Paul Verhoeven can kiss Robert Heinlein's entire ass

[lissener]

Knock yourselves out.

[Jonathan Chance]

You don't take disagreement well, do you?

[Tapioca Dextrin]

The Swedish Bikini Team scores you a 1 out of 10 for style.

[Miller]

Well, lissener, as usual you're making an ass out of yourself by throwing a tantrum that anyone would dare try and open a debate with you on a message board dedicated to open debate. In the linked thread, you asked:

Seriously: Rik, Miller, et al.: are you saying that we have to form a secret club, and get a hidden web address, before those of us who want to can have this conversation in peace?

No, I just don't see the point of starting a debate on a public message board if you don't want to hear differing points of view. Maybe I'm crazy, but I thought the entire point of offering a critical analysis of a work of art was to test its soundness by inviting people to try to knock holes in it. It seems you just wanted people to post if they were going to give you a big, sloppy blow-job. Maybe you should have made that clearer in your OP, since I was operating under the assumption that you had some sort of intellectual curiosity or inquisitiveness. Clearly, I was wrong. I will keep this in mind when I see threads from you in the future, and avoid them accordingly.

[Aslan of Narnia]

I can tell this thread will go well, 100% in favor of lissener. lissener, I did not think a thread could make me weep from the wit, intelligence, and dogged fact finding, but you sir, you proved me wrong!

[fruitbat]

I do believe I will also be re-evaluating my participation in lissener threads. I may disagree with you in some areas, but dammit I like Starship Troopers. I was getting ready to post to the thread with my own interpretation. I just don't feel like being treated like a steaming lump of dung in Cafe Society. You owe Miller et al. an apology for this utterly stupid thread. People will disagree with you, it's what we do around here. You need to learn to live with it.

You really are staking out that prime piece of whiny pissant territory aren't you? You aren't going to get points just because this isn't a stupid thread about homophobes. A stupid thread remains stupid no matter the subject area.

[Rick]

Verhoeven Reconsidered (Unless of course you disagree with me, in which case piss off)

Yes, only happy talk allowed there.

[Bosstone]

I went through and read that whole thread. I'm glad I did. There's good stuff in there.

While lissener is going about it pretty petulantly, the basic idea is there. When lissener, Cervaise and others make pages-long analyses and critiques that are very well thought-out and sensible, people coming in and dumping on the thread with 'say all you want, he's a no-talent hack' and 'shit is shit, and I know shit when I see it' contribute next to nothing to the discussion. Refute their claims if you can, but to think that 'I hated the movie, and Verhoeven sucks' is a valid refutation is patently stupid. It's reasonable to want to ask that those who can't say anything intelligent just move on.

lissener may be stomping his feet and getting ready to throw a tantrum, but he's got a point. Of course, telling people to stop posting will never get you anything but jeers, but is it so hard to come up with a little more substance?

[lissener]

The thread was about Verhoeven; it continued to be hijacked to be about Heinlein. The hijacks were rude and combative, in a nice quiet little Cafe Society thread. I was giving the hecklers a place to take their hijack, so they wouldn't continue it in the other thread.

Just out of curiosity, who's treating who like a steaming lump of dung? the hecklers, or the people who are asking the hecklers to please take it outside? serious question; the only scatalogical remarks in that thread have come from the Heinlein defenders.

[Morbo]

I was ready to respond to that thread, since I actually liked the absurdity of Showgirls but didn't agree with the assessment that Verhoeven is some misunderstood genius. That is, until I saw it was from lissener. There's really no way to discuss anything with him - his mind is already made up before he posts a single word.

Take my above opinion - it would be met with "It's too bad you fail to understand that he is a misunderstood genius - I guess I don't care really that you're missing out on this insight" or words to that effect (probably meaner).

I think blackclaw said it best in that thread:

Why open a thread called "Vehoeven Reconsidered" when you yourself are not willing to reconsider your point of view about him? I don't think it's me that is in the wrong thread. You are obviously not really interested in a dialogue at all. Start a "Verhoeven Fans post here!" thread and I will steer clear.

[Diane]

I'll say it again here -

Am I getting whooshed? No one actually thought Showgirls was a good film, did they?

Holy fuck!

[lissener]

And Dooku, I have one topic no one here has been able to sway me on: homophobia. One topic.

I open one thread to discuss a controversial writer and bristle at getting drowned out by hecklers with nothing to add.

