Slashdot Mirror
'How We Made Starship Troopers' (theguardian.com)
The Guardian quotes Paul Verhoeven, the director of Starship Troopers:
Robert Heinlein's original 1959 science-fiction novel was militaristic, if not fascistic. So I decided to make a movie about fascists who aren't aware of their fascism... I was looking for the prototype of blond, white and arrogant, and Casper Van Dien was so close to the images I remembered from Leni Riefenstahl's films. I borrowed from Triumph of the Will in the parody propaganda reel that opens the film, too. I was using Riefenstahl to point out, or so I thought, that these heroes and heroines were straight out of Nazi propaganda...
With a title like Starship Troopers, people were expecting a new Star Wars. They got that, but not really: it stuck in your throat. It said: "Here are your heroes and your heroines, but by the way -- they're fascists."
The actors weren't even clear on what the giant arachnids would look like, since their "Bug" battles were filmed entirely with green screens, remembers one of the movie's stars, Denise Richards. Instead Verhoeven "would be there jumping up and down with a broom in the air so we would have a sense of how big they were."
Verhoeven told one interviewer that he never actually read Robert Heinlein's original book. "I stopped after two chapters because it was so boring. It is really quite a bad book."
With a title like Starship Troopers, people were expecting a new Star Wars. They got that, but not really: it stuck in your throat. It said: "Here are your heroes and your heroines, but by the way -- they're fascists."
The actors weren't even clear on what the giant arachnids would look like, since their "Bug" battles were filmed entirely with green screens, remembers one of the movie's stars, Denise Richards. Instead Verhoeven "would be there jumping up and down with a broom in the air so we would have a sense of how big they were."
Verhoeven told one interviewer that he never actually read Robert Heinlein's original book. "I stopped after two chapters because it was so boring. It is really quite a bad book."
"he never actually read Robert Heinlein's original book"
well not that shocked.
lose != loose
How did we make Starship Troopers?
Like a piece of shit.
We're almost back to full fascism with the democrats:
- Black-shirts: Antifa
- Propaganda: Fake News machine
- State police: FBI and DOJ colluding with politicians
- Racial policies: Most of the DNC's program
- Personally cult: Obama and others, usually identity representatives
Of course, to a large degree this situation is a response to the Cons' retardation.
It was a great book. Now I know why the movies stank.
What a team, back in the day. Ed Neumeier was also scripitwriter on the Verhoeven-directed RoboCop and a lot of the tone in both movies can be attributed to him. I can definitely feel the same style of humour in both movies.
Neumeier did not work on the RoboCop sequels, and I think a lot of that is why they were so different, without the same edge.
And now there are rumours that Neumeier would be working on a stand-alone sequel to the original RoboCop, based off an outline that he wrote decades ago. We'll see...
The Starship Troopers sequels weren't very good IMHO so I'm afraid that he could have lost it.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
... it's always kinda funny, to see superhero movies being so popular in US culture...
When they were literally invented as the US version of the German Übersoldat Nazi propaganda movies, and for precisely same reason.
The Übersoldat (super soldier) was the image of the perfect, augmented through eugenics, soldier. The typical blond blue-eyed brainwashed monstrosity.
My grandma actually met the real deal before the end of the war: SS soldiers from the Hitler Youth. She said, they weren't humans anymore. Their behavior and mannerism were inhuman, psychopathic, strange, and hence super-creepy. Kinda like real-life Daleks, without the theatricals, in human skins, with a friendly smile on their faces.
In Germany, we would never dare to make movies glorifying anything even remotely close to something like that, given everything it implies.
I guess that's the difference in perspective on war and augmented "master race" humans, between the losing and the winning side... *tips hat to congratulate you*
Just... be careful, America.
Your culture's vibe right now is just waaay to close to how it started over here, back then.
Safety tips from a German: Make sure the jobs are safe, the pride in your country is healthy, and there's no scapegoat group, nor a feel that one is needed.
And don't elect somebody who is good at rhetorics and tells you he'll make you great again, but has fucked-up plans. (That's precisely what Hitler did.)
Because all those Italians and Spaniards were very blonde.
Verhoeven grew up in German occupied Netherlands during WWII.
How did the studio think he was going to adapt a movie based on a book that glorified a militaristic society?
Though it is a kind of fun concept. Now I'm kinda interested to see Romeo and Juliet from a director going through a nasty divorce or an SF thriller directed by a technophobe.
I stole this Sig
Both of you are wrong about the book. Heinlein defended it quite well, so I don't need to.
Anyway Verhoeven didn't read it, and I suspect you didn't as well.
But thanks for jumping on some internet meme bandwagon.
The original article, as saved by the Internet Archive, had a slightly different subtitle:
‘I borrowed from the films of Leni Riefenstahl to show that these US soldiers were like something out of Nazi propaganda. I even put one in an SS uniform. But no one noticed’
(Emphasis added to highlight the text that was removed).
The current version has a note at the bottom saying:
The subheading of this article was amended on 23 January 2018 to remove a reference to US soldiers.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
The movie stands as an excellent counterpoint to the book. Anyone that can't handle that is obviously a bit more happy with the idea of managed democracy than they'd like to let on.
semantics are everything!
Except for the fact that the wrong woman died in it.
