Slashdot Mirror
Critics Reassess Starship Troopers As a Misunderstood Masterpiece
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Calum Marsh writes in The Atlantic that when Paul Verhoeven's Starship Troopers hit theaters 16 years ago today, American critics slammed it as a 'crazed, lurid spectacle' featuring 'raunchiness tailor-made for teen-age boys' and 'a nonstop splatterfest so devoid of taste and logic that it makes even the most brainless summer blockbuster look intelligent.' But now the reputation of the movie based on Robert Heinlein's Hugo award winning novel is beginning to improve as critics begin to recognize the film as a critique of the military-industrial complex, the jingoism of American foreign policy, and a culture that privileges reactionary violence over sensitivity and reason. 'Starship Troopers is satire, a ruthlessly funny and keenly self-aware sendup of right-wing militarism,' writes Marsh. 'The fact that it was and continues to be taken at face value speaks to the very vapidity the movie skewers.' The movie has rightfully come to be appreciated by some as an unsung masterpiece. Coming in at number 20 on Slant Magazine's list of the 100 best films of the 1990s last year, the site's Phil Coldiron described it as 'one of the greatest of all anti-imperialist films,' a parody of Hollywood form whose superficial 'badness' is central to its critique. 'That concept is stiob, which I'll crudely define as a form of parody requiring such a degree of over-identification with the subject being parodied that it becomes impossible to tell where the love for that subject ends and the parody begins,' writes Coldiron. 'If you're prepared for the rigor and intensity of Verhoeven's approach—you'll get the joke Starship Troopers is telling,' says Marsh. 'And you'll laugh.'"
The Only Good Bug is a Dead Bug.
I was surprised how well the movie tried to follow the plot of the book. But, flying across the galaxy to fight bugs with assault rifles at 10 feet? Everyone in the army looking like members of the fashion club? Where are the armored suits? Skydiving from space? Hand held nukes? (OK, they had a little bit of that). The basic training parts of the book were critical. And why did they include Doogie Howser, Gestapo? For all the teenage blood and gore in the movie, it did portray the concepts of the book fairly well.
Than the fools that thought Heinlein was promoting fascism. That was hilarious. He debunked that quite thoroughly, but there are still idiots out there promoting that false idea.
It really took Americans 16 years to work this out? To me, the satire was brazenly obvious the moment I watched it for the first time all those years ago.
RICOS ROUGHNECKS!
I find this to be somewhat laughable. Robert Heinlein was entirely serious about the message that the story delivers. That only those who serve in the military and commit violence in the name of their country should truly be considered "citizens" of the country.
The book is most assuredly not a "send up" or "farce" or anything of the sort. It was a statement of Mr Heinlein's beliefs.
Go do a little reading about him. Learning who he was may alter your perspective on his books...
As for the movie being "a critique of the military-industrial complex" - not a chance. It was exactly what is appeared to be.
I don't think right-wing has that cornered these days. Granted, starting with Korea or so a lot of our wars were right-wing, but Obama has sort of swung them back left.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
This is not a new argument. It was made often at the time the film came out. Anyone following rec.arts.movies at the time is very familiar with the arguments that "it's a parody" and "you hate it because you just don't get it". (Check google groups for references.) This rang hollow at the time and it still does. There are several counter-arguments: If you followed the advance information while the film was being made, you know that aspects of the film were more expensive than originally thought, and the script kept getting simplified... and simplified again... and what ended up on screen were some pretty spectacular digital bug effects (for the time) coupled with unbelievably cheesy sets, costumes, and dialog, that being all they could afford with what was left. About that time the shift to "it's a parody! Really!" started.
I saw it for free (a company perk) and wanted my money back.
One could argue there's a reason this was Ed Neumeier's last big screen script, and why Verhoeven hasn't made a Hollywood film since the turn of the century.
So, no. Just no.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
making fun of Democrats in the US who are the only people in this country actually trying to save it
LOL wut?
Neither of the two major parties in the U.S. is trying to save the country. The OWS crowd is making a misguided effort who's goals would actually make thing worse - but they really do have the goal of fixing the joint, and the Tea Part "proper" is trying to fix a few things while ruining others. These are the major party people with their hearts in the right place.
There's two separate crowds in the country making an effort to save it that actually have the proper goals in mind - the Constitutionalist who want to fix our nation and bring it back to it's chartered place which is quite admirable, and the Libertarians who want to go a step further than the Constitutionalist with a fuck-all get rid of everything else while you're at it attitude.
Your beloved Democrats are making a very visible and direct effort to bankrupt the whole of the people and reduce freedom across the board while their at it.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
If its supposed to be a joke, i hope its as funny as schindler's list. liam neeson was cast in it for his knack for making lists
Anyone who couldn't see all of the satire and sarcasm in that movie was blind, deaf, and dumb. It had very little to do with the books, aside from general setting and some characters, and instead chose to focus on other things. It took violence over the edge to comedy. It took romance over the edge to comedy. It even took dramatic acting over the edge to comedy (in a way that most comedies can't touch).
It represented the way Americans look at things; bigger and more outlandish than they really are. We drive big cars, we talk big talks, and we walk big walks. Usually in ways that are so over-the-top that they bleed over into -- you guessed it -- comedy.
So...should I not have given him my money because I disagree with his politics like people did with Ender's Game?
that can only mean one thing: That the current piss being pushed out by Hollywood is really bringing the standards down. And in comparison, even turds can shine.
Give it another decade and then let's take a look at Uwe Boll movies again.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Though a far-Left Socialist in his pre-war youth, Heinlein moved firmly to the near-Libertarian right by the end of 1940-ies (he was a big proponent of government's sponsorship of space-exploration, which does not make him quite a Libertarian).
His novel asked the question, that bothered him for years — why do we bestow the franchise on every born American? His argument was that between the king having full power in a monarchy to the power being shared by all in a democracy there is a middle ground of voting rights being held only by those, who have demonstrated — through personal sacrifice — their willingness to serve the humanity (as a civil servant or a soldier). Under his plan, you'd only get to vote after retiring from the service — something the protagonist forgoes for many years by deciding to become a career officer...
Very little of this is in a movie — and it was justly derided for the omission.
But to find satire on "jingoism" and "American militarism" — however much the Atlantic's Illiberals may want to scratch that particular itch — in that movie is to give it way too much credit.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Attractive women in combat is hardly a paradigm of right-wing militarism.Nor was the gore which could easily have been aimed at Hollywood. I thought parody was the clear intent when I first saw the film on cable many years ago.
Any value the movie has as social commentary is overshadowed by its total misuse of the source material. The claims by Verhoeven and other critics that the novel supports fascism are shallow at best. The characters in the novel engage in a number moral debates about the values of their system of government, which you can certainly disagree with but can't just wave away with a simple accusation of fascism. In fact there's evidence that Heinlein got the idea of universal service in the novel from Switzerland, which as we all know is a hotbed of fascism. [/sarcasm]
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Actually it was not based on the Nazis if Poul Anderson is to be believed:
I never joined in the idiot cries of "fascist!" It was plain that the society of Starship Troopers is, on balance, more free than ours today. I did wonder how stable its order of things would be, and expressed my doubts in public print as well as in the occasional letters we exchanged. Heinlein took no offense. After a little argument back and forth, we both fell into reminiscences of Switzerland, where he got the notion in the first place. [Anderson 1992:319]
http://www.kentaurus.com/troopers.htm
I have to admit I've never seen Showgirls, but I still am pretty confident the ham-fisted, poorly acted aspect of Troopers is an intentional part of the film. Some of the casting, especially the lead and his love interest, were clearly done to get pretty people who were stiffs on camera, while the few (known) good actors either stay archetypes or ham it up. Robocop has the same thing, though relatively toned down in the main cast and highly amplified when it comes to anything shown on a TV in that movie. I don't think Troopers is a masterpiece, but it is a very well made ironic action film that goes well with popcorn.
One of the best 'reviews' I've read of it from Dan Savage (adult content, no pictures).
last decade.
"Service Guarantees Citizenship! Would you like to know more?"
I cannot not like this movie.
It's a fun movie but you're not supposed to take it seriously, I don't get the people who do. It's like the people who hate on "Pacific Rim" and give it 1/10 stars because well it's essentially giants robots and monsters brawling it out in major cities with the most contrived mind meld technology and over-the-top characters you could possibly imagine. Except the whole premise is ridiculous, the monsters don't die from bullets and grenades and missiles and bombs (well except one, but spoiler) but they die from getting punched to death by a giant robot. How can you go to a movie like that and expect something else, it's like going to a horror movie and expecting deep drama. It's not going to happen and no, if you're seeing it in Starship Troopers you're imagining things.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Heinlein's Starship Troopers is a masterful morality play. The movie can only be seen as such by someone desperately searching for meaning that isn't really there. The fun technical wizardry of the jump suits was written out of it so the obvious CG element was lost..
So why did they bother to call it Starship Troopers? A fun movie but no trace of what was special in the original remains.
Well, at least it's not indecent shame.
You can find pirate copies with the audio already synced but you should donate to them anyway. It's a new release and hilarious.
Check it out I have no affiliation; I'm just a fan.
I don't understand why everyone dislikes showgirls, It is a great erotic film. In my opinion it could only be compared to wild things, it is so good. the story is nothing special, if you compare it to normal films, but it is head and shoulders above even the best porno.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
What's with all the silly pretension that a movie can only be good if it is satirical or makes some kind of social statement?
The movie was good entertainment with plenty of eye candy and epic battles. What's wrong with it being just that?
It may have been satirical too, but I don't actually give a shit.
I always liked the film. Hell, it's one of my favorite sci-fi movies right alongside Alien, Aliens, Predator, 2001, Moon, etc. It wasn't difficult for me at all to identify and appreciate the satire, and I'm no literary genius or film critic. Watchmen did something similar, creating what seemed to be an alternate dimension of stereotypical right-wing ideology. I don't even agree with half the stuff either of the films were implying, but rather than being offended I was immensely entertained and even found them (gasp!) thought provoking.
In summary, movie critics are generally shitbags full of methane and are lucky to have a job...doing anything.
Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
One would have to be brain-dead to NOT notice that ST is hilarious satire, but the final scene should have prevented even the thickest yank critic from making a fool of him/herself.
The last scene makes it clear that the preceding 'movie' was a "recruitment propaganda drama" made for the benefit of the citizens depicted in the film. The Dutch consider (or used to, the Netherlands has recently descended into a Fascist state itself) themselves liberal experts in the nature of the Nazi machine that conquered so much of Europe, and post-WW2 (until Blair's people got hold of them), the Netherlands prided itself on having a free regime the very opposite of that built by Hitler.
The director of ST, Paul Verhoeven, was comparing the present day war machine of the USA, and the internal propaganda used to get average American citizens supporting the atrocities against Humanity carried out by their uniformed butchers, with the self same mechanisms that were active decades earlier in Nazi Germany. Americans were MORAL-blind to the meaning of ST, because it hit far too close to home to acknowledge.
Paul Verhoeven is a very clever director. He knew that getting Hollywood to back a movie with a profound message against aggressive warfare (the SUPREME Crime against Humanity, and the ONLY form of warfare America ever wages) would be impossible if a person with an average American IQ could identify its real meaning without help. So, he 'buried' the message at a level that only people with an IQ in the high double digits at least would notice, ruling out every US film critic. Like most Europeans, Paul Verhoeven has a love/hate relationship with the USA- and the things that Europeans hate most of all are American politicians, American jingoism, the racism in American society, America's hatred of the poor, and America's war machine.
If you have trouble identifying the themes in ST, no Human should EVER depend on your ability to think or act rationally/intelligently.
Heinlein did not intend for the message to be one of a farcical satire. He meant it.
I am pretty sure the writer was going for the same old-timey WWII rah-rah feel. They just failed so badly it became indistinguishable with Oh yeah, it's a parody, everyone laugh, haha."
What is the term for something that is unable to be determined if it was a farce or not?
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
If it REALLY took you this long to figure this out. You are not critics.
You are fucking clueless and need to stop selling your opinion. It is worth nothing.
You are ripping people off because you are a completely clueless waste of space.
This movie was OBVIOUS. Over the top, in your face biting satire and sarcasm about the american (or any out of control pure nationalistic) experience.
I think you can enjoy the movie for its raw violence and special effects while also appreciating it for its swipe at the military-industrial complex. You don't have to chuckle your way through it, but how you miss the satire is beyond me. At one point a reporter interviewing soldiers headed into battle even states: "Some say the bugs were provoked by the intrusion of humans into their natural habitat, that 'live and let live' is preferable to war with the bugs." He's interrupted by mobile infantryman Johnny Rico who says: "Let me tell you something. I'm from Buenos Aires, and I say 'Kill 'em all!'" The movie in four minutes if you haven't seen it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThrVQKl04Ak
My old workplace (a computer games company) went on a company trip to watch it at the cinema when it first came out.
I was absolutely astounded that I was the only one of the 20 odd people that "got" the references, such as the fact that humanity was the agressor, the obviously Gastapo inspired uniforms, the torture of a sentient being (which "funnily" enough has lost it's impact over the years since torture now seems to be an openly accepted part of US policy) and a bunch of other stuff I can't remember off the top of my head.
Of course the most memorable part of that movie was discovering Denise Richards. Sweet baby Jeebuz.
Not a good movie, but somewhere between campy and popcorn flicks, and doing neither well.
It was a 90s action movie, nothing more. It was a good movie in that context. Only a disappointment if one considered the book and what the movie could have been.
Was it art? Well perhaps to the crowd that accepts an everyday item in a jar of piss as art. Well, at least after you tell that crowd the movie is an anti-American commentary.
Was it a commentary on "American imperialism"? No, that's quite a bit of revisionism. The main characters were not from the USA, the government was global in nature and the look of the government and the military was absolutely European.
News to me, it has always been one of my favourite films.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
+1 insightful
There are just so many clueless monkeys out there. Maybe some of them will read your words, and give them a thought or two. I don't hold out much hope, but maybe.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
You are weird. Showgirls!? Are you trolling?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
It really took Americans 16 years to work this out? To me, the satire was brazenly obvious the moment I watched it for the first time all those years ago.
Regular Americans got the satire and the jokes at the time. Its only the "elite" that have had a recent revelation, a revisionist reinterpretation of what was meant merely as fun and laughs as social commentary for politics and events that did not exist at the time.
The 1995 film, with the absolutely amazing lap dance scene, among many others??
How could anyone not find Showgirls one of the top 10 sexiest films of all time?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
The satire was not subtle at all - how did so many people miss it?
My experience is that Europeans recognized the satire immediately, while Americans thought it was a serious movie glamourising American militarism.
Funny, in America we immediately thought it satire and that the militarism portrayed was European in nature. The uniforms had European looks, the ranks seemed European (the US has no Marshals), etc. The newsreel like scenes very 1940s in their style.
Next up in about 32 years time, they might just work out the next impossibly difficult part of the movie to understand, That from the opening scene the whole thing is a web add from start to finish. Some how many ppl seem to miss the "Do you want to know more" web style click ads.
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
ugh... who DIDN'T recognize that that was what verhoeven was going for?
but it's all so FACILE and obvious and redundant. his satire had the depth of insight attained by lampooning the fact that the sun is hot. :P
yes, it's satirical... but so on the nose and idiotically shallow that it gains no mileage from it. it could only be admired for "insight" (for fuck's sake) by children or imbecile.
i should sue the guy for my eye injury sustained when his film forced me to attempt eyerolling at speeds beyond which is possible for average human beings.
the critique of the movie back then was that it was stupid. and that's still goddamn right.
robocop - brilliant
total recall - awesome
but starship troopers is fucking garbage.
I kinda thought that was the point from the beginning. I'm kind of surprised that almost 20 years later people are finally starting to get the point of the film. I loved it when I saw it in the theater, and I bought it on VHS, and then later on DVD. It's a great film. Sure, it's cheesy as hell, but still, the message is good. You just gotta read between the lines.
Heinlein did not intend for the message to be one of a farcical satire. He meant it.
Right. That was Heinlein. Verhoeven, though, intended the movie to be a satire. I wish he'd done it straight, just to annoy people.
The trouble is, if he'd done it straight, few people would have watched it.
I remember first watching this movie. The satire seemed obvious to me. I just assumed it got panned because people simply weren't into the movie or cared for the satire. Frankly, it was really over-the-top. Regardless of your politics its not that pleasant to have people shout social commentary inches from your face--unless you're actively seeking it out--so from an entertainment perspective I didn't question why it wasn't that appealing.
I never realized people took it seriously as a regular action-thriller. The whole thing screams meta.
I just read the NY Times review from 1997. If I were that reviewer I'd be completely embarrassed of that piece. How the hell did he make it through the 1990s without watching The Simpsons or Seinfeld? They brought satire and "meta" mainstream.
The 1995 film, with the absolutely amazing lap dance scene, among many others??
How could anyone not find Showgirls one of the top 10 sexiest films of all time?
Because it was so overkill that by the end of the movie boobs stopped being interesting.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
I find this to be somewhat laughable. Robert Heinlein was entirely serious about the message that the story delivers. That only those who serve in the military and commit violence in the name of their country should truly be considered "citizens" of the country.
That is absolutely mistaken. Committing violence was **not** required. What was required was to put the needs of your society ahead of your personal safety. Service was not required to be military in nature. It was absolutely clear that non-military construction and labor service also fully qualified a person for citizenship. It was also clear that such construction and labor service was also hazardous and that casualties occurred. That one risked their life in order to serve, both military and non-military service.
So I read and loved the book. I watched the movie have a go at satire and military-industrial complex mockery. I can see how anyone who hadn't read the book would not catch it.
It's a horrible film. It's even worse for naming itself after the book. And, kind of like Ender's Game, it removed all the good parts while keeping vague track of the plot.
The movie is as close as one can get to a 1940's type comic book lens on Heinlein's book.
In other words, the movie is pure entertainment because someone figured out they didn't have the
budget to do the real book.
As for the fag anti-American crowd of socialists out there, they go their butts hurt watching
people have TOO MUCH FREEDOM to make such a movie they have to try to revise history
to met their political constructs and narratives.
The 1995 film, with the absolutely amazing lap dance scene, among many others??
How could anyone not find Showgirls one of the top 10 sexiest films of all time?
They were all told to hate it.
My wife and I saw it in the theater. She didn't like it much, but I enjoyed it. The raw depravity of it was done well, in my opinion. Especially the fat lady with the revealing wardrobe.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
The satirical content of this movie was obvious from the first -- as soon as you saw Johnny Rico's too-square superhero jaw, you knew where the movie was going. The initial reaction just missed the point so badly. This so-called reassessment just shows you that critics are subject to groupthink and duckspeak and can take forever to wake up.
You are supposed to watch it in 15 minute intervals.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Think about it, the vast majority of those in power would be the poor.
cause it has a Chihuahua for a main actress and its suck a whole fucking decade and a half in the past from when it was made?
I thought it was hilarious when I saw it, as I realised exactly where it was coming from (much like the far inferior Robocop), as well as why it would be misunderstood by the half of the audience whose attitudes he was mercilelessly parodying.
Some of Verhoeven's work is brilliant, especially his Oscar nominated 70s Dutch films Turks Fruit (English title : Turkish Delight) and Keetje Tippel, both starring Rutger Hauer befoe his Blade Runner stardom. Check them out if you can find subtitled versions, they're intense films with wonderful acting, stories, music and cinematic flair that rarely emerge from Hollywood (why he got the gig in LA in the first place, I guess).
I've always been aware of the director's intent, but feel that A) they should have made the movie its own thing instead of being so loosely based on a novel that had its own very different point to make about the military, and B) even as satire it's not terribly well done.
I rented the movie "Starship Troopers" a few years after it came out; I delayed because Hollyweird invariably screws up good SF novels, and Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" was a masterpiece.
I found most of the movie to be vile, repulsive and hideous; the "naked coed shower scenes" were the movie's ONLY redeeming value.
I read the book when I was kid.
I saw the movie when it came out.
Neither is a parody.
Starship Troopers is--first and foremost--a science-fiction novel.
Heinlein wrote these things. It was how me made his living.
To the extent that the novel has any deeper themes, it is an exploration of violence, mainly in a military context, although there are a few scenes scattered through the book that present violence in other contexts. In one of his letters, Heinlein wrote something to the effect of "Men are going to fight, so we ought to understand why." Heinlein served in the U.S. Navy, and it seems to me that the novel is strongly informed by his experience there.
The movie is a straightforward Hollywood adaptation of the novel. It seems remarkable to me mainly for the extent to which it does not butcher, repurpose, or hijack the original material.
In the movie, war bulletins, recruitment ads, and government P.R. are all shown as voice-overs while images of web pages appear on a TV monitor. Links, drop-downs, and pop-ups appear on the screen while the announcer encourages viewers to "click here for more information". This is fairly characterized as parody, but it is a parody of the internet, not the military. In particular, it is a parody of the way corporate messaging has moved on-line, rather than the militaristic content of that messaging.
I always liked this too - unlike a lot of people, critics included, I got the joke.
It's critique of where society might need to be to survive was quite interesting, the sort of thing that Socrates might have stood up for - that to become a citizen (to vote, have children, etc) you needed to perform a service to society. It instilled responsibility in its citizens, so crime was low and so forth.
Other things "...Would you like to know more?" cracked me up.
Great movie that was lost on so many people at the time.
Oh, and Denise Richards was hot :)
It was a piece of shit, that bore no resemblance to the masterpiece it was allegedly based on. A pretty-looking piece of shit.
Having been a huge fan of the book Starship Troopers, I was sorely disappointed with the movie when it came out. I was 18 at the time. As I matured, I grew to love the movie version. The movie fits in so well with Verhoeven's other scifi flicks Robocop and Total Recall, and serves as the perfect riposte Heinlein's naive jingoism. Plus, I find it delicious how people continue to this day to take Starship Troopers at face value. The satire is way over the top and still relevant today.
I really wish the movie of Ender's Game got the same treatment. The book is terrible, but I think if the movie had properly satirized the source material, the movie would be a classic.
A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
... when Starship Troopers came out, I find it reassuring that 'American critics' are finally able to comprehend the humor of this film. Its only taken 16 years for them to get the joke, but better late than never, right? And is it any wonder that the public's view of professional critics is so poor? Should 15 year old boys be put in charge of this, clearly very challenging job? Is there something slightly 'special' about American critic's sense of humor that prevents them from seeing such an obviously tongue-in-cheek parody of extreme imperialism?
Was a strange movie. When the ground hiding the big bug started to rise, I expected to see characters from "Gumby the movie" charging over the hill to tame the bad bug. What a dumb bug movie script ! Traveling by space ship to a planet to shoot bugs as-if it was a 1950's war movie, but with space suits.
FFS,
Are they seriously only just geting that!?
I think anyone who's read the book and seen Verhoevan's "masterpiece" immediately realized that it sure wasn't a faithful representation of Heinleins book. To then turn around and try and call it inspired genius just goes to show what a bunch of complete wankers movie critics are.
The movie stands as a giant f*** you to both Heinlein and anyone who might be interested in seeing a film based on his work. Instead you get to see a *crappy* comedy based on ideas included in the novel of the same name.
Just another example of the abuses possible as long as you pre-fix your work with "based on".
I caught one or two episodes. Heroes walk through tunnels. Bugs attack. Heroes scream "Bugs!!" and fire automatic weapons. Bugs explode. Repeat.
Maybe it got better.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
My friend dragged me along to see it. I’d seen the trailer, which was just troopers & bugs, and gave no idea of what the movie was actually like. I really enjoyed the satire, and Denise Richards’ cute smile as the “piloted the spaceship”. And it had Neil Patrick Harris, who is awesome!
All the people in the movie were thinking exactly what they’d been told to think. Maybe Verhoeven was playing a joke on all the people who thought what it looked like the movie was telling them to think.
I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
The review is the vision of someone who pisses on everything great, and reserves his praise for urine. Unable to even vaguely understand Heinlein's book, he praises an incompetent movie as brilliant satire. C'est la mort.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Heinlein did not intend for the message to be one of a farcical satire. He meant it.
Right. Just like he meant the succeeding novel, which directly contradicts it, to biblical proportions.
Heinlein meant to get paid; after that, he's hard to pin down.
Verhoven clearly got the idea of sending up the society in Starship Troopers. However you feel about whether the movie came off successfully or not, the newsreel scenes prove that conclusively. Verhoeven clearly meant the movie as social satire. How Heinlein meant his book remains a subject for debate.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So as long as the movie is a "critique of the military-industrial complex, the jingoism of American foreign policy, and a culture that privileges reactionary violence over sensitivity and reason", it's good regardless of whether it is funny, exciting, touching, etc.?
Can they just admit that they judge movies on their political views?
Eisenhower suspended nuclear testing. Shortly thereafter, the Soviet Union ignored its promise and resumed testing with some of the largest and "dirtiest" weapons ever detonated.
Heinlein was infuriated. He stopped work on the novel that would become Stranger in a Strange Land and wrote Starship Troopers in a white-hot fury.
So it would appear that Heinlein was about as serious and passionate as he ever would be about anything when he wrote ST. This is what he was serious about.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
Now I don't feel so badly about putting on my fez hat and smoking jacket to watch Tank Girl in a big red leather chair in my library.
they were running a simulation...and would have gotten someone killed if they had been doing it for real.
They also fully admit that they could have just discharged him (rather than the lashes). It was a weird sort of compliment...you MIGHT make a good soldier...so we give you lashes instead of just kicking you out.
Morons. The movie is in line with the author's beliefs about military participation being the road to citizenship. That the film makers took it to an over the top level which could be mistaken as satirical of the books upon which it's based is surely confirmation bias on the part of the critic. Poes Law strikes again.
For the record: I think Heinlin is a fool. Dying for your courntry outside its border is NOT how you become a citizen, it's how you become it's bludgeon. Community service work could be extended to all fields of work, like programming or being a doctor or engineer; "Internship" is a thing already, so temporarily requiring such serving in a way that benefits your country's society and protection could indeed be a great way to prove you care about the country enough to be a citizen. Being a mercenary abroad or applying any techonolgy maliciously against others should never be the road to citizenship, certainly if such services are warranted they alone should not constitute citizinship.
Having a militia is fine, using it against your neighbors is not. In the future: Assume everyone is an idiot unless proven otherwise, especially film critics.
I must strongly disagree with the use of the word "fascist" with respect to the society portrayed in the novel Starship Troopers.
Let's look at how Wikipedia defines fascism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
None of these apply to the society portrayed in the book.
The first item: the sole means by which the government attempted to impart any point of view on the citizens was a high-school class called "History and Moral Philosophy" that was always taught by a full citizen, but which the student was not required to pass. The examples from when the protagonist took the class did debunk some of the tenets of communism, though. (Labor does not always add value. An unskilled cook can take pie dough and apples and produce a burned mess, where a skilled cook can produce a delicious dessert, so the "labor theory of value" in its simplest form is disproven by example.)
The second item: the government did not run businesses. The society operated in a free market. The amount of regulations imposed by the government was never explicitly spelled out, but my impression is that the amount of regulation was low, as discussions of business did not tend to rants about permits or bureaucratic interference.
The third one at first seems plausible, as the book is (in Heinlein's own words) intended to present lowly soldiers in a good light (as opposed to senior generals, Presidents, etc.). However, the government in the book did not promote such ideas. Instead, the government took steps to scare people off from becoming soldiers. For example, having a maimed military veteran sit outside the recruiting station and warn young people that they could get maimed like he had been. (Later, the protagonist meets this veteran again, and he is off-duty and wearing artificial limbs that look real and work about like the real thing, and the veteran's manner is completely changed; he congratulates the protagonist for choosing to serve in the infantry.)
My opinion could be slanted, as I am politically a minarchist libertarian, but the society in Starship Troopers appears to be a minarchist libertarian government. The government is relatively small and does relatively little, and what it does do seems to be mostly confined to defense and police. The common attitude among most of the population is that they want nothing to do with government, which seems unlikely if government was a major force in peoples' lives. (The protagonist's father has not earned the right to vote, and proudly tells the protagonist at one point that he is a third generation non-voter; why would he want to earn a vote? No profit in that, the time is better spent building the business.)
The described history in Starship Troopers went like this: During a time of wide-spread social upheaval, the old governments disintegrated and new ones formed. One of the new governments, mentioned as an example, used "scientific" techniques to pick who would be in charge; it failed. Eventually a bunch of military veterans banded together and began keeping some sort of peace within the area they were able to patrol, and this expanded to become a new system of government. Voting was limited to people who had served at least one term of service in the government. Service could be military but could also be anything else the government needed to have done, such as scientific research. Also, according to their laws, the government had to
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
In what alternate universe does the USA have a Left wing?
It's certainly not the Obama Democrats, who cheerfully continue the GOP global agenda and domestic surveillance staten and the War On Some Drugs.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
ruthlessly funny and keenly self-aware sendup of right-wing militarism
OK, with co-ed showers, military love triangles, a women of color running the planet, and old guys (the washed up training sergeant come private) saving the day... Now that's the kind of right wing conservatism we need compared to current attitudes. Then again the movie showed we had smarts to fly in large space ships, but still fight with cheap lead bullets and armor?
Only one good thing about the movie was the CGI... come on guys, that was pretty cutting edge at the time.
The so-called Constitutionalists and Libertarians are merely shills for their big business masters, who also control the Democrats.
Note none of the Right are doing shit to end globalist war and they were delighted with the surveillance state when the President was a white male. Now the POTUS continues those policies and if it weren't a matter of competing for votes they'd be delighted. Obama is Bush III.
Both Parties are puppets. It's a shame Flight 93 didn't drill Congress while it was in session.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Lol... this is insightful?
Mod parent up. That page should be required reading for anyone who wants to put their spin on why the book is bad and how the movie was a legitimate treatment.
I thought it was obvious that it was a piss-take on US foreign policy back when I saw it on release.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
It's surprising how well the CGI and other FX hold up today.
"The enemy can not push a button if you disable his hand. MEDIC!"
I'm stunned 'critics' didn't get the movie. And apparently they still don't realize that the movie is also a send up of Heinline's book.
Heinlein was a talentless, hippy, lassez-faire, right-wing, borderline fascist dickhead. His only good book was The Puppet Masters, which they made a reasonably good film of (though they changed some fundamentals), with Donald Sutherland. Paul Verhoeven, with this film, finished saying everything he wanted to say with RoboCop, and took out Heinlein in the process. I really think this film is a masterpiece of satire. So - critics really ARE that dumb, it appears.
You cannot understand the Starship Troopers movie until you realise it is all a propaganda piece.
If you think the Bugs are a threat, you have missed everything.
To understand the movie Starship Troopers it is crucial that you realise the _entire_ movie is propaganda for the Earth's military government. It is clear at the start, and the finish, but it never stops being that a propaganda show.
So nothing can be accepted at face value. Here's what we know:
1. Earth is under control of a military government (a junta)
2. Life is tough: food is rationed, the world is overpopulated
3. You can't have children (or vote) without serving in the military
4. There are dissidents / rebels / those who oppose the one-world order
To keep the population under control, the military leaders need a war. The population will accept hardships, and the excess population can be whittled down. People can be kept busy with work creating disposable goods (bombs, spaceships, uniforms), so they don't have time to think or rebel.
The Bugs are not a threat to humans. They defend themselves. They have no space flight capability. They have no means of attacking Earth. They are a manufactured threat.
Their purpose is to kill as many young people as possible. Young people are a threat to the established order (notice how _old_ the military leaders are). That is why the military strategy is so stupid. The purpose is to get people killed. Population control.
And then grieving relatives at home will continue to support the war.
Because the carnage is so great, people get promoted very quickly. Ignorant, naive young things in command, who will just follow orders.
Finally, we have the giant rocks hurled onto Earth. Bugs? Nah. That's the Earth government. Notice how the rock impacted _directly_ on to the area that was rising up against the military government on Earth?
Multiple birds killed with one (big) stone. Dissidents: vaporised. Support for war: raised amongst survivors. Population: culled. GDP boost: keep people busy rebuilding infrastructure
And THAT'S why the female 'heroine' got such a bollocking for changing course without orders. They nearly got in the way of the rock, and the ship sensors could (did!) log the source. Not the bugs. Humans.
So the sequel is the three friends: one a grunt, one an office, one an 'intellectual'. The first two miraculously survive to figure out what is really going on, go to scientist friend, who betrays them. They go on the run. Carbonite may be involved.
But in the third part, the scientist turns out to be working for them on the inside. he had to betray them to save them. But he's been collecting enough info to blow the whole conspiracy wide open.
And together the three of them overthrow the junta, bring peace and democracy, and an uneasy truce with the bugs. Maybe start some colonies. They all live happily ever after.
(Until the Bell Riots)
Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
It was a skate border that convinced me of its many merits those many moons ago - an intelligent skater I might add. Some people just have an excessively open mind, and will watch ANYTHING and sometimes it yields rewards..
So far as the cultural enlightenment you get from the recruitment advertisements. I'm not going to buy the pretentious contrarian game since I thought the satire was too poorly executed to be genius. We're not talking Blade Runner here, for God's sake Casper Van Dien was the lead!
That being said, I still liked it enough I'll rewatch it if nothing better is on; if nothing more that to glimpse Dina Meyer in her topless prime.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Great movie, still love it(when in the mood), but unfortunately ahead of its times; it seems less like a parody these days.
It's a shame Flight 93 didn't drill Congress while it was in session.
If that had happened, Jack Ryan would have become president, and then where would we be?
I read the book a while ago and I don't really remember it, but I like the movie a lot on its own. I like Michael Ironside's line: "Figuring things out for yourself is practically the only freedom anyone really has nowadays. Use that freedom." As an American I have quite a few freedoms, but I still feel there is wisdom in the line.
I can't say it's the best movie ever made, but I'm also 100% certain it's not total crap like a lot of people are saying. I'm glad it was made and I'm glad I saw it.
You know it's funny the way the USA considers itself a) great, b) rich, and c) free.
Some people are rich. Most are not. Many countries are richer, especially at median wealth. ... er, what?
Most people struggle from day to day, desperately trying to stay employed - and keep their health benefits. Too scared to move jobs and actually give that flexibility so much desired by the right wing
And free? Really? A country that imprisons more of its citizens than anywhere else, starts more wars than anyone else, and bullies other countries in a most unpleasant fashion (FATCA, anyone?). Not mention the institutionalised bribery that seems the only reason for the existence of Washington.
So, so far away from the high ideals in that brilliant document, the US Constitution. ... The "Patriot" Act .. OMG. Washington must be spinning in his grave.
It seems to be a country controlled by fear, with an ever more oppressive set of laws, and a growing (but small) group of mega rich who have little concern for the average Joe.
So sad. I'm glad I don't live there.
So come on Americans - stop living in fear. Stop pushing the world about, start educating your people, start keeping them healthy and educated.
And deliver on those great ideals you started with.
Please.
"Cats like plain crisps"
The so-called Constitutionalists and Libertarians are merely shills for their big business masters, who also control the Democrats.
That's a standard mantra of people who would never vote outside the two main parties because they have accepted the lie that a third party is not viable because they are all controlled by businesses. Both the DNC and ghe GOP are the shills for business. Haven't you been paying attention?
You make a good slave.
-- Will program for bandwidth
A friend of mine said that the acting and plot was so bad that it ruined all the tits and ass. He was right.
OWS wouldn't have made it worse. It would have created new problems to replace the old problems, but most choose the devil they know, rather than the angel they don't (one reason the two major parties suck so bad, but no 3rd parties have a realistic chance, the American public is insane.
Learn to love Alaska
Took them long enough to get the stick out of their ass and actually watch the fucking movie. Rather than whine about how unfaithful it was.
Seriously, I knew from the previews it was going to be completely different, no fucking power armor! But saw it anyway and actually enjoyed it, because I knew what it wasn't going to be.
I *SAW* this in the theatres. I've seen a lot of movies. LOTS. Starship Troopers is *NOT* a misunderstood masterpiece. Its a piece for kids in their early 20's to feel good about themselves. It tries to give them a good feeling about themselves. Its shallow. Its gung ho, but its not even good science fiction. If you are in business school, the "GUNG HO"(tm) attitude is front and centre, and will make that group feel good. The political right will appreciate the mindless military violence and the "Shoot them at all costs", although in this case they don't have to demonize their enemies as bugs, because these creatures *are* bugs, and they can actually get everyone wanting people to shoot and kill the bugs (so they will feel good). Apart from that, the story is mindless crap. Instead of using guns to kill the bugs, they could use what we use to kill bugs (bug killer). Its not good sci-fi, its not a good story, and its not a misunderstood masterpiece. Its a piece of something, but not master. Short answer: its about 90 minutes of my life I will not get back.
Actually, it is rather insightful.
I've seen the poor (even homeless and astounding poverty compared to "typical" people in the same city) in America and the poor in other countries, and frankly I don't mind being poor in America as it sure as hell beats being poor elsewhere in the world. Nobody in America ever needs to go to bed hungry, and almost anybody can get at least an associate's degree (2 year college degree) in almost every place for free or at least very cheaply if they really work at it. Advanced degrees do cost some money, but do you really think it is the job of every government to pay for a PhD of every citizens? Should every citizen even have a PhD?
I'll even argue that the general public health is vastly better in America than most other places of the world. Yes, there are some European countries (mostly small and not on the scale of America either) that do better, but health care isn't really as big of a deal in general either with programs for helping out the poor with health care that are decades old and a public health service that is over a century old.
As for America pushing people around the world, it is a very small minority of people from America that are doing such stupid things.... and frankly much of it is going on because many European countries let America get away with that kind of foreign policy and even encourage it (while publicly repudiating it even if in private they openly support American politicians).
I'll grant that America is less free today than it was a decade ago, and there has been a definite trade off of liberty for security. There are problems here, but of course you hear about those problems in part because it is a part of the domestic debate on how to deal with those problems and not something swept under the rug like is done in countries such as Iran and North Korea.
http://youtu.be/ux_lwvl5c7w?t=32m12s
The so-called Constitutionalists and Libertarians are merely shills for their big business masters, who also control the Democrats.
That doesn't even make sense - Libertarians want to *do away* with corporations. If Libertarianism is so good for the corporations, why don't the corporations support the libertarians?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Everyone says the same shit about tromaville, but gratuitous gore is the perfect place for social commentary.
One of the strangest things I've often heard repeated concerning the book is it is "glorified fascist fantasy"... which shows a lack of understanding of what Heinlein was trying to communicate. A better understanding of Heinlein's views might be take from his character Prof. Bernardo dela Paz in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".-- which is to say Heinlein appears to have been a "rational anarchist"... perfectly happy to obey [or not] any rules you happen to set... The pill that chokes the critics of this book appears to be that Heinlein proposes that having a government made up of people that have proved their willingness to put themselves in harms way to protect humanity by serving it for 20 or 30 years might be better than the usual way Democracy does things.
If you follow the chain of logic of Starship Troopers story the society and government of his earth is exceedingly rational... Heinlein pointed out how our current "military-industrial complex" is hopelessly bogged in bureaucracy... The "Mobile Infantry" is built so everybody works & everybody fights... unlike our current military. For Heinlein's other "send up" of the military and "politics as usual" read Glory Road.
Even being the spine-less Liberal that I am, I can read the book and understand how / why someone might believe things should be arranged this way... On the other hand I am not so trusting of modern jingoist "rugged individualist" folks that call themselves libertarian [when in fact they are more often than not whiney self-centered babies who believe that a souless corporation is better than a gunked up bureaucracy... Which only proves they are the kind of ignorant that Heinlein would have hated.]. Heinlein graduated from Annapolis and he did serve this country. Where did Verhoeven serve?
As for the movie... If it is a satire it is not of Heinlein or the book he wrote, since the only thing that they have in common is the name.
There were no female troopers in the book.
While Heinlein has been called anti-feminist and a patristic SOB, the reason he only had males fighting is he believed [right or wrong] that males and females have certain roles... females make better pilots and males better warriors [we're not talkin' equal rights agit-prop here, just biology]. Females are the future of humankind and deserve to be protected [see the Notebooks of Lazerus Long about the true purpose of laws] Heinlein believed that a man will fight better if the last thing he hears before he drops is a female voice wishing him luck... Is it true? Who knows? -- we've never tried it. It appears that the Heinlein that is held up by liberal critics is actually a "straw man".
There were no jump troopers in the movie.
The purpose of the mobile infantry is being "the most effective fighting organization in history"... What we see in the movie is the equivalent of the old Saturday Matinee B Monster movies... Heroes or monster fodder... either or... which only shows a failure to understand Heinlein's chain of reasoning.
So if the movie is a satire, then it must be a satire of someone trying to satirize a book with which they disagree and do not have the wit or the art to craft a movie to accurately depict both the right and the wrong of the author's thesis and how the author chose to resolve the conflict... if it is a an actual satire of Heinlein then it is a FAIL -- and even a liberal like me can see that...
As for Card's "Ender's Game"... Here is a story written by homophobic writer telling a story about how someone exploits a child into murdering another race by playing the equivalent of a video game... Um... yeah... Better title: "Molested by the Military"...
I think the exploitation of Ender and Card's homophobia are probably related... Yet the difference between Ender and Card is that Ender actually has some kind compassion for people that are not like him... while Card has proven how really small he is as a person and that he is apparently incapable of compassion for people that are not like him [i.e. if you ar
It took 16 years to get past the hatorade of "it was nothing like the book so it suxx", to answering the "okay, granted, but then what?"
That piece of shit made a shit movie that was basically took the title of Starship Troopers and some ideas from the book and wrapped it around an updated version of Robocop. Heinlein was trying to make serious points in his book but Verhoeven either couldn't see that, or more likely, didn't care and made a movie that shit all over Heinlein's book.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
Meisterdreck
Wow... That read like enough hipster BS to launch 1000 more Starbucks locations.. Oh, wait, Starbucks is too "mainstream" now... How about "enough hipster BS to launch 1000 [obscure regional coffee shop] locations"?
It was a good, entertaining movie when it came out. It's still a good, entertaining movie today.
You don't have to justify enjoying it with this much "oh, yeah, I totally see the symbolism in that now" BS...
The funniest thing about Showgirls was Elizabeth Berkley's appearance on the Tonight Show.
When she started talking about lap dances and he asked what a lap dance was. So she demonstrated. The look of shock on his face was hilarious.
Not trying to be flamebait here, but probably will be marked as such.
I found Ebert's commentary completely a waste of time. He praised crap movies because they were trying to be artistic and panned movies that were just supposed to be fun. He was completely intolerant to movies that did not try to say something, or were extremely artsy fartsy. He never gave context of what type of movie it was, or a good description of what type of people might like it, or really said anything constructive.
Siskel on the other hand understood that different people like films for different reasons. He would explain how he felt about the movie, then give context to the people that might like it. Sometimes I would agree with his liking, or disliking a movie, but I always found his observations informative. Sometimes going to see a movie because he said I don't like the movie for this reason, but for those that like that type of movie you will probably like it.
The movie may be (in parts loosely) based on his book, but in the end it was made by Verhoeven.
Verhoeven, the guy who also made Showgirls.
Both movies are trash; if you happen to like that kind of trash: glorious trash but certainly no masterpieces.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iTRZNhZGJkE/TdjpS-44TrI/AAAAAAAAAJg/LS2aJFqLCL0/s1600/english.jpg
Text: "The curtains where blue"
What the critic thinks: "The curtains represent his immense depression and his lack of will to carry on."
What the author meant: "The curtains were fucking blue."
People trying to revive the movie's image are missing the point. It's not that everyone missed what it was saying before, it's that it just wasn't very good.
You don't have to look very far to see where it falls short. Just look at Robocop. It has Verhoeven doing satire too. The 6000 SUX commercials are like the insert commercials in Starship Troopers, and you've got "OCP runs the cops", and all that. But the big difference is that Robocop is actually a good movie. It's enjoyable during the satire and it's enjoyable during the action.
Starship Troopers just isn't very well carried when the acting starts. You've got a lot of awful actors in a lot of ham-fisted action scenes failing to entertain.
Is it funny at times? It it pointed at others? Certainly. Those things are some of the best parts of Verhoeven's action movies. But all-in-all, it just doesn't cut the mustard.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
... nobody understood it was a parody 16 years ago
It took me about five minutes. Especially given Verhoevens history of dark and funny satire (commercials in Robocop II, anyone?).
Verhoeven wasn't responsible for Robocop II.
I knew Starship Troopers was a satire after I saw it, shortly after it first came out. I thought everyone knew. Some people are obviously slow on the uptake.
It's sad to see this happening.
Stupid Americans.
'Leverage', 'Privilege' - they're NOUNS, idiots! American idiots.
a load
The best sci-fi films I have seen. I have watched all parts and I would like to see a new one or the end of the bugs.
I knew this goddamn 15 years ago when it first came out. Don't need no stinking reassessments from critics who also thought other Verhoven masterpieces like Total Recall and Robocop were just stupid action flicks.
This analysis of the movie misses that the movie is based on a book which has a fairly well understand point and for which the author actually explained what he was trying to say.
Too often critics presume to insert their own opinions and views into someone else's mouth and then judge them upon it. That's not the point of a critic. If you want to make a point on your own then make your own movie or write your own book. You don't express yourself by effectively making a strawman out of someone else's work.
I mean just look at the wikipedia article on the book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_troopers
Then look at this article about the movie again. See the problem? He's making all sorts of judgments about it that actually don't make sense if you actually have what we like to call... "a clue".
Ol' Robert was anti communist and the book largely was a him channeling some of his anti communist/socialist bile into a book about how the world collapsed due to such systems... and his new society rose from the ashes. No really. And then he shows that society defeating the bugs which are again a hive cast society where billions of slave insects follow the orders of some central brain bug.
To take that and say that the whole book is a criticism of militarism etc is actually idiotic.
The movie does parody a great many of these issues. But it doesn't actually fight the central theme. Take the role of Lt Rasczak... the man that serves as the protagonist's teacher in high school and then his commanding officer in war. The man remains an admirable authority figure throughout the movie. And is also the primary source for general information about that world of Starship troopers. He is furthermore pretty damn gung ho and Ra Ra for the military. To watch that and yet some how conclude that it was making fun of him... can only be described as blind idiocy.
So... That's what this article was... try again.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
As a Brit (and it might be that being a Brit is important here) I saw almost every scene of the film as properly taking the piss out of right wing attitudes. It was a proper laugh fest in an incredibly black humour sort of way.
Paul Verhoven does this with his characters all the time. They are deliberate caricatures. Every attitude that appears to be celebrated by the film came across as Mr Verhoven sneering. The whole film was a master work of sarcasm.
Exactly, they never read the book. Many of the observations in the book can be made today with astounding clarity: “I told you that 'juvenile delinquent' is a contradiction in terms. 'Delinquent' means 'failing in duty.' But duty is an adult virtue—indeed a juvenile becomes an adult when, and only when, he acquires a knowledge of duty and embraces it as dearer than the self-love he was born with. There never was, there cannot be a 'juvenile delinquent.' But for every juvenile criminal there are always one or more adult delinquents—people of mature years who either do not know their duty, or who, knowing it, fail.” Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers “Man has no moral instinct. He is not born with moral sense. You were not born with it, I was not - and a puppy has none. We acquire moral sense, when we do, through training, experience, and hard sweat of the mind.” Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers “Both for practical reasons and for mathematically verifiable moral reasons, authority and responsibility must be equal - else a balancing takes place as surely as current flows between points of unequal potential. To permit irresponsible authority is to sow disaster; to hold a man responsible for anything he does not control is to behave with blind idiocy. The unlimited democracies were unstable because their citizens were not responsible for the fashion in which they exerted their sovereign authority... other than through the tragic logic of history... No attempt was made to determine whether a voter was socially responsible to the extent of his literally unlimited authority. If he voted the impossible, the disastrous possible happened instead - and responsibility was then forced on him willy-nilly and destroyed both him and his foundationless temple.” Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers
Whomever came up with this interpretation obviously didn't read the book upon which the movie is based. And, if they did read it, they didn't understand one word of it.
This is one of those movies that devolves into a circular argument.
I didn't like Starship Troopers.
Then you didn't understand the satire.
No, I understood the satire, I didn't like it either
Then you didn't understand the criticisms of modern culture
No, I understood the criticisms, I didn't like them either
Then you didn't understand the satire
No, I understood...wait, what?
See you just don't GET it...
Veerhoven wanted to make a movie about a group of german youngsters joining the army before WWII not realizing that the side they are joining is the "evil" side.
He couldn't do that for political reasons but when this project came along Edward Neumeier reminded him and said here's your chance.
They even dressed up Doogie Howser in that nazi uniform near the end to be really super-obvious what their intent was.
The movie also ends with the enemy being scared and tortured to show that the "wrong" side won.
I'll admit up front that I haven't read through all the comments, and this has probably already been said, but I had to vent. Those of us who had read Starship Troopers were bitterly disappointed with the film version. I don't particularly care that this movie was perhaps intended to be satire - fans of the book expected the movie to do more than vaguely resemble Heinlein's story. Maybe they should have had a warning on the posters: "WARNING: this movie is only loosely based on the book. It will appear UTTERLY STUPID to fans of the original story. STAY AWAY if you're one of those fans". Whenever I talk about bad movie adaptions with friends, this movie is first in the discussion. It's as though they got someone to skim through the book, who described the general outlines to the screenwriters, who just did whatever they felt like with it. I still resent this treatment after this long.
Couldn't they have ruined another story for the sake of 'satire', instead of one of my favorite books growing up?
Okay, I'm done ranting, return to your discussion.
Henlein provides convenient scaffolding that's all. Failure to see how the Disney/90201 aesthetics are just as crude and the content of Hollywod films just as propagandistic as soviet/german state propaganda is blind. Verhoven uses all this to enjoyable if far from subtle effect. Failure to see this is worrying as is failure to let go of Heinlein in this context.
Does anyone in their right mind still listens to a critic? All they know how to say is "it stinks" unless they are thrown money or some kind of benefit at them. Even websites like Joystiq get bribed. The only time I have ever listened to critics was for Avatar: The Last Air Bender, because it had received low scores from just about everyone that has seen it. My wife has had the unpleasant experience of seeing it and I give her my sympathies. She said it was one of the worst movies that she had ever seen, and if her best friend (lol... a friend would not do this) wasn't so determined to watch it until the end, she would have left the theater part-way into the film.
I tend to give movies a go, even people say it's bad. I play games that people say it's bad because I refuse to acknowledge it until I actually play it. I know, I'm such an anti-conformist rebel *flicks hair like the goth that I'm not*. Critics tend to hate movies and games that I enjoy so it's hard to listen to their opinions hahaha
Unbelievable, how old is this article this Mr. Marsh (now I'm going to have Primus stuck in my head) looks like he ripped off this very topic from subs /r/movies and /r/scifi this very topic was on there a few months ago.
The fact he thinks people should find it funny that an intellectual property they may really enjoy and potentially only get one chance at seeing in their life gets trashed as a joke makes him a really big negative adjective.
In the movie, the instructor throws a knife through the recruit's hand, and says, "Hard to push a button now, eh?"
I get that the movie is satire. I even get that there's a lot in the book that can be fairly satirized. The problem is, the movie is lazy, unfair, incompetent satire.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
RTFB!
you also have to remember living in the 1990s was far diffrent than looking at it 15 years past due. Movie Critics, Teachers, Government, Corporations, and just about all types of authority figures, newspaper men, and anyone with an official voice in mainstream society was an unbelievable prude in their public life. The concept of satire didn't sit well, and its hard to see anyone in that decade looking past the boobies and co-ed shower scenes.
