ragekage: Great book. We need to restrict the voting franchise to people who've done national service of some kind in this country, too. Military, Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, RAM, something, anything. Make people work for it and maybe they'll give somewhat more of a damn.

I'm in favor of this, which I don't think is a liberal value.

This is why people get confused by my politics.

I prefer Starship Poopers

Dangerous, exciting, intense, well-written: perfect sci-fi. One of my favourite books of all time. I'm angry that the movie was so terrible, as the book is highly political and very smart.

You should read Starship Troopers followed by Haldeman's The Forever War to get the somewhat more cynical counterpoint.

Both great books.
And that movie sucked ass. Claiming "oh, it wuz a satire" is as weak as a very weak thing.

Maybe they should remake Starship Troopers and include the bits about power armor and personal/societal responsibility. Or make Forever War with all the sex scenes :)

mavrickatubc: Dangerous, exciting, intense, well-written: perfect sci-fi. One of my favourite books of all time. I'm angry that the movie was so terrible, as the book is highly political and very smart.

The movie is a rather clever satire of how fascist a lot of Sci-Fi is, disguised as a big stupid action movie. NPH appearing in a Gestapo trenchcoat at the end is a giveaway.

I like both, but they really aren't very similar.

Gunther: The movie is a rather clever satire of how fascist a lot of Sci-Fi is, disguised as a big stupid action movie.

I don't think people hate it for that, they hate it because he used a novel like Starship Troopers that deserved a more faithful adaptation.

Why not do the same thing with a Galaxy Quest type story? That movie didn't claim to be a Star Trek movie per se, but it effectively satirized it and remains a cult favorite.

That book sounds like a trite sci-fi wannabe. The movie is the sophisticated and prescient reincarnation that the original book could only ever dream to be.

The book was great.

The movie was completely different, and also great.

"serious" Heinlein fans need to stop getting butthurt over the movie. No, it wasn't the movie you were expecting, but it was a slick cautionary tale on jingoism.

Gunther: mavrickatubc: Dangerous, exciting, intense, well-written: perfect sci-fi. One of my favourite books of all time. I'm angry that the movie was so terrible, as the book is highly political and very smart.

The movie is a rather clever satire of how fascist a lot of Sci-Fi is, disguised as a big stupid action movie. NPH appearing in a Gestapo trenchcoat at the end is a giveaway.

I like both, but they really aren't very similar.

This. It's amusing how many people eat it up without realizing the subcontext or the satire, or frankly are extremely put off if they do get it - especially if they're a fan of the book.

On a personal level, I felt it was mostly fascist claptrap - but yes, even fascist claptrap can have some decent ideas. Not necessarily ideas I'd like to see implemented, but more like answers to questions that people don't often ask (and probably should)

As someone above just said;

the Book is great

the Movie is great

but Movie is a lousy adaptation of the book.

There are a number of books that are at least in part responses to starship troopers. If your going to read Forever War, you should also read Armor to balance things out.

TwistedFark: Gunther: mavrickatubc: Dangerous, exciting, intense, well-written: perfect sci-fi. One of my favourite books of all time. I'm angry that the movie was so terrible, as the book is highly political and very smart.

The movie is a rather clever satire of how fascist a lot of Sci-Fi is, disguised as a big stupid action movie. NPH appearing in a Gestapo trenchcoat at the end is a giveaway.

I like both, but they really aren't very similar.

This. It's amusing how many people eat it up without realizing the subcontext or the satire, or frankly are extremely put off if they do get it - especially if they're a fan of the book.

On a personal level, I felt it was mostly fascist claptrap - but yes, even fascist claptrap can have some decent ideas. Not necessarily ideas I'd like to see implemented, but more like answers to questions that people don't often ask (and probably should)

I agree. When I first saw it in junior high, I thought it was awesome except for the lack of naked Denise Richards. Then I saw it again years later and was like "ohhhhhhh"

Rain-Monkey: It is an awesome book, but people, we need a little more focus here:

Still no boobies. Come on people, I have to go to bed soon.

as someone up thread said, read Armor (new window)

As someone who read the first half of Stranger in a Strange Land, told EVERYONE HE KNEW it was a great book, then had to grind through the incredibly sucky second half of the book, let me say this: fark you, Heinlin. fark you in the face for all eternity.

