Seeing as so many misunderstand the film and treat it as straightforward action, there is an argument that it was at times too subtle.
Different people can see different things in the same work. Personally, I think it *is *straightforward action, with a slight veneer of satire to keep things interesting. You’re opinion may differ. That’s the beauty of art.
(Of course, I’m also of the opinion that any idiot can make satire, while a great action film is a rare and special thing).
I would have dumped a few million gallons of Raid on the bugs, and be done with it. And had more "coed shower’ scenes in the movie…that would have kept my interest up.
Yes. In the movie to become a “citizen” you had to do certain things and one of those was to join the military.
Only citizens could vote and hold certain jobs as I remember. Possibly even be allowed to have children.
And what good is a massive military unless they have someone to fight? OTOH they only showed a military which maybe numbered a million or so. What about the other billion of so persons on the earth of military service age?
While the ground tactics were stupid, they did need to go in on the ground to get that brain bug. I’m guessing that the bad tactics are mainly the result of the nature of the regime. The infantry takes pride in the fact that their job is basically to die. There doesn’t seem to be any incentive in that society to try to minimize their casualties. They basically treat them with the same care the bugs treat their own.
Except that that the Nazis, for instance, were very good at “fighting smart” and keeping their men alive. Their high command was less willing to throw away lives than the Americans were (and let’s not even bring up the Russians).
It’s like a marines vs. zergling only map. Firebats would be too OP.
It wasn’t ‘too subtle’ it was just plain bad.
If I wanted an answer to ST I’d read ‘Forever War’ (even if Haldeman denied it).
The book has its flaws. Massive one, but if this movie is satire of the book it is mostly blasting a strawman version of the book. They got everything wrong pretty much from the start.
As for tactics, or rather the lack therof:
- No weapon between the useless pea shooter and the nuke. Sense of scale folks?
- So far in the future that everyone walks?
- Ships so close they slam into each other while turning.
- Maybe grenades that aren’t the size of your head.
- Body armor that actually does something
- And yes, where is the power armor? No, I am not on some Warhammer fantasy trip, Heinlein practically invented Power Armor in the book and its loss is ridiculous.
You’ll note that he also has a cameo in the film (he’s done quite a bit of acting, mostly in military roles), so I’m guessing that having already cast him, Verhoeven asked him a basic question or two and then use that as an excuse to call him an “advisor” as well.
I’ve never been convinced that ST, or even RoboCop, qualify as satire in any sense. Verhoeven clearly doesn’t like certain things, and he hammers you with that fact. However, the problem is that he demonstrates no understanding of the things he doesn’t like in any way, shape, or form. Actual satire is a very small element of both films, but it fails because it’s trying to simultaneously satirize something subtly and at the same time hate it openly.
Don’t forget they had a backup lander and nuclear weapons on their mothership.
Knives and sharp sticks, too.
This isn’t an either/or thing, though. The movie absolutely IS satirical - and not subtly so, it positively smooshes the satire into your face. Nor is it the first time Paul Verhoeven satirized such things; see “Robocop.”
However, it’s also a bad movie.
It’s pretty clear that, although Veerhoeven didn’t read the book, Ed Neumeier, who wrote the screenplay, did. Just not very well. He apparently didn’t get that Johnny’s family didn’t live in Buenos Aires (his mother was just visiting there when the Bug Meteor hit) or that the Ricos weren’t Argentinian (as is made clear at the end, they’re Filipino). That’s just a couple of errors of fact, which other people have made on a cursory reading before the film came out, so I can believe Newmeier making them, too.
I suspect that a lot of other differences came from Veerhoeven’s pulling the film in the direction of more gore and more anti-fascist directions, and ignroring Heinlein’s philosophy and technology overall. Because Neumeier clearly knows and loves science fiction – he did a superb job on Robocop. Only someone familiar with the medium would’ve dragged in “I’d buy that for a quarter!” from C.M. Kornbluth’s The Marching Morons and inflated it to “I’d buy that for a dollar.”
I thought the film was really dumb, and didn’t much care for it, but I believe it WAS at least a “nuclear grenade” or something, so the fact that it was the size of someone’s head is somewhat forgivable, especially relative to the other dumb stuff.
You guys are starting to make me feel bad about making my wife watch this movie when it’s on basic cable. 
But yeah, military tactics would have been more helpful in fighting the bugs than whatever it was the space marines used. I don’t know if it would have made it a better movie.
And this is the stuff that just pisses me off, because I am actually a fan of the book. It just baffles me that they would hire someone whose goal, from the outset, is to criticize the source material. If you don’t care for the story just pass on the project and do something else. Can you imagine if they sold “Lord of the Rings” or “Star Wars” to someone whose explicit purpose was to churn out a bullshit parody version and then sell it as the real thing?
The movie tactics are incoherent and don’t make any sense. You kind of have to read the book to understand why they had MI, how they were used and what their tactics were. The short answer is that no one wanted to go whole hog on settled planets if they didn’t have to. Mostly, the MI was there to deal lower levels of smack down than could be done with orbital nukes or kinetic strikes (in the first part of the book it was actually against other aliens than the bugs, and the purpose was to basically make them switch sides or go neutral). The MI, of course, had powered armor and a variety of weapons including basically nukes. The movie, however, glossed over all of this and used really silly tactics that made no sense in any sort of military scenario…which, kind of shows what the director and writer knew about or thought about the military (even terrestrial military, let alone the implications of a space capable military setting).
I’ve heard the same sentiments expressed about Zack Snyder’s interpretation of Superman in Man of Steel.
If it made money, it would be a success.
Oh, sure, the fans of JRRT would be mad. But that’s OK, controversy is good for sales, and for every Tolkien fanboy who stayed away 50 normal consumers would attend and pay.
Or not. That’s a hypothetical. But consider the very successful Star Trek reboots, which were not very respectful of the source material or pre-existing continuity. In general, integrity towards the source material is a liability. If Verhoeven had made huge money with his abortion of a movie, he would have been right, according to the opinion of everyone involved in making or financing movies. As it is, his only crime is that it didn’t really make enough money to silence the critics.