What has become of the *Have Space Suit, Will Travel* movie? Any recent news?

Bill Higgins
Fermilab
higgins@fnal.gov

None of the industry sourcebanks (IMDbPro, etc.) knows anything about it. I'd say it's either dead or so fringe/preprepre that it hardly exists.

Back to the Fantasy Casting Couch!

Gene's casted.

Michael: We find some hidden beauty under a rock in the Royal Shakesperian.

Ratings: Nudity, show lots of what you can. Fake what you can't. Drug Miss Grundy at the door.
Cannibalism: We aren't talking about "Nght of the Living Dead" here, more like Easter communion around the dinner table.
Group sex: Do it in the pool and don't scare the dolphins. Show ta ta's an grins. It would pass on cable.
Beastialiy: Patty's snake out of the bedroom and don't show anyone doing Reverend Foster and that part is covered.
Violence: I would never want to spoil the blow off. Going 90 degrees is not violent and what happens to Mike should be done with at least as much cleverness as "Boondock Saints". But Please don't let Tarentino near this project!

Is it me, or does anyone think there just would not be a problem casting any of the female rolls. I don't see a shortage of talent there. Then again, I think movies like this should seek out those hidden talents that have never been given a chance. The rule here would be Talent! Not how "just" how well they look in a shower scene. Either gender.

Well, I've had fun with this.....

~Rick

I could see Jubal being played by any of the following:

Donald Sutherland (yes, yes put aside that he was in Puppet Masters)
Morgan Freeman (I don't recall any racial requirement).
Kevin Spacey
Possibly Pacino (think about that speech he gave at the end of Scent of A Woman).

For Valentine Michael Smith I would suggest Johnny Depp. I think he can do most roles that if/when he wishes.

Hope none of that made you crazy.

...I myself, wouldn't choose SIASL to be made into a movie. A movie, especially at this time, about a man who founds his own religion would lead to much controversy.

Oh, I agree... not for the same reason.

Stranger would take a...well, miracle to be made anywhere close to what it should be. This was the worst case scenario since we have no control at all on Hollowood (intentional misspelling not my usual fault- since I was raise to speak and write that language called "southern" which makes english a second language to me sometimes. )

I agree it should not be made but disagree in that it should not be made because a man starts his religion. Also, if only, to point out that all religions seem to have that in common. Some man, usually, starts one or it's started after their death so the poor bastard can't defend himself and what he truly meant to say. Even one of Bob's friends comes to mind.

That the movie would lead to controversy, I'd certainly hope so. Complacency and status quo (regrettably someone elses status trying to stand on that poor quo) needs a challenge. I'd side with trial by combat in this case however invalid that form of verdict may seem today. To me, if one person left Stranger in a Strange Land - The Movie as changed as the book changed me it might be worth it, and then, maybe more would read the book which would probably make the Pacific Ocean ripple in delight.

I believe that even if such a movie were done justice it would be poorly received because of the religion connection. Additional complications would be encountered on this front since (and Jim or Bill please correct me if I am wrong) there is a story that Manson based his 'family' on SIASL.

In my prior post I was probably unclear. I am not suggesting that I wouldn't make a film of SIASL because it has a religion connection. Religion is not off limits as a movie topic. I'm saying that the reaction that SIASL would most likely receive because of the religion connection would be a sufficient deterrent to me. A subtle but important difference in my motivations.

I would be more likely to select Friday for adaptation.

100% wrong. It was an unfounded allegation at the time that exhaustive research has proven untrue.

A copy of Stranger was reportedly found among other books at Meyer Ranch(?), one of the Family's hideouts, but fa chrissakes, it was 1970 and you couldn't come within ten miles of anything vaguely "counterculture" at the time without tripping over copies of the book. There is no evidence that Manson ever read it, and in fact, when contacted, he denied ever reading, or, IIRC, hearing of the book.

At least one of the "girls" apparently contacted the Heinleins about that time in the usual "o spiritual father help me... because I'm in jail for mass murder" vein. There's a reference to it in Grumbles from the Grave.

But all that is aside from the point that there is no real connection between Chuckie and Michael. Just spiderwebs in the counterculture, of which both Heinlein and Manson were part. Along with 'leventy billion others.

Jim you are quick to render the facts in regards to the story
but in doing so you have confirmed that the story does indeed exist.
My proposition is that the existence of the story is an issue
regardless of its degree of truth.

I do believe you btw. The facts of the story being wrong are a
different topic from my statement that the story exists.

However, even if this story did not exist I still believe that a
story about a man starting his own religion would not be well
received.