How is this "really no way to discuss anything with" me? Why don't you search my posts before you make such blanket statements.

And thanks for making up a fictional response that you THINK I'd have to your opinion; certainly a good way to have something to object to.

[lissener]

Originally posted by Diane
I'll say it again here -

Am I getting whooshed? No one actually thought Showgirls was a good film, did they?

Holy fuck!

Diane, did you read Cervaise's carefully written critique of it?

[Rick]

Originally posted by lissener
The thread was about Verhoeven; it continued to be hijacked to be about Heinlein. The hijacks were rude and combative, in a nice quiet little Cafe Society thread. I was giving the hecklers a place to take their hijack, so they wouldn't continue it in the other thread.

Just out of curiosity, who's treating who like a steaming lump of dung? the hecklers, or the people who are asking the hecklers to please take it outside? serious question; the only scatalogical remarks in that thread have come from the Heinlein defenders.

What we have here is someone adapts a classic science fiction novel (Hugo award winner) and in the process distorts (almost to the point on not being recognizable) the work of a grand master.
cite
Then a “discussion” is started about the adaptor. Is it surprising that people who loved the original stop by to say “Oh by the way this guy screwed up a really great story”?

Why does this surprise you? :wally

It’s along the same lines as if Macbeth got turned into a slasher movie.

[Rick]

note to the reading comprehension challenged. I said ALONG THE SAME LINES I did not say they were exactally the same thing

[Lemur866]

The movie comparision that comes to mind is "The Scarlet Letter". The movie starring Demi Moore rewrites the story into a triumph of forbidden love with Hester Prynne the protofeminist riding off into the sunset with her adulterous paramour. Yeesh.

[Miller]

lissener, you a dishonest, spineless, whining little film snob, you're so full of shit you could grow a wheat crop on your scalp.

Originally posted by lissener
The thread was about Verhoeven; it continued to be hijacked to be about Heinlein.

Bullshit. You named me specifically when you started this thread: Go back and look at my posts in the other thread, and find one place where I mentioned the name "Robert Heinlein." I don't criticize movies based on their fidelity to their source: I criticize movies on their own merits. Starship Troopers doesn't have any merits, and I don't need to bring up the novel to prove that.

The hijacks were rude and combative, in a nice quiet little Cafe Society thread.

Rude and combative? Would that be something like saying, "So it's possible that if you watched his films with some effort and attention, you'd see what's there too." That was your response to Wumpus, who was the first poster in that thread who wouldn't bend his knee to the altar of Lissener's Film Theory. And unlike you, he was able to disagree without insulting the people he disagreed with.

I was giving the hecklers a place to take their hijack, so they wouldn't continue it in the other thread.

Hijack? Disagreeing with the OP isn't a hijack, you imbecile. But ignoring dissent to whine about how everyone's being such meanies by not falling into lockstep with the OP just might count as one.

[i]Just out of curiosity, who's treating who like a steaming lump of dung? the hecklers, or the people who are asking the hecklers to please take it outside? serious question; the only scatalogical remarks in that thread have come from the Heinlein defenders.

"People"? Refering to ourselves in the plural now, are we? I suppose it's appropriate: you are quite the drama queen.

[Diane]

Originally posted by lissener
Diane, did you read Cervaise's carefully written critique of it?

Yeah I did.

It still blows me away that anyone could think of that movie as anything more than a big of shit. With corn.

[Gorsnak]

Originally posted by Miller
lissener, you a dishonest, spineless, whining little film snob, you're so full of shit you could grow a wheat crop on your scalp.

Mushrooms.

It's mushrooms that grow in shit.

[Miller]

Well, shit is an all-purpose fertilizer.

But mushrooms would have been funnier.

[minty green]

Ya know, I was almost at the point where I thought that maybe lissener had some kind of semi-legitimate point about Showgirls being a work of unrecognized genius. Then he went and proved himself to be a complete retard and/or insane person by opening this Pit thread, and I realized that no, some people really are that stupid.

[Eternal]

If it makes you all feel better, this thread has convinced me you're all a bunch of bitter petty children.

[robertliguori]

This is kind of interesting. Verhoven's movies are kind of like pictures in the clouds. You can claim that they are heartbreaking works of staggering genius(tm), but you end up demonstrating your ability to pull great points out of dreck and your inability to see dreck for dreck.

[Blackclaw]

Originally posted by lissener
And Dooku, I have one topic no one here has been able to sway me on: homophobia. One topic.

And Verhoven apparently.

