I agree, except for the enjoyable part. It was a stomach churningly repulsive gore-fest punctuated by terrible dialog and goofy acting. Every time Denise Richards opened her mouth there was a perfect Tom Servo opportunity.
Amen.
Paul Verhoeven uses bad actors intentionally. So does John Waters, which nobody seems to have a problem with. If an actor’s performance appears plastic and unconvincing in a Verhoeven film, rest assured that this is exactly what he wants. His characters are often plastic “movie versions” of real life people, and are not intended to be realistic at all. Many of Hitchcock’s casting choices were the same kind of thing: no one has ever accused ANY of Hitchcock’s leading ladies of being a great actress. THink about it: Tippy Hedren? Kim Novak? Doris Day? These were all just IMAGES of the perfect hollywood blond–totally artificial, and totally the point.
Verhoeven cast Richards, if you ask me, because her appearance of hard-shelled plastic and gaping toothy grin made her a human parallel to the insects they were fighting: all exoskeleton and mandibles.
lissener – you go, girl! (guy! whatever!)
I thought Starship Troopers was more successful than, say, Mars Attacks, which I found a complete disappointment. I have a suspicion that this really was the movie Verhoeven wanted to make.
Thanks for the info on the source, everyone – I’d never read the book (I don’t think I’ve read any of Heinlein’s juveniles, for that matter), and had no idea how important the book was to so many people.
Technically, the book’s considered to be the “bridge” between his juveniles and his “adult” work. Also, you’re really missing out if you have read his juveniles as they contain some of his best ideas.
The book is the Shroud of Bloody Turin to some people; the same people who see approval or disapproval of the Verhoeven travesty as a litmus test for true Heinleinian loyalty. At which I quite obviously roll my eyes.
If Shakespeare can be turned into Forbidden Planet and Throne of Blood, I just cannot fathom why some people would get so frothy at Verhoeven’s reinterpretation–extremely successful and importan reinterpretation, mind you–of a mediocre book like Starship Troopers.
[sup](Oops, I called it mediocre–NOW I’m in trouble. I’d correct it but I already hit Submit Reply.)[/sup]
And though I loved Mars Attacks, ST is a FAR better film.
I think they did a few clips from ST in one of their Oscar specials.
I agree. I have not read the Starship Troopers book, which is probably a good thing. I liked ST in much the same way I’d enjoy a MST 3000 film. Its pure cheesiness (the name Johnny Bravo, the presence of Neil Patrick Harris and the incredibly bad acting of the delicous but dopey Denise Richards), makes it enjoyable on a very superficial level if you completely forget that its based on one of the great SF novels of all time.
Its hard for me to argue against seeing any film with Denise Richards in it. However, I do have to say that with all the nudity in the film (shower scene, sex in the tent) I am sorely disappointed that she is the ONE star of it that does not appear naked. I bought the DVD with the "extra" scenes, mainly of her, thinking maybe she'd show some partial nudity. Nope, even then she keeps her clothes DESPITE being in scenes that could easily have written it into the script. Still a fun movie. Not a greta movie.Umm, rent or buy the movie Wildthings
Declan
Also, I remember the bit with Valentine waxing poeticly abhot how the concept of money was the most beautiful he had ever encountered.
I disagree. Propaganda portrayed our enemies as evil animals in WWII. I did some research on the subject a few years back, and found myriad examples of this in film, newspapers and posters. Such as Germans portrayed as gorillas with slavering fangs, and Japanese portrayed as rats and snakes. (Generally, the treatment of Japanese in propaganda was harsher than that of the Germans. I did not find any propaganda that compared Italians to animals, though.)
In Hollywood propaganda films, our enemies are animalistic in their cold-blooded, cruel approach to war. They’re shown killing their own soldiers to further their aims without blinking an eye, for example . . . in some instances, they’re almost robotically evil, and, like the bugs, without individuality.
No, they’re never portrayed as dumb, per se . . . only mindlessly devoted to their leaders. They’re intelligent, but completely dehumanized.
I thought that the use of nasty, disgusting bugs as the enemy in this film was a clever similie to that style of propaganda. In the film, the enemy is thoughoughly “dehumanized.” No one can have sympathy for the bug, just as no one would identify with the portrayals of the enemy in WWII propaganda.
Drastic wrote:
No, seriously, (I mean no disrespect here to any fans, as I loved both books) but there are more storyline similarities between the movie ST and the book ‘Armor’ than with Heinlein’s book and the movie, and this is considering the fact that a movie generally can not compare to a book:
Here are a few:
– A large contingent of soldiers is placed directly upon a mass of hostile aliens (In the book ST a small team is placed outside their target area, to then “bounce” through).
