Fwiw, I thought it seminal and am rather inclined to think the problem the film has it that most of the audience haven’t a clue what they’re looking at, including me. But I was intrigued enough to undertake research before subsequent viewings. This is a comprehensive analysis which covers the bases - it’s worth a read, IMHO:
http://www.otago.ac.nz/DeepSouth/1198/verhoeven.htm
A seriously impressive film.
No. Any film you have to read a treatise to “get” isn’t impressive.
I thought it was great in a mindless fun way. I also enjoyed the book. It helps that I don’t relate the two.
Well, as long as I can keep it seperate for the book, which I really like, Starships Troopers seems to be a decent action flick, which some funny satire on propoganda, but totally idiotic military tactics. If it had the nifty power armor the book had, and toned down the facist parady, I would have loved the movie.
My biggest beef was the film was the title. I’ve got no problem with a satire of facism (though I don’t see the point) and failing to question authority (here I do); but I do have a problem with calling it Starship Troopers. If he wanted to call it Bug Monsters From Outer Space it could be in my top ten.
Badtz Maru, that’s the first battle in the narritive, but not the first chronologically. I believe the battle reffered to is the first invasion of the bug home world (Klaatu? Brain cells too worn out), which was a disaster.
Hal
It’s sort of funny to hear terms like “brilliant satire” used in reference to any of the works of Paul Verhoeven. I seem to recall an article from the Popular Mechanics that featured a design for a “Verhoeven/brilliant satire” reactor. Supposedly, mixing the two in equal quantities could potentially release sufficient energy via mutual annihilation to power an interstellar spacecraft. I don’t think they ever fully solved the containment issues though.
Verhoeven’s satire is “brilliant” in the same sense that marbles are “sharp.” His social commentary operates on about the same level of sophistication as the average episode of “The Flintstones.” You can actually use the plot of any given Verhoeven film as acoustic tile, it has so many holes in it.
Now The Stuff, that was a brilliant satire.
Hodge pretty much stated my take on the flick better than I could.
Verhoeven was spoofing the kind of jingoist action and war films that came out during WWII. When dialogue was heavy-handed or silly it was meant to be. Although I think he overplayed his hand a little.
Rico prefered Carmen over Dizz because it’s a cliche of old Hollywood movies (and lots of new ones) that the hero want the girl who refuses him or seem out of reach. Rico was certainly a cliched hero: he’s eager to join the military but tests low while Carmen tests high so they separated. While Rico pines for her as he struggles and fouls up in training and nearly walks away in failure and disgrace, but changes his mind when he sees that home is gone and his parents are dead. He snaps back from early failures in action (and is even feared dead) but proves himself worthy under fire in combat and takes the lead when the leader/his mentor and his best friend/lover are killed. Carmen becomes, or seems like, a noble and pure (virginal, if you want to go Freudian or mythological with the theme) goal to attain. The exciting, likeable girl (or sometimes the seductive femme fatale working for the villain in lots of films) who openly enjoys sex and doesn’t refuse the hero or even initiates it with him will usually be killed during a noble (but stupid) sacrifice.
The hero’s way is now clear for him get the girl he has been after the whole time. He can have the best of both worlds. He has slept with the exciting girl, as well as having someone (in addition to the city of Buenos Aires, which is too impersonal) to “get” the bugs for. And this clears one obstacle to his true love Carmen. His rival (who would seem superior to him, except we, the audience, know better) is conveniently disposed of in a brutal manner by the brain-sucking bug, defiant as a good citizen would be, but quickly forgotten by Carmen once reunited with Rico.
Doogie in SS garb was just icing on the cake.
I thought it was “At least I got to have you”, and I was never really sure how tongue-in-cheek that was supposed to be. I mean, it was hilarious, but the film overall was so uneven in the level of satire that I couldn’t tell if it was meant that way. Which is my main problem with the film.
Wow, what a pile of crap. Any reviewer that uses the words “cannibalisation”, “historicity”, and " metafictionality" when describing ST is selling a load of bullshit.
A poster at Bad Astronomy (Krel) mentioned these interesting nuggets.
Why couldn’t he just make his own movie, instead of ruining a science fiction classic?
Oh yeah, I liked his satire the first time I saw it, when is was called Robocop.
