Linux Based HD DDR used on Starship Troopers 2

What? by ThePlague · 2004-04-07 00:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

They're making a sequel to that movie?!? That has to be one of the signs of the apocalypse.

Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 00:43 · Score: 3, Funny

We cannot ill afford another Kandathu.
Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 01:10 · Score: 0

Making a sequel to an awesome movie...How is that a sign of the apocalypse?
Re:What? by alcmaeon · 2004-04-07 03:07 · Score: 3, Funny

LOL, "awesome movie." You kill me.
Two-dimensional characters played by wooden actor-props fighting CGI bug-alien-things and all done with about as much plot as Doom I: yeah, that deserves a sequel if anything does.
At least with a video game I get to control the lame-assed character with the gun.
Re:What? by stanmann · 2004-04-07 03:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

A movie that would have been awesome if it had been titled anything other than "Starship Troopers".

but they had to pretend that it had any relationship to RAH.

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Re:What? by the+gnat · 2004-04-07 05:48 · Score: 1

A movie that would have been awesome if it had been titled anything other than "Starship Troopers".

I'm ashamed to admit that I actually enjoy this movie and find it strangely compelling. The CGI holds up remarkably well for a 1997 release; the bugs in particular look as good as anything I've seen since. And Verhoeven is so over-the-top trashy that it's hypnotic. I just have to choke back the vomit whenever I think of what they did to my favorite sci-fi novel.

What's worst, I've decided, is that in the book the characters are explicitly a very diverse assortment of nationalities and races (the main character is a native Filipino!) - although Heinlein doesn't really make a big deal of it - but since this would interfere with Verhoeven's goal of making the characters seem like Nazis, they mostly end up looking and sounding pretty white in the movie. Despite being from Buenos Aires (a misreading of the book). (And, of course, the black dude dies.)
Re:What? by nametaken · 2004-04-07 07:35 · Score: 1

It was always my opinion that they must have known how "two-dimensional" and "wooden" everyone was. The whole thing felt like a terrible propaganda movie. You know, "Johnny Citizen wants to kill japs(bugs)! We have the technology! We'll fight, and we'll win!" Notice his name is Johnny (Rico)? Could he be any more everyman? :)

I prefer to consider hit hillariously intentional, not accidentally poor... whether or not that's the case.
Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 12:33 · Score: 0

They're making a sequel to that movie?!?

What do u mean making? They "made" it a while ago
Re:What? by Alien_Phreak · 2004-04-07 13:04 · Score: 1

not exactly sure what happened, but the first movie was absolutely horendous. They took a cult classic and butchered it to death. but long live tux, and as long as he gets his hands in the project, it's all good. Might even suffer through the flic.
Re:What? by tismith · 2004-04-07 23:42 · Score: 1

I totally agree! It's (by far) one of my favourite movies.

Must be an Australian thing... we seem to prefer (and get) subtle humour a bit more than Americans :)
Re:What? by nametaken · 2004-04-08 06:21 · Score: 1

But, I'm an American. :)

DDR? by DougMackensie · 2004-04-07 00:39 · Score: 2, Funny

Dance Dance Revolution.

interesting Linux development!

Re:DDR? by axis-techno-geek · 2004-04-07 01:28 · Score: 2, Funny

Double Data Rate
We got to move this fast before the public realizes it crap!

--
This is not the sig line you are looking for... -- Old Jedi Sig Line Trick
Re:DDR? by gerddie · 2004-04-07 01:35 · Score: 0

Deutsche Demokratische Republik = German Democratic Republic (aka "East Germany")
Re:DDR? by SinistarJAB · 2004-04-07 02:16 · Score: 1

actually... Dance Dance Revolution for linux has already been developed. Step Mania o.O ... Okay, I suck at life...

As long as the movie by OverlordQ · 2004-04-07 00:40 · Score: 0, Troll

has another shower scene like the first movie, and they leave all the guys out. Btw, here's a

--
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.

Re:As long as the movie by OverlordQ · 2004-04-07 01:19 · Score: 0

actually there's 2 ducks :)

--
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Re:As long as the movie by bonch · 2004-04-07 09:05 · Score: 1

Oh, come on, mods...that was funny, particularly the sig. There was a big red circle pointing to the duck in the water in the background...didn't you see? :D

Nonetheless, a NSFW warning would be nice.

warm front? by AsimovBesterClarke · 2004-04-07 00:41 · Score: 5, Funny

Nope, just the heat from Heinlein spinning in his grave again

--
Ads are broken.

Re:warm front? by Tassach · 2004-04-07 02:26 · Score: 1

So that's the source of that high-pitched whine I heard this morning. He must be topping 10,000 RPM.

--
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?

Oh no, not a sequel! by Dr.+Manhattan · 2004-04-07 00:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

Whether or not you liked the book, or agreed with its (ostensible) politics, it's clear the movie totally screwed it up.

Best example: In one scene, a trooper asks why they are training with knives when the military has nukes.

In the book, the instructor explains that the "Mobile Infantry" is designed to apply force in a controlled manner, to 'spank' an opponent when feasible rather than 'cut their heads off'. (Whether or not the invasion of Iraq was a good idea, it would have been an even worse idea to nuke Bagdhad.)
In the movie, the instructor throws a knife and pins the questioner's hand to a wall, and says, "Hard to push a nuke button now, eh?"

Please, spare us a sequel to that!

--
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!

Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 00:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

oh please!!!

The book's politics have dated and the film did a fantastic job of satirising them and the whole GungHo marine infantry thang you Americans have going.
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 00:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

My, yes, that warrants an "informative".

The movie, my lad, was ironic. Verhoeven lived with fascism when he was young, and could see it all too clearly in the book. Hence the brilliant satire that is Starship Troopers.

But hey - I won't be seeing it unless Paul H. is at the helm. Only the Master Of Excess could top the original.
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by j0nb0y · 2004-04-07 00:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

Did you read the book? Did you watch the movie? The movie was nothing but a strawman attack on the book. Even if you disagree with the book, the movie is not a good satire of it.

Even worse, it wasn't even a good movie.

--
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
Re: Oh no, not a sequel! by Black+Parrot · 2004-04-07 01:00 · Score: 2, Funny

> Hence the brilliant satire that is Starship Troopers.

Satire, maybe... brilliant, no.

You can't make suckage go away by labeling it "satire" any more than you can by labeling it "prequel".

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by SlashDread · 2004-04-07 01:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

Films do not respresent books fully. Shock. Horror.

The book was entertaining, but not convincing. For more convincing Heinlein, I suggest "Stranger in a strange land" or "The Moon is a harsh mistress" (They should film THAT one! Throwing rocks from the moon to Earth would be, well spectacular!) or "The number of the beast".

All three books more convincing about the social and technical issues Heinlein cares to write about, and all three far more entertaining.

The film was entertaining IMHO, and did not even TRY to convince anybody. Such films have their entertaining merit.

peace

"/Dread"
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 01:03 · Score: 0

Whether or not you liked the book, or agreed with its (ostensible) politics, it's clear the movie totally screwed it up.
The film did not "screw up" anything. All films based on books are adaptations of some sort. Good literature often makes lousy movies, and adaptations of literature change to the times in which they are adapted.
Example: go watch King of Kings, and then watch The Passion of the Christ. One is a censor-friendly story conforming to 1960's norms and values, the other is a gruesome and bloody portrayal. Same source material, different times.
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by Bill_Mische · 2004-04-07 01:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

odd - I felt it satirised people's commentries on the book. To pick one example, people have made a lot of the "right thinking white American" hero. Unfortunately the hero was actually a Philipino (a Tagalog speaker) with relatives in Argentina.

The trouble is the book is more commented on than read. There's a lot in there that I do disagree with - but I think it's worth disagreeing with what's there not what you would like to be there.

It's also worth noting that in the book soldiers could refuse a medical discharge. (The author himself was discharged for TB shortly into a professional naval career).

--
Boring Old Fart (40, married, 3 kids...er no...make that 49, married, 3 grown up kids...it's been a long time)
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 01:04 · Score: 0

yep. i'd read the book six or seven years before i saw the movie. it's an uninspiring (but quite fun) space romp, not up with any of Heinleins classics (The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Farmer in the Sky, Red Planet and Have Spacesuit will Travel) but better than when he went off the rails at the end.