– Overconfidence corrupting tactics (the “troopers” knew their enemy “bugs” - bipedal humanoid creatures by the way, with industry and technology as we would recognize - and had various stratagems in use to counter threats)
– Speaking of bugs, Large spiders seem awfully close to Steakly’s ants - in “hives” and all (especially when Heinlein’s aliens are so humanoid).
– Bug tactics; The alien bugs burrowed under the walls of a defensive structure to surprise the as well as general massing(ST’s bugs fought more conventionally, if at all, as I recall the troopers were bouncing through cities not just military complexes).
– One of the soldiers, as in ‘Armor’, suicides with a nuke after being injured (nothing similar happened in ST the book, though the launcher could be argued to be influenced from the book)
– Our hero’s female counterpart fights amazingly then bites it. (Male counterpart with same name in book).
I am pretty certain there may be other similarities but I am without either book right now, all I remember is listed and I find these too coincidental.
So they got a few names right and ‘touched’ upon the socio-economics of Heinlein’s book for the movie, even so, it was a sad equivilent (to either book mind you, I just felt the story followed ‘Armor’ more closely - relatively - than ‘Starship Troopers’). And yes I realize I have too much time on my hands to make such trivial comparisons.
Oh man, what’s wrong with you guys? Starship Troopers is HILARIOUS! It was totally intended to be funny. It is poking fun of itself the whole way through.
Has anyone ever watched the DVD with Verhoven’s commentary? It’s classic…the funniest commentary I’ve ever heard and he’s not even trying to be funny.
I’m amazed at how often this seems to come up on the SDMB. Even more often than rants about “The Matrix”, I’d say. The comments on St always seem to come down to “they’ve ruined a decent work of fiction, but i wouldn’t mind if they changed the damned title” vs. “You Heinlein literalists don’t see the humor in this”.
I own a copy of ST and watch it a lot. In that sense it’s a “good” movie. But I’m sure I like it for all the reasons. In the main, I’m on the other side of the camp. Even without the Heinlein connection, this is bad SF, despite the satirical intent.
Heinlein must be spinning in his grave for all sorts of reasons, but surely one of the most significant must be slappiong his name on a piece that’s so scientifically illiterate, and which violates common sense. Bugs that shoot out big rocks from the other side of the galaxy? Out children’s children’s children’s children to the Nth power won’t have to worry about it! Collision with asteroids in the middle of space? Hell, Heinlein wrote scornfully about the improbability of any competant spacer worrying about that in his own bokks. A commander that would let that happen (without any distractions) and still be in command? Ludicrous.
Any military sending unarmored soldiers that cost a bundle in time and resources to train against “bugs” that are bred as killers and cost the enemy virtually nothing? “Bugs” that live on desert worlds with no obvious resources but command huge numbers and huge energy supplies? In what universe?
This is only a step up from “SF” in which all the leaders are “generals” and in which galaxies can be crossed during the night. It displays a cavalier attitude toward the internal logic and real science that spills over into anything else, so that you can get away with illogical or nonexistent characterization and motivations by saying “it’s just science fiction!”
And that’s without even considering how this is 180 degrees from Heinlein’s own book and its philosophy on all levels. Fascist? look up the word. Read Heinlein’s book, and his writings at the time. His later defence of his work isn’t a late-in-life attempt to cover up earlier excesses. Heinlein seems to have been pretty consistent with his intentions with this all the way through. You may not agree with it (in fact, a lot of people didn’t – the book was controversial since the day it was published), but you have to agree that it was influential. As Heinlein noted, it continued to sell and sell. Without it, we wouldn’t have Forever War or Aliens or Space: Above and Beyond a lot of other fiction and games. But the work that inspired all tyhis didn’t resemble Verhoeven’s flick in the least. If you made a James Bond film, only in it Bond was really a puritanical-living mole for the KGB, you’d be justified in complaining that the film makers had mangled the book and the vision of the author. If your film of Moby Dick ends with Ahab carving up the Great White Whale with flensing spars and hanging Ishmael for mutiny, you’d be a tad upset, and rightly so.
I noticed nothing about the movie except the outstanding beauty of Casper Van Dien.
Verhoeven deserves a Lifetime Achievement Oscar for Starship Troopers solely for revealing Caspar’s glory to me for the first time.