or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Ready For A "Starship Troopers" Reboot?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ready For A "Starship Troopers" Reboot? - Page 3

post #61 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonwolf615 View Post

Great post Josh. Should be the last word on the subject, but probably won't be...smile.gif
Excellent analysis by JZ.smile.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by IceAgeTom View Post

I know that the book's power armor wasn't used, but that doesn't explain why a futuristic military capable of quick interstellar travel is using WW1 tactics, i.e. dump a bunch of troops onto the ground and let 'em charge the bugs on foot with no tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery or air support (hell, WWI even had plenty of artillery).
When the book was written, think of the many dimestore WWII movies Hollywood was crapping out at the time (Audie Murphy, etc.)
I think I watched every one of 'em at least once when I was kid.
Guys charging the beaches, charging the jungles, charging the hills, etc.
Verhoven was referencing those movies.

Quote:
Better yet, the Feds have nukes, so just drop 'em from orbit, bug problem solved real quick.
For the same reason we don't nuke the baddies of every war we jump into.

Quote:
There won't be any "messy" politics or satire, it will just be Aliens-lite with bad-guy humans and sympathetic Native American-like bugs.
After Verhoven's film, I think that's the only way ST could be taken.
post #62 of 178
So a neutered version of Total Recall is coming out, a (likely) toothless, neutered version of Robocop is in production, and now a bloodless version of Starship Troopers is being made... It's like hollywood is deliberately rebuking Verhoven's work. You could also say that hollywood is deliberately rebuking adulthood. What's next, a family friendly remake of Basic Instinct? This is worse than turning all of my favorite Dr. Suess books into bloated, infantile, artless, happy-meal movies. At least Stallone is still making no-sissies-allowed movies.
post #63 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadyJ View Post

So a neutered version of Total Recall is coming out, a (likely) toothless, neutered version of Robocop is in production, and now a bloodless version of Starship Troopers is being made... It's like hollywood is deliberately rebuking Verhoven's work. You could also say that hollywood is deliberately rebuking adulthood. What's next, a family friendly remake of Basic Instinct? This is worse than turning all of my favorite Dr. Suess books into bloated, infantile, artless, happy-meal movies. At least Stallone is still making no-sissies-allowed movies.

Yup, the new Total Recall has the look and feel of Spielberg's Minority Report, the new RoboCop is going to be a ripoff of Iron Man (I'll bet the title character isn't a cyborg, but a guy just wearing a removable suit ala Tony Stark) and now a new Starship Troopers is going to be Avatar combined with The Avengers. I blame Marvel, Michael Bay's Transformers movies and James Cameron for this Verhoeven remake fad. And yeah, I'm beting a PG-13 remake of Basic Instinct is next. Of course, why stop there? Why not PG-13 remakes of Brian De Palma's Scarface, Scorcese's Goodfellas and Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan?
post #64 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by IceAgeTom View Post

Yup, the new Total Recall has the look and feel of Spielberg's Minority Report, the new RoboCop is going to be a ripoff of Iron Man (I'll bet the title character isn't a cyborg, but a guy just wearing a removable suit ala Tony Stark) and now a new Starship Troopers is going to be Avatar combined with The Avengers. I blame Marvel, Michael Bay's Transformers movies and James Cameron for this Verhoeven remake fad. And yeah, I'm beting a PG-13 remake of Basic Instinct is next. Of course, why stop there? Why not PG-13 remakes of Brian De Palma's Scarface, Scorcese's Goodfellas and Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan?
Again, a lot of us see it as the possibility of getting an actual good movie, with good acting, good script and intelligent dialog and situations, that might even representative of the actual name the movie is using, to replace really horrible movies that abused classic literature.
post #65 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadyJ View Post

....At least Stallone is still making no-sissies-allowed movies.