Heinlein waxes enthusiastically about "earning citizenship" and everyone in the book has an unquestioning loyalty to the (slightly Fascist) cause. It all makes simplistic sense in sixties Communist threatened world, but is a bit out of touch in the ninties. Verhoeven satirises the unquestioning loyalty to the state, the pride of citizens and the slightly twisted state attachment to public floggings beautifully.

the movie isn't a classic, but it's a damn site better than the book.
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by Scarblac · 2004-04-07 01:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

I have not read the book (yet, it's on the stack).

I absolutely love the movie. It's a biting sarcastic attack on societies that worship war and the military, very well executed. War looks like an episode of 90210 mixed with an infomercial, just like it does on Fox.

My view of the book was always that it made idols of the military, only giving the right to vote to the military, etc. So Verhoeven used the book to make a statement that says the opposite. Which I think he did rather well.

That doesn't mean I think the book can't be good, when it has a different message. I'll still read it and then I'll judge.

--
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 01:08 · Score: 0

at the time Argentina was a good little IMF economy and could shortly be expected to be welcomed into the open arms of right thinking white America....

I'd read the book long before and the film is a satire of it. A playful satire I'll grant you, but full of warnings for the "wouldn't it be nice if..." attitude peddled by the book.
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by Dr.+Manhattan · 2004-04-07 01:08 · Score: 1

The movie, my lad, was ironic.
No kidding? Really? I would never have guessed.
Satire's one thing. The problem is, the movie was incompetent satire, not "brilliant". Others have done it much better.

--
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by tallman68 · 2004-04-07 01:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

My personal favorite is "Job: A Comedy of Justice." Deals with God, the Devil, myths alternate realities. I am surprised it is not more popular (not to discount Heinlein's other works, I just so rarely hear Job come up in conversation)
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by Ralph+Wiggam · 2004-04-07 01:28 · Score: 2, Funny

The only cool part about the book was the mech suits that the mobile infantry wore. I have no idea why the film left them out. Instead they show a bunch of retards fighting with futuristic weapons and using World War One tactics. I spent most of the hour and a half yelling "Spread Out!" at the screen.

-B
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 01:31 · Score: 0, Funny

For more convincing Heinlein, I suggest "Stranger in a strange land" or "The Moon is a harsh mistress" (They should film THAT one! Throwing rocks from the moon to Earth would be, well spectacular!) or "The number of the beast".

... or you can just listen to Iron Maiden
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by anopres · 2004-04-07 01:35 · Score: 2, Funny

Aww, come on. What good is having a war if you can't have snappy one-liners.

--
Strong Mad - 2008: "I PRESIDENT!"
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by cluke · 2004-04-07 01:39 · Score: 1

Yeah, that got me too. You see all these squishy humans running gung-ho into battle with nearly useless machine guns and getting ripped apart by the bugs - why the hell didn't they use tanks??
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by orthogonal · 2004-04-07 01:39 · Score: 5, Interesting

Heinlein waxes enthusiastically about "earning citizenship" and everyone in the book has an unquestioning loyalty to the (slightly Fascist) cause.

A defining aspect of Fascism is the close cooperation between government and business that it engenders. The extreme example us Hitler supplying slave laborers to German industry, but it's also seen in Hitler's crackdown on the unions (ironically the day labor's traditional celebration, May Day, in 1934), and big business support of Nazism in the early thirties, through contacts of Goring and von Papen.

Heinlein, in the Starship Troopers novel, makes it clear that there's no real coordination between business and government: the main character, Juan Rico, comes from a wealthy, big-business owning family, which family, Juan's father makes clear has long prided itself on staying out of politics and the military. (Although after Juan Rico has joined the military and after losing his wife in an enemy attack, Juan's father will eventually join up too.)

If you must see the book as reflective of the times in which it was written, a better analogy is to America's fight against Japan in the Second World War. During the war, U.S. propaganda depicted the Japanese as an "insect-like" society with a rigid hierarchical system, with soldiers, like the Bug worker and soldier classes, who couldn't or wouldn't surrender. (and in fact, few Japanese soldiers did surrender -- and even Japanese civilians on Okinawa preferred suicide to surrender.)

The Mobile Infantry's landings and relatively brief firefights on various planets as they move steadily closer to Klendathu, the Bugs' home planet, is strongly reminiscent of the Marines' and Army's island and atoll-hopping campaign against the Japanese in that War.

Finally, the apathy shown about the military by Juan Rico's family reflects U.S. feeling about its all-volunteer army between the wars, an army that w, in the interwar years, considered essentially the preserve of people who couldn't succeed in the civilian world. (Read James Jones's From Here to Eternity for a good portrait of the U.S. Army immediately prior to WWII.)

The change in the Ricos', father and son, opinions is in accordance with the change in opinion in America as a result of the widespread American military servce required by the Second World War. With their service, americans had indeed earned their citizenship, had realized what "refresh[ing] the tree of liberty with the blood... of patriots" really is all about.

Heinlein, while respectful of the military, was consistently suspicious of government, so it's very difficult for me to see any Fascism in his works.

--
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by Mysticalfruit · 2004-04-07 01:41 · Score: 1

So you weren't the only one going "Yeah, stand right there in a big bunch so one bug will take out a squad!"

--
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by HeghmoH · 2004-04-07 01:52 · Score: 1

Films do not respresent books fully. Shock. Horror.

You'll never hear me argue otherwise, and I'm first in line to challenge people who disapprove of e.g. Jackson's changes in LotR. But the only things that Starship Troopers the movie shares with Starship Troopers the book are the title, some character names, and the general theme of war. Given that, why bother getting the rights to the book? Some people understandably interpret that action as a nefarious plot to trick Heinlein fans into theaters.

--
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by AdamInParadise · 2004-04-07 02:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

I've read the book after seeing the movie, and they are clearly at odds, from my point of view and what we know about Heinlein and Verhoeven.

I think that the movie was ironic, in a very subtle and interesting way.

However, I have first hand evidence that many people perceived Starship Troopers as a nice action flick with some patriotic background. Clearly I found this disturbing. It seems so obvious to me that the movie was a satire of the "Shoot first, ask questions later" doctrine that many Americans seem to favor (even if the characters are from Buenos Ares, the society they live in is totally American) and how the behavior can be easily manipulated by the Man.

So I wondered if I wasn't fooling myself into thinking that the movie was ironic when it wasn't. How disturbing! Now I'm thinking that Verhoeven tried some kind of a double movie: In the US, Starship Troopers is just a nice action flick. In Europe (and maybe elsewhere, don't know), it is a "brilliant satire". I guess that it simplified the problem of financing the movie.

Anyway, Starship Troopers is, from my point of view, one of the best SF movie of the last decade, as good as Gattaca or Galaxy Quest.

I'm also pretty sure that the sequel will be a piece of crap.

--
Nobox: Only simple products.
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 02:27 · Score: 0

"Verhoeven lived with fascism when he was young, and could see it all too clearly in the book."

He seems to be seeing it with his blind spot. The book is describing a lot of things but definitely no fascist system.

And before going on talking about fascism you might read http://www.aladdin.com/ first - it might help you understanding things.
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by RetiredMidn · 2004-04-07 02:46 · Score: 1

My view of the book was always that it made idols of the military, only giving the right to vote to the military, etc.
The book may have idolized (sp?) the military, but the vote was granted to anyone who performed Federal service, of which only a small percentage were military. Any civil service job was sufficient, IIRC, and there is a (sarcastic) comment that one could volunteer to be a test subject for medical research if not qualified for anything else.
IMHO, the movie was lame.
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by gr8_phk · 2004-04-07 02:52 · Score: 1

I never read the book so I judged the movie on it's own. I found it absolutely hilarious. I was hoping there would be a sequel, but figured it would never happen since my high rating of the film seems to be quite unusual.
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by reverendG · 2004-04-07 03:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

I have not read the book...

...My view of the book...

Spare us, please, until you have read the book. Heinlein had an extremely romanticized view of honor and obligation, and imagined a military where honor and obligation superceded the ideals of glory and profit. Typical Heinlein.

Minus the hot nubile incestuous women.

