Ready For A "Starship Troopers" Reboot? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 178 Old 07-16-2012, 10:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary McCoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Posts: 6,261
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Who made this rule, Gary? You?
The Starship Troopers movie is a satire on the political views espoused in Robert Heinlein's book. The book was a real thing, was it not?

Josh, my dislike of the ST movie exists on several levels. But as for the point about a satire, that is merely the precise definition of the English word. I welcome you to check as many dictionaries as you wish, I do not believe that you will find a definition of the word as you wish to use it. If you want to pick a different word than comedy, then funniness, joking, amusement, entertainment, humor, wit, jesting, clowning, slapstick, farce, pleasantry, etc. are all available and represent ORIGINAL HUMOR.

The words satire, caricature, imitation, lampoon, burlesque, takeoff, spoof, mockery all represent humor that is NOT entirely original, and represent humorous versions of reality. Certainly someone who makes a living slinging words, should be aware of the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Gulliver's Travels is widely regarded as one of the greatest satires in literature. I'm pretty sure it wasn't based on a real kingdom of miniature people, unless you know some "historical facts" that I'm not aware of. The setting is a metaphor. That's one of those fancy things that storytellers use to be clever.

Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World, in Four Parts. By Lemuel Gulliver, First a Surgeon, and then a Captain of several Ships, the proper title of the book to whoom you refer, is indeed a satire of English (or rather European) Class Society. The three Georges (I, II, and III) were supremely uninterested in ruling England, they were essentially layabout idle royalty who allowed their country to be run entirely by ministers. This forced the evolution of Parlimentary Democracy upon England, who really did have a far flung Empire and who really did "Rule the Waves" with her Royal Navy. This was the birth of modern Representative Democracy and the actual forerunner of the two Constitutional Republics that grew in the USA and France shortly thereafter. This is indeed an important book, but Gullivers Travels (to use the short modern form) is NOT a satire of a "kingdom of miniature people". You make my point for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

No, it couldn't. Because the book was simple-minded and tedious and awful. I fully understood the material Heinlein presented. I just think it stinks. That may be because, unlike the target audience Heinlein was aiming for, I was not a naïve and impressionable child when I first read it.

Obviously, you missed the whole point of the book Gullivers Travels, a classic of English Literature, and it's role in actual History. You also missed the whole point of Starship Troopers, which is anything but shallow, and in fact represents one of the two works of Robert A. Heinlein which form the basis for Libertarianism, the most modern form of political thought. Heinlein and Ayn Rand are the two primary writers who first described a modern form of government which places the individual and the rights of the individual as central in importance, and defines the role of the government as that of supporting and enhancing individual human rights. (The second Heinlein work on this topic is The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Let's be real here for a minute, Gary. The actual reason you dislike the Verhoeven movie is because the director has different politics than you do. Your arguments about the rules of satire, or the "realism" of the combat in a science fiction movie about giant alien bug people, are just deflections from that point.

Actually I am a student of History, Literature, and Culture. Allow me to suggest that YOU should become one as well, if you want to even become a passable critic. My actual politics (which you obviously don't understand either) are best described by the term Classical Liberalism. Before you shoot your mouth off about that, best watch this: http://www.learnliberty.org/content/what-classical-liberalism

Classical Liberalism is uniquely American and part of the culture you have lived in your entire life, you should know about it.

Now you have a nice day. If anyone else is planning on chiming in here, please use restraint. We can't actually talk about Politics or History or Literature or even Culture, except as peripherally related to the movie under discussion, that shallow and mildly entertaining version of a great work of specificly American modern Literature.
JimProuty likes this.

Gary McCoy
The United States Constitution ©1791. All Rights Reserved.

