Uh…I think that it was simply based on the book. It was a really, really BAD adaptation, but they did try and base it on the book, and they knew their target audience were folks like me who had read the thing and were stupid enough to get all excited about a movie based on the book. It’s sort of the World War Z of 1990’s SciFi.
You are really reading way, way more into it than there is…filtered by your obvious dislike of the US and hope that this movie is some sort of cerebral movie dig at the country. Sometimes a bad movie is just a bad movie, and you don’t really need to try and parse it for a Bible Code…
(ETA: And, spoiler alert…the bugs definitely did it. There was really no question that they did in the book, and the only reason there is seemingly a question here is because the movie was really REALLY REALLY BAD)
Kind of off topic. But did anyone else find it sort of random that Fade Into You by Mazzy Star was the song playing in the background when Rico and Zander were beating the crap out of each other in the mess hall?
Absolutely. And also satire of propagandizing efforts in general, and of the consequences of exalting brute strength and hierarchy above all else. I’m astonished that anyone could even begin to think that Verhoeven intended to make a straight-science-fiction movie.
“Very questionable” is a very different argument from “specious reasons.” Lots of people thought we shouldn’t have gotten involved, but few argued against the legal justification for the war.
Starship Troopers is obvious, heavy-handed satire, but I also think it’s unlikely to be related to the first Gulf War in any direct way. It’s just generic anti-militarism. Personally, I thought it was more of a satire of the original book than any recent real-life conflict.
Actually I’m not sure still WTF the film is supposed to mean, I saw a claim somewhere it was already in development as Bug Hunt something when someone pointed out the similarity to ST so they bought the rights, it possibly was a satire of scifi before being purchased.
But others insist it is a prescient satire of gulf war 2, I’m usually on the satire but not psychic side.
I think so, too. The book’s underlying philosophy was Verhoeven’s target (though he did get in some licks at the way governments manipulate the governed, in general). I feel pretty safe in assuming that Verhoeven is not a fan of RAH.
I’m not sure what your ‘What?’ is in response to. Yes, the movie in early development seemed to have been Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine, but it’s pretty clear that it wasn’t filmed, canned and then had it’s name changed unless it was supposed to be a total (bad) rip off of Starship Troopers. Yes, the movie was pretty heavy on the satire…but I seriously doubt it’s supposed to be a deep thinking satire of the Evil American Empire™…more like a satire of the book by someone who obviously didn’t like it (yet attempted to use it to make some money). No, it’s not a time traveling prescient satire of Gulf War II, Electric Boogaloo, nor even a dated satire of Gulf War I, Saddam’s Big Adventure (Gone Wrong). Did that cover your ‘What?’ or was there something else?
I’m pretty sure it was supposed to be a deep thinking satire on American militarism. (Whether it succeeded at that is a different question.) I doubt it was intended to be a satire of the book, because the guy who made the movie claims he’s never read it.
No it wasn’t. At best, a fucking moron’s understanding of the book’s underlying philosophy was Verhoeven’s target. He was attacking a strawman of his own creation.
Take the scene where the MIs-in-training are being taught to throw knives. In the book, the instructor’s response was providing an important lesson that people should learn: that you need to have more at your disposal than the nuclear option. There are idiots today who think we should enforce a total or near-total economic blockade against the Japan for their illegal whaling. Last time it was a tool meant to end Japan’s invasion of China and French Indochina and save millions of people, but now people want to blow it on poachers.
In the movie, Verhoeven portrays the instructor as the exact sort of person the instructor was trying to ensure they would not become - one who is incapable of a measured response (such as somebody asking a question and responding by explaining your reasoning). Either Verhoeven is a fucking moron who does not understand the difference, or he was being deliberately deceptive and was slandering Heinlein for his own profit.
The most the film has in common with the book is the title. Most of the writing team had never heard of the book. psst: you’re a little caught up in the book:
But in the beginning of the film, them mention settlers encroaching on an “Arachnid Quarantine Zone”. Students are also shown dissecting smaller Arachnids in science class. To me that implies that the humans had intentionally cordoned off bug space to be left alone, but then started encroaching on their space when it became convenient.
Also, we never see the Bugs invade Earth. The humans are always the invaders.
Maybe “benign” isn’t the correct word, as the Bugs are clearly dangerous. But my interpretation of the film is that it is mirroring historical cases of imperialist nations meddling in the affairs of other countries. The populations of those imperialist nations are largely unaware or indifferent until those in the meddled nation lash out. Then the government uses the attack as a pretext to a full-scale war to achieve their goals.