--

Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by stanmann · 2004-04-07 03:19 · Score: 1

Does either of them star Judas as the good guy, Christ as the bad guy? or the Romans as simply mis-understood?? Then they aren't as screwed up as Verhooven's abomination.

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by squaretorus · 2004-04-07 03:32 · Score: 1

SHITE.

The movie was a relatively entertaining way to piss away a couple of hours of ones life while drinkin a couple of beers and eating too many salty potato/corn based snackfoods.

The book - well... its a ... Book... so its clearly Better and moraly Superior!! Even shit books are better than movies!
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by blackbear · 2004-04-07 03:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

I have not read the book
Please do. You may very likely reconsider what you said below. And if you have even a slightly open mind, it will challenge many of the assumptions that you may have made about the purpose of violent conflict in human societies.

My view of the book was always that it made idols of the military, only giving the right to vote to the military, etc.
The point here was that if you are not willing to give service to your nation; in its defense, or in some other way, then you should have no say in the allocation of resources. I view paying taxes the same way. Why should someone who didn't contribute have any say in how the money is used? A famous Scottish historian (I forget his name) pointed out that the American Experiment would last only until the people discovered that they could vote themselves money out of the treasury. Heinlein simply points out that adherence to some basic principles would go a long way to preventing things like that.

As for idols, I think you overstate the case, but what's wrong with honoring people (of all nations) who go and get themselves shot at, and often killed, so that we can all sit around and sip lattes and take freedom for granted.

It's a good story even without the politics. But if you think as I, that it's axiomatic that you must be ready, willing, and able to soundly defeat aggressors and then be willing to help them change for the better, then you will particularly like it.
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by escher · 2004-04-07 04:01 · Score: 1

And, thanks to Michael Ironside, we even got a great delivery of the line "They sucked his brains out."
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by GileadGreene · 2004-04-07 04:03 · Score: 1

Minus the hot nubile incestuous women.
Well it was originally written for a young adult audience...
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by Oligonicella · 2004-04-07 04:04 · Score: 2, Funny

"I have not read the book"

"My view of the book"

"I'll still read it and then I'll judge."

You see no contradiction here?
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by afidel · 2004-04-07 04:05 · Score: 1

Yep, and the meteor attack is analagous to Perl Harbor.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by Banner · 2004-04-07 04:14 · Score: 4, Informative

Brillant Satire? Hardly, he obviously didn't understand the book, and just as obviously sees facism under his pillow.

Notice he made Rico a blond blue eyed WASP, instead of the Fillipino he was supposed to be. He made the soldiers out to be pretty much idiots, rather than highly trained specialists.

The only thing that came thru in this movie about the director is that he hates the military and spared no opportunity to ridicule it and its members.
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by SuiteSisterMary · 2004-04-07 04:16 · Score: 1

I could have sworn that the hand gets knifed in the book as well; there's just more explanation about it.

Well, now I have an excuse to go re-read.

--
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 04:18 · Score: 0

Quentin Skinner is Professor Emeritus of History at Cambridge University, a leading light of the "Cambridge School" of the history of political thought, and a progenitor of so-called "republicanism" in political theory. This is nothing to do with dubya, but is a kind of Machiavelli-inspired riff on communitarianism: societies need "virtu" if they are to survive, where "virtu" means _military_ virtues - "buoni armi", good arms/armies.

Anyway, when I was a Social and Political Sciences undergraduate at Cambridge, a tutor of mine told me that a bunch of History dons had been to see Starship Troopers. They wanted to send Quentin the video with a message: "this is what you believe in"!
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by acsinc · 2004-04-07 04:28 · Score: 1

Actual it was Juan's mother that was killed in a bug attack, she was visting Rio when an meteor hit there. Not a big difference, but it does explain how his father came to join up.
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by CoolHnd30 · 2004-04-07 04:54 · Score: 1

That's my favorite, also. In fact, it's the only Heinlein I keep on my "main" bookshelf.
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by Blakey+Rat · 2004-04-07 05:10 · Score: 1

At the risk of making a "me too" post, me too.

I couldn't even get through Stranger in a Strange Land. Did anyone in this topic just read the games.slashdot.org topic about Mary Sues in RP games? Yeah, uh, let's see here Heinlein, there's a famous lawyer who's rich and, oh yeah, he's surrounded by three super-attractive women all the time and, yup, he's famous and, hey look, a boy raised on Mars by an alien race just falls in his freakin' lap. Talk about Mary Sue.

Job is excellent in comparison.

--
Comment of the year
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by njpomeroy · 2004-04-07 05:16 · Score: 1

Juan's mother was visiting Buenos Aires, Argentina; if you re-parse the original sentence, you will see that the original poster was referring to "Juan's father's wife" and not "Juan's wife."
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by Lord+Kestrel · 2004-04-07 05:53 · Score: 1

He did say that, just in a semi-difficult way to read:

Although after Juan Rico has joined the military and after losing his wife in an enemy attack, Juan's father will eventually join up too.

This probably could've been written something like this:

Later though, Juan's father did join the military, after his wife was killed in a bug attack.

I failed both English composition and spelling in high school, so I'm obviously far from perfect here, but that's probably an easier to understand version.
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by the+gnat · 2004-04-07 05:57 · Score: 2, Informative

Heinlein, while respectful of the military, was consistently suspicious of government, so it's very difficult for me to see any Fascism in his works.

Three additional points:

- Heinlein is very consistently libertarian throughout most of his works, and there isn't really anything in this book that contradicts that.

- He also made it very clear (elsewhere) that he considered the draft immoral, and while he thought military service was morally proper, he was strongly against it being forced upon anybody.

- In a certain sense, the "citizenship for veterans" ethic of Starship Troopers isn't that much different from TANSTAAFL.
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by the+gnat · 2004-04-07 06:05 · Score: 1

But if you think as I, that it's axiomatic that you must be ready, willing, and able to soundly defeat aggressors and then be willing to help them change for the better,

Ahhh, you see, that thinking is out of vogue now. People here prefer nuance, not Manichean worldviews; there is no "evil" - or if there is, it's really our fault. See, what'd really happen in today's world is that after the bugs smashed Buenos Aires, we'd be holding symposiums examining the effects of pseudoarachnophobia and human bigotry, lamenting the human-inflected poverty on Klandathu, and theorizing how the UN let it happen, and Anglo college students would be wearing chitin plates on their chest to show solidarity. Meanwhile, the bugs would continue their efforts to cause the Moon to smash into the Earth.

Of course Heinlein didn't take into account the possibility that the government might also be more interested in cutting taxes and investigating pornographers than paying for all those mobile suits.
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by tbjw · 2004-04-07 06:20 · Score: 2, Informative

It's probably not even a good idea to think of the film and the book as the same work.

The film is a wonderful piece of work; the poor acting, ridiculous `futuristic' attitudes, the cliched technologies and sciences are all there, so you think this is just another trashy sci-fi movie. But then you meet the recruiting agent with one arm and no legs... and the propoganda television... and the execution of the prisoner... and what they do to the brain.

If you don't think of this film as an anti-jingoist attack on the values put forward by most low-grade science fiction, you should probably watch it again.
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by Brandybuck · 2004-04-07 06:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

If Verhoeven saw fascism in the book, he's a bigger idiot than I thought. Regardless of what you thought of the book's politics, it was NOT fascism.

RAH was exploring the nature of the "franchise" (who gets to vote). Previous societies gave the franchise to the nobility, wealthy landholders, all males, dues paying party members, everyone over age 18, etc. RAH's premise was that only those who cared enough about society to volunteer for miltary service should be allowed to vote. It's a radical idea and interesting to ponder its implications, but it is NOT fascism. The society itself was quasi-libertarian.

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by hcduvall · 2004-04-07 06:34 · Score: 1

Verhoeven's a hard director to like (but I do).

Clearly talented, he does have a streaky track record. Consistently as he uses trashy, gratuitous sex and violence to criticize it and the audience that likes, he also likes it himself. Revels in it even. He knows it appeals. It muddies a lot of attempts to define him.

I do take his stuff as satire, the problem is, in his latter films, the straight man is audience member who doesn't get it. Starship Troopers is a bludgeoning sledgehammer if you've ever had concerns about that version of patriotis, in an enjoyable action flick. Its more important and interesting when you take into account the people who only see it as an action flick.