I was thinking, there were a occasional similarities between the book and film that didn't seem random... someone must have read it. Then I realized that most of them were names, and most of those did appear in the first few chapters.
So I'm thinking it's possible. Borrow a few names, write a bleeding heart attack on the premise of the book (without ever even trying to understand it) and you have Starship Troopers, definitely one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Even Plan 9 and Robot Monster were fun as unintentional comedy.
Paul Verhoeven misinterpets Heinlen's work as fascist and makes a movie that satirizes fascism, which in turn gets many people upset at Verhoeven for glorifying fascism.
Let me just say we are already screwed, even if it isn't fully obvious outside the U.S. yet (or to the sheepish masses inside the country...)
Furthermore we've got the technology and entertainment infrastructure to keep the people both oppressed and placated, unlike Nazi Germany and the Soviet Era East German regime. Everything is in place for a society even more fascist and an ethnic/sexual/cultural purge that will make everything shy of the Soviet/Communist Chinese starvation events pale in comparison.
I can only hope that enough of the 96 percent is purged to leave what is left in a position to make meaningful change (probably by purging an additional 1 percent that is the current financial backers/leadership of the USA.) Short of that, there is no hope left. They have a nationwide license plate scanning network available to ICE. The government has stated they can coerce companies into installing hardware/software backdoors without any legal oversight requirements. The warrantless wiretapping bills, including on domestic citizens on domestic calls, has been renewed. Oh and they are trying to push legislation for a national biometric card/id database again. I am sure there are laws/events I am leaving out, but the current climate in the U.S. is already far into oligarchal fascist territory, and short of a massive uprising from the citizenry, only emigration offers an opportunity for US citizens whose voices are no longer heard.
For someone who doesn't need to defend something, you sure are acting defensive.
Paul Verhoeven; Robert Heinlein has a body of work that will always exceed Verhoeven's. Genre. Robert Heinlein was writing to teen boys to give them a vision of tomorrow taking many paths; some good some not so good. Read 5th Column for example. Or Stranger in a Strange Land. Not reading the book, then assuming the society Heinlein built was one where service to the state gave you a vote, was a concept for fascism? Funny. That was akin to the first thoughts of the 'Founding Fathers' of the United States. Landowners and white men only club. Was that fascist? No. They assumed education was the hallmark of a good society. They also built an adaptive structure.
The underlining principle was 'put up or shut up.' Civilians could step up to the line and if they wouldn't, shut up. Even in the book no one was denied a chance to serve. Even a paraplegic could serve in some way, could earn their citizenship. That is fascist? They would find you a task to serve your people, so earn what you wanted. A vote.
It was also why I found the movie so boring. The book was more interesting. Too bad he could not take a day or two in the preproduction schedule and read the material. Perhaps read a few more of Heinlein's works to get a better viewpoint. If I was his employer I would have fired him for lack of due diligence. I am sure there were other good producer ready and waiting.
"I even put one in an SS uniform. But no one noticed."
In the Hollywood press maybe. In the theater, my friend turned to me and exclaimed, "It's Doogie Himmler!"
"Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
"he never actually read Robert Heinlein's original book" well not that shocked.
Verhoeven had an agenda and searched for a vehicle to present that agenda it just so happened the name of the book seemed a good vehicle for him.
From wiki: "Ken Macleod argues that the book does not actually advocate fascism because anybody capable of understanding the oath of Federal Service is able to enlist and thereby obtain political power. Macleod states that Heinlein's books are consistently liberal, but cover a spectrum from democratic to elitist forms of liberalism, Starship Troopers being on the latter end of the spectrum. It has been argued that Heinlein's militarism is more libertarian than fascist, and that this trend is also present in Heinlein's other popular books of the period, such as Stranger in a Strange Land (1961) and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (1966)."
*** Spoler Alert *** Verhoeven also injects racism where there is none, again part of his agenda that has nothing to do with the actual book. John Rico, aka Juan Rico, is not white, not an "aryan", he is of Philippine descent if I remember correct. He is obviously portrayed as Hispanic on the book cover in pre-movie printings.
Considered the last of Heinlein's juveniles, Starship Trooper is a Hugo winner and a true classic. Paul Verhoeven's movie is a travesty, raped the book, and doesn't deserve to carry the title.
Why is all the good stuff already modded 5, when I have mod points?
... read Gordie Dickson's Dorsai!. Starship Troopers is something very, very different, and more difficult to dismiss. You can't put Heinlein in a neat box because he challenges you, and himself. That's what makes Heinlein a great writer where Dickson is merely an entertaining one.
Don't get me wrong, I really like Dickson, he's just not on Heinlein's level.
Now is Starship Troopers militaristic? Absolutely. Is it fascist? I think not, although I can see the appeal for the simple-minded fascist. It is a militaristic novel that questions the concept of fundamental individual rights.
But I don't think Heinlein was a fascist, I think he was a ferocious skeptic. What if you organized a society around something other than inherent an inalienable individual rights? What's telling is the Heinlein makes this world neither a dystopia nor a utopia; it's just workable. Fascists are always selling a formula for establishing a kind of golden age.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
He bought the rights to the book so the studio thought it was another American fuck-yeah pro-war movie, the studio didn't even know it was satire until it hits the screen.
Genius.
