They weren’t after the Earth for minerals; they were there to colonize. They just had to wipe out the natives first.
weren’t you paying attention during The Simpsons Movie? That was the NEW Grand Canyon that Tom Hanks was advertising. When the Federal Government decided that it couldn’t nuke Springfield, they decided that they had to use the bombs elsewhere (Arnold was president, after all), so they made a new Grand Canyon in Iowa.
Because of all the tourism, they built up a large enough population that they later decided to put a StarBase there.
Don’t you know anything?
In Heinlein’s book, only those who had served in the military were able to hold public office, or for that matter vote in any election. Heinlein, a former naval officer, agreed with America’s founders in that there should be some kind of prerequisite to vote beyond a heartbeat. Heinlein felt that military service instilled certain values beyond the “ME First” ethos many live by today. As well, by forcing people to earn the right to vote, Heinlein felt that voters would actually take the time to learn the candidates platforms, instead of voting for a soundbite.
Any cite that Heinlein thought it should be that way, rather than just that he thought that’s one way it could be?
Reasonably good looking, regular features, in decent physical condition, good speaking voice, and the person isn’t the character so I doubt he is a psychotic killer in real life.
I would have done him and many women would have the same opinion.
Not everybody gravitates towards the pretty boys. Pretty boys tend to be egotistical jerks in my experience. I will date someone based on personality thanks.
I actually think earning a franchise sounds like a good idea, though the interpretations of our founding fathers ideas are very different.
I would like to point out that in our countries history the franchise to vote was actually limited by laws over the past couple of centuries to just white males owning a certain amount of property, and only gradually came to include women, blacks and nonproperty owners.
I would actually like to see some sort of change making it a requirement to actually have some form of education in the issues instead of voting by soundbite, or as some people do randomly voting straight party … not every democrat, republican or independant ticket is the whole solution.
Heck, I am registered republican but rarely vote republican just because i am registered republican, I try to actually research issues before voting [and I am pretty unusual in my small town. Though I do get into some great debates at town meetings now and then =) ]
This is a perennial debate topic at cons, with lots of folks taking the line that nobody knows what Heinlein thought, so you’re an idiot if you pick one point of view from his work and say that THIS is what Heinlein believed.
It’s true that Heinlein loved to play around with the idea of government. In particular, the issue of who should get the franchise seemed to interest him. In Expanded Universe, Tunnel in the Sky, and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress he suggests quite a few odd ideas about how to decide who gets to vote (in addition to the one suggested in Starship Troopers). A lot of these are clearly just playing around, and not serious. It sure as heck isn’t clear to me that the ability to solve (or guess) the roots of a quadratic equation make anyone a good choice to select administrators, and I don’t really think Heinlein thought so, either. But you can’t tell, can you? Heinlein always seemed to keep his real thoughts close to his vest.
I will say this, though – of all the suggestions for the franchise Heinlein came up with, this is the only one he felt compelled to return to and to defend against criticism. that suggests that he took it more seriously than his other suggestions. It’s also in line with his often-expressed feelings that those serving in the military have proven their willingness to defend the system and have proven their value, and his belief that serving in the military was a noble and worthwhile (and much underappreciated) calling.
No, the ID aliens were “cosmic locusts” going from planet to planet, as revealed in the telepathy scene.
My personal “fanwank explanation” is sadism. Everything they did was so inefficient; they send in humongous ships with apparently very short ranged beams that do about as much damage as our much tinier nukes do. And despite being in invulnerable giant warships they send out swarms of tiny fighter craft to shoot down enemies who can’t hurt them. So, perhaps they did things the way they did just to terrorize us for fun; or in the case of the fighters to be able to kill us one on one. In that scenario the huge intimidating city destroyers are specifically supposed to be terrifying; which would be why they didn’t just kill us off from orbit.
Yes, it’s a stretch but it’s not like you’re going to get a good explanation…
Here’s the quote:
They’re moving their entire civilization from planet to planet. It seems pretty clear to me that they kill off the inhabitants, live there for a while until it’s used up, then go to the next one. Why would they move their entire civilization if they’re just there for some minerals?
[southern/rural drawl]Here in the US, we hold it sacred that a person has a right to be poor and ignorant. Heck, society couldn’t get by without a certain number of poor and ignorant people.[/southern/rural drawl]
That’s right, because everyone knows that urban northerners are intelligent and educated, while rural southerners are stupid and ignorant. You can tell it from the drawl.