Originally posted by lissener

I open one thread to discuss a controversial writer and bristle at getting drowned out by hecklers with nothing to add..

You are still not quite grasping the obvious here. If, by your own admission, Verhoven is controversial than why are surprised when controversy entered the thread?

I stated my opinion, that Verhoven's use of Robert Heinlein's work as a vehicle for his satire was dishonest. You made no attempt to sway me from my opinion. You response was a plea for me to get out of your thread. What kind of "discussion" is that?

I am not closed minded on this subject. The propaganda clips in Starship Troopers - hilarious, really. But I felt like I had been tricked into seeing something that I had not paid to see. If the movie had been a bit more honest about what it was, it would probably be in my DVD collection.

The thing about art is that, rather obviously, it is in the eye of the beholder. Just because one person sees something and declares it a work of beauty and another looks at it and declares it frog poop does not mean that either person is in error. You should not take it as a direct personal affront when someone has a different opinion than you. If your opinion is so dear to you that anyone challenging it requires the opening of a pit thread, than maybe you should realise you aren't really willing to discuss it.

[Coldfire]

You fuckers. It's Verhoeven, dammit.

Carry on.

[SkipMagic]

Wait until you guys get to tear apart Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation.

[Knowed Out]

It seems to me lissener so vehemently supports Verhoeven because he identifies with him. Verhoeven's work looks like it's supposed to appeal to the mainstream, but actually parodies it, and ultimately gets rejected because nobody can understand the underlying satire.

In striving to be the number one contender for the SDMB Drama Queen, lissener parades down the street like a glitter 'n' glitz drag queen, singing broadway tunes at the top of his voice. When the crowd tells him to shut up, he procedes to castigate society for rejecting his lifestyle when he so obviously is portraying America's #1 Icon, Marylin Monroe. Why doesn't the mainstream see that his wearing the platinum blonde wig and strapping into a halter to give himself cleavage is indeed a piquant homage to Norma Jean? Moreover, why don't they understand he's actually satirizing the public's unquestioning adoration for Hollywood standards? When are the shells going to drop from the ignorant public's eyes? But no, instead people try to tell him that being a flamboyant asshole isn't supporting his cause, and he won't lissen to them.

I think even if everybody who responded to lissener's OPs did so in total agreement, he'd call them sheep and tell them to grow backbones. Just can't satisfy some people.

[Michael Ellis]

Originally posted by SkipMagic
Wait until you guys get to tear apart Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation.

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by lissener
And Dooku, I have one topic no one here has been able to sway me on: homophobia. One topic.

And gun control, and Verhoeven, and just about any other opinion you pollute a thread with.

You are rude, abrasive, belligerent and abusive when someone has the "audacity" to disagree with you on some subject. Almost without fail.

In short, you're a boor.

[Michael Ellis]

Originally posted by Neurotik
In short, you're a boor.

Hey, don't taint Dutch farmers that way...

What? Oh, a boor. Not a boer.

[Mac Guffin]

Originally posted by SkipMagic
Wait until you guys get to tear apart Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation.

WHAT THE SHIT?!? Wasn't pissing on Heinlein's legacy ONCE enough?



Damnit, why don't I own any guns?

[Diane]

Originally posted by lissener
Diane, did you read Cervaise's carefully written critique of it?

Uh, yeeeeeeeeeeeeah I did.

I still think the movie is a heaping pile of crap and I am still having a hard time wrapping my brain around the fact that someone actually liked it!

Just a little advice - don't write someone on a message board if your skin isn't thick enough to cope with those who don't agree with you. It makes you look like a whining baby. Really.

[ElwoodCuse]

Hey before you guys have a fit about ST2, PV has absolutely nothing to do with it. Check the credits.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Which means that despite the fact that it's a low-budget, straight-to-video spinoff of a crappy movie, it can only get better.

[Doomtrain]

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
Which means that despite the fact that it's a low-budget, straight-to-video spinoff of a crappy movie, it can only get better.

The posters on that message board say the budget is $6 million. That should make things interesting. The bugs'll be those plastic spiders from cheap Halloween candy.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

1) Starship Troopers the movie was mediocre IMO. A failed satire, too full of itself to be worthwhile.
2) Starship Troopers the book was a steaming load of excrement, one of the poorest-written novels I've ever had the displeasure of wading through. Paper-thin characters acting as mouthpieces for RAH's absurd philosophies, terribly-written battle scenes, a hackneyed plot even by contemporary standards; all in all, it was incredibly stupid and sloppy. The movie only improved on the book by abandoning it.
3) Deep breaths, lissener.
4) Knowed Out, nice little depiction of lissener as a contemptible gay stereotype. Just as he shoots his cause in the foot by being abrasive, you shoot criticism of him in the foot by such a display. Criticize him for his behavior, sure; but leave drag queens out of it unless you have a reason to do otherwise.

