Mission to Mars

Saw it today, liked it, recommend it.

> Saw it today, liked it, recommend it.

I saw it on Friday. I didn't like it and would not recommend it. The special
effects were good. Some of the camera angles were good. The plot had potential
but didn't live up to that potential, and the script was horrible.

Obviously, our opinions differ, so your mileage may vary.

--Greg

> Saw it today, liked it, recommend it.

Saw it Saturday, really enjoyed it. Afterwards, I'll have to say, I was a
little hard pressed to say it was a "great" movie. I've seen this movie
before, but it
was called a different name - "2001: A Space Odessey".

<SPOILER AHEAD>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\/
And - what about when the ship got hit by micro meteors?!
Did they not practice Damage Control drills back on Earth? It seems like the
whole crew was stumbling around trying to figure out what to do. And a big
"Thumbs Down" to the actions of Gary Sinese's character. His unnecessary
bravado not only almost got him killed, but it wasted 25% of the crew (the
female crew member had no point but to chase after him and get him to put on
his helmet). And what the hell were they doing with their helmets so far away
from them?! And who designed the helmets?!
The current NASA helmets have faceplates that can open -
these did not!

> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 23:04:24 -0500, Los <los@cris.com> wrote:

> Saw it today, liked it, recommend it.

Really??? Every major news outlet is savaging it. Some internet sites
(sci-fi
fans) are ripping it to shreds. I mean, seriously, the night before the
mission to Mars, the captain is having brewskis with the boys at a barbecue???
Some sites were saying that this was, like, "Ishtar" bad... *S*

A good compendium was on Salon:
http://www.salon.com/ent/log/2000/03/10/mars_reviews/index.html

Oh, well, what do I know. I liked "Starship Troopers" (but mostly because it
peeved the ardent Heinlein fans... *S*).

> Allan Goodall wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 23:04:24 -0500, Los <los@cris.com> wrote:

I didn't say it was the best movie ever made, just said that I liked it. And
I'm at least intelligent enough to not actually let major news outlets tell me
what I should like. How many of those idiots even like Sci Fi? I mean after
all how many sci fi movies about Mars are there? And I liked SST also despite
all the problems with it. And silly me, I actually though SPR wa sthe best
combat film I've ever seen but what do I know. But then again I don't wake up
every morning looking for stuff to bitch about. Go figure...

> I actually though SPR wa sthe best combat film

I can't quite peg that acronym, care to enlighten me? I'll have to agree, most
media outlets always seem to give sci-fi a bad shake.  I usually go and
form my own opion.

SPR Saving Private Ryan

We love you too.

SPR is, I'm betting, Saving Private Ryan. Just helping clear the confusion,
but I won't say whether I like it or not, for fear of the wrath and ridicule.

Brian B

----Original Message Follows----
From: Aron_Clark@digidesign.com
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Mission to Mars
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:54:06 -0800

> I actually though SPR wa sthe best combat film

I can't quite peg that acronym, care to enlighten me? I'll have to agree, most
media outlets always seem to give sci-fi a bad shake.  I usually go and
form my own opion.

> On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:47:04 -0500, Los <los@cris.com> wrote:

> I didn't say it was the best movie ever made, just said that I liked

Ouch. That hurt my feelings. *L* I was just pointing out that it's been
getting a lot of scathing reviews. I was hoping you'd have seen some of them
and give reasons why you liked it. I don't let major news outlets tell me what
I should like (I work for a newspaper and disagree with our "star" reviewer
most of the time) but I do take a lot of negative reviews into consideration
when deciding to pay $10 to see it, or wait until video.

There was a positive review from Roger Ebert (an acknowledged sci-fi
fan) but he also complained about a number of problems in it. The "Ain't It
Cool News" comment on the film (at
http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=5386 )
was pretty scathing but obviously from a sci-fi fan.

> I mean after all how many

A couple of dozen, most from the 50s and 60s. Nothing recent; the most recent
probably being the Schwarzennegger movie from the mid 90s.