Before we got to see Power Armor.
The second movie reminded me of Screamers.
The third movie wasn't bad, but I loved the line:
"It's the wrong god."
I saw the 4th one, I don't remember it...
The book should probably come with a warning that it may be too intense for adults.
I read it as a kid, and devoured all the ideas, though, oddly, I did't become militaristic or in any way right-wing. Vietnam was going on, and you could see where real wars end up.
The review by James Davis Nicol highlights the stuff that I thought was cooool as a kid, and gagged at as a grownup:
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/r... ...Rico is a very young war criminal in scenes where the "demonstration of firepower and frightfulness" (heh: now, "shock and awe") includes toasting a church congregation of the "Skinnies" with his flamethrower, and looking for the town's water treatment plant with his micro-nuke. (After a 25-year career with the local waterworks, I know that's germ warfare...)
And it sinks in that the basic philosophy is that humanity must grow, must colonize forever, to live, constantly expanding through the galaxy, and that any species also wanting the same "real estate" must be fought. The word "liebensraum" does come into the mind.
Heinlein had a few philosophies to expound, of course, and the whole rest of the book is built around having some reason to have a busy military with occasional heavy losses and routine light losses. Oh, and a need to assault planets from space with anything smaller than nukes.
He wanted to look right inside the mind of a military volunteer who understands that this will likely enough cost his life or at least limbs, and accepts it as the noble thing to do, to sacrifice the, ah, One for the Many. It is made clear what the movie did even better, that Rico, while well-indoctrinated with the understanding of this nobility, that only those who have done this are worthy of voting rights, really joins to impress a girl. (In the promo book for the movie, writers said they asked actual Soldiers and vets if that was corny. They were told with grins that it is still common.)
The key to the training section (classic military book structure: first bit is training camp, then on to the story of actual battles; see Full Metal Jacket, Dirty Dozen, etc) is that when Rico internalizes and accepts the noble reason rather than the girl reason, "The noblest fate a man can endure is to place his mortal body between his beloved home and war's desolation" (I just typed that from memory...jeez.), then the torturous training camp is suddenly almost easy.
Heinlein's defense in "Expanded Universe" noted the book is "militaristic" specifically to the Army/Marines, rival services to his beloved Navy, where at least you usually die with a full belly and not frozen in a trench; that it's a love letter to the heroic sufferings of "the doughboy, the duckfoot....the thin red line of heroes". This is hardly more militaristic than the displays at most American parades and football games, and obviously, Veteran's Day. That's fine.
It's setting up that story in a world where human expansion makes war with aliens inevitable, that's the problem. And the war-crime stuff. He could have set up his war-needing-environment with a need for pure defense of home, and outlined some rules of war descended from Geneva Conventions rather than the chapter "Caesar Chastens Gaul" of his memoir.
That he was pushing out the endless-expansion thing instead is all the more problematic in that the Bugs were a pure Communism by nature, oddly enough, and the real geopolitical concern of the time was that the First World (us) was in a game of Risk with the Second World (communist countries) fighting over the rest of the global real estate. Tends to make anybody even faintly left look askance. I was mercifully unaware of all this, enjoying it at 11. (1970) And on re-reads though teen years. I missed Vietnam by both nationality (Canadian) and a few years of time; Boomer Americans were probably clearer on it.
Salon.com seems to have lost the 1997 review that nailed the movie's total fa
Then you've been willfully ignorant. The US has seen a rise in nazis and there have been marches, rallies, and violent crimes committed by nazis including murder.
Actually no, a rare psycho murder claiming to be a nazi is not evidence of a rise in nazi'ism. Its just evidence of a psycho. No more evidence than of Charles Manson being evidence of the rise of murderous hippies.
Today, most self-proclaimed Nazis in the US are little more than racist cosplayers. Little different from the run of the mill racist. The radical racist element of US society is dying out, nazi, klan, etc, Southern Poverty Law Center statistics are evidence of this. Its regrettable they are not dying out at a faster rate, yet they are. Their numbers are on a very long decline and today they are quite the anomaly. Sure the few that exist over a large region can come together and pose for the camera like in Charolette. Such a temporary clustering of normally geographically disperse individuals is not evidence of any "rise". These freaks remain quite rare.
Whatever keeps 'em thinking they live on a planet.
Space is fake. The Earth is flat. The eclipses prove it.
Solar Eclipse: https://vimeo.com/230976895
Light of the chromosphere can be observed on the back of the moon.
Lunar Eclipse: https://vimeo.com/92378881
Shadow is black, then changes color to reddish.
Next lunar eclipse: January 30/31, 2018 mid-to-west North America
The original article, as saved by the Internet Archive, had a slightly different subtitle:
‘I borrowed from the films of Leni Riefenstahl to show that these US soldiers were like something out of Nazi propaganda. I even put one in an SS uniform. But no one noticed’
(Emphasis added to highlight the text that was removed).
The current version has a note at the bottom saying:
The subheading of this article was amended on 23 January 2018 to remove a reference to US soldiers.
Given that the characters were from Buenos Aires in the movie that does seem like a reasonable edit. Admittedly they did speak English but, well, it doesn't seem a bit unlikely that the soldiers in the movie were specifically supposed to be US soldiers.
