3 ms·

The film is a straight up criticism of fascism and authoritarianism, but it's not a criticism of the book because Verhoeven only ever read one or two chapters o

by curtis 8y ago

The film is a straight up criticism of fascism and authoritarianism, but it's not a criticism of the book because Verhoeven only ever read one or two chapters of the book.

amysox 8y ago
Bear in mind that the project wasn't originally connected with Heinlein at all, but was originally titled Bug Hunt. Only later did Verhoeven and company come across Starship Troopers, realize that they could actually get the film rights, and rework their existing script to (kind of) match the novel.
- baldfat 8y ago
  Oh now that makes sense. I left the movie theater HATING that movie so much. I believe I said out loud, "Did they even read the book or just the first chapter!" My friends reply for everyone to hear, "NERD HATE."
  - ghaff 8y ago
    Films are not books. Some very good films (such as Dr. Strangelove) may be inspired by a book or riff off it but end up in a very different place with a very different tone. It's not a filmmaker's job to do a faithful adaptation--although those can work too.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> The film is a straight up criticism of fascism and authoritarianism Well, dull, shallow, heavy-handed mockery more than criticism, but sure. > but it's not a criticism of the book It is in exactly the sense that it is of fascism and authoritarianism. > because Verhoeven only ever read one or two chapters of the book. ...because by that point he was convinced of it's fascism and militarism, and felt he didn't need to read more. See, e.g., his response to a planned reboot that would hew closer to the novel: https://www.indiewire.com/2016/11/paul-verhoeven-slams-starship-troopers-remake-fascist-update-perfect-trump-presidency-1201747155/ https://www.indiewire.com/2016/11/paul-verhoeven-slams-stars...
- dmreedy 8y ago
  I think there's more depth to the film than you might be giving it credit for. There's a lot of goofy heavy-handedness on the surface, but there are some layers underneath, in the writing and the arcs of the characters The guys at Red Letter Media did a pretty good breakdown of it[0] all in all. But even just consider the scene in the beginning when Rasczak is teaching the class about citizenship[1]. It's goofy and funny on the meta-level, because, well, it's Michael Ironside, and he's saying things that at first pass sound insane. But there's a whole lot in that dialog, and it's all played deadly straight. And then compare Rico's genuine, "I don't know" there, to where his character is at the end of the film. I think it recommends itself to a lot of different levels of examination, without sounding like you're trying too hard. --- [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkEdyq3UE5M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkEdyq3UE5M [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBxgrr0wL8M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBxgrr0wL8M
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > I think there's more depth to the film than you might be giving it credit for. There's a lot of goofy heavy-handedness on the surface, but there are some layers underneath, in the writing and the arcs of the characters The problem is that cautionary satire requires subtlety about what you are doing; the heavy-handedness on the surface ruins what's underneath. I'm also not really convinced that almost literally goose-stepping to Nazis (as opposed to antecedents thereof) really need cautionary satire. > It's goofy and funny on the meta-level, because, well, it's Michael Ironside, and he's saying things that at first pass sound insane. But there's a whole lot in that dialog, and it's all played deadly straight. Yeah, but for it to work as satire, either it should sound insane at first and the audience should be lead to accept it at the end of the movie, and only after they leave the theater have a dawning “WTF?” feeling, or it should seem reasonable (if perhaps novel—eye-opening would be ideal) at the beginning and by the end the audience should be stunned at where it leads and that they ever sympathized with it. As it is, we’re presented with violent, militaristic, propagandizing state with fascist imagery from the beginning and, hey, at the end it's exactly what you'd expect from Nazis. > And then compare Rico's genuine, "I don't know" there, to where his character is at the end of the film. I think it recommends itself to a lot of different levels of examination, without sounding like you're trying too hard. Being suffused in a society which is filled with overtly fascist propaganda from the beginning and then fighting in war while still steeped in that propaganda can make a doubter into a committed soldier of fascism? Sure, there's a message there, but I don't think its a surprising one in either content or presentation.

