4 ms·

This is all intentional. The film is emulating the type of film that would be produced by this fascist regime, of course it isn't going to include proof of the

by slg 8mo ago

This is all intentional. The film is emulating the type of film that would be produced by this fascist regime, of course it isn't going to include proof of the fascists being wrong. But we also don't see any evidence in support of their claims of an "existential threat" beyond the fascists claiming there is one. And since it's from the fascist perspective, the lack of evidence justifying their actions ends up supporting the idea that there is no real justification for their actions. The movie's goal is showing the attractiveness of fascism and showing that people like you are incredibly open to fascist ideologies as long as the fascists have a scary "other" to put forward as an existential threat regardless of how real that threat truly is.

mrob 8mo ago
>The film is emulating the type of film that would be produced by this fascist regime. There's no frame story to support this. Going by the available evidence in the movie itself, it's a conventional action movie.
- slg 8mo ago
  >There's no frame story to support this. There definitely is. No one on screen looks into camera and says this directly, but the whole recurring "Would you like to know more?" bit is supposed to tip the viewer off that what they're watching is a product of the government's propaganda efforts. I truly don't know how you can watch this [1] and conclude we're meant to fully trust them as the 100% honest truth. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cktmS-yaxM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cktmS-yaxM
  - mrob 8mo ago
    The "would you like to know more" segments are inner nested stories. Those actually are presented as in-universe video, and qualify as epistolary narrative. But to claim that the movie as a whole is anti-fascist satire relies on the assertion that the whole movie is epistolary, which goes against the narrative conventions of film-making. Judging only by what we see on screen, we have to take it at face value. To do allow otherwise permits bizarre interpretations of any fiction you like, because you can always claim it's unreliable narration.
    - slg 8mo ago
      Why do you think those segments were included in the movie if it wasn't to get us to question the reliability of the narrative they're presenting?
      - mrob 8mo ago
        To differentiate between the potentially unreliable in-universe material and the conventional narrative of the rest. There's no on-screen evidence to justify a second level of nesting.
        slg 8mo ago
        That confuses me because you seemingly aren't disagreeing with anything in the "unreliable in-universe material". The primary difference I see between those segments and the rest of the movie is simply tone.
        mrob 8mo ago
        The tone marks the difference between epistolary narration (which by convention may be unreliable) and omniscient narration (which by convention is always reliable). I'm well aware what Paul Verhoeven intended, but he failed at conveying that intention on the screen. What we actually see is a society that's more ethical than any real world society in times of war. If Verhoeven didn't want us to believe that then he shouldn't have used the omniscient narration of a conventional action movie. Any movie that relies on external sources to convey its message has failed as a movie.
        slg 8mo ago
        >I'm well aware what Paul Verhoeven intended, but he failed at conveying that intention on the screen. Poe's law suggests that what you're asking for is impossible, there will always be people unable to read sarcasm or parody. Knowing this, I believe Verhoeven included those "Would you like to know more?" segments as the equivalent of a ;-) or /s to indicate his intent. I'm sorry to be blunt, but obviously some of us were able to understand his message so attributing your own inability to see that message on a failure of Verhoeven and not yourself comes off as self-centered.
rpdillon 8mo ago
For fellow HN'ers reading this epically long back and forth: sig appears to be taking the more mainstream stance that Starship Troopers is satire. This is reinforced my popular interpretations from, say, Wikipedia, but refuted by others, like say, IMDB. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_(film) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120201/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120201/ mrob is part of the coalition (that included many critics when the film was released) that asserts the film has no elements that are satirical. I admit pointing to specifics that show the satire is tough. "Do you want to know more?" was the biggest tipoff to me. But my point is that this argument is still going on in wider society. Lots of people say satire, and lots don't. But the balance say it is: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/11/-em-starship-troopers-em-one-of-the-most-misunderstood-movies-ever/281236/ https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/11/-e... https://screenrant.com/starship-troopers-movie-meaning-fascism-military-explained/ https://screenrant.com/starship-troopers-movie-meaning-fasci... From Wikipedia: > Since its release, Starship Troopers has been critically re-evaluated, and it is now considered a cult classic and a prescient satire of fascism and authoritarian governance that has grown in relevance.
- throwaway314155 8mo ago
  What do people involved with the production of the film have to say about it?
  - rpdillon 8mo ago
    The director intended to make a satire, but critics (and mrob) assert that he failed to do so.
- deaux 8mo ago
  This seems.. wrong? From the director's mouth, confirming it's satire [0] > Robert Heinlein’s original 1959 science-fiction novel was militaristic, if not fascistic. So I decided to make a movie about fascists who aren’t aware of their fascism. Robocop was just urban politics – this was about American politics. As a European it seemed to me that certain aspects of US society could become fascistic: the refusal to limit the amount of arms; the number of executions in Texas when George W Bush was governor. I really have no idea why Wikipedia says what it does. Someone should edit it. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/jan/22/how-we-made-starship-troopers-paul-verhoeven-nazis-leni-riefenstahl https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/jan/22/how-we-made-...
watwut 8mo ago
> But we also don't see any evidence in support of their claims of an "existential threat" beyond the fascists claiming there is one. That is pretty clutching at straws argument. It would turn basically any movie into satire, because this thing is normal. Like, it was a bad movie and failed both as satire and as action movie.
int_19h 8mo ago
The threat is undeniably real in the movie. The point is that it doesn't justify the fascist society also depicted therein.