He makes a movie where the heros are fascists, the problem is that they are still very clearly heros. So the movie is basically just nazi propaganda with "Slavs" replaced by "Arachnids", and "Jews" replaced by "non-citizens", and "Aryans" replaced by "Citizens". Their is nothing antifascist about that.
I always thought it was a great film, and in particular complimented the novel well. While Heinleine's novel featured a society that was incredibly anti-militaristic, and anti-fascist these were not important themes for the action adventure aspect of the storyline. The fascism is more or less necessitated by the dumbing down that any movie would need to do. Verhoeven makes it seem like some masterstroke, but it really was the easiest route to a movie.
One thing I have never understood is how many people claim it has nothing whatsoever to do with the novel. Yes, 99% of the novel is cut, but 99% of the novel is just a ongoing monologue about how much freedom this society grants the individual and how good that is and how bad totalitarianism is. Something that never could of made it into any film worth watching. In the story bugs attack earth, attack back and get ambushed, then capture brain bug. That is the storyline
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
From Merriam-Webster:
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
- https://www.merriam-webster.co...
I keep hearing/reading about people who think the book Starship Troopers is about a fascistic society and I don't get it, especially when I compare the society expressed in the book to definitions of fascism.
Juan Rico, who is revealed to be Filipino at the end of the book and we don't know where he grew up, joins up to win the ability to vote and is trained in a melting pot camp in Western Canada (I'm presuming that because of the name of the camp, Arthur Currie). There is no discussion, let alone glorification of a central "leader", nor is there any apparent racism.
There is what we would consider brutal corporal punishment rather than incarceration, but this is a result of the society's "superior" (from the perspective of the book's characters) understanding of psychology. When the book was written, hanging was still a common form of capital punishment and public hangings had only ended about 25 years before.
I've always read in the book as being set in a society that resulted after a terrible war and is presented by people who had that experience and perspective.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
"I even put one in an SS uniform. But no one noticed"
I noticed and thought it was stupid. Besides having bugs and humans, it was obvious that very little of the book made it to the movie.
Great bugs, though.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
boring. It is really quite a bad book."
Is there something wrong with the Dutch translation of the book?
It's had to argue with such elegant and well supported points.
You have a flair for rhetorical persuasion. Have you considered politics or the theatre, Sir?
Bravo!
The absence of racism is actually a classical trait of fascism. The state defines the proper beliefs and conduct of a citizen. A person who conforms to these is considered a proper citizen despite religion, color of their skin, etc. In short, a proper citizen is defined by their behavior.
So yes the radical pro-violence elements of Antifa are fascist, being antiracist does not change this. These elements of Antifa perfectly line up with another classical trait of fascism, the belief that violence is moral if it serves a desired political goal.
Fascism is neither a creature of the left nor right, it borrows from both as necessary to acquire or maintain power. Its omnivorous, anything that serves its agenda at the moment is "good". So being left oriented does not change the fact that the violent elements of Antifa are fascist either.
I'm a big Heinlein fan, and "Starship Troopers" is a GREAT book.
The book is more philosophical than militaristic, the lead character was Juan Rico, a Filipino from Luzon. To cast Van Diem in the role simply proves that Verhoeven had never actually READ the book. In the book, all of the "Mobile Infantry" are men, but all of the starship pilots are women.
The movie of "Starship Troopers" was a horrible movie. No "Mobile INfantry", no drop capsules coming in from orbit, no philosophy, no morals. Just guts and core. There;s one scene in which the M.I. troopers on the ship are having a mass, co-ed, naked shower scene, This was, frankly, the ONLY redeeming value in the entire movie.
I heard your bleating. I am not impressed.
You came so close yet remain so far.
So? The U.S. military was happy to send native americans, latinos and blacks off to kill an eventual 6 million people between the Korean and Vietnam wars, yet the there was more than enough racism for those people to come back home to after "serving their country".
I think everyone is attaching to much political significance to this and other movies. If anything the movie fails to capture the moral ambivalence of the book. Heinlein in the best of times was snarky in the extreme. If anything the movie failed to capture the quality of the stupidity of the actions of the government and the military. Movies are mostly made for C student who are High School Juniors. Many movie goers would not get preachy messages right left or center and if they did they would not like it.
Obviously the movie came first but I have always been struck with the parallels between the book and 9/11.
The aggressive military response to the initial attack in the movie corresponds with the aggressive military response of the US after 9/11 which are still going on today. The obsessive search for Osama bin Laden matches up with the effort to kill the "brain" bug.
In the movie, humans intrude on bug territory with colonies, in real life we have Israel setting up settlements in the Gaza strip and elsewhere.
Finally, from the American perspective, the motive and mind of the Arabs are as inscrutable as the motive and mind of the bugs are to the humans in Starship Troopers. This is the biggest problem and the reason the conflict still continues today - we don't understand each other.
Answering a response made things a little clearer ...
In Heinlein's Starship Trooper universe voting is an "earned" right, not a "birth" right. It is earned by volunteering and completing service that is hazardous, military or construction. Anyone may serve and ultimately attain the right to vote, accommodations are made for those with disabilities so that they may serve. The only obstacle to service is volunteering. The core idea is that through service you risked your life for others, this "earns" you the right to vote.