Starship Troopers the movie was NOT satire. It was simply a bad movie.

KhanFusion: As someone who read the first half of Stranger in a Strange Land, told EVERYONE HE KNEW it was a great book, then had to grind through the incredibly sucky second half of the book, let me say this: fark you, Heinlin. fark you in the face for all eternity.

Really? fark. I'm about 1/2 of the way through, and loved every last moment up until now. Please don't tell me it gets bad, I'm not sure I can handle it.

I liked the movie better. There I said it.

/Movie has boobies, which I like

The movie was crap.

There was no satirical attempt, regardless of the what was in the book. The movie was supposed to be a high charged ass kicking action flick, where a battle was never more than 60 seconds away. All of the jingoism and fascism were presented as a part of the setting yes, but there were no drawbacks to this type of life. There was no kitsch value to having NPH in a trench coat. This was way before Harold and Kumar and the producers just needed a guy we would buy as smart without really having to cut from the action scenes to do it, and NPH needed the work.

As far as Heinlein goes, I don't get it. I would have to say the worst book I read in 2009 was The Cat Who Could Walk Through Walls.

Have been rereading a bit of Heinlein recently. It is certainly very interesting to contrast that generation of SF with the stuff being written now (also rereading Alastair Reynolds). Giggled when I remember calculating how much processing space "Mike" the AI on the moon has in "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress".

Asimov, Clarke and Heinlein don't stand up well to the complexity of and depth of the stuff being written now. On the other hand the stuff being written now doesn't sell as well as Asimov, Clarke and Heinlein did.

Frank Herbert's Dune, written only a couple of years later (and reasonably a contemporary of Heinlein) certainly holds up better compared to today's fiction than Foundation, Rendezvous with Rama or Moon Is A Harsh Mistress do.

Speedbts alt: There was no satirical attempt, regardless of the what was in the book.

This is quoted from the AVclub retrospective:

"Among the most subversive and widely misunderstood studio films ever produced, Paul Verhoeven's anti-fascist satire was falsely interpreted as an endorsement of a fascist utopia that sends pea-brained young recruits on a dire, meaningless offensive against giant space bugs. Working again with Robocop screenwriter Ed Neumeier, Verhoeven casts utterly blank pretty boys and girls (including Casper Van Dien and Denise Richards) as brainwashed heroes rushing merrily to their doom. The state-of-the-art special effects make for some rousing action sequences, but Verhoeven is more interested in how propaganda works to convince citizens of the rightness of an insane cause. Witness this twisted piece of logic from teacher/recruiter Michael Ironside: "Violence has resolved more conflicts that anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst.""

I'm always surprised when people miss the fact that it's obviously a satire. The Gestapo uniform NPH wears at the end is a massive giveaway, but the propaganda newsreels aren't exactly subtle either.

Monty845: There are a number of books that are at least in part responses to starship troopers. If your going to read Forever War, you should also read Armor to balance things out.

And also read John Scalzi's Old Man's War for a more modern take on the whole "super soldiers" story.

Incidentally, the background of how and why Heinlein wrote Starship Troopers is important to know to understand the book. Briefly stated: In 1958, Heinlein was working on what would become Stranger in a Strange Land when the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy printed a full-page ad in newspapers, urging President Eisenhower to stop nuclear-weapons testing. In response, Heinlein wrote a polemic, "Who Are the Heirs of Patrick Henry?", opposing the SANE ad and urging Eisenhower to stand fast against the Communist menace, and he and his wife spent several weeks working on that cause, including collecting and forwarding thousands of letters to the White House. Eisenhower didn't listen, and canceled nuclear testing anyway. Khrushchev, however, did not, resuming Soviet nuclear tests not long thereafter. When Heinlein resumed writing, he set Stranger aside and wrote Starship Troopers instead, and that book shows the influence of the "Patrick Henry" episode and its associated politics. (After that, he returned to work on Stranger, which the delay might actually have helped, as the novel might have been unpublishable any earlier than 1961.)