Gary McCoy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 178 Old 07-16-2012, 10:47 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
JMCecil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

Josh, my dislike of the ST movie exists on several levels. But as for the point about a satire, that is merely the precise definition of the English word. I welcome you to check as many dictionaries as you wish, I do not believe that you will find a definition of the word as you wish to use it. If you want to pick a different word than comedy, then funniness, joking, amusement, entertainment, humor, wit, jesting, clowning, slapstick, farce, pleasantry, etc. are all available and represent ORIGINAL HUMOR.
The words satire, caricature, imitation, lampoon, burlesque, takeoff, spoof, mockery all represent humor that is NOT entirely original, and represent humorous versions of reality. Certainly someone who makes a living slinging words, should be aware of the difference.
Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World, in Four Parts. By Lemuel Gulliver, First a Surgeon, and then a Captain of several Ships, the proper title of the book to whoom you refer, is indeed a satire of English (or rather European) Class Society. The three Georges (I, II, and III) were supremely uninterested in ruling England, they were essentially layabout idle royalty who allowed their country to be run entirely by ministers. This forced the evolution of Parlimentary Democracy upon England, who really did have a far flung Empire and who really did "Rule the Waves" with her Royal Navy. This was the birth of modern Representative Democracy and the actual forerunner of the two Constitutional Republics that grew in the USA and France shortly thereafter. This is indeed an important book, but Gullivers Travels (to use the short modern form) is NOT a satire of a "kingdom of miniature people". You make my point for me.
Obviously, you missed the whole point of the book Gullivers Travels, a classic of English Literature, and it's role in actual History. You also missed the whole point of Starship Troopers, which is anything but shallow, and in fact represents one of the two works of Robert A. Heinlein which form the basis for Libertarianism, the most modern form of political thought. Heinlein and Ayn Rand are the two primary writers who first described a modern form of government which places the individual and the rights of the individual as central in importance, and defines the role of the government as that of supporting and enhancing individual human rights. (The second Heinlein work on this topic is The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.)
Actually I am a student of History, Literature, and Culture. Allow me to suggest that YOU should become one as well, if you want to even become a passable critic. My actual politics (which you obviously don't understand either) are best described by the term Classical Liberalism. Before you shoot your mouth off about that, best watch this: http://www.learnliberty.org/content/what-classical-liberalism
Classical Liberalism is uniquely American and part of the culture you have lived in your entire life, you should know about it.
Now you have a nice day. If anyone else is planning on chiming in here, please use restraint. We can't actually talk about Politics or History or Literature or even Culture, except as peripherally related to the movie under discussion, that shallow and mildly entertaining version of a great work of specificly American modern Literature.
+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
JMCecil is online now  
post #93 of 178 Old 07-16-2012, 11:13 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Who made this rule, Gary? You?
The Starship Troopers movie is a satire on the political views espoused in Robert Heinlein's book. The book was a real thing, was it not?
Gulliver's Travels is widely regarded as one of the greatest satires in literature. I'm pretty sure it wasn't based on a real kingdom of miniature people, unless you know some "historical facts" that I'm not aware of. The setting is a metaphor. That's one of those fancy things that storytellers use to be clever.
No, it couldn't. Because the book was simple-minded and tedious and awful. I fully understood the material Heinlein presented. I just think it stinks. That may be because, unlike the target audience Heinlein was aiming for, I was not a naïve and impressionable child when I first read it.
Let's be real here for a minute, Gary. The actual reason you dislike the Verhoeven movie is because the director has different politics than you do. Your arguments about the rules of satire, or the "realism" of the combat in a science fiction movie about giant alien bug people, are just deflections from that point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Yep. When you can't change the message, attack the messenger. It's SOP.
There is no way not to view Starship Troopers as a satire about the utter futility of war and how the grunts on the ground are viewed as disposable by political leaders who often act out of ignorance and hubris. In order to make people still want to serve in such an environment, emotional buttons must be pushed. We see the same thing in armed forces commercials today that ignore the nasty reality of war in order to show soldiers providing disaster aid to orphans and getting to operate really cool machinery and running through smoke banks. The modern tools of propaganda are much more sophisticated than the crude WWII level portrayed in the movie, but that doesn't make the satire any less pointed or relevant. It just gives it emphasis.
You guys are saving me some keyboarding....wink.gif