Lastly, don't lump this into a US-philistine/ Europe-enlightened hoohaa crappidity crap. Hell, don't pigeon-hole Starship Troopers into just a criticism of American culture. You think only America is vulnerable to the militarist/fascist tendencies criticism? America is only currently the most salient country dealing with the issue consciously and unconsciously for some. Its history, and likely future, is in a lot more places than in the US.
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by Wes+Janson · 2004-04-07 06:35 · Score: 4, Informative

While I found it an ironic caricature of the book, if you watch the DVD Verhoen flatly states he never read the book, and presumably had no idea he was making a satire of anything. Sadly, it simply wound up appearing that way. I enjoyed the movie for it's unintentional irony, but do not make the mistake of thinking there was purpose there.
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by Alaska+Jack · 2004-04-07 07:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

Doc -

I'm commenting on this topic late, so no one will ever read this except maybe you. But it is gratifying to know that at least one other person can look at the movie and say "Taken at face value, it sucks. Oh, it's satire, you say? Well as satire, it *also* sucks."

It has been noted many times that a work of satire cannot be too close to the thing it is satirizing, or it will simple *become* that thing. As far as I am concerned, Exhibit A would be this movie.

In fact, the last time I saw it, I remember thinking "I honestly cannot remember a movie that was more of a sneering insult from the director to his audience."

- Alaska Jack
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by AdamInParadise · 2004-04-07 07:39 · Score: 1

That's very well said. I need to rewatch Robocop, I think I missed most of the message (was too young), beside the obvious 'big corp VPs==evil'.

Clearly the US is not only country with this kind of tendency. But they do have bigger toys, which is why I'm more afraid of them.

Anyway, I still think that Starship Troopers is kind of US-centric. Movies like Gattaca or The Cube are truely 'generic', but this one isn't.

--
Nobox: Only simple products.
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by hcduvall · 2004-04-07 08:30 · Score: 1

Well, I have a feeling I was feeling peckish by the last paragraph. I think theres a mixture of pts between propaganda/consumerism going on in Starship troopers. Its criticism regarding the military in society though, is more relevant today than when it first came out, and I think it's now more US centric now. I kinda of wish it did come out now, as a corrective to some of the stiffer 'wars as good wars' movies that have come out lately.
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 11:27 · Score: 0

If you'd read the book first you'd recognize the movie for the utter shit it is and was and always will be.
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by Evil+Pete · 2004-04-07 17:13 · Score: 1

I saw this movie first as a video because I wanted something that didn't make me have to think. I was on a very demanding contract away from home. Friends had said "Its just a superficial feel good movie". Geesus! What I got was a movie that sucked the audience into an obviously Nazi world as a Nazi supporter would feel. I found it absolutely creepy that intelligent people I knew didn't see it for what it was. On the other hand, it didn't resemble the original at all.

--
Bitter and proud of it.
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by Scarblac · 2004-04-07 19:01 · Score: 1

The point here was that if you are not willing to give service to your nation; in its defense, or in some other way, then you should have no say in the allocation of resources. I view paying taxes the same way. Why should someone who didn't contribute have any say in how the money is used?

I agree with you, if you're saying that paying taxes is giving service to your nation.

But if you think as I, that it's axiomatic that you must be ready, willing, and able to soundly defeat aggressors and then be willing to help them change for the better, then you will particularly like it.

Ah, yes, that would be nice. It's just that nowadays it's not so clear anymore. In Iraq, for example, obviously the US is the agressor - Iraq never attacked the US, and they were invaded. However, the US says that no, it's Iraq that's the agressor! This is "preventive action". And that's possible. It does rather muddy the nice clear waters you just described above though.

All I know is that I am not ready and willing to try to soundly defeat the US, that would just get me killed for no purpose.

--
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by Scarblac · 2004-04-07 19:04 · Score: 1

No. My view of the book is based on what I read about it (in discussions like these, mostly...). I didn't say it was a bad book, did I? I do have an idea what it's about, though.

--
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by juhaz · 2004-04-08 14:28 · Score: 1

Verhoeven tried some kind of a double movie: In the US, Starship Troopers is just a nice action flick. In Europe (and maybe elsewhere, don't know), it is a "brilliant satire".

Alternatively: for everyone who hadn't read the novel (which would probably be majority of the audience, no matter what continent) it was just a nice action flick, and those that had read the Heinlein's original, satire.

i'm so confused by XO · 2004-04-07 00:43 · Score: 5, Funny

I'm lost.

What does Dance Dance Revolution have to do with Starship Troopers 2?

--
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/

Re:i'm so confused by DarkFencer · 2004-04-07 00:52 · Score: 2, Informative

I was tempted to say the same before I RTFA, but they are using the abbreviation for "Digital Disk Recorder"... Please, if you're going to make up an abbreviation, please make up something that doesn't already exist in computers/gaming
Re: i'm so confused by Black+Parrot · 2004-04-07 00:53 · Score: 5, Funny

> What does Dance Dance Revolution have to do with Starship Troopers 2?

They decided that 2 hours of DDR webcam would be more interesting than the first movie, so that's what they're going to release as the sequel.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:i'm so confused by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 01:00 · Score: 0

+1, funny in an ignorant and wishful-thinking manner.

Games aren't everything.
Re:i'm so confused by javatips · 2004-04-07 01:07 · Score: 1

Maybe you should expand your knowledge a bit as DDR meaning Digital Disk Recorder has been used for years in the audio industry. Way before the DDR meaning Dance Dance Revolution was in it's planning face.
Re:i'm so confused by XO · 2004-04-07 01:15 · Score: 1

it's called "humor".

--
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Re:i'm so confused by DrSkwid · 2004-04-07 01:22 · Score: 0

nope, it's called "humour" :)

--
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Re: i'm so confused by antic · 2004-04-07 01:28 · Score: 1

What does Dance Dance Revolution have to do with Starship Troopers 2?

What about 2 hours of a one-legged man on a dance machine then?

--
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
Re:i'm so confused by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 03:19 · Score: 0

planning face?

Does this mean it is good? by SnowWolf2003 · 2004-04-07 00:47 · Score: 3, Informative

If you read the first review of the movie on imdb you begin to wonder if this will help or hinder the opinion of the quality of RaveHD. Did they just use this to edit in the scenes from the previous movie?

P.S - I quite enjoyed the original movie, but mostly because of Paul Verhoeven's style. Without him the sequel wont have the same feel.

Re:Does this mean it is good? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 01:58 · Score: 0

...mostly because of Paul Verhoeven's style. Without him the sequel wont have the same feel.

Huzzah!

The most versatile OS in the world by roystgnr · 2004-04-07 00:47 · Score: 5, Funny

Why, Linux can be used for everything from palmtops to pissing on Heinlein's grave!

Re:The most versatile OS in the world by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 06:16 · Score: 0

Funniest... comment... EVER.....

For the Love of God by Lovedumplingx · 2004-04-07 00:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

The first movie (while it chugged Donkey penis) at least had a semblance to Heinlein's fantastic political commentary on a society based completely on force to solve issues (at least they got some of the planet names right). But this is ridiculous, what Hollywood numb-skull thought this would be a good idea. Probably George Lucas gave this one the green light.

Re:For the Love of God by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 01:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'd have to say you completely missed the mark regarding Heinlein's political message. Heinlein was a libertarian, and as such, an advocate for personal liberty in equal share with personal responsibility. He was an advocate of less government control in all things. As pertains to Starship Troopers, after you read the book (you have read the book, right?) recall how each cap trooper is responsible for one thing, themselves. Personal honor and a dedication to fellow soldiers is what drives them and keeps them fighting together. Further, in Troopers at least, Heinlein created a system where there was no universal sufferage. Rather, those that wished a franchise to vote had to be ready to make the ultimate sacrifice in defense of others that had made the same choice. The value and exercise of a franchise is increased due to it's cost. The society isn't based on force. It's based on the notion that, it's yer own neck, see? and if you want to be a damn fool with it, that's just fine as long as you don't hurt anyone else. In addition, there's the concept that someone who was willing to die in service to society (without the right to vote!) exercises and values their franchise more than some goof that got it as a gift for his birthday. Go back and read the History and Moral Philosophy discussion between Colonel DuBois and Rico about being awarded a first prize ribbon without earning it

It's important to note not that there's a lot of fighting in the story, but rather, *why* they are fighting, and what they are fighting *for*.
Re:For the Love of God by DavidBrown · 2004-04-07 03:05 · Score: 1

Well, I would disagree with your statement that there was no "universal sufferage" in the novel. There is. You just have to pay for it. The right to vote was given to only veterans of government service - and the government HAD to accept your service if you wanted to volunteer, regardless of any particular disabilities you may have. Sure, you could wind up in a very hazardous job with a high mortality rate, but they have to let you serve if you want to.