Frakin'- A...! Stallone has never let us down (let us not mention 'Rhinestone" or "Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot"; nobody's perfect). However, today comes this bit of sad Sly news. frown.gif
post #66 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by IceAgeTom View Post

Yeah I know that the book's power armor wasn't used, but that doesn't explain why a futuristic military capable of quick interstellar travel is using WW1 tactics, i.e. dump a bunch of troops onto the ground and let 'em charge the bugs on foot with no tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery or air support (hell, WWI even had plenty of artillery). Ok, so ONE small air strike was shown, but that was it; that should have plan #1.

"You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."
- Donald Rumsfeld, 2004

Verhoeven's point is that the military in the movie vastly underestimated its opponent, and arrogantly charged into battle ill-equipped for what it would face. The Federation thought that this would be a quick and easy bug-stomping operation that could be taken care of by sending in a bunch of disposable grunts in force.
Quote:
Better yet, the Feds have nukes, so just drop 'em from orbit, bug problem solved real quick.

The Federation didn't nuke the planet because they wanted to occupy Klendathu, not destroy it. Federation encroachment into Bug territory was the whole reason for the war in the first place.
Quote:
If Verhoeven wanted to depict the war with the bugs as a pointless "meat grinder", then the bugs should have been mad technologically comparable to the humans, which they ARE in the book. Then the war could have been an analog to the Eastern Front of WWII. That way Verhoeven could still have made his point and have his satire, but in a much more believable setting.

The movie was specifically made as a satire of America's involvement in Vietnam and the Middle East, as well as Russia's involvement in Afghanistan. In all of these cases, the military underestimated opponents that were less technologically advanced, but were more determined and had home-field advantage. This is why the movie still manages to hold up an accurate mirror to what would later happen after 9/11.
post #67 of 178
^OK, now you have just hit it out of the park...wink.gif
post #68 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

^OK, now you have just hit it out of the park...wink.gif
yes, he continues to make up silly defenses for a terrible movie with horrendous acting, stupid script, ridiculous dialog and moronic story suitable for early teens so they can pay attention long enough to get to the shower scene ... I can't wait to hear how artistically nuanced Showgirls really is.
post #69 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

The movie was specifically made as a satire of America's involvement in Vietnam and the Middle East, as well as Russia's involvement in Afghanistan. In all of these cases, the military underestimated opponents that were less technologically advanced, but were more determined and had home-field advantage. This is why the movie still manages to hold up an accurate mirror to what would later happen after 9/11.
I like most of the opinions you share, Josh, but in this case I have a question. What if some see this as unnecessary agenda pushing or opinionated propaganda? Many "average" folk look for simple entertainment, while the anti-simpletons look for cause for thought and enjoy that in our films. While the olympic sized achievements of the thespianic God known as Casper Van Dien may be lost on some, those same viewers may inadvertently lose sight of the more thoughtful directorial and writing prowess the movie hath spewed forth in light of his fine performance.

Many would argue that you must check your brain at the door for films like this. I disagree. Would checking your brain not be relegating yourself to the average? I believe so. The same average that makes up the majority of the population of the US? The average that is many thousands in debt, lives pay check to pay check, and longs for a better life? Doesn't sound like the proper path to follow to me. I say ask for more, and this movie provides it if you're willing to think. Not unlike many films that are ill-reviewed because they don't contain the proper ratio of blood and 'splosions and non-surreal atmospheres. Starship Groupers has always had a feeling of dread and foreboding that not many films do. It takes vision and a certain measure of audaciousness to pull that off.
post #70 of 178
I'll bow out of the trashing of the film after leaving a couple of links to people who took the time to explain some of the things that bug me about the film.

http://blogcritics.org/books/article/heinlein-starship-troopersa-disastrous-film-adaptation/
http://www.kentaurus.com/troopers.htm#lie

These are just two examples of people, like me, who don't see a satire because you would have to have understood the book to begin with to satirize it. Since the satire doesn't work, the bad acting and nonsense action don't work. It renders the movie a comedy. Only not terribly funny.

