The book was great. The movie was great.
But in both there was a fair amount of subtle and not-so-subtle philosophy. Is this indicative of the author himself or just that particular story? I was very intrigued about some of the suggestions and implications and wouldn’t mind discussing them here but after the quick question was answered.
eris, in most of Heinlein’s books you’ll see similar ideas and philosophy. I think Starship Troopers is his only book to tackle ideas like mandatory governmental service to qualify for voting privileges, but some of the overarching themes pop up in his books again and again (i.e., quasi-socialistic government, advocation of physical punishment for children, pragmatism).
(And the movie was GREAT? I thought, like most of Verhoeven’s work, that it’s good eye candy and it’s fun to watch, but about the most brainless movie I’ve ever seen. If enjoyed on that level, then yeah, it’s a fun movie.)
I’m not sure about the philosophy, as I haven’t read Heinlein. However, for the movie, I really enjoy it. I find it to be a very witty satire on jingoism and propaganda in times of war, and the nature of war itself. That said, I think it’s COMPLETELY by accident, as nothing else Verhoeven has done has convinced me that he’s witty enough to come up with it on his own. To me, I think it’s brilliant that none of the actors (except maybe Doogie) seem to be aware that they are in basically a satire of a war movie, and their attempts to act their little hearts out add to the effect. To me, I think it’s more useful to compare it to actual WW2 movies.
Oh, the movie was as excellent as Robocop and in the same tradition. It is one of the few movie-book duos where each stands on its own merits and can probably be considered seperate. I would never give up my S’Troopers DVD, and you’ll have to pry the book from my cold dead fingers. 
Hmm, yes, quasi-socialistic… I’ve heard some people compare Heinlen to a Nazi sympathizer type. One of those “pave the road” people. However, having read the book I couldn’t help but feel compelled to some of the ideas, and I certianl wasn’t thinking about Hitler! Knowing it is something he puts into many of his works does encourage me to read more. Any suggestions for some of the stronger material?
The movie failed to deliver anything that Heinlein tried to deliver in the book. Verhoevan took the Starship Trooper book and turned it into something different. There is nothing more then a superficial resemblence between the movie and the book.
Marc
Wow, someone’s made a movie of Starship Troopers? When did this happen? And isn’t it getting confused with the movie that Tri-star made a while back with the same name? I mean, I’d hate to go to the video store and ask for it, and get the Tri-star movie instead.
One thing to keep in mind with Heinlein’s works: When he portrays a society, he doesn’t usually mean to imply that it’s a good society, merely a possible one. An author’s characters are not the author, and may say things with which the author disagrees.
OK. Heinlein wanted to write a book about the military. And so he decided to set up the background to give his idea of the “perfect” military. All volunteers, everyone joins as a private, everyone fights, etc. And the creation of an ideal military requires a certain sort of society behind it. There are many societies that would be nice to live in, but wouldn’t or couldn’t produce an ideal military.
Heinlein was certainly serious about thinking that ST society would be a good idea. But that doesn’t mean that he thought that it was mandatory. Compare the “ideal” society of Starship Troopers to the anarchistic/ libertarian “ideal” society of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Both societies were seriously meant by Heinlein as ideal societies, but they are very different from each other.
Starship Troopers WAS intended to glorify the military. It does not advocate military dictatorship, or militarism, or mindless obedience, or anything of that sort.
I dunno, I watched the movie first, then read the book. I saw quite a few similarities, though Mr V did-- as almost all movie people are wont to do-- put his own spin on the story, characters, ideas, and purpose.
When i read the story, I seriously was not tainted by the movie in any way. After reading the story I watched the movie again.
Still a classic, IMO. I think this is one of the rare examples where both were enjoyable, and seperate. I can only think of two others off the top of my head.
Wow, so is this a meta-philosophical motiff, then, to portray ideal societies all across the board and what he thinks they take to exist? ST is the only one I’ve read, but now I’m even more intrigued.
You need to read the book and watch the movie again, folks.
I agree with Chronos – just because Heinlein wrote it doesn’t mean that he agrees with it, or thinks it’s a good idea. If you read his books you’ll see that he tinkers with LOTS of different possible societies. In fact, “How should we structure our government?” is a major theme in Tunnel in the Sky. Heilein threw out a lot of possible ideas in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and in Expanded Universe – a lot of interesting and innovative societies and methods of decided who gets to vote. They are all mutually exclusive. There’s no way he can support all if them. The society he describes on earth in Tunnel in the Sky is not like what we have now, or what exists in Starship Troopers, so why should you think the one in ST is his favorite?
The movie is nothing like the book. Veerhoeven and the screenwriter are clearly 180 degrees in opposition to Heinlein philosophically. Were Heinlein to come back from the dead, this movie would kill him, and for all sorts of reasons. the science and logic in it is appalling, to begin with, and there’s not a gint of rationalization to make it seem real. The actions of the military are absurd. Perhaps Veerhoeven wanted it that way, but Heinlein would never throw ill-protected, expensively armed and trained soldiers into as hopeless a situation as facing a planetfull of giant bugs that are infinitely replaceable. (Heck, in the book they’re all wearing power armor).
