Am I the only one who laughed all the way through the first Starship Troopers movie?
I still think its one of the best comedies I’ve ever seen.
[QUOTE=AtomicDog]
Where the bleep is the powered armor?
[/QUOTE]
You’ve seen the cargo lifter that Ripley uses in Aliens? Its sort of like that, but with guns and shrunken nukes.
Its actually nicely described in detail in the book, so that its not just a knight with a gun.
[QUOTE=Pushkin]
You’ve seen the cargo lifter that Ripley uses in Aliens?
[/QUOTE]
I think they were called “loaders”.
I couldn’t remember the name, I assumed it would be a pretty recognisable prop though.
re: powered armor.
In the movie, you had an infantry platoon jogging down a canyon, all grouped together, where they’d be easy prey for an ambush. In the book, that same platoon would be spread over several miles, moving at 30-40 mph in their powered armor, leaping 20-30 yards at a stretch. It would have been damn difficult, if not impossible (and extremely expensive) to do powered armor correctly in the movie. At best, you’d switch between total cgi scenes of armored MI’s leaping around, a few closeups of 1 or 2 MI’s fighting a bug, and lots of shots of MI’s inside their armor, probably just a face shot with the green glow of their internal screens & diagnostics.
Hmm. Don’t start comparing the book and movie that closely. We’ve been over it too many times. The movie bugs are nothing like Heinlein’s descriprion (Johnny Rico can confuse the workers with the fighters, for instance, unless he looks close). The tactics used in Veerhoeven’s movie, regardless of what the book says, are an afront to common sense, let alone military theory, and would be even if Heinlein’s book hadn’t existed. So it’s all irrelevant.
I’m sure the real reason they didn’t have thje body armor is that they wanted to show people acting and emoting, and it’s hard to do that inside a closed shell. Even Cameron, in Aliens, didn’t have his ST-inspired Space Marines all “suited up”
[QUOTE=JRDelirious]
-
Yes it’s a real name. It has been a real name for centuries. It’s a (Dutch?) variant of Caspar/Gaspar, as in one of the Magi. According to his bios there are at least seven and maybe as many as 11 generations of "Casper"s in his family tree (a military family with distinguished "Casper"s for at least the two generations before him), counting his own son.
..a little boy (8 years old) named Casper Van Dien: in a schoolyard, with bully:
(Bullie): “so what’s YOUR name”
(CVD): “my name is casper”
Poor little casper gets beaten up!
Or maybe 8 YO Casper is already ripped, and beats up the bullie!
-
IMDB Bio page. He’s primarily a TV actor and sure doesn’t look unemployed.
-
You got me there, dude. But considering how many regularly-employed actresses seem to have, as Joe Bob would put it, only two very large talents, I’m not begrudging CVD a career based on hardbodied good looks
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t see much talen exhibited in ST1-presumably, CVD has learned how to act in the meantime!
I enjoyed both the Heinlein book and the first movie. I consider the two unrelated. Never saw the second one, but maybe ill give the third one a try if enough people here hate it 
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
That *would *be a good SF trick as Roughnecks came out 2-3 years after Starship Troopers.
[/QUOTE]
My question was referring to as why ST3 will not have powersuits. Those producers are the ones who could see that you could have MI troopers that wouldn’t look like robots.
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
There are reasons people here are not talking about how good or bad the first movie was.
I think it’s simplest to say that it was the director’s vision, the director is a very good director, and he made the movie he wanted to make.
Which had little to do with the book he made it from.
[/QUOTE]
Paul Verhoevan:Movies::Andy Kaufman:Comedy