For some reason I have equal vehemence for Natural Born Killers. I'm not sure which movie is actually worse. My opinion on that changes regularly. But, I think they are on my top 5 of the worst movies list. That includes B movies. Heck I prefer really crappy movies like Dinosaur Island. The movies are actually equivalent in content. But, one is purposefully self indulgently bad on purpose.

Ok, I've had my annual Starship Troopers hate rant. Carry on ... :P
post #71 of 178
Sorry, Josh, what you see as "commentary" on the US military I see as a bunch of clueless filmmakers who have no idea what modern warfare is about, let alone future warfare, and who think Aliens is the last word on the subject.. The Feds didn't "underestimate" the Bugs, it is obvious that they have NO power armor (which was in the book), tanks, artillery, armored personnel carriers (like the US Bradley), massive air support or orbital bombardment, all of which (except for the orbital stuff) we have right now, so why is it not in the Feds' arsenal? The Bugs were reduced to a simple surface-based species who were in an open desert environment, and would have been no problem for the current US military--a massive cluster-bomb attack would have wiped out the Bugs like spraying ants with a can of Raid. One thing I liked about Avatar was that it showed the humans were going to blow those damn smurfs to hell before the tree-hugger crap got in thr way.

The movie is one big over-the-top joke, and that's why I enjoy it. That and all of the graphic Bug carnage, plus the shower scene. smile.gif

I actually would welcome a new, serious take on the book if it was made by competent people who actually understand the subject, though I don''t think that's what we're going to get with this remake.
post #72 of 178
And here's a review which says what I love about this film:

http://www.grouchoreviews.com/reviews/3154

Sorry you Heilein fans are all disappointed. If it makes you feel better, I thought Verhoeven't Total Recall was a crappy movie.
post #73 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMCecil View Post

These are just two examples of people, like me, who don't see a satire because you would have to have understood the book to begin with to satirize it.

You dont have to read or understand the book to enjoy ST. It a satire of propaganda movies, not the book. ST is just one big propaganda movie for the federation.

If I would have made a remake I would refilm the events in Verhoevens movie and made it show how things looked in "real" life. That could have been a fun twist.
post #74 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post

I like most of the opinions you share, Josh, but in this case I have a question. What if some see this as unnecessary agenda pushing or opinionated propaganda? Many "average" folk look for simple entertainment, while the anti-simpletons look for cause for thought and enjoy that in our films. While the olympic sized achievements of the thespianic God known as Casper Van Dien may be lost on some, those same viewers may inadvertently lose sight of the more thoughtful directorial and writing prowess the movie hath spewed forth in light of his fine performance.
Many would argue that you must check your brain at the door for films like this. I disagree. Would checking your brain not be relegating yourself to the average? I believe so. The same average that makes up the majority of the population of the US? The average that is many thousands in debt, lives pay check to pay check, and longs for a better life? Doesn't sound like the proper path to follow to me. I say ask for more, and this movie provides it if you're willing to think. Not unlike many films that are ill-reviewed because they don't contain the proper ratio of blood and 'splosions and non-surreal atmospheres. Starship Groupers has always had a feeling of dread and foreboding that not many films do. It takes vision and a certain measure of audaciousness to pull that off.
+1



Quote:
Originally Posted by JMCecil View Post

These are just two examples of people, like me, who don't see a satire because you would have to have understood the book to begin with to satirize it. Since the satire doesn't work, the bad acting and nonsense action don't work. It renders the movie a comedy. Only not terribly funny.
For some reason I have equal vehemence for Natural Born Killers. I'm not sure which movie is actually worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IceAgeTom View Post