> And I liked SST also despite all the problems

Ummm... it was! Although there are a couple of foreign films that apparently
give it a run for its money.

> But then again I don't wake up every morning looking for

My mistake. I'm running a fever (seriously!). *L* I should have said "What did
you like about it, as there are news articles coming out about how scathing
the reviews about it are." Basically, when Disney and Brian De Palma get raked
by mostly everyone, it's news. I was trying to determine if there was
something political in it, or if they missed something.

In a message dated 3/15/00 7:37:15 PM Central Standard Time,
> agoodall@interlog.com writes:

<< Ouch. That hurt my feelings. *L* I was just pointing out that it's been
getting a lot of scathing reviews. I was hoping you'd have seen some of them
and give reasons why you liked it. I don't let major news outlets tell me what
I should like (I work for a newspaper and disagree with our "star" reviewer
most of the time) but I do take a lot of negative reviews into consideration
when deciding to pay $10 to see it, or wait until video.
> [quoted text omitted]

Fortunately, here in OKC we have a first run house that only charges $2! But,
it was money well spent - customary first run prices here are $7 and I
would have gladly paid that. I have seen some DUM B comments about this film,
and I have shaken my head "Does NASA know they were shooting off missiles for
fireworks at the

launch party?" They were model rockets full of party streamers, as the movie
shows a NASA guy loading a model rocket on a wire launch rail - for
crying out loud. "Does NASA knows they drank beer at the party?" NASA KNOWS
they are going to bust loose a little before a mission launch which is WHY
they check in three days prior to launch and get locked down on site before
hand so they have plenty of time to go the mandated period before launch
SOBER.
    The picture is good - sort of a 2001: A Space Odyssey without
Kubrick's
incomprehensibility. The story is pretty accurate science-wise. It shows
a
hamster-cage ship used for transit - someone is going to berate the
movie for trying to land the WHOLE ship but it is not the landing pass that
has them in
trouble in the movie - it is getting ready for the orbital insertion
burn.
    Gary Sinise is good - he usually is. Tim Robbins is very good too,
but the whole cast works together well, even those who make their "terminal"
exit before the movie is over. The movie works the allure of Mars and the
search for intelligent life into a cohesive whole, IF youreally LOVED the
travestial
movie "Starship Troopers" you will NOT like Mission: Mars - Mission Mars
is a
GOOD movie - Starship Troopers was not. 2001: A Space Odyssey was a good

movie despite Kubricks ham handed incomprehensible ending - Mission Mars

deserves a B or B+ and I give out FEW "A".s.

> On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 22:53:08 EST, Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:

> "Does NASA knows they drank beer at the party?" NASA KNOWS they are

Ummm... they lock down because of disease, not sobriety. If you got sick on a
manned mission to the moon (or Mars, in this case) you don't exactly have
access to a pharmacy.

This seems to be a love-it/hate-it kind of film. One guy I talked to in
a chatroom tonight said that it was horrible. If it's really as bad as some
people have said, I HAVE to see it!

> On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Brian Bilderback wrote:

> We love you too.

Allan, Allan... In this group, this is called 'borrowing trouble'.

Must resist repeat of 'Why SST:tM was very bad' thread...Must resist 'We
should lynch Paul Verhoven' thread... Must resist...resist...

> Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:

I beg to differ. <grin>

In zero gee, making a helix composed of M&M candies *revolve*??!!? Only if the
director never heard of Newton's First Law. Or if there was an invisible black
hole in the center, stretched into a line.

Spacesuit thrust jets at shoulder level. I guess they like doing somersaults
in space. You do remember in Heinlein's STARSHIP TROOPERS how he mentioned
that the powered armor suit jets had their axis of thrust passing through the
center of mass?

A plot device that depends on the concept of inertia, followed by an attempted
rescue that violates the concept of intertia. At the least the director should
have been consistent.