Oh, and screw the movie. The actual origin of the movie was a project Paul Verhoeven was working on tentatively titled Bug Hunt. When he was able to get the rights for Starship Troopers, he adapted Heinlein's material to that project. Poorly.

the movie woulda been great if it wasnt adapted all half ass like

Asimov and Heinlein were in the military together during WWII doing research although it never amounted to much. Asimov always felt a great sense of guilt towards those who actually went out and did the real fighting, i.e. real soldiering. Heinlein otoh developed a philosophy as evident in Starship Troopers that lauded the tail as much as the tooth in the military.

Gunther: Speedbts alt: There was no satirical attempt, regardless of the what was in the book.

This is quoted from the AVclub retrospective:

"Among the most subversive and widely misunderstood studio films ever produced, Paul Verhoeven's anti-fascist satire was falsely interpreted as an endorsement of a fascist utopia that sends pea-brained young recruits on a dire, meaningless offensive against giant space bugs.



It wasn't exactly meaningless though was it? The hometown of the 4 main characters was wiped out by the bugs. Millions, if not billions were killed. I don't remember if the attack was provoked or not, but it's really beside the point.



Working again with Robocop screenwriter Ed Neumeier, Verhoeven casts utterly blank pretty boys and girls (including Casper Van Dien and Denise Richards) as brainwashed heroes rushing merrily to their doom.


Once again, if they were so blank why was their hometown wiped out? Why not have the bugs wipe out a luxury space cruise or some small piece of a city? This seemed to give their characters some badly needed dimension as well as the whole on/off love triangle. It definitely seemed as if there was an attempt to flush these characters out. They were more than just blanks, they were driven to succeed in spite of their terrible losses. They each succeeded in their own ways through noble efforts as well.


The state-of-the-art special effects make for some rousing action sequences, but Verhoeven is more interested in how propaganda works to convince citizens of the rightness of an insane cause.


The "would you like to know more?" newsreel angle was the only subversive part of this film. However, it so closely reflects the ww2 allied propaganda that it really doesn't suffer the negative connotations that the filmmakers were trying for as ww2 propaganda is generally seen as a necessary evil in war.


Witness this twisted piece of logic from teacher/recruiter Michael Ironside: "Violence has resolved more conflicts that anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst.""



Yes, it can be said it is a twisted statement, however it is a credible statement as well. The fact that the drill sargent or whatever he was, was a teacher before serves to give his military persona credibility instead of making it look like an asinine gung ho statement. The fact that Van Diem later quotes Ironside's character once he has taken his position doesn't come across as a facepalm moment but rather as a sign of growth of Van Diem's "blank" character.


I'm always surprised when people miss the fact that it's obviously a satire. The Gestapo uniform NPH wears at the end is a massive giveaway, but the propaganda newsreels aren't exactly subtle either.


NPH's character joins an elite secret operation, where only the smartest people need apply. Because of his great success in his experiments, he attains rank quickly. I could see this as being satirical, or a sign of a desperate struggle where a meritocracy is the only way to win. Remember, none of the characters lucked into thier final ranks. They were all doing their job as well as they could when the horrors of war stepped in destroyed their superiors.

I don't know how else you would dress NPH. It was a futuristic war movie and he was a powerful psychic who worked to win the battle and save his friends lives as well, during a time in which human life was pretty meaningless.

Usually in movies the secret operatives work in the dark or dress in dark clothes. This can be seen in the movie title Men In Black. Although most of us have never actually worked with people in the CIA or NSA, when you hear the phrase Men In Black, you knew exactly what to think without ever seeing the movie. The fact that NPH wore black, seems perfectly appropriate and not the least bit satirical. The fact that it was a trench coat, well, I can see what you're saying but I don't think there were many options seeing as how he needs to dress in a military, futuristic, secretive fashion.

Just look at it from a less detailed perspective too. Youths dream about getting away from home and have goals. War happens. Youths go off to fight. Youths win. Everyone important lives. Happy ending. Where is the satire?

Satirical war movies, to me, would be like "Catch 22", or hell even "The Boys from Company C". A little drama, a little comedy, and a whole lot of tragedy. I didn't really see the tragedy in this film.

I can see Verhoeven doing something like he did with Robocop, but if that was his attempt in this movie he failed, hard.