Daniel

[Mac Guffin]

The posters on that message board say the budget is $6 million. That should make things interesting. The bugs'll be those plastic spiders from cheap Halloween candy.

That or the entirety of the "special effects" will be done on someones home PC using Windows Paint.


Ugh.


Oh, and veerhoovin's an ass. _{(Note. Directors name intentionaly misspelled.)}

[Neurotik]

Actually, the director owns a special effects company, so I'm not so sure the effects will be that bad.

[Tars Tarkas]

And this, folks, is why i don't participate in any movie thread that lissener defiles with his slime. Let him form his own website to discuss movies with other people that only agree 100% with what he says and leave us poor unwashed movie lovers in peace.

[fruitbat]

I actually thought lissener and Cervaise did a good job vocalizing the argument for Verhoeven's twisted genius. I would quibble with some minor points, but as a whole I was with him. My opinion that you made a good argument does not excuse this pissy behavior in the least.

If you present a controversial argument in Cafe Society you must be prepared for disagreement. Those who disagreed were polite and did not attack anyone personally. Your choices as far as a potential response are as follows:

1. Ignore the comments and continue addressing the posters whose arguments you find to have merits.

2. Argue your case to those who disagree with you.

3. Start a Pit thread bitching about those who dare disagree with you.

Trust me when I say you chose the worst of the three alternatives.

[SkipMagic]

Originally posted by Mac Guffin
WHAT THE SHIT?!? Wasn't pissing on Heinlein's legacy ONCE enough?



Damnit, why don't I own any guns?

Lock 'n' load.

[Tars Tarkas]

"Our camera moves are more complex, our swarms are bigger, and our interaction with live action and CG is much more ambitious."
An interview with Visual Effects Supervisor for Starship Troopers 2 - Eric Leven by Arkadiusz Grzegorzak

It can't be worse than Reloaded, i'll give it a whirl (i was planning to anyway since it was announced. And Sandrine Holt is in it, I love her!)

[elf6c]

I like the book and I like the movie, but let's be clear:

They are two different things entirely.

The book and movie only share general themes, character names, and the overall name and concept.

Another major point- if you didn't understand Robocop and the implications behind it, you certainly weren't going to enjoy the semi-tongue in cheek approach again used on Starship Troopers.

In any event, its still hard to understand why someone got pissy over it. It's simply one of those movies people will never agree on. Heck, Heinlein as an author is pretty much the same way.

Personally, as long as the poster isn't a Thread Crapper (for example shows up in every Simpsons thread just to say the show sucks and should have been cancelled years ago) putting up with opinions you considered ill-founded in Cafe Society is part of the price of civilized debate.

[Morbo]

Originally posted by lissener
And Dooku, I have one topic no one here has been able to sway me on: homophobia. One topic.

How is this "really no way to discuss anything with" me? Why don't you search my posts before you make such blanket statements.

Actually I seem to recall you going ape shit and attacking me personally and my employer in general for trying to help you with a Word problem.

Ah yes, here it is, your Pit thread so filled with rationality that it resulted in you being forbidden from ever participating in a computer-related thread ever again under penalty of banning:

Manhattan is a fuckwad, and Microsoft can suck my dick.

Originally posted by Lissener
And thanks for making up a fictional response that you THINK I'd have to your opinion; certainly a good way to have something to object to.

Funny, that. Here's my fictional predicted response I thought I'd get from you:

Posted by Dooku earlier in this thread
It's too bad you fail to understand that he is a misunderstood genius - I guess I don't care really that you're missing out on this insight

And here's what you actually said to Wumpus:

Posted by Lissener in the other thread
Well, Wumpus, what "gold" Cervaise and I, and others, have mined from Verhoeven's work is definitely there; we're not making it up. (Most of my own theories about his work were confirmed by subsequent viewings with director's commentary.) So it's possible that if you watched his films with some effort and attention, you'd see what's there too. That you don't doesn't really bother me, personally, but it doesn't make me wrong.

I'd say my fictional response was rather accurate.