4 ms·

I have a hard time taking an essay that discusses the philosophy of the movie starship trooper seriously when the book of the same name was so much better devel

I have a hard time taking an essay that discusses the philosophy of the movie starship trooper seriously when the book of the same name was so much better developed. It's a bit like dunking on libertarian idiots on facebook, but refusing to engage with Richard Epstein[1]. Sure, it's a thing one can do, and it's good for laughs from time to time, but ultimately, engaging with a weaker version of an idea betrays a weakness in the interlocutor, not the subject. ___ 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhqXIc5CEpU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhqXIc5CEpU

free_rms 6y ago
Have YOU read the book? It's earnest, non-sarcastic, with an entirely different message. Calling it 'opposite' would be unfair but it's almost that.
- nieve 6y ago
  It's not a favorite book and sometimes it's far too heavy-handed, but I wouldn't say that it's completely non-sarcastic. It's mostly pro-military, but there's some definite ambivalence about what that means in execution down to the excessively brutal miltary discipline and the jabs at the way military leaders often waste lives through over-confidence. You can tell it was written in close proximity to the oft-overestimated "Stranger in a Strange Land" if you look a bit more carefully for the cynicism. Large chunks of the first half read as if Heinlein was looking forward to "Full Metal jacket", but couldn't quite pull it together on his own.
kingnight 6y ago
The article discusses how it’s different, including how the director and screenwriter felt about it. (quite negatively)
godelski 6y ago
The book and movie are completely different stories. Verhoeven prides himself on that he didn't even finish the book and if you watched the movie it is pretty clear he read less than half and then wanted to write a movie that was a satirical take on the book (which he claims was promoting fascism, but readers are confused by that take).
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > if you watched the movie it is pretty clear he read less than half and then wanted to write a movie No, the movie was written before someone noticed some superficial similarities and suggested seeking the rights to the book for marketing purposes. Veerhoeven read less than half of the book, sure, and thought it was advocating fascism and incorporated some cosmetic elements from that portion of the book into the film, but the book wasn't the basis of the film, even in a hostile response kind of way, just a bystander that got dragged into a canned rant by a ranter who didn’t read it before deciding it was promoting what he was already ranting about, an all too familiar phenomenon to anyone who has spent much time in lightly moderated online discussion groups, if not the most familiar origin story for a licensed film “adaptation” of a book.
  - kinghajj 6y ago
    > No, the movie was written before someone noticed some superficial similarities and suggested seeking the rights to the book for marketing purposes. Source? The Wikipedia article states that the screenwriter was a fan of the book.
ajuc 6y ago
Movie is anti-militaritic, the book was pro-militaristic. It's not "a weaker version of the same".

free_rms 6y ago

Have YOU read the book? It's earnest, non-sarcastic, with an entirely different message. Calling it 'opposite' would be unfair but it's almost that.

nieve 6y ago
It's not a favorite book and sometimes it's far too heavy-handed, but I wouldn't say that it's completely non-sarcastic. It's mostly pro-military, but there's some definite ambivalence about what that means in execution down to the excessively brutal miltary discipline and the jabs at the way military leaders often waste lives through over-confidence. You can tell it was written in close proximity to the oft-overestimated "Stranger in a Strange Land" if you look a bit more carefully for the cynicism. Large chunks of the first half read as if Heinlein was looking forward to "Full Metal jacket", but couldn't quite pull it together on his own.

kingnight 6y ago

The article discusses how it’s different, including how the director and screenwriter felt about it. (quite negatively)

godelski 6y ago

The book and movie are completely different stories. Verhoeven prides himself on that he didn't even finish the book and if you watched the movie it is pretty clear he read less than half and then wanted to write a movie that was a satirical take on the book (which he claims was promoting fascism, but readers are confused by that take).

dragonwriter 6y ago
> if you watched the movie it is pretty clear he read less than half and then wanted to write a movie No, the movie was written before someone noticed some superficial similarities and suggested seeking the rights to the book for marketing purposes. Veerhoeven read less than half of the book, sure, and thought it was advocating fascism and incorporated some cosmetic elements from that portion of the book into the film, but the book wasn't the basis of the film, even in a hostile response kind of way, just a bystander that got dragged into a canned rant by a ranter who didn’t read it before deciding it was promoting what he was already ranting about, an all too familiar phenomenon to anyone who has spent much time in lightly moderated online discussion groups, if not the most familiar origin story for a licensed film “adaptation” of a book.
- kinghajj 6y ago
  > No, the movie was written before someone noticed some superficial similarities and suggested seeking the rights to the book for marketing purposes. Source? The Wikipedia article states that the screenwriter was a fan of the book.

ajuc 6y ago

Movie is anti-militaritic, the book was pro-militaristic. It's not "a weaker version of the same".