Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux Based HD DDR used on Starship Troopers 2

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the one-for-sam-zenpus dept.

Psinatmium writes "LinuxDevices is currently running a story about a Linux based, uncompressed high definition video DDR/Editor that I have been working on called RaveHD. The article also goes on to talk a little about how it was used at Tippett Studio in the upcoming feature "Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation"."

14 of 204 comments (clear)

  1. What? by ThePlague · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    1. Re:What? by stanmann · · 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
  2. Oh no, not a sequel! by Dr.+Manhattan · · 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!
    1. Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    2. Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by j0nb0y · · 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?
    3. Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by SlashDread · · 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"

    4. Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by Bill_Mische · · 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)
    5. Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by AdamInParadise · · 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.
    6. Re:Oh no, not a sequel! by Brandybuck · · 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!
  3. For the Love of God by Lovedumplingx · · 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.

    1. Re:For the Love of God by Anonymous Coward · · 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*.

  4. Re:Starship Troopers *2*!?!?! by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · 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."

  5. Yes, but... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1, Insightful

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

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  6. Me too.. by NickRuisi · · 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.