“The Story of Mankind” - a nonfiction children’s book was adapted into a movie of the same name, which framed brief sketches about history as part of a trial of mankind being held in heaven with Satan as prosecutor. Harpo Marx played Isaac Newton in one scene, and Groucho bought Manhattan from the Indians.
But “satire” doesn’t necessarily (or in fact, usually) mean laugh-out-loud funny. It’s often the use of irony, sarcasm or exaggeration to imply some kind of political message. Starship Troopers is absolutely exemplar of that.
In terms of Verhoeven’s own thoughts, the closest I could find was this quote when he was discussing the Starship Troopers remake:
This seems to imply he did think of his movie as being satirical.
Not in the slightest. There is no irony, sarcasm, or exaggeration in the film; it’s all played as a straight drama. Much of that is inept, but calling it satire is like calling Plan 9 from Outer Space a satire of alien invasion films.
Here’s what Verhoeven said in the article you quoted:
Note that he does not mention the word “satire.” He’s talking about the movie having two levels.
Quite the opposite. He’s saying that the studios didn’t want satire, so he didn’t provide it.
Ultimately, though, the movie’s ineptitude does not make it satire. It’s an interesting concepts, but the execution is no better than Ed Wood’s. in Plan Nine
If you think there’s no irony or exaggeration in Starship Troopers, you watched a very different movie than I did.
And the combination of those two levels is satirical. One one level, it’s a straightforward adventure story. But the underlying level is that the characters are or are becoming fascists. If you understand the underlying level, then the straightforward adventure story level is satirical. Verhoeven thinks that all military adventure stories are inherently fascist, whether the creators consciously realize it or not. Verhoeven consciously incorporated those themes into the movie, as a critique.
Quite the opposite. He literally says “we really, really tried to get away from the novel”. He’s saying that the studios didn’t want the “irony, sarcasm, satire” that his version did have, which is why the proposed remake would be going back to the novel.
From the Wikipedia article on the film:
None of the many Frankenstein adaptations have been remotely close to the novel, and I’ve wondered why, since it’s a good story. Kenneth Branaugh’s “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein” comes closest, but still takes a number of liberties with the story.
When I first read the novel I was surprised to find out that the creature taught itself to read and write, and was intelligent and philosophical, having grown up with the Universal Frankensteins.
And the book monster was fast and agile. ISTR book monster described as wearing a long overcoat (probably called something else) and carrying guns.
Which adds to his assholishness. I WAS THERE when his people tried to hype the movie at WorldCon. It was presented as a straight adaptation of the novel, with no critique or other bullshit. They hyped the CGI Bugs because they ditched the power armor. That should have been a sign. Verhoeven has a special place in Hell waiting, reserved for him, child molesters and people who talk at the theater.
“[N]o irony, sarcasm, or exaggeration in [Starship Troopers]”? I think someone needs to watch it again after a viewing of Robocop, to see it more in style context. Only the most superficial viewing would come away with that opinion. It is so over the top that it’s almost camp. If they played it straight at WorldCon, then I’m sure that was part of the gag.
The recent revival I saw at Lincoln Center a few years ago changes the ending back to more what Shaw wanted. Not because Shaw wanted it, but for a more feminist take on Eliza.
Cheaper by the Dozen (2003) has almost nothing in common with the 1948 book except that it’s about a family with twelve children.
Paul Verhoeven is the Chauncey Gardiner of action movies. People assume he’s profound - probably because he’s European - but actually, he’s a singularly shallow filmmaker. He’s basically Michael Bay with a Dutch accent.
(BTW, Luc Besson is his French equivalent. So, so stupid).
I wonder if Verhoeven would be a good fit for another version of Judge Dredd, since the source material is already a surreally satirical take on a fascist super-badass.
When they made a Captain America movie serial during WWII, they didn’t actually bother to include a guy named Steve Rogers — or a shield, or a super-soldier serum — but, hey: who needs a pal called Bucky, or an enemy called the Red Skull, when we’ve got stories to tell about (checks notes) a District Attorney investigating apparent suicides that have nothing to do with the military?
It’s been decades since I’ve read the book, but IIRC Heinlein was simply trying to paint a picture of a highly efficient militarized society, without stating any opinion on whether he was for it or against it. It isn’t good, it isn’t bad. It simply is.
I love the film ‘The Princess Bride’, but it has little to do with the book.
The TV series ‘The Watch’ was a really, really bad adaptation of the Discowrld novels.
That’s the hilarious (or add the descriptor of your choice 
) thing about this one:
Shyamalan researched and watched the series with his family. “Watching Avatar has become a family event in my house … so we are looking forward to how the story develops in season three,” said Shyamalan. “Once I saw the amazing world that Mike and Bryan created, I knew it would make a great feature film”
So he was a fan who somehow systematically deconstructed everything good about the show and turned it into a rotting zombie of a wreck. Truly breathtaking level of “not getting it.” And Shyalaman is normally at least a technically gifted director. He should be at his best adapting other people’s better written material. But his ego and its relationship to his writing and plotting suck so hard he massively tanks 3/4 or more of the projects he gets involved in.
Wow, you and I saw a completely different film.
Both versions of The Nutty Professor are so drastically different from Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde that it’s startling.
Yeah, for me personally the only saving grace of the movie is that it got me off my duff and I started watching ATLA by getting the disks through Netflix. Partway through the second season I bought the set and – luckily – finished them all before the movie struck.
And speaking of Netflix, the fact that Bryke have disassociated themselves from that organization’s live action effort does not fill me with confidence.
Sorry for the hijack, but I’ve had to get this off my chest:
In the Heinlein anthology “Expanded Universe”, there is a section titled “Who are the heirs of Patrick Henry”. Heinlein wrote an afterword to that section that includes a defense of Starship Troopers. He wrote that his purpose was to glorify the recruit, the common “Tommy Atkins”. He further points out that in the story Starship Troopers the military is despised (his word) by the larger society.
I’ve always felt that this afterword should be part of any reprint of Starship Troopers, just as Walden is almost always paired with On The Duty of Civil Disobedience.