Sorry, Josh, what you see as "commentary" on the US military I see as a bunch of clueless filmmakers who have no idea what modern warfare is about, let alone future warfare, and who think Aliens is the last word on the subject.. The Feds didn't "underestimate" the Bugs, it is obvious that they have NO power armor (which was in the book), tanks, artillery, armored personnel carriers (like the US Bradley), massive air support or orbital bombardment, all of which (except for the orbital stuff) we have right now, so why is it not in the Feds' arsenal? The Bugs were reduced to a simple surface-based species who were in an open desert environment, and would have been no problem for the current US military--a massive cluster-bomb attack would have wiped out the Bugs like spraying ants with a can of Raid. One thing I liked about Avatar was that it showed the humans were going to blow those damn smurfs to hell before the tree-hugger crap got in thr way.
The movie is one big over-the-top joke, and that's why I enjoy it. That and all of the graphic Bug carnage, plus the shower scene. smile.gif
I actually would welcome a new, serious take on the book if it was made by competent people who actually understand the subject, though I don''t think that's what we're going to get with this remake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

You dont have to read or understand the book to enjoy ST. It a satire of propaganda movies, not the book.
Either you get satire, or you don't....it's that simple.wink.gif
post #75 of 178
Tom made an excellant point about weapons. Wars are not faught with small arms, they are fought with aircraft, naval ships, artilliary, missiles, bombs, and armor. The average urban Police SWAT team would make mincemeat of the bug enemy shown in the ST movie. They are not a credible threat to even the 21st Century military. Heck, the Swiss Guard in Vatican City would wipe the floor with them.

The movie Starship Troopers is not a good satire, nor is it a faithfull rendition of the book. In fact, it's a jumbled mess. The remake could be better, but they often are not.
post #76 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by IceAgeTom View Post

Sorry, Josh, what you see as "commentary" on the US military I see as a bunch of clueless filmmakers who have no idea what modern warfare is about, let alone future warfare, and who think Aliens is the last word on the subject.. The Feds didn't "underestimate" the Bugs, it is obvious that they have NO power armor (which was in the book), tanks, artillery, armored personnel carriers (like the US Bradley), massive air support or orbital bombardment, all of which (except for the orbital stuff) we have right now, so why is it not in the Feds' arsenal? The Bugs were reduced to a simple surface-based species who were in an open desert environment, and would have been no problem for the current US military--a massive cluster-bomb attack would have wiped out the Bugs like spraying ants with a can of Raid.

Why don't we drop a tactical nuke in the middle of Afghanistan right now? We have the capability. Why don't we do it? Because we don't want to destroy the country. We have another agenda there.

The initial invasion of Klendathu is obviously meant to mirror the D-Day invasion of Normandy. We had tanks and air support in WWII, and would use them later in the conflict, but in order to maintain the logistics of the sneak attack, we swarmed into Normandy en masse on foot.

Again, the government in the movie underestimated its foe, and assumed that it could use old tactics that had worked against a completely different opponent in the past against a new enemy that it didn't fully understand – much like how we charged into Vietnam unprepared for how different that war would be from any we'd fought in the past.

In the excellent documentary The Fog of War, Robert McNamara, the architect of America's military strategy in Vietnam, very candidly discusses all of our failings in that conflict, and draws direct parallels to the way we've continued to make the same mistakes in the Middle East.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Quote:
a massive cluster-bomb attack would have wiped out the Bugs like spraying ants with a can of Raid.

No, it wouldn't. The Bugs live underground. This is specifically addressed in the movie.
post #77 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post

What if some see this as unnecessary agenda pushing or opinionated propaganda?