And don't forget the Face on Mars. Even though the latest NASA photos show
that it is just another cliff.
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camera/images/4_6_face_release/index.h
tml

The astronauts view a computer graphic of a DNA molecule inside a spaceship
that cannot take off because all the computers are fried. I guess that the
mission designers decided to EMP harden important things like remote
controlled toy cars, while ignoring trival things like ship computers.

And the magic canvas greenhouse. Earth atmospheric pressure inside, Mars
atmospheric pressure outside. We are asked to believe that canvas can hold in
pressure amounting to about one ton per square foot. Yeah, right. And even if
it did it would be under so much tension that it would never ever *flap in the
breeze*.

The greenhouse also ignores a few other scientific facts:

SPR =saving Private Ryan. A whole internet cottage industry seems to have
evolved trying to prove how much the film sucks because of this or that minor
technical errors ("P51 Mustang! Tank Buster!") This normally has more to do
with the poster trying to prove how much he thinks he knows about WW2 history
than anything about the movie. Sort of like bitching about the accuracy or
"Schindler's List" because the rifle camp commander he uses to shoot prisoners
at random from his balcony is a Brazillian made K98 rather than a German made
K98.

But back to Mission to Mars, sure the ending was something out of Close
Encounters/2001 but most of the movie was stll interesting, especially
evacuating tthe lander the resupply module, and the windstorms etc etc.Whether
or not they were having a party the day before, well itt's not NASA 1999 it's
NASA 2028. (Maybe they cured the common cold in 2025? <grin>, who cares..) I
was more drawn to the interpersonal stuff like Sinese being replaced and the
guy leaving his son for two years, (Something my wife and I can identify with
quite painfully having gone on plenty of deployments), which was the whole
point of the scene. It's a classic example of missing the forest for the
trees.

> Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:

I had the suspcision when they aired the promo for movie that it was going to
be a leaker.

> In zero gee, making a helix composed of M&M candies

Hollywood Producer: "But it looks cool."

> Spacesuit thrust jets at shoulder level. I guess

Hollywood Producer: "But... it... looks... cool."

> A plot device that depends on the concept of inertia,

Hollywood Producer: "I SAID IT LOOKS COOL OK!!! WE IN TINSEL TOWN HAVE THE
TIME OR INCLINATION TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE CREATE IS FACTUAL! IF
COOL SPECIAL EFFECTS AND/OR LARGE MAMMARY GLANDS IS WHAT IT TAKES TO
BRING IN THE NERDS, THEN BY GEORGE LUCAS WE'LL DO IT!!!!!"

> And don't forget the Face on Mars. Even though the
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camera/images/4_6_face_release/index.h
tml

That's what THEY want you to think! NASA doctored those photos to make the
face look like a cliff! They are already under the influence of the Zondar
thought control rays and have been since ROSWELL. Quick, put this on! What do
you mean it's just a tin foil hat? This will screen out the hypnotronic beam's
effects!

> The astronauts view a computer graphic of a DNA molecule

"Intel Inside."

> The greenhouse also ignores a few other scientific facts:

Well, there on a diet.

> [3] Canvas cannot create the greenhouse effect. You need

NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH... Canvas???

> Nice happy ending as well. The astronauts merrily travel

They should have cristened the ship the U.S.S. Donnor or the
U.S.S.
Packard.

I have not seen the movie, but planned to wait until the $1.00 theater has it.

The preview told the story here. Much spent on CGI usually means little
spent on plot or logic. Seeing the preview with the huge alien-thing
with a DNA molecule in it was enough to put me off paying full price for it.

I think that CGI stands for Common-sense Generally Ignored.

In a message dated 3/16/00 10:00:59 AM Central Standard Time,
> siefert@milwpc.com writes:

<<
> The astronauts view a computer graphic of a DNA molecule

You are forgeting the hobbled-together nature of the working computer -
and the commo dish and computer were fried, tech education and creativity got
a
working processor and monitor together - not outside the realms of
possibility

> The greenhouse also ignores a few other scientific facts:

Grow lights and water brought with them and recycled -besides we d not
know
the greenhouse was NOT under pressure - the flapping tarps? Wo knows -
to show the increased wind? To flatter the set designer?

