Talk:Robert A. Heinlein

Movie adaptations lacking

Hi folks, I've just noticed this article doesn't talk about the movie adaptations of Heinlein's writings. I don't know how many there are, but I know Predestination (2014) and Starship Troopers (1997) are of the lot. MonsieurD (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Destination Moon was the first one, as I recall. Heinlein has written about his experience as a technical consultant with that one. sbelknap (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Heinlein also shares screenwriting credits for Project Moonbase.

I've added these two to the new Movies section; are there other films for which Heinlein made direct contributions? The adaptations of his written works to film are in the separate Heinlein bibliography article. The new section links to the bibliography article, where I've added the missing IMDb links. sbelknap (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Military-controlled government

The statement "Space Cadet describes a future scenario where a military-controlled global government enforces world peace." seems inaccurate. There is no suggestion that the government is controlled by the military (the Space Patrol). The government is never mentioned. The only accurate statement is that the Space Patrol has a duty, presumably to a government but that is only an inference, to enforce peace. I think this statement should be changed. Zaslav (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The source for that para says "In his 1949 novel Space Cadet, Heinlein depicts a future where peace is preserved through a global government controlled by the military.". Schazjmd (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Zaslav is right, and the National Review article is wrong.-Ben Crowell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:8900:6E00:79C8:DB5F:3DBF:D95E (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

What source is Zaslav citing when making their assertion? —C.Fred (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

His own reading comprehension, obviously. 2600:1700:DA90:2AB0:CC40:5A96:6FF0:D992 (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

So you agree that the description should not be changed, then, since a change would rely on original research? —C.Fred (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The source is dubious and as he pointed out, obviously wrong. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:1508:FC82:66CC:D167 (talk) 08:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, what secondary source has presented an analysis of the novel counter to National Review's? —C.Fred (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

"Diane Parkin-Speer suggests that Heinlein's intent seems more to provoke the reader and to question sexual norms than to promote any particular sexual agenda"

This is a topic worth expounding on - I have no source but it seems that on a wide range of topics, not just sexual mores, RAH's incessant pontification via his protagonists could at least equally well be viewed as provocation (or perhaps just making the piece interesting and lively enough to sell) as it could be taken as a political act per se. The point seems germane as various groups like to claim RAH as their ideological champion. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:1508:FC82:66CC:D167 (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Big Three -Vandalism

The Big Three are, according to Brian W. Aldiss in Billion Year Spree, Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke and Ray Bradbury. Robert A. Heinlein never was one of them, this claim is "alternative facts" and this vandalism doesn't seem to be recent. Please correct.2001:7E8:C29C:2400:983E:960F:67FC:EB6 (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The Big Book of Science Fiction identifies the "big three" as Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein, as does The Rise and Fall of American Science Fiction, from the 1920s to the 1960s, Science Fiction Literature Through History: An Encyclopedia, and Fifty Key Figures in Science Fiction (which notes that van Vogt was replaced as one of the "big three" as his popularity waned and Clarke's grew). Schazjmd (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Arthur C. Clarke#Big_Three_-Vandalism and Talk:Isaac Asimov#Big_Three_-Vandalism) Schazjmd (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I finally got hold of a copy of Billion Year Spree. I cannot find the phrase "big three" anywhere in the book. I looked up each mention of Bradbury in the book, and it is never paired with Asimov and Clarke in any meaningful way. Do you have a page number for your reference? Schazjmd (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, there was no "big three". There were, of course, some science-fiction writers who were better known, more highly esteemed by critics or general audiences, or more commercially successful than others. I began reading science-fiction in the late sixties, and my impression then was that the three most important and best-known living science-fiction writers were Clarke, Asimov, and Bradbury. This valuation may have been colored partly by seeing Bradbury more often on television and personally much prefering Bradbury to Heinlein; I'm not sure. I ranked Heinlein fourth in stature, but I liked Fred Hoyle, whom I ranked fifth in stature, much more. Around the time I turned thirteen I decided that the only science-fiction writer who ever really mattered was H.G. Wells. A decade and a half later I added Stanislaw Lem. A few worthy one-works forays into the field by various other writers aside, I've never since wavered. TheScotch (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Original research and opinion in article

While generally a good article, with lots of details, the article does seem to include a lot of unsourced opinions about Heinlein's inspirations and evaluations of his work. All opinions need to be attributed to reliable sources (random fan websites do not count). I'm going to start cleaning it up. If you feel stronly about any of it, let's discuss it here. Ashmoo (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)