Once honorably discharged from service a person now has the right to vote. They are free to vote in any manner they chose. The government will follow the majority of the voters. There is no fascist dictate from government. The enfranchised elite have "earned" the right to believe whatever they chose to in a political power sense, their majority has "earned" the right to direct the government. The voters are in control.
Because there are multiple scenes completely faithful to the book.
I thought Starship Troopers was a better adaption than many hollywood adaptions.
The propaganda reels were funny but the characters in the universe were serious and respected.
I can't really say they were successful but war is hell. I particularly liked Radick. Ironside did a good job with him.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I agree it isn't a single fascist leader, but the military effectively gets to decide who can vote.
No. The only obstacle to service was volunteering. Service is not required to be military in nature, there are also those doing hazardous construction (on moons/asteroids/etc). No one volunteering was considered "unfit" for service. If a person had a disability there were to be somehow accommodated and allowed to contribute and serve, and of course be at risk. The military could decide who could serve in the infantry, who could serve as ship's crew, etc ... but they could not deny all types of service to a volunteer, they had to find some accommodating role somewhere.
Those are people who have gone through training where they are taught to follow orders without question (for the safety of themselves and others), that their enemies (militarily or politically) are not people, and that the military is important. Anyone who doesn't learn these lessons is unlikely to survive. This makes for something very similar to having a society run by the military.
No. These people are free to believe whatever they chose and free to vote accordingly once discharged from service. Following orders in a chain of command is not something that continues after service. Look at the real world, there is no shortage of people who served honorably and well that were quite critical of the military after discharge, there is no shortage of veterans on the political left or right. Military service does not turn people into mindless robots, it generally teaches several things. People can accomplish far more than they think they can. A group coordinating their actions can accomplish more than a group of people acting individually. Bad sh*t happens and you just have to work your way through it.
Heinlein wrote crap, and interspersed it with schlock. Why in hell would anyone make a Starship Troopers movie? And then, having made it, why would anyone release it? One of the worst books, and crappiest movies, of all time.
Sheesh, my fingers just automistyped it the same way, again, and I only barely caught it.
...
It's a militarist-fascist masturbatory fantasy where uniform and a gun will give you a new family, make you a "real man", earn you the love and respect of both your father AND your superiors and even give you a new, bigger, stronger body.
It's almost as if Heinlein was being groomed for the military "glory" but "washed out" cause he was "weak" and had to ride a desk when the war finally came.
You are as shallow as an August parking lot puddle in a dilapidated Florida strip mall.
No skinnies? No mech-armor suits? Of course he didn't read the book.
To those who say it isn't a good book - Hugo for best novel in 1960. Perhaps your taste is a little off?
OTOH, I've never liked Neuromancer, so who am I to talk.
I've enjoyed all of Heinlein's writings. Some are better than others. Some are for kids, teens, and then there are the rest.
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress was my favorite book until about age 30.
I heard they are redoing the movie, this time closely following the book. The Fx can do it now.
I first read _Starship Troopers_ when I was maybe 10 years old. I liked the story, but the further into it I got, the more I couldn't shake a sense of unease about the whole thing. By the time I'd finished, I realized why: whether Heinlein intended it this way or not, it reads like a sci-fi action-adventure written in a parallel universe where fascism is the norm. i.e. it generally assumes that a fascist society is basically "the way things are", as opposed to commenting on whether or not it's the right way.[1]
As an adult, I find this kind of thing very valuable, because it's a great way to get inside the heads of people who truly believe in points of view that I disagree with. I'm very much *not* a fascist, but without having read Heinlein's novel, I wouldn't understand the allure of it for people who *are*.
I hated the film when it was released, because it obviously had little to do with the novel. In retrospect, I feel like Verhoeven was trying to make a film that had a similar effect on viewers to what the novel had on me, but he focused too much on the "your heroes are fascists" aspect, as opposed to the "understanding why fascism is attractive to a lot of people" aspect. i.e. he wanted the viewer to draw a very specific conclusion - that fascism is wrong. I agree with that conclusion, but I think the story is more thought-provoking if the viewer/reader is left to make their own decision about it after being transported to a world where it's normal.
[1] a few parts, like the classroom lecture on armed force, are obvious exceptions.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
If it's the weekend, it's Fash the Nation!
Heinlein was ... naively and certainly shallowly libertarian.. But I'm not aware of a definition of "fascistic" that would apply.
As portrayed in the novel just about the only privilege of "veterans" was franchise and a hand-full of government oversight jobs. It was explicitly pointed out in the novel that putting in the time to get veteran status was looked down upon as "unproductive" by much of civil society and that franchise was considered not worth the effort. In other words "veteran" was not a status worth investing in as considered by the majority population. Veteran status could hardly have been exercised to an extent to render government control of private resources a significant effect in that society.
It could not be considered "fascist".
As said I consider much of Heinlein's libertarian leanings as naive ... there are many complex issues he never deeply addressed ... or even showed evidence of having considered.
But there is cetainly evidence that he was not a "pure" libertarian. Not a capitalist take no prisoners but all of everything else thnker. See his early (one of my favorites) "Beyond this Horizon". He presents a welfare state in essence as an idyllic paradise.