Speedbts alt: I can see Verhoeven doing something like he did with Robocop, but if that was his attempt in this movie he failed, hard.

Overreaching are you. Defending stupid opinion you must.

barc0001: The book was great.

The movie was completely different, and also great.

"serious" Heinlein fans need to stop getting butthurt over the movie. No, it wasn't the movie you were expecting, but it was a slick cautionary tale on jingoism.

Everyone involved with Starship Troopers pimped that name to generate interest in the movie, knowing lots of sci-fi readers would go see it thinking it was faithful to the novel. IOW, they capitalized on the novel's popularity to sell the movie. If they had called the movie "Bug Hunting in Space" or something like that, the hype and interest would have been deservedly smaller than calling it "Starship Troopers".

/hopefully one day an honest movie of ST will be made
//would go see it

Buenos Aires tragedy = Gleiwitz incident

Gunther: mavrickatubc: Dangerous, exciting, intense, well-written: perfect sci-fi. One of my favourite books of all time. I'm angry that the movie was so terrible, as the book is highly political and very smart.

The movie is a rather clever satire of how fascist a lot of Sci-Fi is, disguised as a big stupid action movie. NPH appearing in a Gestapo trenchcoat at the end is a giveaway.

I like both, but they really aren't very similar.

From what I've read, the director didn't actually initially want to connect the two, but found that he was pitching a similar movie in vague concept, i.e., killing bugs, militarism run wild, etc. Starship Troopers was optioned or something, and so they attached the name to what would have otherwise been an unrelated film.

/hearsay, no sources to linky

TwistedFark: Speedbts alt: I can see Verhoeven doing something like he did with Robocop, but if that was his attempt in this movie he failed, hard.

Overreaching are you. Defending stupid opinion you must.

It was a lot of writing, I'll grant you, and I was trying to be civil at the end. But I've just grown tired of all the "you don't get it." bull crap threads I've seen about this movie. Satire in a movie is not difficult to pull off. Even subtly. This movie failed miserably if that was its intent. Which means it was an even crappier film than I said originally.

Speedbts alt: The fact that NPH wore black, seems perfectly appropriate and not the least bit satirical. The fact that it was a trench coat, well, I can see what you're saying but I don't think there were many options seeing as how he needs to dress in a military, futuristic, secretive fashion.

It wasn't just a trenchcoat, it was an actual SS officer's trenchcoat (I said Gestapo before, I was mistaken) . Honestly, I don't really see how putting a blond-haired Aryan man in a nazi uniform at the end could BE more obvious.

Of course, even if you miss that, you have to have also missed the Triumph Of The Will references in the propaganda clips, the government logo (a golden eagle), the social studies teacher lauding the virtue of violence and how it's the tentpole of modern society, the mother cheering as her kids stomp harmless cockroaches, the head of the federation calling on human civilization to "dominate this galaxy, now and always.", the scene where the soldiers cheer jubilantly at the news the bugs are afraid of them...

It's a blatant satire. I don't know how anyone can miss it.

It's interesting you bring up Robocop as an example of Paul Verhoeven doing satire, considering how similar the films are.

barc0001: The book was great.

The movie was completely different, and also great.

"serious" Heinlein fans need to stop getting butthurt over the movie. No, it wasn't the movie you were expecting, but it was a slick cautionary tale on jingoism.

but that has NOTHING to do with the message, content, and plotline of the book.

Bendal: Everyone involved with Starship Troopers pimped that name to generate interest in the movie, knowing lots of sci-fi readers would go see it thinking it was faithful to the novel. IOW, they capitalized on the novel's popularity to sell the movie. If they had called the movie "Bug Hunting in Space" or something like that, the hype and interest would have been deservedly smaller than calling it "Starship Troopers".

I would so do this. One thing I would really love to do is write a gripping thriller novel that would wait for tea baggers like chocolate covered xenophobia on the shelf at Wal-Mart. Maybe with some alluring title like, "America Now!" or "Liberty at Last!"

Then I would build up this totally red-meat, ultra ace sharp shooter libertarian cattle rancher oil tycoon as the main protagonist. He would go on an epic quest to defeat A.C.O.R.N. (Academic Commies for Obama Ruining the Nation).

