not to say that I didn't love the
movie, because it's on my list of all time favorites despite it flaws,
but without the framework of the opening and closing scenes, it would
have been just another good movie.

My favorite scene in SPR took place General Marshall's office where
Harve Presnell reads that Lincoln letter - real tear jerker for me. ;-)
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Mean_Chlorine" <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bg70i1158il5p8v8rf9dpnq24mvr5nmd0s@4ax.com...
> Thusly Knight37 <knight37m@gmail.com> Spake Unto All:
>
>>> I think many don't get that the whole movie is a political satire,
>>> exactly like Robocop (from the same director) and that it's *supposed*
>
>>Yeah, I'm really shocked when people don't get it, though, because to me
>>it
>>was blindingly obvious.
>
> Well, that's the risk you take with both irony and satire: if you make
> it too obvious it will put people off, if you make it too subtle,
> people may take it at face value. Although I do admit it was
> blindingly obvious to me too, and it took me a while to realize that
> many didn't see the satire in ST at all. It happened a lot to Robocop
> as well, even though the satire was even more obvious there.
>
> Incidentally, did you get the feeling from the movie that maybe, just
> maybe, the humans were the expansionist aggressors, and the arachnids
> simply defending themselves?

Yes. Especially with the humans militant social structure :) "Force my
friends is violence, the supreme authority from which all other authority is
derived" - Jean Rasczak, "Starship Troopers". From the 'info-casts' in
the movie, one learns it was the humans who encroached upon Arachnid space
first, and wouldn't take the hint to leave.
I see the movie as a fun portrayal of a negative model structure :) To me
there isn't a serious note in the movie, nor in the game. But like the
movie, the game can be fun too.
McG.

>
>>film had great comedy and decent action and CGI for its day. It's one of
>>the few movies I actually bought on DVD rather than just renting.
>
> Ditto.
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Mean_Chlorine wrote:

> Verhoeven, who, judging by Robocop and Starship Troopers, seems to
> have leftist leanings, might've been inspired by the fact that
> Heinlein is thought to have had far-right views (let's not get in to
> the discussion whether he did or not; it is sufficient that Verhoeven
> probably thought he did).

Verhoeven admited he has never read the book.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Toby wrote:
> On 2005-09-08, Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> As for war movies, my favorites would be Full Metal Jacket, Das Boot,
>> and The Beast of War. And, if I could cut out the very
>> Spielberg'esque 'make the audience leave in a good mood' tack-on
>> fluff from the ten first and ten last minutes, Saving Private Ryan.
>
> Aren't the first 10 minutes of SPR the storming of the beaches? Hardly
> "feelgood"!

He's talking about the out-of-place Old Man Ryan that served as the prologue
and epilogue of the movie.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cNWTe.48421$Nx.1660@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
> "Briarroot" <woodsyl@iwon.com> wrote in message
> news:11i08sdq3j6v2df@corp.supernews.com...
>> McGrandpa wrote:
>>> "Briarroot" <woodsyl@iwon.com> wrote in message
>>> news:11hupvd3h3n5n69@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>>There was a good movie in there somewhere, struggling to get out.
>>>>Unfortunately it didn't!
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey, it was still entertaining! About like Battlefield Earth (the
>>> movie).
>>> McG.
>>
>> I guess you're right. After all, I *did* watch it all the way through
>> when it was broadcast on TV. ;-)
>>
>
> In the first few minutes of each movie, I felt they were social satire and
> was able to get a few smiles and chuckles from each. ST is less thought
> provoking than BE to me. I did find myself wandering around the thought
> "well, what WOULD Earth be like IF it got ran over and humanity all but
> stamped out and left to start over?" But that very theme has been written
> over and over and over by a lot of writers. I've enjoyed the theme
> though.
> McG.
I thought ST was infinitely better than BE. BE was tolerable till we got to
the part where they started up the F-16's which had been parked for
centuries (apparently fully-fueled and prepped) and then taught the
"cavemen" how to fly them perfectly on simulators. My ability to suspend
disbelief vanished at that point. The bizarre military tactics in ST
weren't even a close second to this nonsense.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly Toby <google@asktoby.com> Spake Unto All:

>> and The Beast of War. And, if I could cut out the very Spielberg'esque
>> 'make the audience leave in a good mood' tack-on fluff from the ten
>> first and ten last minutes, Saving Private Ryan.
>
>Aren't the first 10 minutes of SPR the storming of the beaches? Hardly
>"feelgood"!

No, the first ten minutes is the "heartwarming" meeting of veterans at
the memorial, and the last ten minutes teary-eyed rubbish about how a
new generation takes over and that "it wasn't in vain". You're lucky
that you've managed to forget. For me it's right up there with the
ending of Blade Runner as a warning example of why studios shouldn't
care when "the test audience felt the ending was too bleak".
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly "Hank the Rapper" <xflopgoon@REMOVEyahoo.com> Spake Unto All:

>
>> Heinlein is thought to have had far-right views (let's not get in to
>> the discussion whether he did or not; it is sufficient that Verhoeven
>> probably thought he did).
>
>Verhoeven admited he has never read the book.

That would only make it easier for Verhoeven to think Heinleins book
was fascist.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Brian Siano <siano@mail.med.upenn.edu> thought that a good way to
threaten somebody was to light a stick of dynamite, then call the
guy and hold the burning fuse up to the phone and say:

> Might want to look for better SF and fantasy writers. I'd suggest
> Neal Stephenson, Robert Silverberg, Bruce Sterling, Harlan
> Ellison, Harry Harrison, Ray Bradbury, Philip Jose Farmer, the
> great Alfred Bester...

Alfred Bester is >amazing<. I finished Tiger, Tiger (The Stars My
Destination) and am in the middle of The Demolished Man and to think
this was written in the 50's is mindblowing.

Also, if you are looking for something newer, Hyperion by Dan Simmons
and A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge have truely earned the label
"modern classic".

--
Ajay Tanwar | MCSE | ajtanwar@spam.yahoo.com
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people
in large groups." -Despair.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom