If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   Starship Troopers was released 16 years ago today and it has taken nearly that long for critics to figure out its scathing satirical bent. Or maybe it's just a movie about blood, guts, and bugs   (theatlantic.com) divider line 155
    More: Interesting, Starship Troopers, state troopers, guts, Paul Verhoeven, RiffTrax, commentary track, Roger Ebert, Deseret News  
•       •       •

3483 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 08 Nov 2013 at 3:27 PM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



155 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-08 01:29:06 PM
Would you like to know more?
 
2013-11-08 01:34:19 PM

TommyJReed: Would you like to know more?


If so, don't bother with the TFA since the writer didn't bother to explain his position. I agree with him though.
 
2013-11-08 01:38:32 PM
Blood, guts, bugs, and Dina Meyer's tits.  Twice.
 
2013-11-08 01:45:28 PM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: TommyJReed: Would you like to know more?

If so, don't bother with the TFA since the writer didn't bother to explain his position. I agree with him though.


Yeah, it is satire for US foreign policy and military engagement...I mean...was it really that hard to understand?  I do not mean to sound hyper-intellectual here, but it is fairly obvious what the underlying tone of the movie is all about.
 
2013-11-08 01:49:04 PM
Weird - pretty much nothing the writer was talking about was actually implied in the movie at all.  Obviously did not read the book.

It was satire, but this article completely missed it and made up his own.
 
2013-11-08 02:01:56 PM
I second the "Dina Meyer's tits" thing. And having Denise Richards (pre-crazy) whisper in Johnny's ear that her father wasn't going to be at home that night. Johnny Rico was one lucky bastard. Well, kinda.
 
2013-11-08 02:04:56 PM
31.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-11-08 02:14:53 PM

Endive Wombat: Yeah, it is satire for US foreign policy and military engagement...I mean...was it really that hard to understand?


You wouldn't think so, however I remember lots of people, including professional reviewers, completely missed the point when the movie was released.  I remember reviews at the time it came out calling it pro-war propaganda, and after seeing it wondering how so many people could completely miss the point like that.  Oh well, I guess some people's brains just shut down when presented with a co-ed shower scene and Dina Meyers tits.   All the blood rushing to other parts of their body or something.
 
2013-11-08 02:14:56 PM
It was still a really lousy movie that had little to do with its namesake book.
 
2013-11-08 02:15:32 PM
The novel was good satire.  The movie was... not.
 
2013-11-08 02:20:43 PM
Why do people want to ruin a perfectly good cheesy movie by arguing that it had deep philosophical undertones?

Space ships, boobs, explosions, boobs, bugs, boobs.

If you want political insights, read the book.

/would still watch a REAL film adaptation of the book, just to see the suits.
 
2013-11-08 02:22:38 PM
Those of you deriding it are still missing the point.  As a movie, it's supposed to be a B-movie.  As a satire, it's awesome.

And if you don't like that it has Dina Meyer's ass and boobies....which are 2 (er 3) good reasons to watch the movie.
 
2013-11-08 02:27:40 PM
Another of Verhoven's social commentaries, a direct progression from his commentary on Reaganomics in Robocop.  I got the movie's subversive message when it came out, and I found it just as ironic as the author when I saw the previews for the RiffTraxx idiocy.

Love this movie.  And of course Dina Meyer.

I am very confused that the author has no clue that They Live is WAY more subversive.
 
2013-11-08 02:33:01 PM
Everyone "got it." It's just that "it" was a bland and shiatty attempt at satire.
 
2013-11-08 02:43:09 PM
I showed it to my kid when he was about 16 or 17, we enjoyed it quite a lot.  For many reasons.  OK, two reasons.
 
2013-11-08 02:44:31 PM

Sybarite: [31.media.tumblr.com image 500x375]


It's good satire, but brilliant? No, it kinda hits you over the head with it actually.
 
2013-11-08 03:17:12 PM

SurfaceTension: Sybarite: [31.media.tumblr.com image 500x375]

It's good satire, but brilliant? No, it kinda hits you over the head with it actually.


No, it's satire, not good satire.
 
2013-11-08 03:18:40 PM

Ennuipoet: Why do people want to ruin a perfectly good cheesy movie by arguing that it had deep philosophical undertones?

Space ships, boobs, explosions, boobs, bugs, boobs.

If you want political insights, read the book.

/would still watch a REAL film adaptation of the book, just to see the suits.


Starship Troopers Marauder actually features the suits. It doesn't quite follow Heinlein's plot, but they do have the suits.
 
2013-11-08 03:22:50 PM

dittybopper: SurfaceTension: Sybarite: [31.media.tumblr.com image 500x375]

It's good satire, but brilliant? No, it kinda hits you over the head with it actually.

No, it's satire, not good satire.


I would say somewhat prescient satire, given the US response to 9/11 a few years later. Granted, the America--Fark yeah--rhetoric has since calmed down. The tone of the film seemed to match the go get 'em attitude a lot of people adopted in the immediate aftermath of the attack.

But you're right. It's way too over the top to be good satire.
 
2013-11-08 03:23:59 PM

kronicfeld: Everyone "got it." It's just that "it" was a bland and shiatty attempt at satire.


This.
 
2013-11-08 03:29:48 PM

new_york_monty: I would say somewhat prescient satire, given the US response to 9/11 a few years later. Granted, the America--Fark yeah--rhetoric has since calmed down. The tone of the film seemed to match the go get 'em attitude a lot of people adopted in the immediate aftermath of the attack.


I wouldn't even say prescient.  People get that way after being attacked by "outsiders"?

Color me farkin' shocked.

I mean, it's not like we have the whole of human history to show that, right?

Personally, I think Vehoeven went the way he did with Starship Troopers because some Nazi gave him a noogey when he was a kid in occupied Europe.
 
2013-11-08 03:30:50 PM
Ha, I remember waiting in line for like 2 hours for it on opening night.

Would you like to know more?
 
2013-11-08 03:32:27 PM

Ennuipoet: Why do people want to ruin a perfectly good cheesy movie by arguing that it had deep philosophical undertones?

Space ships, boobs, explosions, boobs, bugs, boobs.

If you want political insights, read the book.

/would still watch a REAL film adaptation of the book, just to see the suits.


Even the book is overrated. It was interesting enough, but hardly a poignant, gripping satire or commentary on war or politics.
 
2013-11-08 03:32:42 PM

Krieghund: It was still a really lousy movie that had little to do with its namesake book.


GOOD
 
2013-11-08 03:33:12 PM
The book is much better, but Meyer's tits.
 
2013-11-08 03:37:23 PM

dittybopper: new_york_monty: I would say somewhat prescient satire, given the US response to 9/11 a few years later. Granted, the America--Fark yeah--rhetoric has since calmed down. The tone of the film seemed to match the go get 'em attitude a lot of people adopted in the immediate aftermath of the attack.

I wouldn't even say prescient.  People get that way after being attacked by "outsiders"?

Color me farkin' shocked.

I mean, it's not like we have the whole of human history to show that, right?

Personally, I think Vehoeven went the way he did with Starship Troopers because some Nazi gave him a noogey when he was a kid in occupied Europe.


You know that. I know that. Plenty of people do. But a lot of people don't pay attention to history for shiat. They tend to be the type to attend blockbuster cheese-fests in droves.
 
2013-11-08 03:37:30 PM
The sci-fi film's self-aware satire went unrecognized by critics when it came out 16 years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sScvPdRNi-w

As the critics with the widest audience back then, it might be worth noting the word "satire" is used at least twice by Siskel & Ebert.
 
2013-11-08 03:37:45 PM
images.wikia.com

It hates movie critics, too
 
2013-11-08 03:38:09 PM
I loved both the book AND the movie, even though they're very different things.  am I weird?
 
2013-11-08 03:40:04 PM

skyotter: I loved both the book AND the movie, even though they're very different things.  am I weird?


Nope. Well... maybe. But I like them both for different reasons as well.
 
2013-11-08 03:40:19 PM
Yeesh, nothing about the huge vajayjay the queen bug had for a mouth?  I recall catching the end of the movie after it was out forever on cable.  They blurred out the friggin bug's mouth.
 
2013-11-08 03:40:34 PM

skyotter: I loved both the book AND the movie, even though they're very different things.  am I weird?


No. I feel the same.
 
2013-11-08 03:41:17 PM

SurfaceTension: It's good satire, but brilliant? No, it kinda hits you over the head with it actually.


Verhoven is generally known for his subtle films full of nuance and fine shades of meaning, of course.
 
2013-11-08 03:42:03 PM

StrikitRich: [images.wikia.com image 450x308]

It hates movie critics, too


This is possibly the closest NPH would ever want to get to a vajayjay.

/
 
2013-11-08 03:42:05 PM

skyotter: I loved both the book AND the movie, even though they're very different things.  am I weird?


Naw, it's all good.
 
2013-11-08 03:42:14 PM
Franchise.
 