According to an article I read on the “film” shortly before it was released, the screenwriters went to the studio and said that they wanted to make a “bugs in space” movie. The studio said, we need something better than that if we’re going to greenlight it. (Anybody remember the “Sprite” commercial where they had the guys pitching the giant slug movie? Not too far from reality, I’m afraid.) So they found out that the rights to Heinlein’s Starship Troopers were available, bought 'em and then proceeded to write the film. The writers totally disagreed with Heinlein’s ideas in the novel and Verhoven refused to read the book because he didn’t want it to “taint” his vision of the movie. So basically, you have a film that’s a propaganda piece against Heinlein.
Personally, I think that it’s a gawdawful film, and that if they’d actually bothered to base it off Heinlein’s book, instead of the title, they’d have come up with a film that puts the whole Alien series to shame. It’s little more than Armageddon with giant bugs instead of a giant asteroid.
Just because YOU’d have to read a treatise, RW, doesn’t mean ST is a “film you have to read a treatise to ‘get’.” I, for one, got in one, and subsequent viewings simply added to the pleasure.
And I am SOOO tired of people who think that insofar as a director deviates from his source material, his product will be a bad movie. If you want the exact same experience as reading the book, then for godssake just read the damn book again. It’s perfectly valid for an artist in one medium to take a work from another medium as a starting point for his own work; to simply reproduce it, without any of his own artistic input, makes a bad, HarryPottery film.
Who said we wanted “the same experience”? Taking some artistic license is one thing, but why use an existing work if you are going to produce a movie that is 1. politically and socially 180 degrees opposite the book and 2. a ridiculous simplification of science and military strategy (ie no armor, artillery, anything other than a mob running around forming polish firing squads [get in a circle and shoot])?
Couldn’t he just have written his own script?
What, is this a rule?
He kinda did, didn’t he? A script wherein he not only commented on hollywood sf movie conventions, but on American warmongering and teen consumer culture, AND, in addition, on the politics os Heinlein.
If everyone believed as you did, Postmodernism would be a felony.
I gave my opinion on the film earlier, but had no particular axe to grind regarding this movie.
What amazes me, though, is the absolutism of some of the people on this thread; people who would have an all-or-nothing rule when it comes to adapting a book for the screen.
You liked the Heinlein book? Great, so did i.
You thought the movie messed around with it? Well, you’re right.
But you don’t get to define what does and does not constitute artistic licence in a situation such as this. At least, not for other people. Plenty of decent movies would never have been made under your absolutist cinema regime. By all means give your opinion of the movie, but just recognize that your apparent attempts to dictate what does and does constitute responsible adaptation are just that - opinion.
There seems to be two species of Heinlein devotees.
Firstly the square jawed libertatian guntoters a la 'Red Planet’and ‘Starship Troopers’. Pretty humourless and pedantic, like ol R.H. could be.
And the trippy experientalists who want to have sex with just about everything that moves a la ‘Number of the Beast’ and ‘Stranger in a Strange Land’. I’ll make my stand with these people.
Starship Troopers movie was great for many of the reasons listed; Ass-bugs, Reichmarshall Doogie, Dizzys tits and Johnny Ricos arse.
My favourite is …the galaxys most poorly placed emergency evacuation pods on the Roger Young. Not only do you have to run through flame belching corridors and C.O. bisecting blast doors, you finally make it to these crappy little two person death-crates that are barely able to land. But at least they have a knife in the trunk. Makes you cheer for the bugs.
Besides, Joe Haldeman’s ‘Forever War’ skewers ‘Starship Troopers’ in ways not yet covered. Two books that should be read back to back.
Shame on those who do “me too” posts…shame on me…I’m with CalMeacham,RikWriter, Terrifel and RealityChuck. I just rented this thing again the other day–for free, thank goodness–to see if I would dislike it as much as I did in theatres six or seven years ago.
Yup. It still blew bug chunks. “Attempted satire (by Verhoeven)” ought to be a felony.
Yes. It’s both stupid and brilliant.
I’ll leave all the pedants in this thread to keep making their snippy little remarks and telling everyone else that contrary opinions are wrong.
Meanwhile I’ll get my copy of the DVD and watch it again; it’s been a while. The movie is “satire” only in the sense that MAD Magazine is satire – it’s about as broad and unsubtle as you can get. Big, goofy, ultra-violent, and even mean-spirited movie.
It’s campy and fun.