> Nice happy ending as well. The astronauts merrily travel

It was an emergency recovery vehicle (ERV would you design a ship without food
supplies for the crew?

> In zero gee, making a helix composed of M&M candies
To get the helix to be stable (without spinning of course) would erquire one
to turn off the air fans in the room and the crew would stifle in their own
COtwo, but hey it was their to spike a revelation later in the film. The ship
looked good and the hamsterwheel configuration was interesting to see.

In a message dated 3/16/00 10:30:45 AM Central Standard Time,
los@cris.com writes:

<< SPR =saving Private Ryan. A whole internet cottage industry seems to have
evolved trying to prove how much the film sucks because of this or that minor
technical errors >>

It is all a matter of a "willing suspension of disbelief" theater and film
require it to a large degree. There are many things unbelievable about the
experience in a darkened theater - you have to be willing to step beyond
them to allow the play or movie to affect you. What amazes me is here we are
on a
list devoted to playing games with little toy soldiers and ships - yet
we can't accept fthe filmic nature of a movie which deals with the same
subject.

How can one have ANY belief in a space game system that depicts combat between
more than three ships occupying points in three dimensions in a TWO
dimensional format - it is ridiculously inaccurate! QUIT PLAYING
IMMEDIATELY! How can we accept a game depicting combat in the future which
depicts such
unbelievable aspects as "anti-gravity" when it does not exist in
reality? Working hovertanks? It is laughable, LAUGHABLE I TELL YOU! Orbital
Artillery
strikes - name one that has happened in real life - Ha! Knew you could
not!

Now in that framework, we have to listen to people paste a movie about
unbelievability? Look past the inaccuracy - it is a convention. Look
past the
filmic use of a device or weapon that is patently WRONG - they could not
find one that was patently RIGHT. There is still good experience to be had in
the filmic or theatric presentation of a story about PEOPLE. As a world
culture we have realized that since people gathered round the fire to describe
a

successful hunt by dancing and singing. To deny the power of the dramatic
story to describe the human condition is ludicrous at best.

That being said - Starship Troopers was still a stinker and the Dutchman

should be hunted down and shot out of hand.

> Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
[...]
> Orbital Artillery

The Tunguska event.

:-)

Mk

> On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 08:34:41PM -0500, Allan Goodall wrote:

"Mars Attacks"

Probably the best science fiction movie involving head transplants and the
dangers of country western music.

> On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Ted Arlauskas wrote:

> <SPOILER AHEAD>
Who designed that ship anyway? Couldn't NASA come up with a system that finds
hull breaches faster than a can of Dr.Pepper?

Didn't anyone put pressure sensors in the fuel system? "Hmm. Fuel line four
didn't come up to normal pressure. Bypass it."

I think I know what kind on computer was running the ship... a HAL 2000.
 Talk
about unhelpful bordering on fatal. "Pressure dropping...Pressure dropping...
Pressure dropping" Tell us something useful, like where there's a unexplained
temperature drop in the hamster wheel. Of course, they fixed the computer by
rebooting it. I wonder if it was running Windows 2025..

What really pissed me off was watching the rescue ship captain kill himself
through his own stupidity. All the crew is teathered together correct? The
captain unhooks from the group, takes the end of the line *in his hand* and
heads for the resupply pod. Why didn't he hook the line to his suit? Or hook
his teather line to the rescue line? His mistake killed him. To quote:

"Anything you forget to bring with you from Earth, will kill you. Anything you
do bring with you which doesn't work properly will kill you. When in doubt,
assume it's going to kill you!"

A fun movie to watch but it scares the hell out of the little astronaunt
inside me.

***
> >I mean after all how many

"Mars Attacks"

Probably the best science fiction movie involving head transplants and the
dangers of country western music.
***

Well, that one isn't really ABOUT Mars, mostly just the Martians. There was
the
Martian Cronicles mini-series with Rock Hudson if you're willing to
count that.