I’ve always felt that Heinlein’s veteran’s society in ST is, nonetheless, closest to his heart. He always was of the opinion that the polity ought to be earned, not given. This would be a good way to earn it, and one dear to that reservist’s heart. But his veteran’s socierty is emphatically not militarist or fascist – active soldiers can’t vote or hold office. Read his defenses in Expanded Universe and Grumbles from the Grave.
**
I felt he made it little more then an action movie with the occasional T&A thrown in.
**
I didn’t especially like the movie. Granted part of that is because it was radically different then the book. Had it not been Starship Troopers I may have enjoyed it a bit more. But I couldn’t call it a classic.
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress if my favorite Heinlein book.
Marc
I read ST when I was kid and reading every science fiction book I could get my hands on. My take on it when I was ten years old was that the society in the book was not meant to be taken as the ideal society. It was a comment on what rampant militarism does to a society. Keep in mind that this book was written in the Eisenhower military-industrial complex 50’s. The way Johnny’s character changes as the book goes on is sometimes quite chilling. The passage that I remember most is when he’s on shore leave and is window shopping in some city (I want to say it’s Seattle, but I don’t think that’s right). Johnny is amazed by the fact that in all of these shops there isn’t a single weapon for sale anywhere.
Of course, that could have just been me bringing my own bias to the book. RH could be the biggest fascist of the 20th Century, but in the light of his other works, I don’t think he was.
I also viewed the movie as satire and criticism of the original book. I admit, I also interpret Showgirls as satire, to the derision of my friends. How could any movie with the line:
…be taken even remotely seriously. I think Verhoeven’s in perfect form with Starship Troopers. That fact that he had the stones to diverge considerably from a well-known book by a respected author is pretty cool in my book.
The movie was a complete mockery of ST’s philosophy. You only have to see the Nazi-inspired uniforms to see where Verhoeven is going. Still, I love the DVD if only for some fun, brainless action and Casper Van Dien’s exquisite backside in the shower scene (and the big, dumb cowboy who gets killed later on ain’t too bad either.)
One of my impressions from the book is that Heinlein had the military take over after the civilians, who were risking nothing, kept sending them into war. This ended up with a society where the military might run things, but they knew enough not to war against each other.
I thought the movie was great, mindless, dumb, physically impossible and improbable, but fun. Of course, having Denise Richards in it did not hurt. How come the girls in my high school didn’t look like that? Most of them looked more like Michael Ironside.
Yes, after reading the book I get that impression. “The only good bug is a dead bug” commercial was a point blank way of achieving this, I think, though PV admitted to loving the story in the DVD IIRC (need to watch it again now!)
But what I found particularly interesting in the movie was the speech the biology teacher gave about bugs being lower on the evolutionary scale and such because they didn’t have feelings. Was PV’s essential question what produces a better soldier: feelings, or lack thereof?
The end of the movie strongly implies we will win. Interesting thought, that.
Wasn’t there a (black) hole in the plot of the film:
But Denise Richards and Dina Meyer kept my interest throughout…
Not much to add to the criticism of the movie, but will admit to a hankering for the redhead (as opposed to the girl whose lips made her look like a famale version of The Joker).
One thing to add, and that is to the discussion of the military running things, etc. Heinlein on many occasions explained that the word “veteran” in ST does not only mean military veterans, but veterans of many branches of government and civil service. So don’t bandy the word about with just “military” attached to it.
Sir Rhosis
I don’t know WHY people get the impression from Starship Troopers that the military controls society. It is explicitly stated many times in the book that active duty personell cannot vote and cannot hold office. It is explicitly stated that only retired servicepeople can vote or hold office, or hold certain reserved jobs, like policeman.
That means that a career serviceperson is explicitly and intentionally denied any input in the political process. Most voters weren’t career people, just 2 year volunteers who served their hitch and left.
And it is explicitly stated that most of the people who volunteer for service do not go into the “military”. In fact 19/20 are not in the military, but rather in civil service jobs of one sort or the other. This could be anything from trash collection to teaching school to being a researcher on Pluto (the fate of Juan’s friend Carl).
I don’t know why people seem to have such a problem reading the plain words of the text. Maybe they think that Heinlein couldn’t have really meant them, since anyone who likes the military must be a fascist. Beats me.
Lemur,
Actually the impression I get is that most folks (the fine posters here are an exception) read the book’s blurb or somebody’s negative review (or like one poster who is an exception to those in this thread who saw the movie and decided that he was an expert on Heinlein’s politics), and go running off at the mouth, knowing not of what they babble. Hence, they see the word “veteran” and two sentences later the word “military” and voila, their little minds go into overdrive.
Go forbid when they see “fascist” and start down that well-debunked road.
Sir Rhosis
Legomancer - Veerhoven and the screenwriter (whose name escapes me) ABSOLUTELY made it a satire on purpose. C’mon, those little “news briefs” are BRILLIANT! You’ve been “whooshed”, hon.