What’s most interesting about all this is that there seem to be two general opinions on the movie: one that it’s a blatant, over-the-top, couldn’t-miss-it-if-you-were-blind-and-deaf parody (or satire, depending), and one that it’s not a parody or satire at all. And while these two views are miles apart, they seem to be based on the same kind of reasoning (the bad acting, the bad science, the gore etc). I never said* Troopers *was a subtle film. I’m one of those people who think its power lies in its in-your-face stupidity: it’s certainly post-modern SF, if you ask me.
Don’t forget we libertarians who are all about banging cute, small-nosed experimental chicks.
Kinda like the squares in the 60s who grew their hair long so they could get laid by hippy chicks.
Ok, the problem that fans of the book have with the movie is this: The movie that was based, truly, on the book “Starship Troopers” would have been epic. An amazing space opera that made you think at the same time.
Instead, the director used it as an opportunity to take potshots at a dead man who he didn’t like, based on a book he didn’t read.
It would be like me making Lord of the Rings and making the hero of the film Gimli, making him the ringbearer and making Gandalf a butt-kicking warrior and making Legolas gay… well…
I’m sure you get my point. It’s the same level of twisting.
It is my hope that someday, someone will make the movie right, although they will have to make it with a new name this time.
Well, that and the fact that it sucks, blows, whezzes and does other nasty things.
When adapting something you gotta be at least a little faithful to the source, otherwise you’re not adapting, you’re creating out of whole cloth.
To say you’re doing one thing and then do another is dishonesty.
Yep, and he should have called it Bug Hunt 90210.
Except that he got Heilein’s politics (specifically the one’s in ST), all wrong. That’s the point. I understand that it is satire, but it is done so poorly.
sigh Nice strawman. Of course I shouldn’t expect much else from someone that thinks Showgirls is a masterpiece. 
Sure, it’s an opinion. But lets try an anology. If you try buy a car from me, and I sell you a Big Wheels, you have the right to be upset with me. I can point out that this is my “adaptation” of a car, but that’s not a sufficient defense. There’s nothing wrong with Big Wheels, the problem is calling it a car.
To clarify my post for Mucic Junkie and Batz Maru (and anyone who hasn’t read the book).
-
The Book is in the first person. (“I did x”.)
-
The book begins with the Mission described by Batz Maru. It then goes back to Johnny signing up and going through Basic. We then get told about Johnny having to punch out an older member of his platoon because Juan (that’s Johnny) feels that the other member of the platoon didn’t follow Johnny’s orders properly and when ofeered command of the platoon refuses to take it (“I’ll keep my squad.” says the oter MI).
Note this is what I was talking about in my second post.
We then read about Juan’s first combat jump. It is FUBAR. Or as Juan says "I then heard the order I don’t ever want to hear again. `` SAUVE QUI PEUT! ‘’ ".
Some other points.
“Any species that can build starships isn’t stupid.” Humans just don’t know how `` the bugs ‘’ think/reason.
Basically the MIUare raiders. They dont have close air support and have ony such weapons as the can bring with them.
Has anyone seen the CGI cartoon series of Starship Troopers? Compared to the movie the character development and tactics are much better.
Good for you. Hope you understand you may not be in the majority.
Postmodernism SHOULD be a felony. And using the term “American warmongering” automatically deducts 20 points from my estimation of your IQ.
Not really, they could always call it “Robert A. Heinlein’s Starship Troopers”.
But I agree, if he wanted to make an anti-war SF movie, he should have used “The Forever War” or Steakley’s “Armor”.
Seen some of it. Impressive CGI, and yes, the character development is actually less clunky than some live action shows I’ve seen.
I’m kind of beating a dead horse here, but IMO the film of ST wasn’t all that bad, but whoever decided to pawn it off as a) based on the book and b) having a point other than seeing shit blow up should face a tribunal at the Hague. Or maybe just get a few lashes…
Also, who decided “Hmmmm…you know that really badass armor system from the book? The one with majorly cool weapons systems, and communications, and jumpjets? Let’s throw that right out the window and substitute…what would be good? Tanks? No, to obvious… Viking gear? No, to offensive to Northern Europeans…How about polyster uniforms that bear a striking resemblence to those of the Nazis, and some huge-ass guns that don’t actually do any damage, and only run out of ammo once, but when they do, it’s in the face of a vast wave of the enemy! That sounds really good!” And what were they thinking?
But, the movie was entertaining; bad, but entertaining. If they’d just called it “Battle Bugs” and never even insinuated that it was based on/inspired by Heinlein, I’d be perfectly happy.
Reading all this makes me want to go watch it again, and I think I will. I loved the movie, which I saw first, and thought the book was pretty good, too, but I’ve only ever read Stranger… otherwise, so I don’t know what he’s “like” as an author (and don’t largely take stock of books or films based on such things).
I’m more middle-of-the-road, here. The parody/sarcasm is so thick you need a jackhammer to get through most of it (those commercials? Come on, people), but I think there was a serious underlying comparison made to “humans” and “bugs”.
I still laugh when I think of the “MEDIC!” call.
I think this movie stands to serve several levels of film viewing. It is basic enough on the surface to provide some decent action and gore, it has some obvious parody for giggles (the lady’s ecstatic glee at stomping roaches still cracks me up). “Higher” up the analysis, there’s room for varying interpretations both as a film in itself and WRT the novel it is based on.
If a film causes debate, it is good, period. MHO.
Indeed! Discerning men throughout the ages have always appreciated it when baby has some back.
If a film causes debate, it is good, period. MHO
Why?
Well, i don’t want to speak for erislover here, but i took his post to mean that if a film causes the sort of debate over interpretation that is happening in this thread, then, whether you like the film or not, it has still made a contribution to the art form.
mhendo has my opinion well in hand there.
*What?! * Debate automatically equals good? What kind of standard is that? What if one side of the debate is, “(Random movie) is a huge pile of crap?” What if the only debate is over how horrible the movie is? Based on conversations I’ve had with fellow coffeehouse patrons, then, Ilsa: She-Wolf of the SS would have to be considered a “good movie.”
The CGI cartoon version had those as well as the skinnys.