You can't forget such sterling product like Santa Goes to Mars, or Robinson
Crusoe on Mars... *cough cough*

Not much grist for gaming in those,though.

The_Beast

> On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 03:15:55 -0400, adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca wrote:

> If they had named it something else and taken away the vague references

The moment I saw the men standing around in a circle, firing at a bug in the
middle, I started laughing my arse off and realized Verhoven was laughing at
Heinlein. Now, to be honest, I DO think that Heinlein fans deserve a serious
treatment of Starship Troopers. But I also think that most sci-fi fans
(who tend to be a very conservative lot) give his views far too much credence.

> >If they had named it something else and taken away the vague

I'm not sure why it having a decidedly conservative bent would preclude it
from being given good movie treatment. Can't there be movies with a more
conservative appeal. We've all been treated to liberal fare (sometimes extreme
liberal stuff) from Hollywood for years and years.

Robert Crawford wrote: "Mars Attacks"

> Probably the best science fiction movie involving head

Amen.

> On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:45:02 -0500, Los <los@cris.com> wrote:

> SPR =saving Private Ryan. A whole internet cottage industry seems to

Yet this is the same group that thinks Patton is such a great movie, with it's
M48s doubling as German tanks? *L*

> Allan Goodall wrote:

> The moment I saw the men standing around in a circle, firing at a bug

When more of you guys can start receiving SST:Roughnecks on your local access
cables your happily forget all about Veorhoeven's folly.

***
I'm not sure why it having a decidedly conservative bent would preclude it
from being given good movie treatment. Can't there be movies with a more
conservative appeal. We've all been treated to liberal fare (sometimes extreme
liberal stuff) from Hollywood for years and years.

Chris
***

Easy, Chris; you're using US terminology and concepts in an international
setting. Up until the Bill and Tony show, Liberal and Conservative meant
something rather different here and, say, in Britain.

I don't EVEN have a clue what they may mean to those from Oz. Do you?

The_Beast, the card carrying US liberal of the list who claims no
affinity to Hollow-wood product

On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 14:01:57 -0600, "Chris Lowrey" <clowrey@primary.net>
wrote:

> I'm not sure why it having a decidedly conservative bent would preclude

Well, first, let's not get into a liberal versus conservative Hollywood
argument. I could debate that until the cows came home! *L*

What I meant was that Heinlein's far right conservativism isn't any more
realistic than far left Marxism. It requires people to behave in
non-realistic
ways for it to work. I mean, seriously, the only people who get to vote are
those who enter the military? Aside from the fact that any party that tried to
put that into effect would be committing political suicide, the economic
effects would be awful.

> What I meant was that Heinlein's

insert "presumed"

> far right conservativism isn't any more

any >present day< party, I take it you mean? But oddly enough,
Heinlein wasn't writing about a present day situation.  :- )

> the economic effects would be awful.

Oh? Why? Offlist, if you will, as I don't imagine the list has any passionate
desire to hear this.

> I mean, seriously, the only people who get to vote are

???
This isn't what the book says.

It says that in order to vote, you must have performed some involuntary public
service for a few years. What in the UK would be called "National Sevice".

There'd be heaps of Voters who would have done this working in Hospitals, as
Firefighters, Paramedics, Ecological restoration, Miners, even Teachers. The
point is, "the Almighty State" dictates where you go, not yourself. And some
of the jobs are not risk-free (eg the Military, or Firefighting). But
the majority are.

Summary: the right to being a part of the group that steers the state has to
be earned by doing something for the state FIRST. In order to help rule the
apathetic, you must first do a service for them.

Oh yes, in SST (the book) People in the military can't vote until they retire.

I fail to see how this has any important economic consequences, apart from
perhaps
leading to less money being required for Civil Defence/Disaster Recovery
such
as Flood Relief, Paramedic/First Aid training, volunteer Fire
Departments etc. as possibly 50% of the working population would have been
trained in at least one of these areas.