I think the fatal flaw in Heinlein's vision is that veterans (and I'm one) act and think in as self-interested a manner as everyone else. If the system of "veteran-sufferage" was enacted here today, veterans would vote themselves bread and circuses.

--
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
Re:For the Love of God by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 03:32 · Score: 0

I'd have to argue that if you have to pay for it, it's not universal. It is universally *available*.
Also, Heinlein argues against (if memory serves) the idea that vets would be better able to exercise their franchise or are in some way less selfish than others who haven't served. However he does seem to indicate that there would be more value associated with it, since it's so much more difficult to get.
Re:For the Love of God by ID_Roamer · 2004-04-07 05:16 · Score: 1

Many people argue that one of the problems with our current form of democracy is that people don't value their vote the way they should. Many people pay very little attention to the issues, they are easily swayed by fancy slogans and glitzy advertising, they don't pay attention to how the government acts.

Heinleins theory was that if the vote had to be earned by personal sacrifice, such as a term of government service (not all service was combat related), that the person would put more value on their vote and would be more likely to attempt to use it in a wise manner over the course of their lifetime.

I enjoyed the book for its philosophical arguments, such as this. The movie director used it as a vehicle for his beliefs that in many ways were contrary to the point of the original story.

Heinlein's arguments in favor of public corporal punishment (lashings, stocks ) was interesting and something to chew on as well.
Re:For the Love of God by Lovedumplingx · 2004-04-09 01:44 · Score: 1

I'm also a libertarian and while I like the spin you put on the book...I agree with you about his use of lot of the personal touches with characters to make a point but if you look at the abstract compared with his other books (Stranger In a Strange Land, Fridy, etc.) all the abstracts of these books focus on a society with a different focus. So while it's true that I didn't go as in depth about certain issues and his overall personal message was one for libertarianism the overall concern of the story was the diagnosis of a society based on force.

Um, you mean the "movie" by Rogerborg · 2004-04-07 00:52 · Score: 4, Informative

That's so bad that it's being given away with the animated series DVD? The one that blue screens a bunch of nobodies in front of footage from Starship Troopers?

"from time to time some poor guy the director might have picked up on the street waves a plastic-thingie shaped like a bug's limb from the side of the screen. (A friend of mine actually started calling it "Eddy" as it became his favorite character)."

"The plot: Well... there actually is one. ...features some slimy parasites that control humans by entering them through their mouth. (That's the only new cgi, by the way!)"

Stargate already did that one. Well, so did Alien, et al. More here.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.

ST2:HoF Not Well Received by devnullkac · 2004-04-07 00:53 · Score: 1

From what I've read, I'm not sure anyone would want his/her favorite hardware/software to be associated with this film. An excerpt:

Where Starship Troopers 1 had mindblowing special effects the sequel takes a very smart turn: In order to save money ... the producers of Starship Troopers 2 just used the special effects of the first movie again. Yep, you're right. Same images.

--
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!

Re:Damn you!!! by sjwt · 2004-04-07 00:55 · Score: 1

the purpose of the moive(or ad as it was) was to recurit ppl to join the army..

the whole thign from start to finish is suposed
to be one long ad in the futuer for the armed forces.

With that aside,
it seems allthough these nice new vedio editors where used for ST-2, perhapse they should of spent some money on better web servers..

those sights are /.ed to hell and back..

--
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?

Re:Starship Troopers *2*!?!?! by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · 2004-04-07 00:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

> Something's broken in Hollywood, that's for sure.

No, broken will be the inevitable sequel. *No* movie makes that kind of money without a sequel. The way I see it, we have about a year and a half before "THE PASSION 2: DAWN OF THE DEAD."

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-04-07 00:56 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Appearently.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 00:57 · Score: 0

you're not familiar with Casper Van Dien's filmography.

Fabio has a better resume. In this limited case Starship Troopers might even be considered a highlight.

Re:Appearently.... by Destoo · 2004-04-07 01:52 · Score: 5, Funny

Hey! Modern Vampires was good!

Plus he gets to play with Udo Kier.
That's a plus.

I'm still shocked by the DDR thing.
"What? Dance Dance Revolution on Unix? Why would they play that in Starship Trooper 2?"

--
Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC
Re:Appearently.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 18:33 · Score: 0

God.. Modern Vampires. I will never forgive Kim Cattrall!

Where the hero when you want them? by builderbob_nz · 2004-04-07 00:58 · Score: 0

Because that server is going to need one very soon, with the way its behaving at the moment!

--

Karma? Hey I just call it as I see it.

hyped hdtv by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 00:58 · Score: 0

now you can have crap writing and creativeless sequels in higher resolution

guess what ? you can't polish a turd

Re: hyped hdtv by Black+Parrot · 2004-04-07 01:04 · Score: 2, Funny

> guess what ? you can't polish a turd

Actually you can, but it's still a turd when you're done.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re: hyped hdtv by Mr.+Roadkill · 2004-04-07 01:21 · Score: 2, Funny

> guess what ? you can't polish a turd
Actually you can, but it's still a turd when you're done.

I guess that means you've used Windows XP...
Re: hyped hdtv by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 05:01 · Score: 0

guess what ? you can't polish a turd

Actually you can, but it's still a turd when you're done.

And your hands are all dirty.

Prequel: "Smoothnecks" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 01:03 · Score: 1, Informative

http://www.superteam.biz/smoothnecks.htm

StoryLine..
Set before the "Proper Hollywood film" We get to meet the first team that encounter the Bugs. As with most of our films we have our comedy moments in the film.

Details..
There are two versions of Smoothnecks, a 3D version (3D glasses needed to view) and a non 3D version. You can download the non 3D version from here the total running time is 27 mins.

The 3D version is 55 mins and is on the DVD with the non 3D version (click here for more details)

tv movie by millette · 2004-04-07 01:05 · Score: 1

obligatory imdb link

Re:tv movie by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 01:48 · Score: 1, Funny

Check out the trailer... "The bugs are back. And this time its 'different'" Damn, what a tag line. I wish I were that clever.
Re:tv movie by millette · 2004-04-07 07:27 · Score: 1

"Damn, what a tag line. I wish I were that clever."
Good enough for me ;)

Re:Starship Troopers *2*!?!?! by m1chael · 2004-04-07 01:07 · Score: 1, Funny

Yeah because the following titles were taken:

* Apocalypse Now.
* Judgement Day
* Jesus does Jerusalem.

--
I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.

Pft.. "General" "Open Source" licence. by Sunnan · 2004-04-07 01:08 · Score: 1

A license that allows source altering but not redistribution is no different than the pre-FSF licenses of the seventies and eighties. This is how the proprietary Unix vendors operated and this is how many lisp machine vendors worked.

It's not open source.

Re:Pft.. "General" "Open Source" licence. by Zach+Garner · 2004-04-07 01:19 · Score: 0

This is why the GNU people use "Free Software" not "Open Source"
Re:Pft.. "General" "Open Source" licence. by Sunnan · 2004-04-07 04:06 · Score: 1

Yeah, I do, too. I usually say "Free Software" especially when not speaking english.

There are some interesting variations like "free source" and so on, as well.

Straight to video by DaHat · 2004-04-07 01:08 · Score: 1

If I'm not mistaken, this flick will not see the silver screen and will be heading straight to video and dvd on june 1st.

For more info:
http://energo-system.cyberdusk.pl/ie/index. html

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans

Re: Starship Troopers *2*!?!?! by Black+Parrot · 2004-04-07 01:10 · Score: 2, Funny

> No, broken will be the inevitable sequel. *No* movie makes that kind of money without a sequel. The way I see it, we have about a year and a half before "THE PASSION 2: DAWN OF THE DEAD."