At the end of the story, he would return to the White House, still safely in the hand of the reanimated Cyborg Robo-Reagan who would go up to him and say, "Hughe Rection, you've done it! You've saved America and defeated those Godless Liberals! All of us owe you a debt of thanks, but first there is one last thing to do..."

Then Hughe Rection (our awesome libertarian cattle rancher tycoon conservative hero) would go, "Mr. President Sir, My business empire withered away because I couldn't effectively lobby for government defense contracts while I was battling evil doers. My wife then died because I couldn't pay our insurance premiums. I had to kill my own son when I found out he was trying to register Negroes to vote... and my daughter, my sweet daughter Lucy, caused the failure of at least a hundred good Christian marriages because she tried to shack up with her dyke Gym teacher and had to be put down to protect the sanctity of marriage. With all due respect, what more can I give for my country?"

And then Robo-Reagan nods sagely to the desk. Put your hands on the desk son. Hughe, warily eyes Robo-Reagan, but eventually his conservative ideals and utter faith in authority lead him to comply."

"That's a good man", says Robo-Reagan as he pulls out a bucket of anal lube. "This will only hurt more if you struggle."

And then at that final moment, right as the whirring, spinning, Robo-Reagan-Cock penetrates Hughe's brown-eye, he finally realizes how the rest of us feel.

That is my dream. I want to epically troll some poor mother farker so bad his head explodes. I swear I'll do it someday.

SOMEDAY.

TwistedFark: Bendal: Everyone involved with Starship Troopers pimped that name to generate interest in the movie, knowing lots of sci-fi readers would go see it thinking it was faithful to the novel. IOW, they capitalized on the novel's popularity to sell the movie. If they had called the movie "Bug Hunting in Space" or something like that, the hype and interest would have been deservedly smaller than calling it "Starship Troopers".

I would so do this. One thing I would really love to do is write a gripping thriller novel that would wait for tea baggers like chocolate covered xenophobia on the shelf at Wal-Mart. Maybe with some alluring title like, "America Now!" or "Liberty at Last!"

Then I would build up this totally red-meat, ultra ace sharp shooter libertarian cattle rancher oil tycoon as the main protagonist. He would go on an epic quest to defeat A.C.O.R.N. (Academic Commies for Obama Ruining the Nation).

At the end of the story, he would return to the White House, still safely in the hand of the reanimated Cyborg Robo-Reagan who would go up to him and say, "Hughe Rection, you've done it! You've saved America and defeated those Godless Liberals! All of us owe you a debt of thanks, but first there is one last thing to do..."

Then Hughe Rection (our awesome libertarian cattle rancher tycoon conservative hero) would go, "Mr. President Sir, My business empire withered away because I couldn't effectively lobby for government defense contracts while I was battling evil doers. My wife then died because I couldn't pay our insurance premiums. I had to kill my own son when I found out he was trying to register Negroes to vote... and my daughter, my sweet daughter Lucy, caused the failure of at least a hundred good Christian marriages because she tried to shack up with her dyke Gym teacher and had to be put down to protect the sanctity of marriage. With all due respect, what more can I give for my country?"

And then Robo-Reagan nods sagely to the desk. Put your hands on the desk son. Hughe, warily eyes Robo-Reagan, but eventually his conservative ideals and utter faith in authority lead him to comply."

"That's a good man", says Robo-Reagan as he pulls out a bucket of anal lube. "This will only hurt more if you struggle."

And then at that final moment, right as the whirring, spinning, Robo-Reagan-Cock penetrates Hughe's brown-eye, he finally realizes how the rest of us feel.

That is my dream. I want to epically troll some poor mother farker so bad his head explodes. I swear I'll do it someday.

SOMEDAY.

God speed you white knight. God speed.

I stopped at 'fortnight'.

ragekage: Great book. We need to restrict the voting franchise to people who've done national service of some kind in this country, too. Military, Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, RAM, something, anything. Make people work for it and maybe they'll give somewhat more of a damn.

Sometimes I think like that too. Then I realize the people currently in charge would determine what a "national service" would be. Then it further occurs to me that large donors and corporations could still influence the process without also having to do a proportionally sized act of "national service" and thus restricting the amount of voters would merely give them more power, ensuring that a qualifying act of "national service" would be more bullshiat wars and resource grabs. People opposed to such things would be left even more powerless than they already are.