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
post #94 of 178 Old 07-16-2012, 12:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
adpayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Camp Lake,WI
Posts: 1,510
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

Today's foot soldiers are part of an integrated electronic battlefield that meshes helmet cameras with overhead drones, spy satellites, infrared and radar sensors, "fire and forget" missiles, guns that shoot around corners, and combat robots. All of which are at the beck and call of the political leaders.The existing ST film was made by someone who did not understand the role of the military. The comments about the film display even more misunderstanding from the viewers.

Wow. I don't even know where to begin with this. While it is true that we have access to some nifty gadgets that were not available 50 years ago, the realities on the ground are quite different than what you believe. I asked you before but don't recall your answer: What branch of the Armed Forces did you serve in?

You do realize ST was recognized as a satire, by the savy, when it came out don't you? Many of our opinions are just a mirror of that fact. If you don't like it, fine. Many of your comments in this thread come off as condescending though.
adpayne is offline  
post #95 of 178 Old 07-16-2012, 12:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Its just a movie.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #96 of 178 Old 07-16-2012, 12:29 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,223
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 412 Post(s)
Liked: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

But as for the point about a satire, that is merely the precise definition of the English word. I welcome you to check as many dictionaries as you wish, I do not believe that you will find a definition of the word as you wish to use it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/

sat•ire 
noun
1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3. a literary genre comprising such compositions.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/satire

1: a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2: trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

http://www.britannica.com/search?query=satire

artistic form, chiefly literary and dramatic, in which human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, parody, caricature, or other methods, sometimes with an intent to inspire social reform.

---

Huh. I did what you asked, and yet I strangely can't find any mention in these reference sources about any requirement that satire must be based on real events or historical fact. That seems to be something you've invented.

In fact, here's the Wikipedia entry that you yourself quoted:

"In satire, vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement. Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon."

Again, I ask, where does this say that satire must be based on historical fact?

In any case, this whole argument is a diversionary tactic, given that the Starship Troopers movie is in fact based on America's historical involvement in Vietnam and Russia's historical involvement in Afghanistan.
Quote:
You also missed the whole point of Starship Troopers, which is anything but shallow,

I missed the point of nothing. I simply disagree with your opinion of the book, just as you disagree with my opinion of the movie.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is online now  
post #97 of 178 Old 07-16-2012, 12:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary McCoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Posts: 6,261
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 43
It's just a bad movie. It's definately NOT a satire, and it is not based upon actual History, it is a work of Fiction set in one possible future. The source material is an important work that is the antithesis of the Marxist/Collectivist ideals that are presently taught in a great many US instituitions of "higher" learning. Nor do modern schools teach the rudiments of actual logical thought, Philosophy, Modern History, or Political Science to those who study other topics.

If any of this discussion causes any of you to attempt a greater understanding of the topics so briefly touched upon here, then my time was not wasted. I should warn you that actual knowledge of such topics has a disturbing and unsettling effect upon your peace of mind. You might actually begin to have an interest in movies that do not have as their sole purpose the stimulation of adrenaline. You might end up watching several different sources of news, and noticing that they are not the same. You might question the wisdom and motives of those who form our government. You might actually read books that do not exist in electronic form. Worst of all, you might become dissatisfied with vegetating in front of a video screen.

You were warned.

Gary McCoy
The United States Constitution ©1791. All Rights Reserved.

Gary McCoy is offline  
post #98 of 178 Old 07-16-2012, 01:00 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Tulpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,026
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

If any of this discussion causes any of you to attempt a greater understanding of the topics so briefly touched upon here, then my time was not wasted. I should warn you that actual knowledge of such topics has a disturbing and unsettling effect upon your peace of mind. You might actually begin to have an interest in movies that do not have as their sole purpose the stimulation of adrenaline. You might end up watching several different sources of news, and noticing that they are not the same. You might question the wisdom and motives of those who form our government. You might actually read books that do not exist in electronic form. Worst of all, you might become dissatisfied with vegetating in front of a video screen.
You were warned.