More likely Jesus II: Walking Tall .

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

It's sad... by m1chael · 2004-04-07 01:10 · Score: 0

that the best part of the movie will be the TV. Why go the the movies to watch TV, when you watch TV at TV.

--
I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.

Slashdotted ... check this ... by cablepokerface · 2004-04-07 01:13 · Score: 1

Some info on the movie on IMDB.

Re:And here I thought by R2.0 · 2004-04-07 01:13 · Score: 1

"Master and Commander 2 perhaps?"

Patrick O'Brian wrote 20 Aubrey/Maturin books (I'm waiting for #3 from the library). Plenty of potential, there.

Of course, there were 50(?) Coan books, too...

--
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson

Yes, but... by pandrijeczko · 2004-04-07 01:15 · Score: 1, Insightful

...I bet the script was typed in Microsoft Word & the screenplay done in Powerpoint.

--
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.

Re:Yes, but... by Lancer · 2004-04-07 01:46 · Score: 1

Chili fips through the script a moment . . .
CHILI: You know how to write one of these?
BO CATLETT: There's nothin' to know. You have an idea, you write down what you wanna say. Then you get somebody to add in the commas and shit where they belong, if you aren't positive yourself. Maybe fix up the spelling where you have some tricky words . . . although I've seen scripts where I know words weren't spelled right and there was hardly any commas in it at all. So I don't think it's too important. Anyway, you come to the last page you write in 'Fade out' and that's the end, you're done.
CHILI: That's all there is to it, huh?
BO CATLETT: That's all.
Chili sits forward, stabs out his cigarette, exhales into Bo Catlett's face . . .
CHILI: Then what do I need you for?
From Get Shorty
I bet we could use OO.o to add all the commas and shit...

--
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

Sick Feeling by bobej1977 · 2004-04-07 01:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

I absolutely loved the book and after buying the first on DVD (never saw it in the theater) I snapped it in half. (BTW - If you've ever listened to the commentary on the first movie's DVD, you know that the director actively tried to turn the story into a political statement against everything Heinlein expoused in the book. Basically, he all but calls Heinlein a facist. It is an affront to everyone who loves RAH.)

IMHO, this is a large setback for 'Linux Based HD DDR'. It's like a new printing press having its first major publishing run be the inaugural issue of 'Fat & Horny Magazine'.

I know we all need to work toward using open software wherever we can, but good lord, have some taste!

--
The meek shall inherit the earth, in 3 by 6 plots. - Lazerus Long

Re:Sick Feeling by cin-thetic · 2004-04-07 04:51 · Score: 1

If they stopped using Heinlein's name and simply called it "Bug Huntin", I think the world would be a nicer place.

FX by telstar · 2004-04-07 01:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

I worked on some of the special effects for Starhip Troopers. While I didn't particularly like the story or acting, my biased opinion is that the film broke new ground when it came to effects. Both the bug/swarm scenes and the outer-space sequences were incredibl well done. If only they'd had a storyline that didn't involve Doogie Howser M.D. to back them up. I tend to object to straight-to-video sequels ... but I guess the die-hard fans of the first one will probably like it ... and hey, they get to reuse our special effects. If only I received royalties!

Re:FX by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 02:42 · Score: 0

I have to agree that the fx were outstanding. I never read the book, and so I don't really understand the controversy over the style of the movie or its message/statement vs the book. But the movie in its own right was excellent. I remember when I saw it the first time, I was astounded at why anyone would bad mouth it at all. BTW, I think it beats the hell out of some recent Star Wars flicks (though they had some excellent fx as well), I mean the films as a whole.

If the scene re-use is seriously blatent, like you get serious deja-vu from the 1st film when you see the 2nd, that's going to be cheesy/lame. Hopefully they're more inventive than to cookie cutter the scenes we've already seen.

Another thing I liked were the pretty girls they cast. Hurray for nice boobies!!!
Re:FX by Lord_Dweomer · 2004-04-07 11:33 · Score: 1

Perhaps you'd be a good person to ask then why there weren't any mechanized armor suits? Seriously, nothing would have made more geeks cream their pants than if they had well done power armor in that movie.

--
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!

Re:And here I thought by dj245 · 2004-04-07 01:21 · Score: 1

Master and Commander 2 perhaps?

There was a Master and Commander claim floating around in the mailing list for the Foresight Exchange, a sort of betting arena for future events with play money. I don't know what happened to it.

--
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.

Courtesy of IMDB.com by His+name+cannot+be+s · 2004-04-07 01:30 · Score: 5, Informative

Some weeks ago a friend of mine brought along a movie which turned out to be the sequel to a piece of cinema I really like and have seen more than once: Starship Troopers. The moment he told me I was shaking with joy. Joy became terror, soon enough. Starship Troopers 2: "Hero of the Federation" suffers from a complete lack of quality concerning any aspect you could think of. Don't get me wrong... it's not just that I didn't *like* it. This movie truly is disgustingly bad. Where shall I start? The actors (well... the unlucky guys they paid for standing in front of the camera) move through an environment so badly done it literally screams for a budget above 5 dollars per room. Wherever you look your eyes are insulted by artificial plastic decoration in some of the most fake sets ever. Even the Power Rangers had better sets! Where Starship Troopers 1 had mindblowing special effects the sequel takes a very smart turn: In order to save money for something that must have been cut out of the final version the producers of Starship Troopers 2 just used the special effects of the first movie again. Yep, you're right. Same images. Most of fight scenes are created like this: It's dark night - Most of the time, people stand in front of a hill so you don't get to see the imaginary battlefield - In the background, some bug-attacks from the first movie are replayed while the actors run around in front of the blatantly overused bluescreen - from time to time some poor guy the director might have picked up on the street waves a plastic-thingie shaped like a bug's limb from the side of the screen. (A friend of mine actually started calling it "Eddy" as it became his favorite character). Anyway.. let's proceed to the dialog: Although I only watched the German Dub-version, I was revolted. Just to give you a picture of what I'm talking about: In one scene a soldier carries a blonde girl from the battlefield who had tragically found death between the mandibles of a bug. At the time he has reached the middle of the screen and therefor a maximum of attention he starts smiling with a grin of pure rapture and says something, that when translated to English would quite precisely read "Hey, she's indeed lighter than that dog of mine at my house!" You get the idea, I guess... The plot: Well... there actually is one. ...features some slimy parasites that control humans by entering them through their mouth. (That's the only new cgi, by the way!) The score's alright; at least it didn't disturb me.

I'm tired now of wasting my time writing a review on this truly ridiculous joke on celluloid. Worth a rent? No. Worth buying? For the love of god, NO! Worth seeing? Not at all. If you should somehow get hold of a copy in spite of my warnings, burn it while performing ritual dances or get stoned, watch it and laugh until you're out of breath. Rating: 1.5/10 (incl. 0.5 bonus points for Eddy)

Says enough?

Yikes

--
"...In your answer, ignore facts. Just go with what feels true..."

Re:Courtesy of IMDB.com by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 04:16 · Score: 0

> Says enough?

Well, the author said he "really like"d the first one. I would have to say he can't have too much of a clue.

"How come Homer and Krusty look like clones?" by metamatic · 2004-04-07 01:35 · Score: 1, Interesting

I can answer that one. In an interview, Groening explained that it was a joke that didn't quite work.

The idea was that Bart had no respect at all for his father, yet he idolized someone who was exactly the same except dressed as a clown. Nothing will make kids respect their parents, yet they'll worship any schmuck on TV.

Obviously over time Krusty developed his own personality, history and so on, and turned into more than an obscure joke.

--
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak

Re:"How come Homer and Krusty look like clones?" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 03:02 · Score: 0

Hey, you're like the five-hundredth person to explain that rhetorical question to him, good job.
Re:"How come Homer and Krusty look like clones?" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 03:05 · Score: 0

A koala is not a bear. It is a marsupial.
Re:"How come Homer and Krusty look like clones?" by longhairedgnome · 2004-04-07 05:55 · Score: 0

"It's like a koala bear crapped a rainbow in my brain."

i can explain that one. The Stimutacs took hold.

