Stranger in a Strange Land coming to TV

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I have no problem with people liking other Heinlein books better, but I admit it gets my hackles up a bit when someone suggests (not you specifically Harry) that my appreciation of Heinlein is not the correct and or accepted one. That the earlier books are somehow objectively better than the later ones. Nothing could be further from the truth, in my opinion. My experience proves it.

I've personally never thought that there can be any "right" or "wrong" in what books a person enjoys. Whatever someone enjoys reading, good for them!

[Apache]

Stranger was also a favorite of mine and I would like to see it as a miniseries.
Apache

[DiapDealer]

As far as the miniseries goes: I tend to separate books from their adaptations. I allow the possibility that that the latter can be wildly different AND STILL GOOD in its own right. And even if the adaptation is terrible, it's not possible for it to damage my opinion of the original. I've already been wowed. A great tv adaptation could only be icing on the cake.

In other words: I want TV adaptations to be good. "Staying true to the original" isn't nearly as important to me as just "being good" in their own right.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

As far as the miniseries goes: I tend to separate books from their adaptations. I allow the possibility that that the latter can be wildly different AND STILL GOOD in its own right. And even if the adaptation is terrible, it's not possible for it to damage my opinion of the original. I've already been wowed. A great tv adaptation could only be icing on the cake.

In other words: I want TV adaptations to be good. "Staying true to the original" isn't nearly as important to me as just "being good" in their own right.

It's difficult for a TV adaptation of a novel to be faithful to the original simply due to time constraints: almost inevitably something will be left out which annoys a fan of the original novel. In this regard, short stories often make a better basis for adaptation than a novel, I think.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's difficult for a TV adaptation of a novel to be faithful to the original simply due to time constraints: almost inevitably something will be left out which annoys a fan of the original novel. In this regard, short stories often make a better basis for adaptation than a novel, I think.

Not to mention budget, POV, and logistic constraints. Additional characters are often needed to give the main characters a sounding board for ideas and concepts that would have easily been accomplished via internal dialog in the books. Books are simply not movies (or TV shows). Drastic changes are quite often required to be successful. Fans, however, are often unrealistic and want an impossible carbon-copy of the original.

I don't know if short stories make better movie and tv shows per se. I just think they tend to piss off less of the hardcore fans.

[HarryT]

"Stranger" is a 16h audiobook, so that probably gives a rough indication of how long a TV series you'd need to include all of what's in the book. How long is a typical TV series in the US? 6h? 8h? In the UK a 1h timeslot on commercial TV is about 48m of programme, because of commercial breaks. I think it's rather less than that in the US, isn't it?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

"Stranger" is a 16h audiobook, so that probably gives a rough indication of how long a TV series you'd need to include all of what's in the book. How long is a typical TV series in the US? 6h? 8h? In the UK a 1h timeslot on commercial TV is about 48m of programme, because of commercial breaks. I think it's rather less than that in the US, isn't it?

About 42-44 minutes of program in a 1hr timeslot in the US, I think. And probably 10-13 episodes on a network like SyFy. The bigger difference between UK and US television, in my opinion, is that the UK would be fine with planning a 16 hour series, and then ending it at 16hrs if that was appropriate for the content. In the US, shows are typically planned as if they will run forever and then cancelled either way too early, or dragged out way too long (and then cancelled).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The bigger difference between UK and US television, in my opinion, is that the UK would be fine with planning a 16 hour series, and then ending it at 16hrs if that was appropriate for the content.

Or at least they tend to have self-contained stories within each series, so it doesn't (often, at least) end in mid-story. Happens occasionally, though . The most recent example I can think of is an outstandingly dreadful SF series called "Outcasts" which ran for an 8-episode series on the BBC in 2011, finished on a cliff-hanger, and was then (wisely) cancelled.

[JSWolf]

The UK is a bit odd in series. You get like 6 1-hour episodes and the series is done.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The UK is a bit odd in series. You get like 6 1-hour episodes and the series is done.

Quality over quantity. Did we really need 255 episodes of Happy Days?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The UK is a bit odd in series. You get like 6 1-hour episodes and the series is done.

That's because British TV is arranged in "quarterly" schedules, so a series will typically run for either 6 or 12 episodes. Might be a bit shorter - eg 10 episodes - if they're running other stuff in between the main schedules (eg at Christmas).

I see absolutely nothing wrong in a 6-episode series. There are many stories that can be told well in 6h (and a 1h programme on the BBC really is 1h, or about 57m anyway - no commercial breaks!).

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Quality over quantity. Did we really need 255 episodes of Happy Days?

ExACTly!
Run the show to its logical conclusion and end it.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Difflugia

Isn't that what the book was? I thought that Free Love vs. the demonized versions of politics, law enforcement, the military and mass media were just minor subplots.



I'm for Job: A Comedy of Justice.

That's just James Branch Cabell rehashed. . .

[Difflugia]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

That's just James Branch Cabell rehashed. . .

I suppose, in the sense that the Narnia series is just George MacDonald rehashed.

Job and Jurgen share a similar structure and (very) basic plot. The protagonists evolve in quite different directions, however. Jurgen reviews episodes and possibilities from his past that ultimately cause him to rethink and ultimately cherish his present situation (I'm reminded of It's a Wonderful Life), while Alex is forced to confront variations on society that challenge his ideas of moral and spiritual right and wrong. Jurgen's flagging faith in "the God of Jurgen's grandmother" is ultimately renewed, while Alex's faith takes a much more "Heinleinian" turn when he realizes that narrow, religious propriety and true morality have very little in common.

The sympathetic Satan character, fantastic situations created specifically to challenge the protagonist, the ultimate discovery (with divine help) of who the protagonist really loves and why are undeniable parallels, but in light of the profound differences, should be considered homage (especially considering Heinlein sharing Jurgen's subtitle with Job) rather than plagiarism.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I agree with your analysis, although just to note that "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" (1966) was published five years after "Stranger" (1961). A last flash of the "old" Heinlein, to my mind.

Indeed.
It reads a lot closer to STARSHIP TROOPERS than FARNHAM or GLORY ROAD.