Actually, I take that back. There are definite penalties: in Germany, where I
lived for a few years, it was obvious that the removal of nearly everybody
from the workforce for 2-3 years in their early 20s meant that the
workforce was reduced by 5%, and GDP accordingly. Worse, it wasn't until their
early 30's that people could even dream realistically about owning a house,
rather than late 20's. Would this balance the benefits given above? Probably
it would exceed them if everybody did it. So encourage more people not to try
for Voter status. How many people vote in the US anyway? 50%? Less?

To bring this on-topic.... I'm sure with the Chaos overtaking the USA in
the coming century, that the NAC as it's currently organised wouldn't be the
only solution. I personally like the idea of FCT being run along SST(the book)
lines
- as actually written, not as interpreted by many people who've
completely missed the point. *Read* *The* *Book*. Do it carefully, making sure
you read what it says, not what you thought it says, nor what others have told
you it says.

FWIW I'll do the same (again). It's a cracking good book, after all, despite
the heavy-handed polemic.

In message <4hd2dsc6l8fv38iqaghpi561jlqojqjnmk@4ax.com> Allan Goodall writes:
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 03:15:55 -0400, adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca wrote:

I think it *was* a serious treatment of ST, but not (*clearly*
not) made by a hyper-respectful Heinlein fanboy. Serious, but
not respectful. There are chunks of RAH's polemic intact and, ultimately,
Humanity only survives because it is so extremely martial, plainly shown to be
a good thing.

...Any word on Verhoevan's Hitler biopic?

[quoted original message omitted]

> It says that in order to vote, you must have performed some

> But that is just wrong. The book says nothing at all about involuntary

Sorry, I didn't express myself clearly.

You had to volunteer for National Service (as furher reading of my post would
indicate). But _which form_ of National Service wasn't up to you once
you'd volunteered. You signed a Blank Cheque that let "them" put you wherever
you were needed, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his
needs." A good Nuclear Physicist would almost certainly be put onto Nuclear
Physics. But an academic mediocrity in good health, an athlete with no
practical training but high IQ could well end up in the PBI.

Sorry I didn't make myself clear. FWIW I agree with what you say, I just
didn't express myself as cogently as you did.

> aebrain@dynamite.com.au wrote:

> A good Nuclear Physicist would almost certainly be put onto Nuclear

Except that the vast majority of those serving in the arnmed forces (even
Heinlein's) are about as far removed from harm or discomforture as you are
back on the block.

I dunno, mix "Santa goes to Mars" with the faux film "The Night the Reindeer
Died" from "Scrooged," and you minght have something.... Santa's sleigh has
been hijacked by aliens and it's up to Sigourney Weaver's clone to save
him.....

Brian B

----Original Message Follows----
From: devans@uneb.edu
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Mission to Mars
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:21:40 -0600

You can't forget such sterling product like Santa Goes to Mars, or Robinson
Crusoe on Mars... *cough cough*

Not much grist for gaming in those,though.

The_Beast

The only thing I *LOVED* about Patton, whether it really happened or not, was
his quote, "Rommel, you magnificent bastard! I read your book!"

In a message dated 3/16/00 10:11:47 PM Central Standard Time,
> bbilderback@hotmail.com writes:

<< "Rommel, you magnificent bastard! I read your book!"
> [quoted text omitted]

Rommel published a study in German on Infantry Tactics in the 1920's.

My favorite's the old "War of the Worlds." Not because of any artistic or
scientific merit, but because it has a character named "Bilderbeck," whis is
about as close as I'll ever get to my 15 minutes.

Brian B

----Original Message Follows----
From: "Robin Paul" <Robin.Paul@tesco.net>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: Re: Mission to Mars
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 00:28:44 -0000

[quoted original message omitted]

G'day guys,

> You can't forget such sterling product like Santa Goes to Mars, or

I don't know I've always wanted to game out the episode where Danger Mouse and
Penfold head for Mars... "and if they miss Mars will they reach Grandmas??"