Heinlein was, as said simplistically shallow in many of his political presentations. I suspect he was aware that he was painting black and white contrasts in a world of grays. But he was writing science fiction "what ifs" to entertain by limning end-results of his ideas.
-- TWZ
Your dream state is not a reflection of reality.
Now you know how we feel.
It's funny how some people find that actually quoting the book or mentioning author's biography is trolling.
It's almost as if some people have trouble admitting to themselves what they are leaning to.
"This can't be fascism! Fascism is bad! BUT I LIKE THIS! Therefore, this is not bad! Thus, this is not fascism!"
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Denise Richards is so f***ing hot in that movie.
I saw Starship Troopers at the movies with my computer game company work colleagues...I was laughing the whole way at all the Nazi references but was extremely disappointed at the end to find out I was the only one who noticed. They weren't dummies either. Very weird I thought.
The fundamental problem people have with Heinlein is a mental defect that renders them unable to appreciate the difference between someone extrapolating a "what if" and someone declaiming a "we should".
If you make them confront the fact that the same guy wrote (for example) Double Star, Starship Troopers, and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, they suffer serious cognitive dissonance, which they can only resolve by retreating from reality into a fantasy simple enough for them to comprehend.
From that safe fantasy world they then lash out at the scary author they cannot comprehend.
I read the book when I was ten. With a ten year old's memory, the main character was the awesome armor the troopers wore. There was no armor in the movie, therefore the movie sucked.
Everybody that saw the film went "Hey! He's SS" when Neil Patrick Harris showed up in the black outfit.
I also said that when I saw Harris in Hedwig's Angry Inch" at the Belasco, but got shushed then.
But... not everyone has good taste in literature.
The guy that brought us Showgirls?
If he cant take the time to read the actual book, then he has no business trying to make a film out of something he does not understand.
It might be what Verhoeven said though. It would be in line with the anti-US-militarism sentiment he tries to convey. But I agree that it was a good decision to edit the quote because whatever his associations, they're not US soldiers in the book or the movie.
You obviously never read the book.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
It's rule by the strongest/fittest. That means you are excluded if your physical abilities aren't up to scratch for whatever reason.
That is amazingly ignorant. Heinlein specifically makes a point that weakness and physical abilities are not *NOT* a barrier to service. The military was legally obligated to find a job for any volunteer. You do realize that for every front line soldier there are many in support, that was true for the book too.
Plus the strictness of the enlistment process basically determines the testosterone level of society.
Doubling down on your ignorance I see.
It's no different than just having an intelligence test and making the bottom 10% slaves.
OK, we understand your fear now.
"I stopped after two chapters because it was so boring. It is really quite a bad book."
So, he made a movie that was even worse. I can't help but think had he actually read the book, he would have got the point and maybe actually made the movie the book deserved.
I usually self-identify as a leftist, although not a thorough one.
On fiscal issues I am probably somewhat moderate. I think you have to have progressive taxation, market regulation, and a strong social safety net to get really good outcomes. At the same time, people should be incentivized to work. I want it to be possible to get filthy rich.
Socially, I am so far out in left field that I can barely see the rest of you. I think all drugs should be legalized (heroin, meth, crack cocaine, all of it). If seven dudes, three women, and a horse want to get married to each other, more power to them. It's none of my business. Assisted suicide? Sure. Leave people alone.
So, leftist.
I prefer to view the Starship Troopers Movie as a propaganda film in the Starship Troopers Book's Universe. Especially if they had made it more 90210ish.
He never bothered to READ the book, he just decided it was right-wing and therefore, by twisted leftist logic, FASCIST.
He ended up with a warped and essentially caricatured version of what he imagined the book to be... because that's what fit his fantasy of what he admits he intentionally made himself ignorant of.
And in the end, he ended up making a film that actually seems to promote the comic book fascism he claims he opposes.... sorta like the antifa morons who claim to oppose fascism while jack-booting throught the streets EXACTLY like Hitler's brown-shirted SA and beating up opponents JUST LIKE HITLER'S SA.
Oh, and if Mr Verhoven had bothered to head any HISTORY books (which he probably didn't because somebody probably concinced him they were FASCIST), he would have noticed that Fascism was created by that leftwing socialist Benito Mussolini and hit its apex with that National Socialist Workers' Party man Hitler. Fasdcism and jack-bootery ALWAYS comes from the left, which worships big government control over populations, speech codes, and socialist economic policies that eventually run out of other people's money and must resort to disarming the civiliansds and taking their stuff by force.
The real headline is :Acclaimed director made crap movie, makes lame attempt to justify it.
But there is no need to justify it. It's just bad. End of story.
Actually, I don't even know why he is acclaimed. Robocop wasn't that good. Perhaps the real issue is that this director is just overrated.
The fact that he was unable to read the book because he was bored says volumes about the director and nothing about the story.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Your stupid hurts.
Starship Troopers is one of the all-time great scifi movies, with more depth than Heinlein's book. I know that won't be the popular opinion here, but I think some people just don't appreciate being fucked with by what is essentially a complex movie made by an European arthouse director but with an American scifi budget. The book had no self-awareness about it's rah-rah kill bugs! attitude. The movie did. For me the climax scene was NPH, playing the telepath in essentially a Nazi trenchcoat, declaring triumphally: "it's afraid!" about one of the clearly intelligent insects that is about to be executed. Then the whole crowd erupts in jubilation. Absolutely chilling moment. Of course the movie wouldn't work unless we were actually rooting for the movie's Nazis, but we are. I think everyone should see it to appreciate how creepy it feels. We learn something important about ourselves through art like that. That rarely happens when scifi is adapted for the big screen.