You forgot to mention that it also causes erectile dysfunction. mad.gif

Don't believe everything on the Interwebz! A duck's quack DOES echo!
Tulpa is offline  
post #99 of 178 Old 07-16-2012, 01:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary McCoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Posts: 6,261
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Josh, your message above was posted as I was typing mine. This is your response.

1) The book Starship Troopers was published in 1959. This was before the Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and before the bulk of the War in Vietnam. Specificly it was before the Vietnam War became so unpopular in American Culture. It was in fact the period in History where Dwight D. Eisenhauer was POTUS and the French were involved in the Vietnam War, and our involvement was in an advisory role and not a combat role. My point being to refute the assertions by MovieSwede, oink, archiguy and yourself, that the source material is a satire. Note that you cannot satirize actual events that have not yet happened.

2) The movie is based on the book. Do you want to have a debate about that as well?

3) Because the movie is based on the book, the definition that matters is the transitive verb satirize, not the noun satire. The book is a work of pure fiction used to commmunicate concepts of Libertarian Philosophy via the Socratic method. I gather that is why you did not like it. Perhaps one of your teachers told you not to like it - that is the usual case. Like I said before, it advances one theory of government while savagely criticizing Collectivism in all forms.

sat·i·rize[ sáttə rz ]

TRANSITIVE VERB

1. mock somebody or something: to attack or criticize somebody or something by means of satire.

sat·i·ri·za·tion NOUN
sat·i·riz·er NOUN

VERB
Synonyms: mock, ridicule, parody, lampoon, deride, send up, caricature

4) Simple question: The movie is based on the book, which was written before the historical events you insist are being satirized. Little was altered in the screenplay although a great many plot points were left out. What pray tell is being satirized in the movie?

Gary McCoy
The United States Constitution ©1791. All Rights Reserved.

Gary McCoy is offline  
post #100 of 178 Old 07-16-2012, 02:01 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
archiguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 18,263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 363 Post(s)
Liked: 676
Gary, the movie was a satire based on the book. It wasn't a realistic depiction of the ideas put forth in the book; it was a parody of them. That was the whole point of making it that way instead of slavishly adhering to the novel with its Ironman suits and All. Those. Lectures.

The history of film is replete with directors taking a source book and making of the film their own sometimes completely different vision. Verhoeven simply turned the jingoistic, pro-military tone of Henlein's book on its head. That's what makes it a parody. That's what makes it satire. I don't know how it can be phrased or explained any more concisely.

And your condescending tone in dismissing those who make this point - that they're either intellectual lightweights or snobby university elites, depending on the post - is not winning you any converts, BTW. The people who "get" this movie understand precisely what it is and the point it's making. That doesn't make them an elitist or a dullard; it makes them a movie buff.
archiguy is offline  
post #101 of 178 Old 07-16-2012, 02:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary McCoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Posts: 6,261
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 43
archiguy, that just does not ring true. Much of the book was omitted, but I can think of only two scenes which were added. That would be the High School "football" game at the beginning, and the "feelgood" scene with Carmen, Juan, and Carl at the end. (Plus of course those idiotic commercials.)

Leaving out part of the source material does not produce a parody, just a BAD adaption. This is one of the worst.

Gary McCoy
The United States Constitution ©1791. All Rights Reserved.

