3 ms·

How we made Starship Troopers

13 points by uptown 9y ago

dozzie 9y ago
Step one: take a good book and castrate it from all the important (read: difficult) parts, replacing them with shooting bad guys^Wbugs left and right. Step two: make a minor female character the busty main prize for the hero.
jaysonelliot 9y ago
Step one: Don't read the book Step two: Take a completely different story, already written, and paste the name Starship Troopers on top of it Step three: Whitewash the Latino main character Step four: ?????
curtis 9y ago
> Robert Heinlein’s original 1959 science-fiction novel was militaristic, if not fascistic. The novel was certainly militaristic, because the protagonist is in the military, and also in the middle of a war. The society described in the book does not in any way appear to be fascist, however. I think it is completely reasonable to ask whether such a system really could exist without being fascist, but the fact is, as described, it's not. In the novel, the human government requires 2 years of service before adults get the right to vote. One important aspect of the system is that if someone wants to serve, then the government has to take them. Even if you were blind, if you wanted to serve, the government would have to find something for you to do for two years. And afterwards, you'd have the right to vote. In the book, most Earth adults have not served and consequently can't vote. But on some other planets, almost all adults have served and have the right to vote. Lots of movies have done a disservice to their source material, but in the case of Starship Troopers it has always seemed particularly unfair to me. I know that lots of people (not all) who have read the book feel the same way.
- CobrastanJorji 9y ago
  That's not why it's militaristic. It's militaristic because the military is shown as a cure-all. Joining the military leads to having a fulfilled life. Joining the military means one care about one's country, as opposed to being a selfish coward, which is why only proven "patriots" are allowed the vote. The career military men are portrayed as extremely honorable. The non-military characters, such as the protagonist's dad, are depicted as rich but deeply unhappy folks, and the only fix is embracing the military. The book glorifies the military to such a degree that a good case could be made for it being a parody.
WorldMaker 9y ago
I think Starship Troopers is outright the best of all of Robocop's sequels. Yes, it is fascinating how divorced the book and movie are in what they think they have to say. I've always felt that Robert Heinlein was more of a provocateur than often given credit for, and while a strange adaptation, I think the movie still has an interesting conversation with the book. I'd like to imagine Mr. Heinlein would also have found it an interesting conversation. In a way, that's very strongly one of "old guard" Sci-Fi's best qualities where (mostly short) stories flew back and forth on similar topics in conversation with one another. The movie manages to touch on many of the same topics and poke and prod at them and say "I think it would turn out this other way", and that's very much an interesting Sci-Fi conversation, whether you more appreciate the book or the movie they are still saying interesting things to one another (and both strongly in ways specific to their medium, which is also fascinating).

13 points by uptown 9y ago

Step one: take a good book and castrate it from all the important (read: difficult) parts, replacing them with shooting bad guys^Wbugs left and right. Step two: make a minor female character the busty main prize for the hero.

jaysonelliot 9y ago

Step one: Don't read the book Step two: Take a completely different story, already written, and paste the name Starship Troopers on top of it Step three: Whitewash the Latino main character Step four: ?????

curtis 9y ago

> Robert Heinlein’s original 1959 science-fiction novel was militaristic, if not fascistic. The novel was certainly militaristic, because the protagonist is in the military, and also in the middle of a war. The society described in the book does not in any way appear to be fascist, however. I think it is completely reasonable to ask whether such a system really could exist without being fascist, but the fact is, as described, it's not. In the novel, the human government requires 2 years of service before adults get the right to vote. One important aspect of the system is that if someone wants to serve, then the government has to take them. Even if you were blind, if you wanted to serve, the government would have to find something for you to do for two years. And afterwards, you'd have the right to vote. In the book, most Earth adults have not served and consequently can't vote. But on some other planets, almost all adults have served and have the right to vote. Lots of movies have done a disservice to their source material, but in the case of Starship Troopers it has always seemed particularly unfair to me. I know that lots of people (not all) who have read the book feel the same way.

CobrastanJorji 9y ago
That's not why it's militaristic. It's militaristic because the military is shown as a cure-all. Joining the military leads to having a fulfilled life. Joining the military means one care about one's country, as opposed to being a selfish coward, which is why only proven "patriots" are allowed the vote. The career military men are portrayed as extremely honorable. The non-military characters, such as the protagonist's dad, are depicted as rich but deeply unhappy folks, and the only fix is embracing the military. The book glorifies the military to such a degree that a good case could be made for it being a parody.

WorldMaker 9y ago

I think Starship Troopers is outright the best of all of Robocop's sequels. Yes, it is fascinating how divorced the book and movie are in what they think they have to say. I've always felt that Robert Heinlein was more of a provocateur than often given credit for, and while a strange adaptation, I think the movie still has an interesting conversation with the book. I'd like to imagine Mr. Heinlein would also have found it an interesting conversation. In a way, that's very strongly one of "old guard" Sci-Fi's best qualities where (mostly short) stories flew back and forth on similar topics in conversation with one another. The movie manages to touch on many of the same topics and poke and prod at them and say "I think it would turn out this other way", and that's very much an interesting Sci-Fi conversation, whether you more appreciate the book or the movie they are still saying interesting things to one another (and both strongly in ways specific to their medium, which is also fascinating).