4 ms·

I read an internet review of Starship Troopers so good that it made me go and watch that (terrible) film again. Took me a few minutes on DDG, but enjoy: https:

I read an internet review of Starship Troopers so good that it made me go and watch that (terrible) film again. Took me a few minutes on DDG, but enjoy: https://agapow.net/misc/humour/starship-troopers-a-review/ https://agapow.net/misc/humour/starship-troopers-a-review/

simonh 4y ago
That's awesome, you can lead a horse to water... Since the reviewer mentioned it, the fact the characters all come from Buenos Aires is one of my favourite things about the movie. I've mentioned this a few times in conversation with people about the move, and they flat out didn't believe me. Their brains just didn't parse it, or what the implications are at all, because it's just there. It's never called out, or explained, or made a point. There are two sequels and the first is really bad. None of the implied critique, just a straight cheesy SF action C-grade. The third film is actually worth a watch IMHO. It's still nowhere near the level of the original, but it's fun to see Van Dien kicking ass and taking names.
- darkerside 4y ago
  What's the implication if Buenos Aires?
  - simonh 4y ago
    It's completely indistinguishable from a generic Californian city. The language, culture, it's all utterly homogenous and generic. Not even a trace of anything that made Latin America distinctive is left. That's just how the world is, everything that makes a place or culture unique has been paved over How did that happen? Why? No explanation, no hidden references, no hand-holding to any possible conclusion, no reference to the cost of a social change so complete. Unless you actively engage and critically think through what you are seeing and it's implications, you would never know. In the hands of any other director it could just be laziness. Oh look, he's set it in Argentina, but they're all just like American kids. He couldn't even be bothered to include any local references. He could have at least hired local talent right? Taken advantage of the setting? But no, the fact the setting is this way is the actual point.
    - jl6 4y ago
      I always assumed the Federation is a future fascist America which had taken over the world and homogenized it.
      - simonh 4y ago
        That's one possibility, another I've considered is it's just a linear extrapolation of the trend towards global homogenisation, extended arbitrarily into the future. So either it's a critique of their political system (very likely) or it's a pessimistic take on our innate laziness and tendency to conformity. Or both. Overall it another marker for how unutterably shallow and awful all these people and their society are.
      - Psyladine 4y ago
        Then you'd read Verhoeven's intent correctly. Heinlein was an unabashed fascist and nationalist, and Verhoeven gave him his future fantasy exactly as he intended it (military glorification, unification, responsibility to the state as the highest virtue), and white-washing away any implications of that life.
        circlefavshape 4y ago
        A fascist? "Responsibility to the state as the highest virtue"? Are you sure you're thinking of the right guy?
        simonh 4y ago
        I don't believe Heinlein was a fascist at all, but he's hard to pigeon hole. He was a radical libertarian, yet believed that a benign military world government was possible and even desirable. Well, a military world government sounds petty close to fascism, but he somehow thought that this would be the best way to guarantee individual liberties. So his goals were libertarian, but I can't help thinking his intended means to achieve them would wind up, er, not doing so at all even slightly.

simonh 4y ago

That's awesome, you can lead a horse to water... Since the reviewer mentioned it, the fact the characters all come from Buenos Aires is one of my favourite things about the movie. I've mentioned this a few times in conversation with people about the move, and they flat out didn't believe me. Their brains just didn't parse it, or what the implications are at all, because it's just there. It's never called out, or explained, or made a point. There are two sequels and the first is really bad. None of the implied critique, just a straight cheesy SF action C-grade. The third film is actually worth a watch IMHO. It's still nowhere near the level of the original, but it's fun to see Van Dien kicking ass and taking names.

darkerside 4y ago
What's the implication if Buenos Aires?
- simonh 4y ago
  It's completely indistinguishable from a generic Californian city. The language, culture, it's all utterly homogenous and generic. Not even a trace of anything that made Latin America distinctive is left. That's just how the world is, everything that makes a place or culture unique has been paved over How did that happen? Why? No explanation, no hidden references, no hand-holding to any possible conclusion, no reference to the cost of a social change so complete. Unless you actively engage and critically think through what you are seeing and it's implications, you would never know. In the hands of any other director it could just be laziness. Oh look, he's set it in Argentina, but they're all just like American kids. He couldn't even be bothered to include any local references. He could have at least hired local talent right? Taken advantage of the setting? But no, the fact the setting is this way is the actual point.
  - jl6 4y ago
    I always assumed the Federation is a future fascist America which had taken over the world and homogenized it.
    - simonh 4y ago
      That's one possibility, another I've considered is it's just a linear extrapolation of the trend towards global homogenisation, extended arbitrarily into the future. So either it's a critique of their political system (very likely) or it's a pessimistic take on our innate laziness and tendency to conformity. Or both. Overall it another marker for how unutterably shallow and awful all these people and their society are.
    - Psyladine 4y ago
      Then you'd read Verhoeven's intent correctly. Heinlein was an unabashed fascist and nationalist, and Verhoeven gave him his future fantasy exactly as he intended it (military glorification, unification, responsibility to the state as the highest virtue), and white-washing away any implications of that life.
      - circlefavshape 4y ago
        A fascist? "Responsibility to the state as the highest virtue"? Are you sure you're thinking of the right guy?
        simonh 4y ago
        I don't believe Heinlein was a fascist at all, but he's hard to pigeon hole. He was a radical libertarian, yet believed that a benign military world government was possible and even desirable. Well, a military world government sounds petty close to fascism, but he somehow thought that this would be the best way to guarantee individual liberties. So his goals were libertarian, but I can't help thinking his intended means to achieve them would wind up, er, not doing so at all even slightly.