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.
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.
It's always a good thing by the governments to play the left against the right because in reality it has become more of a divide and conquer strategy to make people fight each other instead of fighting the government. Just look at what public officials can get away with these days.
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.
This is pretty much what I was going to post. This whole "critique of the military-industrial complex" view fails to take into account that the bugs were an actual threat to earth.
Also, the whole "misunderstood masterpiece" bit is absurd. What little satire exists was recognized by the most famous movie critic of all time:
It doesn't really matter, since the Bugs aren't important except as props for the interminable action scenes, and as an enemy to justify the film's quasi-fascist militarism. Heinlein was of course a right-wing saberrattler, but a charming and intelligent one who wrote some of the best science fiction ever. "Starship Troopers'' proposes a society in which citizenship is earned through military service, and values are learned on the battlefield.
Heinlein intended his story for young boys, but wrote it more or less seriously. The one redeeming merit for director Paul Verhoeven's film is that by remaining faithful to Heinlein's material and period, it adds an element of sly satire. This is like the squarest but most technically advanced sci-fi movie of the 1950s, a film in which the sets and costumes look like a cross between Buck Rogers and the Archie comic books, and the characters look like they stepped out of Pepsodent ads.
Ebert still gave the film a paltry 2 out of 4 stars. Whether the director was trying to satirize Heinlein or not, it was still a pretty shabby movie.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Like Stephen Colbert--the best parody of a ludicrous position is often to just embrace it and take it 3 steps further.
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.
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
Not quite. His core belief was, as he put it, there's no such thing as a free lunch. You don't get to live in a free society without being required to defend it.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Also, the whole "misunderstood masterpiece" bit is absurd. What little satire exists was recognized by Roger Ebert
I had just finished reading that review and no, Ebert really missed the boat. Yes he recognized some of the message, but then says this without a hint of irony:
We smile at the satirical asides, but where's the warmth of human nature? The spark of genius or rebellion? If "Star Wars'' is humanist, "Starship Troopers'' is totalitarian.
He got it on the nose, Starship Troopers is the embodiment of totalitarianism -- that's why there is no "spark of rebellion" no "warmth of human nature" its a totalitarian society that has squashed human nature -- and yet he didn't realize it even as he was writing it.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
When it (the movie) first came out, I was mostly in it for the bare boobs. We didn't have Internet access back then.
People frequently misunderstood Heinlein. He wrote about many fictional societies in which he took some idea that sort of sounded good, and pursued it to its logical extreme where it broke.
People read Starship Troopers and see Heinlein as a fascist, instead of seeing the book as illustrating the good and bad sides to such a society from the point of view of someone living there. We're all brainwashed by our culture to some extent, after all, because that's what culture is.
People read Moon Is A Harsh Mistress and see Heinlein as a Libertarian (gotta watch those libertarian fascists!), instead of seeing the book as illustrating the good and bad sides to such a society from the point of view of someone living there.
In both books our heroes defeat the major dramatic conflict, but also find that society did not become utopia as a result.
The movie was a shallow satire. The book was a thoughtful morality play. I still like the movie though, as was far more annoyed by the lack of jumpsuits than the political fun.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
They weren't a threat, until we incited them to attack. IIRC, that was only quietly suggested in the movie, and easy enough to miss, but it was there.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
canadian_right confessed:
I've always enjoyed the movie Star Ship Troopers as a satire of fascism and chauvinism. I thought it conveyed the spirit of the book, if a bit skewed, quite well.
Oh, for criminy's sake! A "satire of fascism and chavinism" that "conveyed the spirit of the book"? Give to me a break.
The two things are ENTIRELY mutually exclusive. You can convey the spirit of Heinlein's final juvenile novel, or you can make a "satire of fascism and chauvinism", but you cannot do both. In fact, I'm reminded of Heinlein's own observation that, "A man may choose to follow the path of faith, or the path of reason. He cannot do both."
Starship Troopers, the novel, is a straightforward exposition of the process by which callow teenagers are transformed into trained soldiers. There's no trace of sexism in it, and no hint of fascism, either. (That Heinlein sets the story in a society in which an individual must serve the public for a period - remarks he made in response to interviews published over the years made it clear that he did not envision military service as the only option - before being granted the sovereign franchise does NOT amount to "fascism".) The movie, by contrast, discards every trace of what makes the book effective as a coming-of-age tale, replaces Heinlein's social model with a truly fascist one, and makes the military's leadership a clown college (Space marines using carbines against the Bugs? Really?), to boot. It has NOTHING to do with the book, besides sharing a title.
You, sir, are a ninnyhammer.
Check out my novel.
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.
You are supposed to watch it in 15 minute intervals.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Niven's Law: "There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake the opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author. The term is "idiot."
I have seen no evidence that Heinlein believed that the idea of Citizenship in ST should be realized. If you can cite some credible, non-fiction source where Heinlein advocates the realization of the governmental form for found in ST, I would be most interested. I believe Heinlein was a strong believer in one realizing the existence of, and paying one's debts to society, and nothing more.
Secondly, you err in your statement re: ST "That only those who serve in the military and commit violence...." Full-Citizenship afforded one the opportunity to vote, hold elected office, and teach the high school History and Moral Philosophy course. Obtaining this required NATIONAL SERVICE of some sort, the form of which was based upon the needs of society and the aptitude and skills of the individual in question. There was ABSOLUTELY NO requirement that one serve in the military nor participate in some form of violence (war?) in the name of their country. You are incorrectly trying to tie the requirement of jingoistic beliefs with citizenship requirements in Starship Troopers. Perhaps you should go back and read it again.
Thirdly, the article is about the MOVIE by Paul Verhoeven, not Heinlein novel. The movie does indeed poke fun at jingoistic ideals, portrays a fascist government, etc. whose military intelligence service wears SS-like uniforms, has a national news service that uses heavy-handed propaganda techniques. I had not read any of the critiques of the movie upon its release, and am surprised that these obvious themes and messages weren't remarked upon.
I guess by my 'nick you can guess I'm a bit of a Heinlein fan. :-)
I will note that the movie made no attempt to delve into the political statements made in the book.
Not in so many words perhaps. But they're there, mostly subtle. Watch it again, ignoring the violence, nudity, and spaceships. I watched it in the theaters the first time and thought it was absolute crap. I watched it at home recently a second time, and I actually surprised myself at how much I enjoyed it.
It's like a brilliant Pixar movie, but live action and for adults instead of children. I.e., in a Pixar movie, the kids are entertained, but the adults get all the subtlety. In Starship Troopers, the adults are entertained, only certain people will get all the subtlety.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Close. You don't get to live in a free society without being required to contribute something to it. As I said elsewhere, the book was explicit about *Federal* service being a requirement for citizenship, not *military* service. He did make the distinction. He also made the distinction that the only real benefit to citizenship over being a civilian was being able to vote. The main character's father was a very successful businessman, but he was not a citizen.
Considering the way people on /. routinely blast voting it's pretty damn hypocritical to now use that as an excuse to attack the author and his book.
About a year after the movie came out I was in the book store and found a book about the making of the SST movie. In it they talk about the guys who originally wrote the script wanting to make a movie about WW1 soldiers fighting bugs. They couldn't find any takers. Someone said they should look at SST because it was about soldiers fighting bugs. They did, liked it, convinced Virginia Heinlein to option the movie rights to them, and they managed to get Verhoeven involved. He wanted to make a movie that satirized his experiences with fascist states and took it in that direction, and repeatedly admitted that he never bothered reading the book. When the budget cuts came and it was a choice between power armor and bugs, bugs won out because that was the point of the movie. Total hatchet job.
It may be a meta-satire, expecting lefties to look for parts they think is hilarious, but at an even deeper level approving it. Like the citizenship idea - something earned by e.g. being willing to put your life on the line for your country, by taking a personal responsibility. In a way, it's just an amplification of JFK's "ask not what your country can do for you ..." line.
FWIW: Paraphrasing, Chauvinism's original definition is the unwavering and unquestioning belief in an idea / cause / leader etc.
Chauvinism was picked up by feminists, and under the variant "Male Chauvinism", as in an unquestioning belief in male superiority. Over time, this got shortened to Chauvinism again, masking the original meaning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauvinism
No basic? Really? The Starship Troopers I saw had a long sequence of basic, including the scene where Rico screws up, gets someone killed, and takes a bunch of lashes. I don't know that it's word for word what was in the book (haven't read it in many years) but it was pretty darned close.
Rico does not get anyone killed in basic training in the novel. In the novel, Rico gets lashes for conduct that, in real combat, would have caused serious injury or death to his fellow soldiers (he fires a fake nuclear rocket at a target without ordering the recruits nearby to clear the area first).
There is technically a part of the movie in which Rico is in basic training, but its relationship to the related parts of the book is essentially in name only. The basic scenes in the novel are specifically the part of the novel where Rico's indoctrination into the MI causes him to begin to understand - for good or bad - what society had been trying to teach him about morality and public service, and how rights and responsibilities are necessarily intertwined.
The critical difference between Starship Troopers the movie and Starship Troopers the novel is that in the novel the MI (and the Federal government in general) are a competent, moral (by some definition), integrated part of the overall government and society and the choice to serve or not serve is portrayed as a fair choice: some people want to and can serve, some people don't want to or cannot serve. Those who do not serve have nearly all the rights of those who do not: the main two rights they don't get are the right to serve in law enforcement or the federal government, and the right to vote.
I should point out here that originally, only property owners had the right to vote in the United States under the Constitution. And the rationale for that restriction is spelled out in the Federalist papers as very similar to that espoused by the fictional government in the novel. In the Federalist papers, its stated that in effect, it did not make sense for people without any "skin in the game" to have the power to dictate what the government did by voting. If you didn't own property, you couldn't be taxed (the income tax didn't exist yet). The logic was that only people who pay taxes should decide how they were spent. That notion of suffrage evolved over time as the role of government began to affect everyone increasingly whether they were property owners or not. But in the novel, the rationale for only giving veterans the right to vote is: they've proven they are willing to give up *all* their rights to serve others, even if only temporarily. And in fact, veterans have the right to vote but *active military* does not.
This is a vast contrast to the movie, where the MI is portrayed as cartoonish incompetent fools and jingoish lunatics. Rico never comes to the realizations he does in the novel regarding morality and responsibility. First he joins out of peer pressure (granted, he does this in the novel also). Then he stays to seek revenge for Buenos Aires (he decides to stay in the novel when he realizes he now agrees with his moral history teacher's teachings about responsibility and service). Then out of the blue he gives a weird eulogy for Dizzy that I guess is supposed to parallel his decision to join OCS in the novel, but there's absolutely no character growth leading up to that point at all.
Rico has an actual character arc in the novel which *is* the whole story. Rico in the movie is a literal marrionette, yanked around to dance whatever dance is required in each scene, without any character arc at all. And without that character arc, there is no story. Instead, Starship Troopers the movie is a movie where Stuff Just Happens. Its often visually entertaining Stuff That Happens, but there's no real story connecting the Stuff That Happens.
The movie, by contrast, discards every trace of what makes the book effective as a coming-of-age tale, replaces Heinlein's social model with a truly fascist one, and makes the military's leadership a clown college (Space marines using carbines against the Bugs? Really?), to boot. It has NOTHING to do with the book, besides sharing a title.
If you look at other 'serious' films that Verhoeven has directed, you'll quickly see that he's got a major bee in his bonnet about the effects of Nazism on his birthplace, the Netherlands. Take a look at Soldier of Orange or The Black Book. They're brilliant, subtle and morally complex treatments of life (and death) in a time when the world was turned upside down by a sadistic totalitarian regime.
Clearly, Verhoeven appropriated the frame that Starship Troopers provided for his own purposes: to satirise not only fascism and the incipient militarism of American society, but also the wanton war-porn that Hollywood loves so much. It is a bitter, bitter film.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
People often forget why service was pushed so hard. You could not vote in an election if you weren't a veteran. The reason why veterans were the only voting group was because they were the ones who rebuilt the government after it collapsed. No politician from that day forward could send someone to war without knowing the horrors of it.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
When I first saw it my brain was a bit fried from an intense work day. I wanted a dumb as crap movie that I could tune out to. Fellow devs at the time said, "it's just mindless action." OK, good enough for me. But when I watched it it was a deep critique of society as a nascent fascist state. I actually liked it, a lot. If you have ever seen the propaganda movies of WW2, and enough footage from the Third Reich then "Starship Troopers" is a brilliant movie. Not much to do with the book though. I liked how you were suckered into thinking you were on the good side until it slowly became obvious that you were on the wrong, very wrong, side. The intelligence guy, whats-is-name, dressed like a gestapo officer, executing prisoners, conducting experiments on prisoners. Even the uniforms, nice versions of German WW2 military uniforms.
Most frightening part was that most people I knew who saw it didn't even realise that it was about a fascist state. Oh crap that was creepy. Not one of the great movies, but underrated I think.
Bitter and proud of it.
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
I agree with almost everything you wrote here. I'll just pick one nit.
He got in trouble for not taking his training seriously enough. The formal charges were "taking actions that could have resulted in death in real combat" but what he actually did was:
They were training in "simulated darkness" using infra-red "snooper scopes" which were a bit of a pain. He got frustrated and flipped the cope up and used unaided vision to check to see if anyone was in the area; because there was actually plenty of light he was able to see that it was safe. Indeed, he felt smug for being clever enough to do it that way... for avery brief time. However, the training suits had sensors that recorded the fact that he had flipped the scope up, and that is why he got in trouble.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
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
reflected the chauvinism of the nationalist, technocratic exceptionalism of the '50s -better living through chemistry, etc that presaged the rise of the military industrial complex and corporatism masking itself as progress.
Oh, yeah, that's Heinlein, all right, as exemplified by his very next book, Stranger in a Strange Land.
Look, Robert Heinlein was a writer of speculative fiction. The whole damn point was to extrapolate, odd consequences included. Which is why you get such radically different results (Double Star, Starship Troopers, Stranger in a Strange Land, and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, for example, all having completely incompatible takes on modern democracy) depending on what premises Heinlein was playing with at the time.
Ideally making the point to the thoughtful reader that the reader's society and that society's accepted theories, conscious and unconscious, are just as guilty of absurdities as those explored in the books. But some readers are too dense to notice that, and some are so invested in the propriety of their absurdities that they abandon all rational thought in their defensive denouncements.
Heinlein was a master of science fiction because like Roddenberry he knew that the widgets of tech and culture in the story were just props to disassociate the reader from his JOB, to let him focus on the morality play. His stories were not really about future science or culture - that was just the setting. The stories were about people, the conflicts that arise between them and how they were resolved. If he worked some social commentary into the props that was just his masterful art.
He tried it the other way unsuccessfully, and frankly a 2-page footnote just loses the whole thing. That was a total loss, a commercial failure.
People care about the interplay between people. Only.
He was more open about exploring how familial relationships impact a culture. What he got out of that was hippies camped on his lawn.
BTW: One night over bridge (they did this regularly, with generous libations) L. Ron Hubbard and RAH made a $1 bet over who could create the better sci-fi religion. LRH gave us Battleship Earth and Scientology. RAH gave us Stranger In a Strange Land and the Universal Life Church. Eventually RAH wrote: "Here's your buck. Get these hippies off my lawn." LRH fell into the adoration of his self-created church, and RAH escaped capture from his.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Being a J1 and being a soldier and getting shot at are worlds apart when it comes to risk and sacrifice. Not in the same league in the slightest.
Being a Peace Corps volunteer serving in Afghanistan or Madagascar (I personally know people who have done both) where you are running around in places of extreme poverty and risking the potential to be shot simply by being an American.... and only armed with a stack of pamplets or the Voice of America radio broadcasts is definitely worlds apart from a soldier who has a bunch of people at his back and an arsenal of weapons at their disposal to be able to shoot back.
Which one risks their life more? Seriously?
Verhoven films usually are a social commentary embedded in a nice action flick - so you can enjoy it as a pure action movie, or analyze it for the subtext. Robocop is another one commenting about society and policing. And oddly, it seems we're definitely headed towards the world Robocop was set in. Only took nearly 30 years.
Anyhow, Starship Troopers, the book, was also designed to be a commentary about war and propaganda as well.
Of course, the problem is that Starship Troopers is much more complex than the film technology we had back in the day. Notably, power suits. Trivially done today with CG and costumes, but back then, technology wasn't robust enough.
Of course, the problem with remakes (like 2014's Robocop) is that they're likely to ignore the entire subtext, or make it so blindingly obvious that the message being communicated is lost.
The real disturbing moment was when I rewatched the movie a few years after 9/11 and realized just how much it had anticipated correctly.
Does it still count as satire when it's so spot on?
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
It was pretty easy to connect back in 1997, even in rural areas:
Step 1: Walk to the mail box
Step 2: Remove the daily unsolicited floppy disk
Step 3: Follow the printed instructions
Welcome to the Information Super Highway!*
*Long distance charges may apply if you do not select a LOCAL AOLnet phone number. Please check with your local telephone company if you have a question.
Required reading for internet skeptics
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!