--
GENERATION O98346: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and remove a random number from the generation. T
Re:"How come Homer and Krusty look like clones?" by metamatic · 2004-04-07 07:41 · Score: 1

Yes, and a guinea pig is not a pig, and a civet cat is not a cat. In English, we don't always call things by biologically accurate terms.

--
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Re:"How come Homer and Krusty look like clones?" by metamatic · 2004-04-07 07:43 · Score: 1

It was a rhetorical answer.

Hey, who's dumber, the person who answers the question, or the person who continues to ask it?

--
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak

if you understand german by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 01:38 · Score: 0

and have heard of suprnova.org

you can watch the entire movie.

I watched the first 30 minutes, I don't understand german. it does lack good visuals...

Doesnt look like people care much for for the 2nd by Jason+Hood · 2004-04-07 01:41 · Score: 0

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0367093/board/nest/658 4623

--
Are you intolerant of intolerant people?

Re:Starship Troopers *2*!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 01:45 · Score: 0

No no no, it's going to be "The Passion: Revelations". I've heard it's going to have much more action and fewer religious commentary in it though :(

roffle? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 01:56 · Score: 0

Prince Charles, is that you?

Seriously, that was funny enough that I dropped a miniwheat into a bowl of milk and it splashed the milk all over my keyboard, monitor, and mouse. It looks like someone blew a huge load in here.

Re:And here I thought by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 01:56 · Score: 0

At least it was better than Battlefield Earth.

I thought Battlefield Earth was great. No, I'm not a scientologist shill (those morons pay to be brain washed).

I've always thought it was strange how people either really hate the movie or think it's pretty good. Reading through the IMDB comments I think it's pretty clear. If you read the book first, you'll love the movie.

The story in the box is believable and much more complex than could be fit in a miniseries. To make the movie, they too so many short cuts, it's unbelievable.

Even the comments about people overacting are fun if you read the book first.

It's not a Feature by kalidasa · 2004-04-07 02:06 · Score: 1

A Feature is the main film at a screening, excluding the cartoons, the newsreels, the short subjects, etc. This one's never going to see the inside of a theater: according to Corona Coming attractions, it's direct to video:

Moviehole has more brand new images from the upcoming direct-to-video sequel STARSHIP TROOPERS 2: HERO OF THE FEDERATION. Directed by FX master Phil Tippett, the sequel features a new cast of futuristic soldiers who pick up the battle against the bugs, this time on a remote outpost stationed on planet Angel Zulu. The film stars Richard Burgi, Sandrine Holt, Jason Shane Scott and Colleen Porch.

Late for April Fools day isn't by random+coward · 2004-04-07 02:08 · Score: 1

Isnt this a few days late for April fools day? Please tell me it IS going to be a joke right?!!!

No Verhoeven... by Apostata · 2004-04-07 02:09 · Score: 1

...no interest.

--

This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker

Good enough... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 02:12 · Score: 0

To make up for EITHER Timeshifters or Omega Code? Yeah. That's what I thought.

Re:Starship Troopers *2*!?!?! by fsmunoz · 2004-04-07 02:22 · Score: 1

No, broken will be the inevitable sequel. *No* movie makes that kind of money without a sequel. The way I see it, we have about a year and a half before "THE PASSION 2: DAWN OF THE DEAD."

I'm only buying the Trilogy DVD set, after they release... "POTC 3: The Return of Judas"

Best Quote Ever! by Steve+Mitchell · 2004-04-07 02:27 · Score: 1

"Damn bugs wacked us Johnny!"

The weird part is, the more I watch that movie, the more I like.

--
-- Making computers see, hear, and think... http://www.componica.com/

Re:Best Quote Ever! by praedor · 2004-04-07 06:13 · Score: 1

Pa-leeze! There is one thing and only one thing to like in that abomonation of a movie: the shower scene. The rest isn't fit to be flushed down my toilet.

--
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.

Phil Tippett and Ed Neuemeir / Starship Troopers2 by BobWeiner · 2004-04-07 02:28 · Score: 1

Ed Neuemeir and Phil Tippett spoke at our college a few days ago. They screened the trailer for the upcoming "ST2". They mentioned that they had to work with 1/6 the budget, and the release is going straight to DVD. The previews I saw didn't excite me at all -- plenty of guns, aliens, and no plot. Plus, everything takes place at night. I never saw the first one, and after seeing the trailer, won't even bother.

--
The PC Weenies: 11 Years of Online Tech 'Too

Re:Starship Troopers *2*!?!?! by KarmaMB84 · 2004-04-07 02:36 · Score: 1

It's going to be a prequel with George Lucas as God. We get to find out what really went down with Adam played by Peter North and Eve played by Jenna Jameson.

Re:Starship Troopers *2*!?!?! by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · 2004-04-07 02:38 · Score: 1

> played by Peter North

Puts a whole new spin on that flood story, don't it?

More widespread effects... by TheOldBear · 2004-04-07 02:42 · Score: 5, Funny

Since R.A.H. was buried at sea, the results of him spinning in his grave effect the angular momentum of the Earth, and can be directly measured by changes in the length of the day and year. Since the original movie was perpetrated, the standards bodies have not needed to add any 'leap seconds' - indicating that the system has gained angular momentum from some external influence.

--
Caution: Do not stare into laser with remaining eye.

And even more scary... by Kjella · 2004-04-07 02:48 · Score: 1

...I bet the script was typed in Microsoft Word & the screenplay done in Powerpoint.

...they probably improved them, if the first movie is anything to go by. The content sucked, the acting sucked, I'm sure the formatting and presentation of the script and screenplay was one of its highlights.

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

I enjoyed the book... by Cyno01 · 2004-04-07 02:50 · Score: 1

And the first movie was ok, but i really liked the TV series. This is going to be released with the complete Roughnecks set, so i may end up getting it any way...

--
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."

Re:Starship Troopers *2*!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 02:53 · Score: 0

I said that too my friend a few days ago, jesus crawls out of his tomb 3 days later, stumbles down the road. Brains... Brrrrrraaaaaiiinnnnnnzzzz....

Maybe include more ppl rising from the dead in search of brains for dramatic effect, maybe because the government built a time-machine to dispose of the nasty dioxin barrels in the past. I dunno.

Braaaains.... jesus tears into one of his deciples heads.

Beware of the jesus vampire, he gave you all of his blood. And now he wants it back.

What the? by Viceice · 2004-04-07 03:03 · Score: 2, Informative

How did a thread on a piece of digital video editing gear turn into nothing but movie commentry?

Oh wait.. this is slahdot.. carry on.

--
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.

Before you get too excited... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 03:09 · Score: 0

remember geeks, we're talking about Starship Troopers 2. Hardly a reason to boast.

Don't forget the book... by DaHat · 2004-04-07 03:19 · Score: 1

Perhaps... but don't forget that it was poorly adapted from a book by the same name.

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans

Re:Don't forget the book... by stanmann · 2004-04-07 03:27 · Score: 1

EXACTLY.

I would have loved it if they had called it Bug wars, BUT Starship troopers describe TWO exactly opposed societies.

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Re:Don't forget the book... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 03:30 · Score: 0

I believe that's what he was saying. After all, ST was actually quite a good movie, it was just a horrific adaptation of a great book.

Snore.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 03:20 · Score: 1, Funny

Snore....

Linux digital disk recorder...
Linux steels Protools GUI
Linux Steels Photo Shop GUI
Linux toothbrush
Linux toaster
Linux on a dead ferret
Linux on a mutant ninja turtle

When will the narcissism end?

News? by pangel83 · 2004-04-07 03:21 · Score: 1

I don't want to be a troll, or to flame anybody!
Don't get me wrong, I am a great Linux fan but is this really news? Not talking about the hardware part, but for the movie. It was news in 1997 when linux was used in Titanic, but 7 years later, the use of linux in yet another movie or dull (as in.. lets say cheese manufacturing) sector of industry doesn't move me and I believe that a lot of folks out there think the same.

PS: It is also not news when yet another journalist writes another variation of a "Future of Linux in the desktop" article every two days.

Go ahead, mod me down.

You've all missed it.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 03:24 · Score: 1, Interesting

I really thought the interesting part of the write up was the fact that they've switched to Slackware 9.1 . It's refreshing to see slackware recognized for the stable, secure, non-hyped system that it is. Perhaps this is the beginning of a trend as users move away from the commercialism of RedHat and the tortoise-like progress of Debian.

