From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: GET THE MESSAGE, OR ELSE (Was: Did we read the same book?)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 22:30:24 GMT

<In article <CINDY.93Jan7224027@solan10.solan.unit.no> cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf) writes:

<   The feeling you get when you see a movie or play, based on a book
<   you've read and loved, and not only do you find the movie/play
<   disappointing, but you don't even understand how they got this mess
<   out of the book.

	One of the penalties of knowing too damned much is being
	able to figure out quite easily why perfectly good novels
	were chopped to bits and recreated into pap.

	Politics. 

	"Touchy-feely" politics, which insists that a *MESSAGE* 
	must be GOTTEN by everyone.....those who don't must stay
	after the film and have an "encounter session", I suppose.

<   The first time this happened to me was _2010_.  I do not understand
<   where that crap in the movie came from.  I understand that the plot
<   was a bit involved for a movie, so they cut out the Chinese space
<   station cum spaceship and the fun stuff on Europa.  I do not
<   understand why the Russians were transformed into cold, mindless
<   automata, nor why a near-war was created back on earth.

	Because, Cindy, it enabled Hollywood to make a "warm"
	kind of movie about how the Yankeeimperialists and the
	poor, misunderstood Sons of Stalin should play nice with
	no hitting in the sandbox.

	And that's a real peeve, when a reasonably well-written
	novel that included some approximation of real-world
	politics (the Soviets and the Americans co-operated
	to get to Jupiter-space because the Chinese were already
	on the way, not out of any sense of nobility) is reduced 
	to a pre-teen Sunday School lesson.


	A private peeve about that film is that it messed up New
	Year's Eve for me some years back; we went across the
	border to Ciudad Juarez (and 1 hour forward in time; Juarez
	is on Central Time) for part of New Year, then did the 
	Midnight Movie thing...."2010", what a big letdown.


<   Some of the dialogue was also created for the movie, and it is as
<   corny as hell.  

	Of course it is; Hollywood is, by and large, incapable of
	creating anything above the mental age of 12 or so.
	Just look at what passes for "a hot sex star" ....
	Kim Bassinger???? She looks like a suburban housewife
	with some sort of lip condition; put an ice cube on those
	things, the swelling should go down in a while.

	
<   The final message HAL transmits to Earth does not
<   include the end lines "USE THEM TOGETHER - USE THEM IN PEACE" in the
<   book; i found them ridiculous.  Why would this higher power that
<   humans can't even understand be concerned about the petty squabbling
<   going on?

	Well, even Arthur C. Clarke has his weak points; he's been
	getting more preachy, too, as he gets older. 

	I find it rather tiresome that modern "entertainment" has
	to have an overt *MESSAGE* no matter what; there is plenty of 
	message in such diverse films as "Treasure Island" (the
	original with Wallace Beery as Silver, not the Disney junk),
	"Witness for the Prosecution" and of course "Treasure of
	Sierra Madre"...but the viewer isn't beaten over the head
	with said message, it develops as part of the story.

ObPeeve: that subtlety in art seems all but lost.