Then in fact the movie is truer to the intent of Robert Heinlein's book than the author's fans want to admit. Verhoeven just has the opposite political agenda to push.
post #78 of 178
Gary, the movie criticizes the government that directs the military, not the soldiers on the ground, who are merely pawns in the political game. You'll note the turnover from one Sky Marshall to another. The new administration makes big promises to turn things around, but then makes no fundamental changes to the way the situation is handled. You may have noticed something similar happening in real life.
post #79 of 178
I hate Message Movies and go out of my way to avoid them. To my way of thinking, though, the only "Message" Starship Troopers may convey is that jingoistic war films are actually kind of funny and a fertile field for kidding. I loved Starship Troopers and have the BD in my small library but I certainly don't look at it as a cautionary tale. To me it is first class piece of popular entertainment, which is gory and had a big budget, but is utterly unserious, whether Verhoeven meant for it to be that or not. The key here is that, even if Verhoeven had a high-minded antiwar agenda he was too much of an artist to allow it to interfere with his loud, dumb, but hugely entertaining, film.
post #80 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Gary, the movie criticizes the government that directs the military, not the soldiers on the ground, who are merely pawns in the political game.
I have never understood HOW people come up with the idea that criticizing a Government's War Policy is criticizing the grunts.
It must take special wiring of the cerebral cortex...
post #81 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

I have never understood HOW people come up with the idea that criticizing a Government's War Policy is criticizing the grunts.

I guess it comes down to how you criticize. I have encountered many examples were people are making cheap political points by insulting the guys on the ground.
post #82 of 178
As is the case in this thread. Which I spoke out against earlier, and my comments were edited away. I don't think any of us actually knows what Verhoeven was attempting, but the movie he made bears as much resemblance to real war as does the "combat" you see in the WWF. 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.

War itself is not even that simple. In many ways it does not matter what your opinion is when you experience an attack such as Pearl Harbor or 9/11. It's not as if the desires of your enemy are irrelevent.

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. It is entertaining only at the most superficial level.

There is hope that a reboot can fix these errors.
post #83 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

I guess it comes down to how you criticize. I have encountered many examples were people are making cheap political points by insulting the guys on the ground.
I protested (and served) during the Viet Nam War.
I never saw a situation (in the flesh) where "people are making cheap political points by insulting the guys on the ground."
I just didn't...confused.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

As is the case in this thread. Which I spoke out against earlier, and my comments were edited away. I don't think any of us actually knows what Verhoeven was attempting, but the movie he made bears as much resemblance to real war as does the "combat" you see in the WWF. 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. War itself is not even that simple.
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. It is entertaining only at the most superficial level.
There is hope that a reboot can fix these errors.
Gary, it has been pointed out many times now....PV's film is about "satire."
It has nothing to do with "fire and forget" etc....
You are missing the point.
post #84 of 178
In fact there is no point to be made. Paul Verhoeven can not make a satire about something that is not historical fact. Catch-22 was a real satire about a real conflict, generally referred to as WW2. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb was a satire about the Cold War, a real historical reality and a terrifying time in history that I remember first hand.

The definition in Wikipedia: "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."

Starship Troopers can never be a satire. The original book explores a portion of future history. You cannot satirize something that is not real to begin with. If you think that the film ST satirizes any real society or any real conflict or makes any point whatsoever about the world we live in, then in fact you do partake of the entirely objectional mindset and the attitudes and beliefs that both myself and "IceAgeTom" are criticizing.

As I pointed out before, the original movie version of Starship Troopers is entirely superficial and only mildly entertaining. If an entirely straight and reverent interpretation of the original book were to make it into the script, and if that script were filmed by someone who understood the material, you may possibly have an extremely successfull adventure SF movie. It could even be a classic.

But it will not be, and never could be, a satire.

Edit: And the power suits are in fact, so very necessary to what a Mobile Infantryman is, that a proper film could not be made without including them, and fully realizing them in real mechanical form. This could easily have been done in 1997, after Ridley Scott had made wonderfully functional spacesuits in the 1979 movie Alien, or James Cameron had used a powered exoskeleton to fight an alien queen bug in the 1986 film Aliens. It was Verhoeven's biggest error, and it completely scuttled the original ST film. He basicly made the error because he was either too lazy to pursue the idea, or he had no faith in his ability to do so. It was THE wrong decision among all his other wrong decisions.