2013-11-08 03:44:11 PM
sirnickscastle.50webs.com

Felix is not impressed with SST shenanigans.
 
2013-11-08 03:44:44 PM
"Earth has provoked an otherwise benign species of bug-like aliens to retaliate violently against our planet, which it suddenly and correctly perceives as hostile.  "

Is this something that was spelled out clearly in the book but got left on the cutting room floor during post-production?
 
2013-11-08 03:45:03 PM

LeroyBourne: Yeesh, nothing about the huge vajayjay the queen bug had for a mouth?  I recall catching the end of the movie after it was out forever on cable.  They blurred out the friggin bug's mouth.


Which is in itself satire in a weird sort of way. Says a lot about the puritanical views of the censors. Would be a little bit of brilliance of intentional.
 
2013-11-08 03:45:05 PM

Hebalo: Ennuipoet: Why do people want to ruin a perfectly good cheesy movie by arguing that it had deep philosophical undertones?

Space ships, boobs, explosions, boobs, bugs, boobs.

If you want political insights, read the book.

/would still watch a REAL film adaptation of the book, just to see the suits.

Even the book is overrated. It was interesting enough, but hardly a poignant, gripping satire or commentary on war or politics.


You are correct.  It's one of Heinlein's "juveniles", books written for, essentially, boys 10 to 20 years old.

Having said that, it does effectively express the idea that "freedom isn't free".  It's definitely not thick enough to go into all the implications of a society where only those who have served in some capacity have the right to vote and hold office, and it is a novel that focuses on one single character and his development from a high school senior to a seasoned military leader, so of necessity you aren't going to get the full view of society that way.

It was never meant to be a satire.  It is a commentary on war, but not a *NEGATIVE* commentary on it, and it is a commentary on politics.
 
2013-11-08 03:45:21 PM
The book turned directly into a film would just plain suck. Book-Johnny was a pansy who couldn't talk to women. The opening chapter of the book detailed Johnny and his squad nuking civilian cities occupied by the Skinnies that were currently neutral in the war against the bugs. The only reason people like the book so much is the technology (the suits) that Heinlein describes. Bringing his father back at the end as a recruit was just plain stupid.
 
2013-11-08 03:45:48 PM
For me, it's always been a show about shirtless Casper Van Dien.
 
2013-11-08 03:46:35 PM

Endive Wombat: Contrabulous Flabtraption: TommyJReed: Would you like to know more?

If so, don't bother with the TFA since the writer didn't bother to explain his position. I agree with him though.

Yeah, it is satire for US foreign policy and military engagement...I mean...was it really that hard to understand?  I do not mean to sound hyper-intellectual here, but it is fairly obvious what the underlying tone of the movie is all about.


I saw it when it first came out, and back then I wasn't a person who looked deeply into movies for their message, but yeah I got it then. It wasn't too hard to see it since the movie was basically hitting you over the head with it. I remember the Right Wing pundits of the day screaming at the top of their lungs that it was a Nazi propaganda and glory piece.

But it is scary how that movie made in 97 mirrored 9/11, the American response and the attitudes of the people and the politicians at the time. Things like that you have to sit back and look at them in amazement.
 
2013-11-08 03:46:46 PM
The Rifftrax wasn't very good... and I love Rifftrax.
 
2013-11-08 03:47:17 PM

new_york_monty: You know that. I know that. Plenty of people do. But a lot of people don't pay attention to history for shiat. They tend to be the type to attend blockbuster cheese-fests in droves.


And they aren't the ones that would make the connections that you and I would make anyway, so the whole point is wasted on them.
 
2013-11-08 03:47:31 PM
The production of this movie is filled with so many funnies as well, its hard to pick one.

Like the coed shower scene. Originally none of the cast members agreed to it, and only then agreed if Paul would direct the scene in the nude as well. Which he did. Or how so many scenes were left on the floor because they made test audiences despise Cameron and her choice of career over Rico.....and that audiences sorta missed the social commentary that was making.
 
2013-11-08 03:47:49 PM
One day someone like me is gonna kill you and your whole farking race.
 
2013-11-08 03:48:16 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: The novel was good satire.  The movie was... not.


Much like "Moon is a Harsh Mistress", Heinlein was clueless about politics.
 
2013-11-08 03:49:52 PM
Whatever else it was, it was part of the Corps' reading list when I served.

Think about that for a minute. I certainly did.

Never got powered armor, though.
 
2013-11-08 03:50:08 PM
I'm from Buenos Aires...and I say kill em all!
 
Displayed 50 of 155 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report