by curtis 8y ago

The film is a straight up criticism of fascism and authoritarianism, but it's not a criticism of the book because Verhoeven only ever read one or two chapters of the book.

amysox 8y ago

Bear in mind that the project wasn't originally connected with Heinlein at all, but was originally titled Bug Hunt. Only later did Verhoeven and company come across Starship Troopers, realize that they could actually get the film rights, and rework their existing script to (kind of) match the novel.

baldfat 8y ago
Oh now that makes sense. I left the movie theater HATING that movie so much. I believe I said out loud, "Did they even read the book or just the first chapter!" My friends reply for everyone to hear, "NERD HATE."
- ghaff 8y ago
  Films are not books. Some very good films (such as Dr. Strangelove) may be inspired by a book or riff off it but end up in a very different place with a very different tone. It's not a filmmaker's job to do a faithful adaptation--although those can work too.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> The film is a straight up criticism of fascism and authoritarianism Well, dull, shallow, heavy-handed mockery more than criticism, but sure. > but it's not a criticism of the book It is in exactly the sense that it is of fascism and authoritarianism. > because Verhoeven only ever read one or two chapters of the book. ...because by that point he was convinced of it's fascism and militarism, and felt he didn't need to read more. See, e.g., his response to a planned reboot that would hew closer to the novel: https://www.indiewire.com/2016/11/paul-verhoeven-slams-starship-troopers-remake-fascist-update-perfect-trump-presidency-1201747155/ https://www.indiewire.com/2016/11/paul-verhoeven-slams-stars...

dmreedy 8y ago
I think there's more depth to the film than you might be giving it credit for. There's a lot of goofy heavy-handedness on the surface, but there are some layers underneath, in the writing and the arcs of the characters The guys at Red Letter Media did a pretty good breakdown of it[0] all in all. But even just consider the scene in the beginning when Rasczak is teaching the class about citizenship[1]. It's goofy and funny on the meta-level, because, well, it's Michael Ironside, and he's saying things that at first pass sound insane. But there's a whole lot in that dialog, and it's all played deadly straight. And then compare Rico's genuine, "I don't know" there, to where his character is at the end of the film. I think it recommends itself to a lot of different levels of examination, without sounding like you're trying too hard. --- [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkEdyq3UE5M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkEdyq3UE5M [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBxgrr0wL8M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBxgrr0wL8M
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > I think there's more depth to the film than you might be giving it credit for. There's a lot of goofy heavy-handedness on the surface, but there are some layers underneath, in the writing and the arcs of the characters The problem is that cautionary satire requires subtlety about what you are doing; the heavy-handedness on the surface ruins what's underneath. I'm also not really convinced that almost literally goose-stepping to Nazis (as opposed to antecedents thereof) really need cautionary satire. > It's goofy and funny on the meta-level, because, well, it's Michael Ironside, and he's saying things that at first pass sound insane. But there's a whole lot in that dialog, and it's all played deadly straight. Yeah, but for it to work as satire, either it should sound insane at first and the audience should be lead to accept it at the end of the movie, and only after they leave the theater have a dawning “WTF?” feeling, or it should seem reasonable (if perhaps novel—eye-opening would be ideal) at the beginning and by the end the audience should be stunned at where it leads and that they ever sympathized with it. As it is, we’re presented with violent, militaristic, propagandizing state with fascist imagery from the beginning and, hey, at the end it's exactly what you'd expect from Nazis. > And then compare Rico's genuine, "I don't know" there, to where his character is at the end of the film. I think it recommends itself to a lot of different levels of examination, without sounding like you're trying too hard. Being suffused in a society which is filled with overtly fascist propaganda from the beginning and then fighting in war while still steeped in that propaganda can make a doubter into a committed soldier of fascism? Sure, there's a message there, but I don't think its a surprising one in either content or presentation.