Gary McCoy is offline  
post #102 of 178 Old 07-16-2012, 04:18 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
gwsat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 14,704
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 240 Post(s)
Liked: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Gary, the movie was a satire based on the book. It wasn't a realistic depiction of the ideas put forth in the book; it was a parody of them. That was the whole point of making it that way instead of slavishly adhering to the novel with its Ironman suits and All. Those. Lectures.
The history of film is replete with directors taking a source book and making of the film their own sometimes completely different vision. Verhoeven simply turned the jingoistic, pro-military tone of Henlein's book on its head. That's what makes it a parody. That's what makes it satire. I don't know how it can be phrased or explained any more concisely.
And your condescending tone in dismissing those who make this point - that they're either intellectual lightweights or snobby university elites, depending on the post - is not winning you any converts, BTW. The people who "get" this movie understand precisely what it is and the point it's making. That doesn't make them an elitist or a dullard; it makes them a movie buff.
+.95!((smile.gif) I agree that Starship Troopers is a wonderful satire but I think its satirical point of view reaches beyond a single jingoistic book. Instead, I think it is a delightful sendup of every piece of fiction, either printed or filmed, that tried to send an overwrought hyper-patriotic message. In Starship Troopers, we got an overwrought, hyper-patriotic film, which was also sly and fun.
gwsat is offline  
post #103 of 178 Old 07-16-2012, 05:00 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

If any of this discussion causes any of you to attempt a greater understanding of the topics so briefly touched upon here, then my time was not wasted. I should warn you that actual knowledge of such topics has a disturbing and unsettling effect upon your peace of mind. You might actually begin to have an interest in movies that do not have as their sole purpose the stimulation of adrenaline. You might end up watching several different sources of news, and noticing that they are not the same. You might question the wisdom and motives of those who form our government. You might actually read books that do not exist in electronic form. Worst of all, you might become dissatisfied with vegetating in front of a video screen.
You were warned.
Man....that's a heckuva paragraph.rolleyes.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

+.95!((smile.gif) I agree that Starship Troopers is a wonderful satire but I think its satirical point of view reaches beyond a single jingoistic book. Instead, I think it is a delightful sendup of every piece of fiction, either printed or filmed, that tried to send an overwrought hyper-patriotic message. In Starship Troopers, we got an overwrought, hyper-patriotic film, which was also sly and fun.
+2.0 tongue.gif

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
post #104 of 178 Old 07-16-2012, 05:27 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
smudge981's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Nevada
Posts: 1,840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 165
Little did I know when I posted this that I would get my weekly allottment of politics, philosophy, and literature. The quotes have been priceless. Glad I brought this: imagesCA4BROHZ.jpg 10k .jpg file
Attached Images
File Type: jpg imagesCA4BROHZ.jpg (10.2 KB, 21 views)

"I am NOT suffering from insanity... I happen to be enjoying myself!"

smudge981 is offline  
post #105 of 178 Old 07-16-2012, 08:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 37
So do we have anyone here that liked both the book and the movie?
MovieSwede is offline  
post #106 of 178 Old 07-17-2012, 12:04 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 818
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

So do we have anyone here that liked both the book and the movie?
LOL, I don't think there is....tongue.gif

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
post #107 of 178 Old 07-17-2012, 01:20 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 818
To put some reality into this discussion of ST:
http://www.cracked.com/article_19259_6-mind-blowing-ways-starship-troopers-predicted-future.html

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
post #108 of 178 Old 07-17-2012, 07:52 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
archiguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 18,263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 363 Post(s)
Liked: 676
^^^ That was brilliant. biggrin.gif And kind of freaky. eek.gif Just to put a definitive period on this discussion, allow me to quote the article's last paragraph:


See, that's the thing about Starship Troopers -- to this day, lots of people don't realize it's a satire. They think it's just a really [crummy] action movie that does a bad job of building sympathy for the protagonists. The reason so many people don't get the satire is because at the time it wasn't clear what war it was satirizing ("A quagmire in the desert, triggered by an attack on the homeland? Heck, when has that happened?") and that's because the war it was satirizing hadn't happened yet.

Amen.
archiguy is offline  
post #109 of 178 Old 07-17-2012, 08:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
lonwolf615's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: s.beloit,il,usa
Posts: 4,521
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 131
This is beginning to sound like a really twisted episode of Doctor Who...