How easy is it to shuttle their resources back to their home planet? It sounded just as likely they’d strip mine the planet.
Man, that stuff eats through stainless steel, and practically everything else.
How does it circulate in the alien’s bodies without causing harm?
And, why do alien larvae like our human bodies so much? Are we sweet for them?
#1 The same way our stomach protects us from acid
#2
#3 Profit
I think you’re confusing some different events. The projectile that destroys Rodger Young, the ship Denise Richards was flying, is a big turd fired from the surface of the bug planet. That happens much later in the movie than the asteroid destroying Rio de Janiero.
I hated the movie and think the people who love it are 98% wrong, but they’re not 100% wrong. Verhoeven was definitely trying to make a point, not tell a hard sci-fi story. In the sense of what Verhoeven was trying to do the sci-fi blather really doesn’t matter.
The incident Cal mentioned happened earlier in the movie: Denise Richards is just learning to fly the Rodger Young, when they encounter a gravity well, caused by the asteroid. That asteroid smacks into the ship, but because of Richards’ Fancy Flying[sup]TM[/sup], it only scrapes the top of the ship, taking out communications.
After the asteroid hits Earth, the fleet is sent out to look for the Smart Bug, wherein the Rodger Young gets hit by bug poo and is taken out for good.
Thanks for the backup Dar, that’s quite correct. There’s otherwise no point in the meteor breaking off the antenna. The incident is stupid on so many levels it’s ridiculous (The gravitational pull of the meteor is strong enough to tilt the liquid in the cup, but not to pull the cup off the table? Waitaminnit – shouldn’t everything be feeling the same pull, so the liquid wouldn’t seem to be tilted – or the people would be pulled into the corners, or something – in any case, it’s grossly inconsistent, no matter how you try to fanwank it. And… oh, forget it.) But at least it’s a sorta consistent plot development.
The deestruction of the Rodger Young via Blaster Bug excreta (nothing like it in the book – the Bugs are depicted there as having High Tech, not BioTech) happens at the very end, and has nothing to do with the antenna.
The cups all have suction-cup bases, so that they don’t go flying around when the ship is in zero-g. Obviously. 
Acids can be picky in what they attack. Some acids will vehemently attack metal (or at least, some metals), but pretty much ignore tissue. And given that this was an acid produced by the aliens’ own metabolism, I think it’s safe to assume that their blood and the tissues in contact with it evolved together in such a way that they wouldn’t dissolve themselves.
Lumpy said:
Previously established canon? Where was that established? Be that as it may, I found the scene well executed and funny. What annoys me is that it creates an explanation for Kirk to call McCoy “Bones” that turns it from a term of affection for a friend using a common nickname for the profession to a deliberate dig about the worst event of the guy’s life. “Hey buddy, remember that time you were married to the hag that took everything you owned * and* kicked you off your home planet, so now you have to travel in space and risk death on a weekly basis? Yeah, weren’t those good times? Aren’t you glad I’m your buddy, to remind you every five minutes?”
CalMeacham said:
Arguing what Heinlein wanted from just his stories may be a fool’s game. I haven’t read his non-fiction essays (in some of his collected works) in some time, so I can’t recall what he advocates there. But it is safe to say that the book Starship Troopers strongly advocates that citizens must earn the right to vote through goverment service, particularly risky government service. (Being a tax collector won’t do, unless you personally collect taxes from cannibal biker gang drug lords.) He explicitly states that this is not because it makes citizens smarter or nicer or less likely to commit crimes. In fact, IIRC, they have to execute one of the soldiers in the book. But the potential citizens earn the right by putting their life on the line for the betterment of the society. That is why they have earned the right. And by earning the right by risking life and limb, they are perhaps more motivated to understand issues and care what the government does. At least, that’s the theory.
Beyond that, I don’t think this is the place to debate what tests for citizenship should be, or what Heinlein advocated.
RickJay said:
Verhoeven may or may not have had a valid point, but he did not have to kick Heinlein in the nuts to make it. At the time that movie came out, I really liked Heinlein, and was excited by the idea of one of his novels getting made into a film. That movie misrepresented Heinlein’s intent, then trounced the misrepresentation it set up. If they’re going to put Heinlein’s name on it and use Heinlein’s work, then for friggen’ sake, at least have the decency and respect to present Heinlein’s work and views. (Of course, a similar argument can be made about I, Robot.)