Jensaarai: ragekage: Great book. We need to restrict the voting franchise to people who've done national service of some kind in this country, too. Military, Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, RAM, something, anything. Make people work for it and maybe they'll give somewhat more of a damn.

Sometimes I think like that too. Then I realize the people currently in charge would determine what a "national service" would be. Then it further occurs to me that large donors and corporations could still influence the process without also having to do a proportionally sized act of "national service" and thus restricting the amount of voters would merely give them more power, ensuring that a qualifying act of "national service" would be more bullshiat wars and resource grabs. People opposed to such things would be left even more powerless than they already are.

Yeah, the difference in Starship Troopers was the existential threat for Earth, and the fact that, if I'm not mistaken, there was by and large a world government that formed out of a pretty devastating war that jacked up the population dynamics, etc... but a service component for enfranchisement pretty much exists in places like Israel, Switzerland, South Korea, Scandinavia, and a couple of other places; at least for males. It would never, ever work in the US with our current demographics.

Jensaarai: ragekage: Great book. We need to restrict the voting franchise to people who've done national service of some kind in this country, too. Military, Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, RAM, something, anything. Make people work for it and maybe they'll give somewhat more of a damn.

Sometimes I think like that too. Then I realize the people currently in charge would determine what a "national service" would be. Then it further occurs to me that large donors and corporations could still influence the process without also having to do a proportionally sized act of "national service" and thus restricting the amount of voters would merely give them more power, ensuring that a qualifying act of "national service" would be more bullshiat wars and resource grabs. People opposed to such things would be left even more powerless than they already are.

Trust me, I've thought this through to it's logical conclusion many times and it boils down to:

"Welcome to Costco. I love you."

Gunther: Speedbts alt: The fact that NPH wore black, seems perfectly appropriate and not the least bit satirical. The fact that it was a trench coat, well, I can see what you're saying but I don't think there were many options seeing as how he needs to dress in a military, futuristic, secretive fashion.

It wasn't just a trenchcoat, it was an actual SS officer's trenchcoat (I said Gestapo before, I was mistaken) . Honestly, I don't really see how putting a blond-haired Aryan man in a nazi uniform at the end could BE more obvious.

Of course, even if you miss that, you have to have also missed the Triumph Of The Will references in the propaganda clips, the government logo (a golden eagle), the social studies teacher lauding the virtue of violence and how it's the tentpole of modern society, the mother cheering as her kids stomp harmless cockroaches, the head of the federation calling on human civilization to "dominate this galaxy, now and always.", the scene where the soldiers cheer jubilantly at the news the bugs are afraid of them...

It's a blatant satire. I don't know how anyone can miss it.

It's interesting you bring up Robocop as an example of Paul Verhoeven doing satire, considering how similar the films are.

I did miss the SS uniform. I just saw Doogie in a black trench coat. Again this movie came out years before the NPH persona was conceived. I addressed the Social Studies teacher in my previous statement. On its face, his argument has merit and is not something you can simply brush aside as stupidity.

As far as the mother cheering the kid, that was stupid and jarring. It was another example of bad film making.

I did see parallels between Robocop dystopia and Starship Troopers dystopia. I didn't click your link though. Yes, in both movies society is filled with a lot of stupid people. However, this movie was, without a doubt, centered on 4 main characters fighting in a war. The newsreels and life back home bits were ancillary.

Saying people in the future will be stupid isn't satire. Idiocracy was a satire. Running Man wasn't. Both had the stupid masses as a part of their setting. However, Running Man was more importantly about a fight for survival and justice.

BTW - LewDux's erroneous post proves my previous point about the purity of the main characters' quests, the difference is the scale of the events. A small attack with a few casualties helped to rally a nation behind the invasion of Poland. However, in this movie the main characters were all from a huge megalopolis that was obliterated. They had perfectly sufficient cause to fight, unlike Nazi Germany.

Like I said, if you want to say the movie was satirical, giving more credence to the setting than the plot, that's your prerogative, but that doesn't mean that it was a good movie after all.