Haha. True that. But it's not guns I think. Its tips.
Tips for everything, tips for everyone. For eating out, drinking out, buying groceries, taxis, tour bus drivers, odd job men. Americans are always showering extra dollars like so much confetti around daily chores, and it all depends on the wattage of your smile. I'd rather know if you had a bad days, so I could help you; perhaps by simply not being in your way.
Second Variety.
Good reading.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
Fascism is the most defining factor of US culture after all.
Not that you have any clue what fascism *actually* is.
It's the concept of having "free market" industry BE the government, and all the the results of that.
As "free market" means freedom from pesky things like human rights, worker's rights, peace, positive social behavior, protecting earth from becoming uninhabitable, and other profit-limiting factors.
So it's the logical end stat of what the USA already is and wants to become.
And what its livestock (you) are told to want, even though you're the butt in all of those things.
My favourite adaptation of the book. Personally, I agree that it's not a great book (I did finish it), and I thought what Verhoeven did with it was fitting, but also thought it was a little too over the top. The animated series reigns that in, taking it a little more seriously, showing (IMO) a decent take of military action without glorifying it the way Heinlein did or making fun of it the way Verhoeven did.
Oh yeah, nothing to see here, please move on.
Thanks citizen SD659917!
They were not made by the state.
They *made* the state.
They were shown as role models for people who shape the state into what they believed to be ideals.
Remeber: Nazis weren't breeding. They were merely "selecting".
It implies the superior race was already among us all the time, but didn't get to use their full potential.
That way, everybody (German) could believe it was not their failing, but the scapegoats holding them back (from basically growing super powers).
Eh, there's fascism (the ideology) and then there's fascism (the leftist slur).
What you're trying to do is to take a bit of illustrative symbolism and make that proof of the inherent badness of the book because, look, leftist slur applies! Q.E.D. Case Closed You Are All Circle Jerking Military Worshipping Fascists Now.
Excuse me while I don't buy your logic. To me the quote is clear. The vote gets you power, but you can't just wield power irresponsibly. Not even that one vote among millions of other votes.
Notice how a population that gets to vote is quite different from a population that gets to do the bidding of a Beloved Most Supreme Leader. Again, I appreciate the quote but I think you entirely misread it. That quote still puts the power with every person with a vote, and nowhere does it say there is only one person with a vote. In fact, the book makes very clear that everyone who does his service will get their vote. And everyone is allowed to do service, all you have to do is volunteer.
Hollywood is pathologically incapable of making a movie that conveys a conservative message
About free market, low taxes, low government, industry deregulation, real freedom and right of having guns you have the "Mad Max" series.
And about the values of the traditional family in shaping the future you have "A boy and his dog".
Poor snowflakes... Stupid snowflakes... don't let your eyes go dry. Sad snowflakes... Pathetic creatures... Cry. Cry. Cry.
Cause look!
I can just copy and paste that post that made you so depressed and suicidal when you realized that you're a closet fascist!
Ta-DAH! As good as new! Like it was never modded down for calling fascist a fascist.
It's funny how some people find that actually quoting the book or mentioning author's biography is trolling.
It's almost as if some people have trouble admitting to themselves what they are leaning to.
"This can't be fascism! Fascism is bad! BUT I LIKE THIS! Therefore, this is not bad! Thus, this is not fascism!"
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I am amazed by the wordity and stronginess of your argumentision and factutia.
Truly, a huge work of a unique mind. Unich? Eunuch?
Truly, a huge work of a eunuch mind.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
The director probably got his Progressive panties in a twist and stopped ready the book after learning of the concept that Citizenship, and in turn voting and serving in public office, is not just something everyone gets, but has to actually be earned. Of course lets not forget that the citizen culture also considered violence a valid solution to many of life's little problems.
I'm a Nazi. I'M A NAZI!!!!
@Anonymous Coward: "Given that the characters were from Buenos Aires in the movie that does seem like a reasonable edit. Admittedly they did speak English but, well, it doesn't seem a bit unlikely that the soldiers in the movie were specifically supposed to be US soldiers."
..
By the time this future comes around, everyone in the US will be from Buenos Aires
Oh look! :''(
Snowflakes who can't bother reading their fascist jerkoff material get upset when faced with actual fascist lines from said material. Boohoo. Saddey. Cryye.
So they try to block the reality. Poor snowflakes. So stupid and pathetic.
Losing their cool over a line of text cause they only like BEING FASCIST - not being called fascist.
Anyway... through the power of copy and paste the balance is restored yet again. BEHOLD!
Oh... Verhoeven conveyed it JUST FINE. Particularly the fascist parts.
Major Reid paused to touch the face of an old-fashioned watch, "reading" its hands.
"The period is almost over and we have yet to determine the moral reason for our success in governing ourselves.
Now continued success is never a matter of chance. Bear in mind that this is science, not wishful thinking; the universe is what it is, not what we want it to be.
