I still don't understand why didn't they just bomb-carpet that worthless bug planet.
Starship Troopers: one of the most misunderstood movies ever
91–100 of 140 posts
Re: Starship Troopers: one of the most misunderstood movies ever
#92I don't get why people wouldn't see it. At the beginning it has a speech about the failure of democracy, how violence is the only legitimate force in the universe. Government by an elite, with restricted rights for civilians (want children? become a citizen), a propaganda network, a perpetual state of war; including belittling the enemy ("I find the idea of a bug that thinks offensive") and belittling anyone who want…
Agreed. I had no idea there was any such controversy surrounding the film. I watched it when it was first released and I'm pretty sure most people watched it knowing from the outset it was a satire?
I was living in the US at the time and I assure you, lots of people, critics and magazine writers didn't quite 'get' it. Which in some ways made the movie's message even more powerful.
Re: Starship Troopers: one of the most misunderstood movies ever
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What it doesn't have is any major character questioning the state that they are living under - but then looking around today, sometimes that seems pretty accurate as well. That's the "problem" - the film assumed the viewer had enough brain to see the satire instead of spelling it out. Apparently that wasn't true of most reviewers at the time. (I saw it when it came out and loved it. Much more than the book which wa…
I saw it when it came out and loved it. Much more than the book which was depressingly fascist apologetic. Maybe people were projecting the book onto the movie?
I suspect they were projecting the book onto the movie so strongly that it actually drown out the movie. That or they were just upset that the movie didn't feature the wildly unfilmable powered suits.
Re: Starship Troopers: one of the most misunderstood movies ever
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although I haven't read the novel, it would be most meta irony if the article's author was missing the book's subtle societal criticism.
The novel is really short. It's good, I enjoy Heinlein's writing anyway. He lays out an interesting model for democracy, but it depends critically on permanent war. It has been a long time since i read the book, but i think the author gives it a fair shake. Nothing really screams unfair representation to me.
> He lays out an interesting model for democracy, but it depends critically on permanent war.
That's not true in the fiction, and I can't understand how you would claim that it would "really work that way" or any other claim.
In the book, this model of government has existed for a long time, and there has been no war for a long time. So, Heinlein claims that it works without war. But, you know, maybe he's full of shit. (that's devil's advocacy; I'm generally a big fan of RAH.)
But on top of that, why would it depend on war? You're born without a franchise, like in modern democracy. But in modern democracy, you get your franchise simply by waiting 19 years (or some other number). In the book, you get your franchise by agreeing to do Federal Service. You apply, you choose a preferred form of service, you do aptitude testing, and you give up control over your own life for N years. When each term is up, you can either re-enlist, or retire. When you retire, you gain full citizenship! There's no requirement that Federal Service be military (Heinlein has claimed in other writing that he intended for "95%" of service to be non-military, but others have noted that this is less-than-clear in the book-as-written). But even if it was all military... Switzerland has a military, with mandatory civil service, but no war.
Re: Starship Troopers: one of the most misunderstood movies ever
#95I don't get it. Very much at the beginning of the movie a paraplegic army recruiter proudly proclaims: "Mobile infantry made me the man I am today." How can anyone take that at face value?
The object of the film's satire became front page all around the world in 2001. Until then it was easier to take it at face value. For example, in the 80s it was common to portray torture as a suitable, non controversial means of war in films with well known action stars, without satire or criticism.
Think of it now as Starship Troopers, the George W Bush's cut, without any actual edits having taken place.
Re: Starship Troopers: one of the most misunderstood movies ever
#96I don't get it. Very much at the beginning of the movie a paraplegic army recruiter proudly proclaims: "Mobile infantry made me the man I am today." How can anyone take that at face value?
As satire the brilliant part about that, and a few of the other really shocking things like the drill sergeant beating up a new recruit to establish himself as head of the pack, or the whipping, is that it's lifted fairly directly from the book. A subset of the fans of the book get mad because the violence and fascism seemed so much cooler in their heads. Other fans recognize that Heinlein's books were to some degree…
> A subset of the fans of the book get mad because the violence and fascism seemed so much cooler in their heads.
A film that does a great job of exploring this discrepancy (how we think violence is really cool... right up to the point where the director portrays it to us in a blunt and unflattering way) is Funny Games (either the original, or the shot-for-shot American remake. whichever is your preference.)
Funny Games pulled a bait and switch, selling itself "torture-porn" to draw in that sort of audience, then refusing to give that sort of audience satisfaction. Brutal violence, but almost entirely offscreen. Broke the 4th wall on several occasions to openly mock the viewers.
Re: Starship Troopers: one of the most misunderstood movies ever
#97So, you take a famous sci-fi novel, completely change it, then use it's good name to make money and push your own politics. What exactly is misunderstood? You love money, you have a particular agenda, and you fuck over something else to achieve your personal goals. Other people are upset about this. Again: What is misunderstood?
Quite, if you wanted to make a satire then start with a blank slate. Do not take a known work (of which the audience will have their pre-conceptions if they read it) then eviscerate it for your own satirical needs then act surprised when said audience gets pissed off for the butchery.
Isn't the point that it's satirizing its own source material?
Re: Starship Troopers: one of the most misunderstood movies ever
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quite, if you wanted to make a satire then start with a blank slate. Do not take a known work (of which the audience will have their pre-conceptions if they read it) then eviscerate it for your own satirical needs then act surprised when said audience gets pissed off for the butchery.
Isn't the point that it's satirizing its own source material?
In the broad sense, it is satirizing a sort of militaristic/jingoistic mentality. Specifically it does this by satirizing one particular manifestation of this mentality, its source material.
Re: Starship Troopers: one of the most misunderstood movies ever
#99"Why Everyone Gets Robocop But Nobody Gets Starship Troopers"
http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/11/26/starship-troopers-f...
Re: Starship Troopers: one of the most misunderstood movies ever
#100I don't get why people wouldn't see it. At the beginning it has a speech about the failure of democracy, how violence is the only legitimate force in the universe. Government by an elite, with restricted rights for civilians (want children? become a citizen), a propaganda network, a perpetual state of war; including belittling the enemy ("I find the idea of a bug that thinks offensive") and belittling anyone who want…
> What it doesn't have is any major character questioning the state that they are living under - but then looking around today, sometimes that seems pretty accurate as well. That's the "problem" - the film assumed the viewer had enough brain to see the satire instead of spelling it out. Apparently that wasn't true of most reviewers at the time. (I saw it when it came out and loved it. Much more than the book which wa…
Rather, this seems like a clear case of Poe's law.