Nothing objective about it, it comes down to opinions. I think the book is crap and the film is brilliant. You think the opposite. Neither of us is objectively right, we just have our opinions based on what we personally enjoy.
There is a valid argument that the film isn’t a film version of the book due to so many elements being left out and/or changed, but that has no bearing on the quality of the book or the film.
Which is exactly what Grumman said. The quality of the movie, on its own merits, is a matter of opinion, but it is objective fact that it is not in any meaningful sense based on the book. Heck, Verhoeven was proud that he hadn’t read it, because that meant that his “great artistic vision” wouldn’t be compromised by it.
To elaborate - do you really think a fair reading of the OP in this thread - even with the potential abiguity of the word ‘action’ - warrants the response
I stand behind my comments in the chain of exchanges. The quote above is not a direct reply to your first post.
I mean… there’s breasts. And explosions. And Doogie Howser as some sort of psychic Nazi. Really… what’s there to complain about? 
Nah, not really. I thought maybe Amateur Barbarian had been misled by the ambiguity (and being on my phone I posted as soon as I had read post 13), but now that I see he’s already doubled down on it, I’ll say that had I read to post 30 before shoving my oar in, I wouldn’t have posted.
My friends and I called him Doogie Himmler.
I’ll triple-dog-down on it just to make sure: anyone who says a thoughtful, intellectually-centered book can’t be made into a “good” movie is expressing a very constricted sense of what film is and can do. Whether or not you want to wrassle over “action” vs. “explosions” or not - and okay-fine, I skipped some subtleties at the beginning - my answers were addressing that narrow approach… and from some small degree of experience, as I worked through the exercise ten years ago with a successful result.
I disagree with this analysis. I do believe I know what good film is. I think what I probably have is an underdeveloped knowledge of examples of source material that has been made into good film.
I’ve seen a good number of great films. I’ve read a large number of very good books - but (within the scope of my experience) there has just been rather little intersection between these two sets (and I can’t recall any outstanding examples of intersection - that is, where a good book was done well in film).
It will help if you could provide some examples.
I quite enjoyed the movie, but I treated it like the Conan films- a fun action adventure film whose title is only a coincidence. 
But the OP has a point, and I’ll go further- other than his YA books* – none of RAH’s greater, later novels can or will make decent films. My evidence is that none have been made into a decent film, “Destination Moon” being a exception in many ways.
I can see a few as a HBO Mini-series. But even then, the super fan boys will hate them, much as they hate the LotR films.
Destination Moon wasn’t a decent film. It was certainly a faithful film, and scientifically accurate… But it was also really boring.
EDIT: Oh, and what makes you think the LotR fanboys hate the movies?
I’d be happy to leave it there, no remaining diss on your film sense. I think any further wrassling would simply be over whether, say, Silence of the Lambs or Clockwork Orange were good books turned into excellent and largely faithful films. I’d have to think a while about thoughtful, interior, “difficult” novels that I regard as successfully translated to film.
Like I said "Destination Moon" being a exception in many ways. " So, just to take that out of the debate, since it is well made but as you said- deadly dull. Is it really even SF?
Well, by no means all, but enough bitch and complain here and in other places.
If those terms slide around any more they’re going to wear out their tread. 
For what it was (time, place and approach to subject) I’d have trouble calling DM anything but a decent film.
Faithful… to what? It’s a VERY loose adaptation at best of Rocket Ship Galileo, and the short story was written hand-in-glove with the screenplay, much like 2001.
Scientifically accurate… as far as some basics of gravity and acceleration and orbital maneuvering. Pretty much pure Golden Age otherwise.
Boring… I’d neither agree entirely nor argue.
I don’t think the despair is necessary. Hollywood loves itself some remakes, and the success of the Iron Man franchise and Pacific Rim shows that there’s a market for movies about guys in robot suits blowing things up.
I wouldn’t be surprised if someone takes another bite at Starship Troopers before the end of the decade. I suspect you could do a pretty decent take on it by playing up the themes of duty, loyalty, and patriotism, without bogging down too much in the nitty gritty of how the political system works, and what led to it being established.
I hear they have this thing called the Internet that lets you see boobies without sitting through a crappy movie.
LotR. Master & Commander. Blade Runner (Film was better than the story, actually and Dick more or less said so), Schindlers List. One Flew over the Cuckoos’ Nest. Richard III with Sir Ian, Much Ado about Nothing by Whedon, Henry V by Branagh. Several good Christmas Carol films.
Not bad, as a start - and like I said, I’ve either read the book or seen the film, but rarely both.
But I don’t think plays can count - although there is of course adaptation required for the screen, they are written with the specific intent of being performed.
I’d honestly appreciate hearing your eventual conclusion on this - I might even set myself some homework based on any examples you can suggest.
I don’t think ST was a great movie or a good adaptation to the book. It was drive-in theatre fare. It could have been a better movie and/or a better adaptation of the novel but it was neither. As was stated upthread, I really don’t know how a film could have been made as a true adaptation of the novel. The History & Moral Philosophy lectures just don’t lend themselves to film. And how can you make a movie of ST without the powered suits?
As for Destination Moon, I found it a bit boring also. Of course I first saw it a couple of months ago and it was really dated. But I’m sure it was pretty mind blowing at the time it was made and first released.