"There is no truth. There's just what you believe."
lonwolf615 is offline  
post #110 of 178 Old 07-17-2012, 01:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary McCoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Posts: 6,261
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 43
I realize that actual causality is a tough concept for some people. But four years before 9/11 there was no war in Iraq or Afghanistan. We had had the really brief Gulf War I which was a UN action, with armed forces from 34 different nations, all under central UN command.

The ST movie was not satirizing any conflict in any desert. Saddam folded up like wet cardboard in Gulf War I, most American troops never even got into combat.

The ST book is a Science Fiction work that happens to present some Libertarian concepts in the text. The ST movie is a bad adaption of the book. End of story.

Gary McCoy
The United States Constitution ©1791. All Rights Reserved.

Gary McCoy is offline  
post #111 of 178 Old 07-17-2012, 01:52 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

I realize that actual causality is a tough concept for some people.
I am not sure if you are or are not deliberately trying to be condescending or are just having fun for your own amusement.
Either way, this pattern in your recent posts isn't going to win you many friends around here.....

Quote:
End of story.
OK.

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
post #112 of 178 Old 07-17-2012, 02:05 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Tulpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,026
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

I realize that actual causality is a tough concept for some people. But four years before 9/11 there was no war in Iraq or Afghanistan.

That's like saying This Is Spinal Tap isn't a satire because it was released before similar wackiness happened years later with bands like Metallica (seriously, watch Some Kind of Monster and tell me that couldn't serve as a Spinal Tap sequel.) Sure, it wasn't EXACTLY the same, but it had a feeling of deja vu.

Sometimes satirists are so prescient with their satire because they look at what happened before and know we're still heading that way.

Don't believe everything on the Interwebz! A duck's quack DOES echo!
Tulpa is offline  
post #113 of 178 Old 07-17-2012, 02:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Aliens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,874
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 129 Post(s)
Liked: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

I am not sure if you are or are not deliberately trying to be condescending or are just having fun for your own amusement.
Either way, this pattern in your recent posts isn't going to win you many friends around here.....

condescendposter.jpg
Aliens is offline  
post #114 of 178 Old 07-17-2012, 02:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,223
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 412 Post(s)
Liked: 396
Gary, at this point, you are just being willfully obtuse in the hopes that the rest of us will get frustrated and stop trying to argue with you. This is not a fruitful debating tactic.

You didn't like the movie. We get that. It's OK that you didn't like the movie, but the reasons you've articulated for not liking it are simply not rational. You insist that it's not a satire, based on a definition of satire that you and you alone have invented only in your own mind.

Even people who hate the movie can at least acknowledge that it's a satire - just not a satire that they like or agree with.

I will acknowledge that the Starship Troopers book is intended as a philosophical treatise on the author's ideal form of government. I just happen to think that it's terrible at achieving that goal.

If you're going to dislike the movie, at least try to dislike it for reasons that make sense.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is online now  
post #115 of 178 Old 07-17-2012, 02:34 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
archiguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 18,263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 363 Post(s)
Liked: 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliens View Post

condescendposter.jpg

I'll have you know that Patti-the-Archicat was very offended by that condescending picture attacking her very way of life and the freedom she cherishes. Mee-OW! to you, sir.
archiguy is offline  
post #116 of 178 Old 07-17-2012, 04:32 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 818
LOL, that is what we need around here: some levity.tongue.gif
Thanx, guys.smile.gif

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
post #117 of 178 Old 07-18-2012, 11:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary McCoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Posts: 6,261
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Gary, at this point, you are just being willfully obtuse in the hopes that the rest of us will get frustrated and stop trying to argue with you. This is not a fruitful debating tactic.
You didn't like the movie. We get that. It's OK that you didn't like the movie, but the reasons you've articulated for not liking it are simply not rational. You insist that it's not a satire, based on a definition of satire that you and you alone have invented only in your own mind.
Even people who hate the movie can at least acknowledge that it's a satire - just not a satire that they like or agree with.
I will acknowledge that the Starship Troopers book is intended as a philosophical treatise on the author's ideal form of government. I just happen to think that it's terrible at achieving that goal.
If you're going to dislike the movie, at least try to dislike it for reasons that make sense.