Edit #2: Thank you for your service, oink. But if you did not actually volunteer for the Vietnam War, if you really and in fact were a war protestor, than you were conscripted and in fact the whole experience should never have happened. Involuntary conscription is very different from the motives and ideals communicated by the book Starship Troopers. Today's armed forces are all volunteers. I think that we should have alternative forms of service for those who in fact do not believe that warfare is tragic but unavoidable. Which was another point made in the book ST: everyone can perform some form of service that benefits society, and that is how they earn the political franchise, the right to vote. But nobody acquires's that right by being born within a particular national boundary. My only child was a member of the Red Cross who served during hurricane Katrina. Although her choices were different from mine, she contibuted to society. As should everyone who wants the full priveledges of a citizen, including the right to vote - or to hold political office. That is the central and vital message in the book.
Edited by Gary McCoy - 7/16/12 at 3:23am
post #85 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

I protested (and served) during the Viet Nam War.
I never saw a situation.

Wasnt speaking about vietnam or the US armed forces. But in general term there are always at least two ways to criticize something.
post #86 of 178
Thanks, Gary, I liked your comments!

Whatever "message' trying to be made in the movie was lost in the utterly stupid portrayal of the war against the Bugs. The movie was made after Desert Storm aka Gulf War I, where the world saw what modern warfare was about. We didn't send in a bunch of troops armed with only M16s charging blindly into Iraq without air support, tanks and artillery, yet that's what happens in ST. I remember first thinking that a bunch of the current US Army's MLRS batteries would have wiped out most of the Bugs all by themselves, let alone what a massive air campaign or better yet an orbital bombardment would do. That is what irks me as well with ST, all those fancy interstellar ships the Feds had apparently couldn't drop a bomb from space onto the planet. We can do that NOW--it's called an ICBM. Nukes didn't necessarliy have to be used, super-sized "daisy cutters" or fuel-air bombs would also have been extremely effective against the Bugs. Again, utter cluelessness or ignorance by Verhoeven and Co.. Even worse, there was plenty of print military sci-fi available to draw from, not just Heinlein. Nope, we instead got a whole lot of CGI Bug carnage and not even a few of the power suits

Oh, and to compare the Bug War in the movie with Vietnbnam or Afghanistan is utter nonsense. This was more like the war against Germany and Japan in WWII--civilians were not spared (re: Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki), every Bug was a target. There in fact was NO "civilian" Bug population to worry about, the Feds wanted to wipe out all of the Bugs. The Bug planet did not have dense jungles or rugged mountains, it was open desert. Which meant that the war should have been like the Iraq War: first a massive orbital and air bombardment, then send in the ground troops to finish up the rest.

Now I actually am hoping that we're going to get a more serious take on the book this time. It could still be a grand action adventure and still deal seriously with Heinlein's them that federal service being a requirement for full citizenship, and not get turned into some silly Nazi propaganda film parody. Where's John Milius now that we need him? smile.gif
post #87 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

In fact there is no point to be made. Paul Verhoeven can not make a satire about something that is not historical fact.

Who made this rule, Gary? You?
Quote:
Starship Troopers can never be a satire. The original book explores a portion of future history. You cannot satirize something that is not real to begin with.

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.
Quote:
If an entirely straight and reverent interpretation of the original book were to make it into the script, and if that script were filmed by someone who understood the material, you may possibly have an extremely successfull adventure SF movie. It could even be a classic.

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.
post #88 of 178
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.

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.
post #89 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

In fact there is no point to be made. Paul Verhoeven can not make a satire about something that is not historical fact... Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb was a satire about the Cold War, a real historical reality and a terrifying time in history that I remember first hand.

Yeah, that nuclear war and doomsday device detonation that happened in 1964 was a tough one to overcome. Good thing it didn't interrupt the Beatles appearance on Ed Sullivan. eek.gif
post #90 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by IceAgeTom View Post

Where's John Milius now that we need him? smile.gif

Looking for an actual propaganda film rather than a parody of one?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Ready For A "Starship Troopers" Reboot?