Then we take the 1990s mainstream society view that being critical of society meant you had some form of defect, or where just being juevinile.
As a teenager I got the satire and parody quite well. Critics didn't "get" the movie, because they just didn't want to hear it, as it raised issues we didn't want to talk about. Mind you this movie also came out BEFORE 9/11 and the current wars.
I hate labels in general. When questioning most people you find they are far more complicated in their views than just "liberal" or "conservative".
Personally I'm tired of being stuffed in one box or the other.
The fact that some people only now see Starship Troopers as perhaps somewhat sarcastic blows my mind. How can you miss it?
I was wondering the same. Happy to see i'm not alone...
I went to see it while keeping in mind all the over-the-top satire that Paul Verhoeven managed to cram into Robocop.
So of course the sarcasm of Starship Trooper was clearly obvious.
(It helps also that I'm European too, though no Dutch)
Meanwhile, I guess most of the US movie goers where expecting a very serious, true-to-the-source adaptation of the books, and probably disliked that not only wasn't this movie dead-serious about the book, the movie even went to criticize and make a joke about the book's theme.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
The movie went in a completely different direction from Heinlein's original, which was a celebration of military and community service.
Everything on the 'Tonight Show' was/is scripted, rehearsed and network censor approved.
Johnny could act, Leno can't. Simple as that.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I've been saying this is a good and under appreciated film since about 3 months after it's release. I was 17 at the time and was already a fan of Paul Verhoeven's work without remembering he directed "Robocop," "Total Recall," "Basic Instinct" and others. "Starship Troopers" pretty much follows the same style and intent as "Robocop."
I instantly recognized that this movie was a parody of the military industrial complex, when i first saw it, long ago. Instead of being something which is meant to appease those who love sitting around and watching the blood splatter, it makes fun of them.
Its not that i am the kind of person who things miliaries are unnecesary. I think that they are vitally necessary. I also view the concept of nations as being vital. This movie depicts the gung-ho type of people who would use propoganda and such to justify the invasion of the domains of the people of other countries for specious reasons.
I am aware of the justifications of Bush in the Iraq war. The problem was that people were responding by supporting a war to invade another country and collectively punish the people of that country, rather than what is the proper response which is to defend the borders of our own country and keep the foreign people out who do not belong here anyway. The problem could have been solved at our own borders and since this was feasible and adequate, it was totally unnecessary in any case to invade another country. My solution to the event of 9-11 is one that would involve no war, no loss of life, and is non-violent, and that means to simply stop letting muslims into the USA, who have their own countries already, who have absolutely no right to come here anyway, and for which there is a sound, solid moral philosophy as to why they should not come here, and the government actually has an obligation to not allow them to come here based on a sound, universal moral philosophy, as I will explain. Compared to the war, this is relatively non violent and kills no one, and is the responsibility of the government to do anyway from the get-go, and is what the US government has done for the most of its history, including under the 1924 Emergency Immigration Act which is the law that we need to have in place today. This really is the only correct response as it is merely defensive and is based entirely upon the sound philosophical and moral philosophy of the function of the government of a nation to protect the founding populations of said nation. The Muslims have their own countries already where they are plentiful. The Muslims already have their own country where they have their own culture and identity. Letting them into a country like the USA only threatens diversity by threatening the unique qualities of the USA, for instance. Immigration between racial-ethnic domains is anti diversity threatens to weaken or destroy the unique qualities of each country, and it is exactly why that form of immigration should not be allowed. Immigration from the USA from Europe was acceptable as the USA was founded as a Christian, European majority realm, and Europe to USA immigration did not alter that national identity or racial demographics of the United States, it was in constistency and continuity with the traditional founding demographics of the country and maintains the uniqueness and distinctiveness of the country. Immigration from other places is not comparable as immigration from say, Asia, is destroying the traditional, unique qualities of the United States as it was founded.
Let us consider a hypothetical. Lets say we took millions of Pakistanis and started to dump them into Japan. Overtime, Japan would start to look more and more like Pakistan and less and less like Japan. By reducing the uniqueness of Japan and the unique, distinct, independant qualities of its population, we would be destroying diversity. The Pakistanis and the Japanese each have their own unique cultures and identities in their own countries, uniqueness which developed because of territorial soveriegnty and exclusivity which allows the population of each respective country to develop independantly, of its own accord, in each its own divergent way. Moving large numbers of people from pakistan to Japan would violate the very things that make Japan unique and threatens to destroy diversity. Only stopping all such immigration can preserve the unique qualities and iden
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
vi +
'Starship Troopers is satire, a ruthlessly funny and keenly self-aware sendup of right-wing militarism,' writes Marsh..
Oh yes, because Obama and the basically democrat majority congress for the past 12 years has proven to be such pacifists.
I think we can safely dispense with such antiquated and biased terms, the left has been no different from the right, most especially since getting the White House.
For evidence, just look at Kerry's 180 turnabout views on recent events, vs Kerry's stance from 8 years ago.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
The attraction of this movie is the same as Battlefield Earth: It's just so bad and painful to watch that it's a fun waste of time.
That, and Dina Meyer.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I bet a lot of the improving reputation has to due with the fact the people who liked it are 16 years older and now are the critics.
lose != loose
The movie obviously spoofed militaristic societies. I could not be sure if the book did this. (Heinlein wrote Stranger is Stange Land the same time which was 1900 degrees to the left of StarTroopers.)
There was a period of time from the mid 1990s to mid 2000s when a special effects industry mastered a particular technique, you saw it in a whole slew of movies. 1998 was the 'Bug year". You saw Antz, Bugs Life, Starship Troopers and a ton of bug shorts at SIGGRAPH.
In recent years F/X have gotten so good that thye no longer dominate the movie plot, and its the story that counts now.
I liked "Starship Troopers", don't get me wrong. But if that director ended up with a brilliant satire, it was purely by accident. And the critics extolling that corny POS (despite its not-bad special effects) are just puffing themselves up .. just like anyone praising Andy Warhol as "great art". Or a chimp throwing paint at a canvas.
The movie was, and is, utterly un-watchable crap. And this is coming from someone who enjoys the occasional "so bad it's good" romp.
Anyone who falls for this deconstructionist drivel is a fool.
See you space cowboy
When I saw the movie all those years ago, it clearly seemed to be a parody of jingoism/militarism. I mean, with the cheesy propaganda news feeds and the reflexive eagerness for warfare, it was quite obviously a parody. I question the premise of this article.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I went to see a Science Fiction Movie based on a Robert Heinlein work.
My impression was that I was looking at bad SF. It didn't look like satire at the time.
If I'd wanted to see satire, I'd have gone to see The Coneheads.
No problem. Few people watched it the way he DID do it. well, at least when it was in theaters. Since it's been on cable for a hundred years now, I expect most people have seen at least part of it at least once.
Verhoeven was about as subtle as a steamroller, and the movie was a fucking hit-piece on Heinlein. I watched it once, and immediately hated it, knowing it for exactly what it was. Masterpiece my aching asshole.
FYI, the reason so many love Peter Jacksons films is he delivers exactly what he is promising you. He recognizes that the works he is retelling are masterpieces and stays true to them.
By comparison, so many SF works get butchered by Hollywood and a lot of it is deliberate. Before going to see Starship Troopers I was very confused that Hollywood had made it into a movie in the first place. I was well aware it expressed ideas and concepts that Hollywood would not be comfortable with. I just didn't understand at the time that movies makers thought they should "improve" or "comment upon" these classics, but would give them the same name to sell tickets. Mind you, I am only a moderate Heinlein fan, while Troops brought up interesting questions, I did not always agree with Heinleins answers, which is fine BTW.
I walked away from the movie understanding is was at least farce. I did not see it as satire and still do not because the director does not really satire the work in question or address the issues brought up, he really just goes off in his own direction. Rather than make his own movie and have his ideas stand on their own two feet, he simply told the audience they were getting one thing (starship troopers) and instead gave the audience another (was it anti-fascist propaganda? An assertion the current military are fascists? the world of the movie bears little resemblance to our own and how exactly would you deal with an enemy you simply wants to kill you? FYI that is what wrong with Troopers also, our real world enemies are nothing like the bugs)
The same was true of I Robot and so many other movies, it is unclear if Hollywood does not understand the books or if they just think (incorrectly) that the stories they want to tell are better. Paradoxically, many great movies really are just retelling of classic stories that Hollywood renamed, perhaps to hide their origin and make it look like their own work? So here is a tip for Hollywood, we the audience DO understand what is going on, you are not fooling anyone. If you want to retell a great story, do that and tell the audience we are getting that. If you want to tell your own story, then do that and make it clear before I pay money for the ticket. Until then we have no choice but to pay very close attention to what those critics you so hate say about a movie, because we have no other way of know what we are putting our money down for otherwise.