To vote is to wield authority; it is the supreme authority from which all other authority derives - such as mine to make your lives miserable once a day.
Force, if you will! - the franchise is force, naked and raw, the Power of the Rods and the Ax. Whether it is exerted by ten men or by ten billion, political authority is force."
"But this universe consists of paired dualities. What is the converse of authority? Mr. Rico."
He had picked one I could answer. "Responsibility, sir."
"Applause. 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.
The unique 'poll tax' that we must pay was unheard of.
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."
It's a militarist-fascist masturbatory fantasy where uniform and a gun will give you a new family, make you a "real man", earn you the love and respect of both your father AND your superiors and even give you a new, bigger, stronger body.
It's almost as if Heinlein was being groomed for the military "glory" but "washed out" cause he was "weak" and had to ride a desk when the war finally came.
In the words of Steve Rogers... I can do this all day.
Or at least until I run out of copy and paste. Or fascist snowflakes run out of mod points. Whichever happens first.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I always found the film to be campy and fun. A heavy satire of the world at large.
This claim of fascism so many decades after its first showing has zero credibility when considering current political retardation from the entertainment industry.
I still see it as a funny campy satire.
Your political mileage may vary. Not *everything* has hidden fucking messages.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Maybe it was the screenwriter who claimed to have read the book, and I'm misremembering it.
Whatever. I hear some of the other works (including an unauthorized Japanese knockoff?) actually were pretty close to the book.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
He never read the book. Which means that he utterly missed the political/philosophic underpinnings of the society. Which was the real point of the book. No wonder the movies were so silly.
There are many ways to critize Verhofens adaption, but I can only voice one... Where is the powered effing infantry! Flying armor with multiple nuke missiles. The very opening sequence from the book is material enough for three action movies.
You clearly didn't read the book, then. There was a place for everyone, although people were explicitly discouraged from doing it.
"But if you want to serve and I can't talk you out of it, then we have to take you, because that's your constitutional right. It says that everybody, male or female, should have his born right to pay his service and assume full citizenship— but the facts are that we are getting hard pushed to find things for all the volunteers to do that aren't just glorified KP. You can't all be real military men; we don't need that many and most of the volunteers aren't number-one soldier material anyhow...[W]e've had to think up a whole list of dirty, nasty, dangerous jobs that will...at the very least make them remember for the rest of their lives that their citizenship is valuable to them because they've paid a high price for it...A term of service is...either real military service, rough and dangerous even in peacetime...or a most unreasonable facsimile thereof."
If you had no arms and no legs you'd be put to testing new design of survival suits on Titan or something else hazardous.
Rational thought is the only true freedom
Verhoeven BS.
Don't get me wrong, I actually liked Starship Troopers quite a bit.
That said it has about as much to do with Starship Troopers in that there were bugs and space.
Basically the entire script was an original work called "Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine". The bought the rights to the book "Starship Troopers" either for name recognition or more likely were afraid of the similarities that they might get sued (thanks copyright). They slightly modified their own script to align a bit more with the book and presto chango you get Starship Troopers.
So all the debate about the Book VS the Movie are a bit moot.
I'm sure it involved unnatural acts involving goats, lampreys, banana slugs, and hagfish that are illegal even in California.
Actually - to be fair - there wasn't a guarantee that you wouldn't be killed either.
And again - to be fair - that big decision has to do with a felony. (Both book and movie - book: he would've 'nuked' a teammate and movie: a fellow soldier dies while he's attempting to fix the soldier's helmet - something he wasn't qualified to do (I prefer the book version))
The point is misleading - it's not about denying someone the vote - but rather how the military policed their own. The book runs a chapter prior to this talking about a fellow soldier who, in the heat of the moment, jumps up and slugs his commanding officer (Zim) - a hanging offense. A review of the situation occurs - and a court marital (field) later and this soldier is flogged and discharged (dishonorably).
But these cases weren't about voting - they were about breaking the law.
I'll grant you that a group of dishonest military people COULD rig the system - prevent only whom they deem worthy to be allowed in. But the premise is that everyone, in general, agreed to follow the rules and allow people a chance to earn their voting privilege. (In fact, being "washed out' (fired) in the military didn't mean you couldn't go on and attempt to earn your privilege through other service - he cites one person who does.)
But could it be rigged? In fact, in the book, Heinlein basically admits that's how it started out: The system of requiring military service before voting simply "happened' because a group of vets had to decide to hang another vet....and they weren't going to allow anyone else to do it / have a say in it.
The comment on it: That this system worked. Not right, not wrong....it simply worked.
And that takes us to the US system of government. Heinlein points out (in Expanded Universe, iirc) that his mother was denied the vote for decades. Others are denied the vote for a myriad of reasons, even now. (Felons for example, lose the right to vote)
That is your version with a lot of assumptions about uniformity between nations and even in one over time. Assuming USA, do you have any idea how different Marine training in 2001 was from 1951?
And that many of the themes in his books were in fact polar opposites to his actual beliefs on certain matters (the line marriages, polygamy, etc in many of his novels), but that his views on militarism and a few other things did carry over. However he did have a dislike of politicians and others who didn't serve being put in charge of controlling the fate of military matters without the fundamental understandings of what war from the ground really was.
stupid faggot
Make America Stupid Again!
MASA!!!