;)

Beth

In a message dated 3/16/00 1:38:48 PM Central Standard Time,
> agoodall@interlog.com writes:

<< The moment I saw the men standing around in a circle, firing at a bug in
the middle, I started laughing my arse off and realized Verhoven was laughing
at Heinlein. Now, to be honest, I DO think that Heinlein fans deserve a
serious
 treatment of Starship Troopers. But I also think that most sci-fi fans
(who tend to be a very conservative lot) give his views far too much credence.
> [quoted text omitted]
Yeah, I laughed at that myself. "Sir, I'm sorry to report a 50% casualty

rate." "What happened, lieutenant? Bug ambush?" "No sir, friendly fire."

The thing about his views, there is the typical "he was a fascist vs. he was
right!" thing for so long it's gotten very funny. No one really looks at the
time he wrote the book, and the audience it was written for. It was written in
the 50's, for an audience who remembered WWII, most of the people they knew
were veterans, or contributed to the war effort in some way. A society
that based the right to vote on military service wasn't very far-fetched
to them, they were practically living in such a society. Looking back with our
Y2K sensibilities, where the society as a whole tends to pretty much dismiss
military service, or give it and veterans mere lip service, we can laugh at
such a prediction. Just my.02 cents...

John

In a message dated 3/16/00 2:34:19 PM Central Standard Time,
devans@uneb.edu writes:

<< The_Beast, the card carrying US liberal of the list who claims no
 affinity to Hollow-wood product
> [quoted text omitted]
Ohhh, can you post a picture? I've never actually seen this card I've always
heard of....<VBG>

John

In a message dated 3/16/00 5:18:52 PM Central Standard Time,
> agoodall@interlog.com writes:

<< What I meant was that Heinlein's far right conservativism isn't any more
realistic than far left Marxism. It requires people to behave in
non-realistic
ways for it to work. I mean, seriously, the only people who get to vote are
those who enter the military? Aside from the fact that any party that tried to
put that into effect would be committing political suicide, the economic
effects would be awful.
> [quoted text omitted]
Actually, it's the far left and the far right that do the most voting in the
US, most of the middle tend to sit out silly things like elections. The only
reason that recent presidential elections here have tended toward the middle
is the enourmous influence of the Baby Boomers, who tend to get squeamish when
you show too much passion for your position. This is why guys like Pat
Buchanon and Jesse Jackson don't last long in presidential elections, they
upset too many Boomers...

John

> At 6:16 PM -0500 3/16/00, Allan Goodall wrote:

The franchise was extended to those who performed 'National Service' not at
all restricted to military service. Does it sound better if to qualify for the
vote you have to choose between essentially 4 years community service, Peace
Corps, or military service?

> Aside from the fact that any party that tried to

The government in SST was put together postbellum and after a collapse by
militias organized by veterans, not as a transformation of an existing state.

> At 8:07 PM -0400 4/16/00, adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca wrote:

And we're *still* discussing it. Keep in mind that in a lot of societies in
the 20th century just this kind of talk would land all parties in a labor camp
or up against a wall in a prison cellar, except possibly for the first person
to run to the secret police.

I liked War of the Worlds also. I grew up in Hacienda Heights which is near
where the first Martians land in the movie. They land in the "Puente Hills"
which is around the area of Hacienda Heights. The Flying Wing drops a nuke on
that landing site. However, Hacienda Heights didn't exist around the time the
movie was made. Other locations in the movie such as Corona, Pomoma, and the
San Gabriel Mountains are all in that area. Pacific Tech, I believe, is the
old name for what is now known as Cal Tech located in Pasadena. And the
destruction of the Los Angeles city hall was great.

That movie just brings back fond memories of my childhood.

--Greg

> My favorite's the old "War of the Worlds." Not because of any

> I have not seen the movie, but planned to wait until the $1.00 theater

I think I saw a picture of the Beast somewhere online once. (It was a link to
a con he was attending IIRC?) He was aptly named <grin>.