Interesting aside, I really liked Fight Club, but at first had no desire to see it. The commercials made it look like another dumb fist fight movie, I only saw it once I found out it was something more.
One more thing, parody of the MI complex was already done and done better. It is called Bill the Galactic Hero.
How could anyone ever not get it?
A space-warring world forcibly united under a pax (versus bugs) (US-)americana, kept in check through brainwashing highschools (with a nod to Pink Floyd) and psi-ops staring at no goats at all, as well as gamified, interactive global military-state television (nicely imagined when few people had ever seen such things, Fox, or even always-on internet) - full of overidentification that probably even North Korea would recognize&ban, and not-too-subtle references to world events, history and plenty of other notably (anti-)war movies...
The big mistake (like for Highlander) was ever making sequels of it.
This is not a surprise to anybody, that has already watched the movie analysis by Rob Ager: http://www.collativelearning.com/Starship%20troopers%20analysis.html .... and in shock and awe from the bugs :)))
The guy nailed it back there, pretty obvious, but let's just say the world was in denial
Now, Make Your WISE Move...
I recognize that the movie was crafted to be multi-layered, satirical, a critique on imperialism, whatever. And I understand it was different in many ways than the book. But to be on a list of "best films", shouldn't the movie have to be written with good dialogue and have at least decent acting? Neither of which, the movie even came close in.
"but also find that society did not become utopia as a result."
I think that was his point, that there isn't a utopia because humanity is flawed. And yet, also simultaneously, humanity is a rather amazing thing.
**********
One of the best answers on slashdot, this thread or in general.
I freaking love Starship Troopers!!
Would you like to know more?
I saw the movie "Starsip Troopers" when it first came out. And I read the book first. There is only a slight similarity between them.
The people that worked on the movie sabotaged it, because they hated Heinlein so much that they could not do it "straight".
They missed almost all of what he was saying, if you read the book you can see that.
At least, you can if you were ever in any kind of militay or rescue organization.
He was not a "war monger", but neither was he a hater of the military. His experiance was in World War II, maybe it is different now...
The movie _Starship Troopers_ had the same relationship to the book that the movie _I, Robot_ had to Isaac Asimov's robot stories, and the movie _World War Z_ to Max Brooks' book - which is to say, negligible to the point of satire - in fact, as has been pointed out already, this was the intention of Van Whatsit the director. No, I haven't seen any of these movies and will do what I can to avoid doing so. I _have_ read the books, though.
Great post, shame I have no modpoints for you. Please post logged-in next time if you can so other people can read your comments! :)
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
I don't vote because its a futile gesture.
There are no viable third parties, and the TP folks are just Bible-thumping pawns of the Koch brothers.
Your calling me a slave is a typical tactic of the right, yet you are all slaves deeply fond of the delusion you are not. The Right in the US are Christian Taliban, religious authoritarians who only want to destroy some government regulation (any their business puppeteerrs dislike) while using the government bludgeon to enforce religious dominionism. There are no secular Libertarians or Constitutionalists who matter. I wish there were, but the US is still too primitive and firmly in the grip of Superstition. Further, the Right are welded at the lips to Tel Aviv's arse, and I'm not down with Superstition-based perpetual wars of no benefit to the US.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
"Libertarians want to *do away* with corporations. "
No, they want to do away with all government regulation of corporations.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
No, they want to do away with all government regulation of corporations.
You're simply wrong - corporations are government creations, and not founded in the principles of liberty.
But if you want to put up a straw man, have fun.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Many posters clearly don't how Verhoeven went about making that movie.
Listen to the director's commentary, think about it, and then come back.
He didn't originally intend to do a movie about the book. The original intent was to write a satirical sci-fi war propaganda movie. Once it started to resemble parts of Starship Troopers, the decision was made to license.
The movie doesn't diverge from the book because they didn't start in the same place.
Frisuren Mittellang 2014 http://2014download.com/frisuren-2014/frisuren-2013-mittellang-2014/
http://2014download.com/frisuren-2014/
Dizzy: My mother always told me that violence doesn't solve anything.
Jean Rasczak: Really? I wonder what the city founders of Hiroshima would have to say about that.
[to Carmen] Jean Rasczak: You.
Carmen: They wouldn't say anything. Hiroshima was destroyed.
Jean Rasczak: Correct. Naked force has resolved more conflicts throughout history than any other factor. The contrary opinion, that violence doesn't solve anything, is wishful thinking at its worst; people who forget that always die.
Jean Rasczak: All right, let's sum up. This year in history, we talked about the failure of democracy. How the social scientists of the 21st Century brought our world to the brink of chaos. We talked about the veterans, how they took control and imposed the stability that has lasted for generations since. We talked about the rights and privileges between those who served in the armed forces and those who haven't, therefore called citizens and civilians.
[to a student] Jean Rasczak: You. Why are only citizens allowed to vote?
Student: It's a reward. Something the federation gives you for doing federal service.
Jean Rasczak: No. Something given has no basis in value. When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force my friends is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.
My first reaction was, might-makes-right is obviously wrong... but I found these ideas very interesting and surprisingly difficult to refute. The movie didn't go on to deepen the discussion beyond showing the ugliness (or not, depending on who you are) of the consequences of such a mentality; yet to this day these quotes still make me think - and that alone is enough to make me consider Starship Troopers a good movie.
That critics didn't hear these two very provocative assertions and see them as big-ass red flags to social commentary... until now?... I don't know what to say about that.
When they hang the antagonist in the end of movie three, it sure looks like a Sodom Hussein necessity/victory.
He is crazy if you think about it; I am not.
I have always thought this film under-appreciated, and I'm not the stereotypical ranting and raving science fiction junkie. It's a fun sci-fi action romp, and Verhoeven really kind of nailed the blending of television and internet just ahead of the curve. But it's also a fun satirization of Heinlein's work: beautiful, young geniuses piloting starships in a society re-engineered to disqualify the underachievers. An important minor role by Neill Patrick Harris is the cherry on the ice cream sundae. I was truly disappointed that the film didn't achieve greater success and spawn sequels (IMO those crap direct-to-video sequels don't count). I consider this film to be as good or better than his bigger box office draws.
This is funny because the book was about giving to your country to be worthy of voting for the direction of the government, the rest had all other privileges, but if you were not willing to give your life you were not able to vote. There were more ways to serve than military, but they all involved risk and indefinite servitude.
Good to see the critics have come around to the obvious. But its still no masterpiece.
"right-wing militarism"??? Civil War started by Southern Democrats - American deaths = 620,000 WWI - War declared by a Democrat - Woodrow Wilson - American deaths = 116,000 WWII - War declared by a Democrat - Franklin Delano Roosevelt - American deaths = 405,000 Korea - War declared by a Democrat - Harry Truman - American deaths = 53,000 Vietnam - War declared by a Democrat - Lyndon Baines Johnson - American deaths = 58,000
America Has More Prisoners Than High School Teachers
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/05/us-prison-population_n_4214626.html
Typical Hollywood liberals rewriting history to support their own opinions
I've always felt that Patton was a great movie because it is loved by both Patton's admirers and detractors, allowing each of them to see what they want to see in the film. It plays about equally well as a pro-Patton and anti-Patton film. As I see it, Starship Troopers roams through that same territory. On the one hand, the bugs represent a genuine threat that require a strong military response, as did the Nazis in Patton. On the other hand, responders in both films glorify their militarism in ways which often cross the insanity borderline, and require no outlandish Mel Brooksian level of exaggeration to provoke laughter and derision from the anti-military crowd. (General Patton was a wack-job, to be sure, but he was OUR wack-job.)
Proves that most film critics need to get real jobs. A week following a police gang task force will cure their lust for violent movies.
The SST movie was closer to parody that satire.
Parody pokes fun at an idea. One expects more style and irony in a satire.
And, yes, I missed the jump suits. Now with CGI sorted out, maybe there can be a remake, but please, please, not in 3D. We could have two sequels, one from the odd numbered chapters, and another from the even numbered ones.
BTW, the Japanese made an anime series from SST. It was a confession (love) story.
--
In order to protect freedom it became necessary to destroy it.
And this is why the military should be used to exterminate all critics by waterboarding them to death with urine.
honestly, one of my favorites, and never understood the hate for it
Not even CLOSE to the book, so it should be retitled...
The book is FAR better, skip the crappy movie...fyi I own the hardcover, am a vet, and read this book before joining the military...and since.
It is a read for many US military officers....
I have walked out on only 2 movies ever...1 was Highlander II, the other was this one...
Might have stayed in if they got even close to the book itself...
SciFi (SyFy) Channel...please do a series remake on this book, just like for Dune, and do it right please to make up for the insult posed by the movie...
It has a story and a plot unlike Burlesque which does not.
Supplying War, by van Creveld. Never thought much about logistics before reading it. Finest kind!
Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.