No, Josh, I just don't think so. As much as you may want to believe it is so, the definition of English words is not determined by popular opinion.

I gave examples of two actual satires. Catch-22 satirized WW2. Dr. Strangelove satirized the Cold War. ST the movie preceded the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and bears little resemblance to any actual conflict such as Korea, Vietnam, or Gulf War I.

I ask you again, if you insist that ST the movie is a satire, what conflict is it satirizing? What country's armed forces are represented by Federation troops? Which human enemy is represented by the Bugs? If these questions cannot be answered then it cannot be a satire, by definition.

Gary McCoy
The United States Constitution ©1791. All Rights Reserved.

Gary McCoy is offline  
post #118 of 178 Old 07-18-2012, 11:27 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,223
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 412 Post(s)
Liked: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

No, Josh, I just don't think so. As much as you may want to believe it is so, the definition of English words is not determined by popular opinion.
I gave examples of two actual satires. Catch-22 satirized WW2. Dr. Strangelove satirized the Cold War. ST the movie preceded the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and bears little resemblance to any actual conflict such as Korea, Vietnam, or Gulf War I.
I ask you again, if you insist that ST the movie is a satire, what conflict is it satirizing? What country's armed forces are represented by Federation troops? Which human enemy is represented by the Bugs? If these questions cannot be answered then it cannot be a satire, by definition.

Gary, please show me a reference source that states that satire must be based on real events. You keep making this claim, but absolutely nothing you have posted supports it.

And for at least the third time in this thread (possibly fourth or more), the Starship Troopers movie satirizes elements of Vietnam and the Russian conflict in Afghanistan, among other real events. So, even by your own cockamamie definition of satire that you've invented, this movie qualifies.

I'm never going to force you to like the Starship Troopers movie, I get that. But the argument you keep making is totally irrational.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is online now  
post #119 of 178 Old 07-18-2012, 11:37 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Tulpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,026
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

I ask you again, if you insist that ST the movie is a satire, what conflict is it satirizing? What country's armed forces are represented by Federation troops? Which human enemy is represented by the Bugs? If these questions cannot be answered then it cannot be a satire, by definition.

What specific band is Spinal Tap satirizing? Who are David St. Hubbins, Nigel Tufnel, and Derek Smalls specifically supposed to be? What album is Smell the Glove supposed to be representing?

The answer is no one band, no specific people, or album. It's satirizing heavy metal and hard rock in general. Starship Troopers is the same. Just because there is no one specific and immediately nameable target doesn't mean it can't be satire. And again, Spinal Tap was remarkably prescient when Metallica started doing similar silly things about two decades later.

Don't believe everything on the Interwebz! A duck's quack DOES echo!
Tulpa is offline  
post #120 of 178 Old 07-18-2012, 11:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
adpayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Camp Lake,WI
Posts: 1,510
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Gary, please show me a reference source that states that satire must be based on real events. You keep making this claim, but absolutely nothing you have posted supports it.
And for at least the third time in this thread (possibly fourth or more), the Starship Troopers movie satirizes elements of Vietnam and the Russian conflict in Afghanistan, among other real events. So, even by your own cockamamie definition of satire that you've invented, this movie qualifies.
I'm never going to force you to like the Starship Troopers movie, I get that. But the argument you keep making is totally irrational.

It is a lost cause. He claims to be "a student" of many things, but experience trumps all else. Since he ignores questions about his military experience, one must believe he has none. But he's read a lot about it though. rolleyes.gif
adpayne is offline  
Reply Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion

Tags
Starship Troopers Bd Live Blu Ray , Blu Ray Movies
Gear in this thread - Starship by PriceGrabber.com

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off