I find it difficult to believe that a team of professional writers had never heard of Starship Troopers.
I thought Sgt Zim provided a measured response designed to make a powerful point with the troops he was training while at the same time disciplining a disruptive and insubordinate cadet. “If you disable your enemy’s hand, he cannot push a button.” I mean Zim could have just beat the crap out of
Even if that’s not the case, as an instrument of the Federation, I think he can be forgiven for some hypocrisy.
I get the impression that like many speculative sci-fi authors, Heinlein was impressed by the brilliance of his own hypothetical society while others (like Verhoeven) thought it was sort of Nazi-like.
I find it unlikely that in a society where only “citizens” could vote or hold office, they wouldn’t vote themselves all sorts of privilege and advantage they felt they were entitled to. This is sort of glossed over with Rico’s wealthy Civilian family.
[QUOTE=msmith537]
I find it unlikely that in a society where only “citizens” could vote or hold office, they wouldn’t vote themselves all sorts of privilege and advantage they felt they were entitled to. This is sort of glossed over with Rico’s wealthy Civilian family.
[/QUOTE]
Read the book. Rico’s family weren’t citizens, and in fact his father thought getting citizenship was a waste and totally encouraged him NOT to try and obtain it since, in his estimation, it wasn’t worth the cost. In the end (spoiler alert), of course, he had a change of heart since a bug attack on Earth killed his wife, and he ended up joining the military (as a sergeant) and getting citizenship as well (well…they will, assuming they survive their tour of duty, since serving military can’t be citizens either).
While I’m sure that a lot of folks have a lot of issues with the book and the fictional society, these issues you bring up aren’t actually issues if you actually read the thing.
To someone such as the guy who did the film I have no doubt it seems ‘Nazi-like’…he probably thinks the US is ‘Nazi-like’ as well (or that Republicans are at least :p). It’s certainly a very structured and military oriented society, but it’s really nothing like Nazi Germany in structure…except to those who want to bend and contort the story to make it so. This isn’t the say it’s a great utopian vision of what we should be striving for, but at least judge it for what it actually is, instead of what folks who put at this crap movie THINK it is based on probably skimming the dusk jacket and maybe reading a chapter or two before tossing the book aside.
Been so long since I’ve seen the movie that I honestly don’t remember, so perhaps that was the writers slant. That’s not how the book was, but obviously the movie is only very vaguely like the movie…hell, the best part of the book was the power armor, and that was totally missing. I could put up with all the other slanting and anti-military horseshit (I liked Avatar after all :p) but they could at least have given me the freaking power armor!! :mad:
I agree. The fact that we never see The Bugs landing on Earth is significant. It’s always the Earth invading Bug planets.
Me, too.
Yeah. And the remarks about Verhoeven failing to have read the book miss the point that what he was expressing when he told interviewers that he hadn’t finished the book, was his contempt for the material (not any ineptness as a director in adapting that material):
One would hope that might put to rest the theory that Verhoeven failed at a supposed goal of making a faithful adaptation of a beloved book . He had no such goal.
Ok, not sure what your point was then. If you are saying that the movie glosses over Rico’s families wealth, well, not the only thing they glossed over but I agree. I’m not sure what your point is about them voting themselves more powers, since ‘they’ are still just people who have decided to do their time in service to get the franchise, not wealthy fat cats. How would ‘they’ simply vote themselves more powers? Anyone in their society, including the disabled CAN get the franchise, after all…it’s just not automatically granted and many, like Rico’s dad don’t think it’s worth the bother. Similar to our own society in some ways, in that many people don’t bother to vote because they don’t think exercising their franchise is worth the bother.
Yeah, maybe for the first 80 years of this country’s history. But that’s not why we’re militarized now.
I never said Americans (which I am, proudly) were stupid. But people who are the objects of satire are usually the least self-aware about it, providing excuses and splitting hairs (like in this thread) about how the satire is off-the-target because it couldn’t really be about them–just look at the (often nominal) differences! Differences that are usually eclipsed by the similarities when you’re in the rest of the world, on the outside looking in.
I didn’t say the film was an allegory. I said it was a satire–certainly not only of America (note all the fascistic, historical references), but its politics and media are obvious targets which still apply quite well today. Is it a great movie, or even a great satire? I wouldn’t make that strong of a case for either. But I think the intent behind the film is obviously clear.
Yes. Just because the world was sold a bill of goods doesn’t mean it was universally seen as a noble enterprise. Historical reflection makes it look only worse, in hindsight. And let’s be honest, the vast majority of personnel and resources committed to this was from the US, “Coalition of the Willing” notwithstanding.
What?