Jus one comment on Mission to Mars, (mind, I have not seen it yet:o)

I seem to recall it's based on the Zubrin/NASA Modified "Mars Direct"
scenerio. Given that, the "ERV" is the Earth Return Vehicle sent for one of
the crews and each (there is supposed to be one for each crew that visits)
would be fully fueled and is stocked with up to two years of food stock. The
architecture of the mission is to have a fully stocked and fueled ERV ready to
go, when the crew arrives.

Just thought I'd point this out.

Randy

> Brian Bilderback wrote:

Called "Attacks" it was about his company command in a mountain unit in
WW-I

Magic

[quoted original message omitted]

In a message dated 3/17/00 7:00:30 AM Central Standard Time,
los@cris.com writes:

<< I think I saw a picture of the Beast somewhere online once. (It was a link
to a con he was attending IIRC?) He was aptly named <grin>.

 Los

> JohnDHamill@aol.com wrote:
 << The_Beast, the card carrying US liberal of the list who claims no

> affinity to Hollow-wood product

always
> heard of....<VBG>

> Oh, well, what do I know. I liked "Starship Troopers" (but mostly

Gosh, what do you mean...

That film rocked! The biting political satire. The deep meaningful
relationships. The clever and foresightful depiction of military conflict in
the future. Denise Richards' great big... smiles.

Heinlein's plebian pulp facistic novel was perhaps interesting in it's time,
but Verhoven's vision and sense of drama couldn't but improve what is, after
all, a very average story with quite ominous political overtones.

And the genius of the space combat scenes just took the film into the realm
of...

<pause>

Ok, never mind.

If they had named it something else and taken away the vague references to
Heinlein's book (a few character and place names, and some very vague plot
ideas), it would have been a fun, but silly, sci-fi action pic.

Hopefully this doesn't ignite the conflict yet again ;-)

> I mean, seriously, the only people who get to vote are

I tread very warily getting into this, because this is a real minefield of a
debate, that has been hashed out to DEATH in a wide variety of forums...

But that is just wrong. The book says nothing at all about involuntary public
service. The whole POINT of Heinlein's citizenship was that it involved
VOLUNTARY public service as a measure of a person's worthiness to be one of
those entrusted with the responsibility of voting on the society's future,
etc.

Irrespective of whether or not you buy into his ideas, and I'm not advocating
a view on either side here, it ain't about involuntary service at all...

To quote a luminary:

" *Read* *The* *Book*. Do it carefully, making sure you read what it says, not
what you thought it says, nor what others have told you it says."

Ok, I'm being a smartass... *G*

Seriously though, as I mentioned in another post, check out:

http://www.kentaurus.com/troopers.htm

It's an interesting discussion about SST - both the book and the movie.
He's got very specific viewpoints on them, but it makes for an interesting
read for those interested in this debate. Again, I'm not advocating one side
or t'other, but check it out. And maybe, before this heats up on OUR list, we
can let this thread die a peaceful death...:)

But _which form_ of National Service wasn't up to you once you'd
> volunteered. You signed a Blank Cheque that let "them" put you wherever

Hey, no prob *g*

I hope you got the "I'm being a smartass" part of my message too - I
wan't trying to put you down seriously.

And you're completely right of course, about the choice issue (of which a
volunteer had none). The interesting part of the his National Service was
that, if I recall correctly, it was ALL military. As someone else pointed out,
Heinlein himself said that the vast number of citizens never held a weapon,
but the whole point of volunteering for national service was that you knew,
even if you were sure that you were going to end up in Nuclear Physics, that
there was some potential that the government might put you in
a position whereby you were risking your life.  Remember Carl - he was
pure science, but got whacked when his research station was greased. The
important part of volunteering for National Service was that you were, by
taking the oath, putting your life on the line for the society as a
whole -
and by doing so and serving your term, you demonstrated that you could be
entrusted with the interests of the society, and thereby were allowed
citizenship and the vote.

While I don't advocate an opinion for or against his ideas, as Los pointed out
(I think) one of the great things about Heinlein's writing was that he was
willing to postulate a society with political values that many of us would
consider extreme. Makes for interesting and exciting reading.