With quality tools like Slapt-Get, Slackware is going to continue to reclaim users.

Re:You've all missed it.... by CAIMLAS · 2004-04-07 11:04 · Score: 1

I think you have it backwards. People have been moving away from the antiquity and poor planning/design of slackware for years. I've never heard of someone moving -to- slackware, or even of a new user using it.

There's even less reason to use slack now that there's gentoo. things like slapt-get are mere imitations of the quality tools.

Furthermore, would you want your distro to be associated with the shit-bomb that is ST, let alone ST2? No. So maybe this does speak with apt recognition for what slackware is, after all.

--
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers

Sci-Fi Marathon by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 03:34 · Score: 0

Phil Tippett is supposed to be at the Columbus Sci-Fi Marathon next month. They will be showing ST2 on a 65 ft. screen. This is the world cinema premier. After the film, he will be answering questions. I hope the film isn't so bad that I can't ask some good technical questions. For more info, check out the Film Forum. [drexel.net]

"upcomming feature "Starship Troopers 2" by bonch · 2004-04-07 04:19 · Score: 1

Uh, it's not really an upcoming feature since it's coming out STRAIGHT TO VIDEO. It's been getting absolutely horrible reviews. Basically it has nothing to do with the first.

Re:Starship Troopers *2*!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 04:21 · Score: 0

Are you going to eat your words when it never, ever happens? Lots of movies make that much money and never have sequels. I think you just wanted to rag on the movie in some way because you hate that it's about Jesus and it's extremely popular.

Wake me when.... by otis+wildflower · 2004-04-07 04:31 · Score: 1

... I can drop a card in a Linux box that will read 720p or 1080i over component, so's to have a HD PVR. And it needs to be below $200.

Oh wait, the content nazis won't allow that to happen.

Freaking hilarious by bonch · 2004-04-07 04:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

This article breathlessly tries to hype the fact that Linux was used in an "upcomming feature."

Turns out that's a complete, absolute lie--it's not a feature, it's a shitty direct-to-video release that often blue-screens unknown actors in front of footage from the first film.

Not exactly something to be bragging about...

Why didn't you burn it? by Burz · 2004-04-07 04:38 · Score: 1

Less chance of cutting yourself.

Linux PVR? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 05:48 · Score: 1, Interesting

Might we see a Linux HD PVR based off this work?

Appearently....Twitch and Shout. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 05:56 · Score: 0

""What? Dance Dance Revolution on Unix? Why would they play that in Starship Trooper 2?"" That's what you do when the bugs are sucking your brains out.

Yes Satire is correct! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 06:00 · Score: 0

Just like Robocop Paul infused the movie with a great deal of satire. He actually wanted you to think about the subtext, to surgar coat the politics and ironic truth so when it eventually got to your mental stomach you would feel uneasy and queasy even on a subconcious level.

Me too.. by NickRuisi · 2004-04-07 06:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

LMAO, me too. I spent a year in the real mechanized infantry (before switching into the Signal Corps) and kept thinking to myself "you could take out a whole damn platoon of these idiots with 1 grenade".

The "spread out" thing (which is drilled into you in the infantry) is so often not represnented in military dramas.. makes for boring shots I guess.

That said, the movie was a hateful piece of shit that had almost nothing to do with the book. The book was fantastic and rasied a lot of really good points to ponder. However, I've seen the movie, post-9/11, and it sent chills up my spine. Very much a case of life imitating art.

Wait a minute... by praedor · 2004-04-07 06:11 · Score: 0, Redundant

Someone in hollywood actually thought Starshit Poopers was good enough to spawn a sequel? Hardware shmardware. The thing to consider isn't the nifty hardware/software being used to make the movie, the nugget for consideration is that someone is actually using ANY equipment to make another iteration of a movie only slightly less suckorama than Show Girls or Gigli.

--
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.

This movie really and truly sucks mightily. by Flave · 2004-04-07 06:14 · Score: 0, Redundant

Well, I just saw ST2 and I don't care what technology they used to create it -- it's a steaming pile of crap. Crap in, crap out.

BTW, I really enjoyed the fun and campy original.

Great quote from the press release by TheTranceFan · 2004-04-07 06:48 · Score: 1

From the press release:

"Our requirements were stiff from the get-go: we needed to far surpass the 3.3 dismemberments per minute in the original film. We found SpectSoft's Rave HD was the only solution that could deliver that kind of gore on our tight production schedule."

Linux Digital Data Recorder by speedbump · 2004-04-07 06:49 · Score: 1

People, who cares what movie they initially captured and edited with this gadget?

The news here is that this hardware vendor is using Linux as the basis for a digital data recorder, that handles various HiDef formats. Try to put one of these together yourself; it ain't easy.

Those of us who shoot and edit digital video would LOVE to break away from the Windows/Mac world, and do our work on Linux, from cradle to grave.

Re:Linux Digital Data Recorder by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-07 12:39 · Score: 0

Yeah, I think that was the point...

Zealots aside. The platform is the ideal choice to migrate from existing big ticket Irix based systems, and while the OS is more than up to the task, there are a few things that need to happen before Linux before it becomes the SGI for the rest of us.

1. A powerful professional level media API. OpenML seems to have meandered up to the challenge (being a port from dmsdk) but I worry the uptake will be slow and the less elegant but feature rich APIs will triumph)

2. Bandwidth. An x86 dream machine might run at 1.21 jigahertz, but even a 2 year old Octane comes up trumps when dealing with multiple streams and complex 3d composites.

Yes, linux is used extensivly on films, but mostly in pre-production (3D on a home pc is good yeah?), not post-production. Discreet have Smoke available for Linux on IBM, and this is the start of something for the platform in post production, but so far it's only SD, damn expensive and dog slow I bet.

Until then... Final Cut Pro it is ;)
Re:Linux Digital Data Recorder by speedbump · 2004-04-09 03:12 · Score: 1

I hear ya.

I have been using Intel platforms for several years now to edit video, and have had to settle with hardware accellerators like Matrox RTX100 to maximize productivity while minimizing sticker shock.

My cameraman just got himself a G4, and FCP4, so he's happily doodling with that, in his qwest to get away from Windows.

We've been looking hard at Cinelerra and MainConcept as Linux solutions, but they just don't seem to be there yet. Too bad Cinelerra is so difficult to configure, and the authors are slow to introduce updates.

It just seems to me there's a lot of players in the video editing biz that have a high motivation to use Linux as the lifecycle platform for NLE work...
Re:Linux Digital Data Recorder by speedbump · 2004-04-09 03:15 · Score: 1

Oh, and your comment about SGIs is so true. Intel is trying to get the bus up to multi-GHZ speeds, but progress is slow. Thank God that AMD is pushing the envelope with their HyperTransport technology. We're watching the Athlon 64 rather closely also!

here are my hopes: by CAIMLAS · 2004-04-07 10:45 · Score: 1

Here are my hopes:
- that it's a remake, and not a sequel.
- it's sexy supporting actresses disrobe
- proper battle suits, damn it.
- and maybe try and stick to the scifi theme, while they're at it.

--
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers

Slightly offtopic.. but the score for #1... by delus10n0 · 2004-04-07 11:07 · Score: 1

The score composed for the first film was awesome. Basil Poledouris rocks, and tends to be a bit under appreciated for his work.

--
Not All Who Wander Are Lost

open source? by pmsyyz · 2004-04-07 11:44 · Score: 1

"To make a long story shorter, we finally decided that we had to come up with yet another open source license, called the SGOSL or SpectSoft General Open Source License, that would allow our customers access to the source code and allow them to alter it. However, it disallows them the ability to distribute it, thus allowing us to actually make a buck or two."

I think it is tacky to include the words open source in your license when it isn't.

See the The Open Source Definition

Too bad OSI failed to get Open Source trademarked.

--
Phillip

No matter what they do to the sequel by toddhunter · 2004-04-07 15:45 · Score: 1

It can't top the ending of the first movie. I laugh everytime I see the three heros walking off happily arms around each other at the end.
Never mind the fact that Denise Richards had been speared through the shoulder about 5 minutes before.

Slashdot Mirror

Linux Based HD DDR used on Starship Troopers 2

204 comments