by slg 8mo ago

mrob 8mo ago

>The film is emulating the type of film that would be produced by this fascist regime. There's no frame story to support this. Going by the available evidence in the movie itself, it's a conventional action movie.

slg 8mo ago
>There's no frame story to support this. There definitely is. No one on screen looks into camera and says this directly, but the whole recurring "Would you like to know more?" bit is supposed to tip the viewer off that what they're watching is a product of the government's propaganda efforts. I truly don't know how you can watch this [1] and conclude we're meant to fully trust them as the 100% honest truth. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cktmS-yaxM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cktmS-yaxM
- mrob 8mo ago
  The "would you like to know more" segments are inner nested stories. Those actually are presented as in-universe video, and qualify as epistolary narrative. But to claim that the movie as a whole is anti-fascist satire relies on the assertion that the whole movie is epistolary, which goes against the narrative conventions of film-making. Judging only by what we see on screen, we have to take it at face value. To do allow otherwise permits bizarre interpretations of any fiction you like, because you can always claim it's unreliable narration.
  - slg 8mo ago
    Why do you think those segments were included in the movie if it wasn't to get us to question the reliability of the narrative they're presenting?
    - mrob 8mo ago
      To differentiate between the potentially unreliable in-universe material and the conventional narrative of the rest. There's no on-screen evidence to justify a second level of nesting.
      - slg 8mo ago
        That confuses me because you seemingly aren't disagreeing with anything in the "unreliable in-universe material". The primary difference I see between those segments and the rest of the movie is simply tone.
        mrob 8mo ago
        The tone marks the difference between epistolary narration (which by convention may be unreliable) and omniscient narration (which by convention is always reliable). I'm well aware what Paul Verhoeven intended, but he failed at conveying that intention on the screen. What we actually see is a society that's more ethical than any real world society in times of war. If Verhoeven didn't want us to believe that then he shouldn't have used the omniscient narration of a conventional action movie. Any movie that relies on external sources to convey its message has failed as a movie.
        slg 8mo ago
        >I'm well aware what Paul Verhoeven intended, but he failed at conveying that intention on the screen. Poe's law suggests that what you're asking for is impossible, there will always be people unable to read sarcasm or parody. Knowing this, I believe Verhoeven included those "Would you like to know more?" segments as the equivalent of a ;-) or /s to indicate his intent. I'm sorry to be blunt, but obviously some of us were able to understand his message so attributing your own inability to see that message on a failure of Verhoeven and not yourself comes off as self-centered.

rpdillon 8mo ago

For fellow HN'ers reading this epically long back and forth: sig appears to be taking the more mainstream stance that Starship Troopers is satire. This is reinforced my popular interpretations from, say, Wikipedia, but refuted by others, like say, IMDB. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_(film) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120201/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120201/ mrob is part of the coalition (that included many critics when the film was released) that asserts the film has no elements that are satirical. I admit pointing to specifics that show the satire is tough. "Do you want to know more?" was the biggest tipoff to me. But my point is that this argument is still going on in wider society. Lots of people say satire, and lots don't. But the balance say it is: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/11/-em-starship-troopers-em-one-of-the-most-misunderstood-movies-ever/281236/ https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/11/-e... https://screenrant.com/starship-troopers-movie-meaning-fascism-military-explained/ https://screenrant.com/starship-troopers-movie-meaning-fasci... From Wikipedia: > Since its release, Starship Troopers has been critically re-evaluated, and it is now considered a cult classic and a prescient satire of fascism and authoritarian governance that has grown in relevance.

throwaway314155 8mo ago
What do people involved with the production of the film have to say about it?
- rpdillon 8mo ago
  The director intended to make a satire, but critics (and mrob) assert that he failed to do so.
deaux 8mo ago
This seems.. wrong? From the director's mouth, confirming it's satire [0] > Robert Heinlein’s original 1959 science-fiction novel was militaristic, if not fascistic. So I decided to make a movie about fascists who aren’t aware of their fascism. Robocop was just urban politics – this was about American politics. As a European it seemed to me that certain aspects of US society could become fascistic: the refusal to limit the amount of arms; the number of executions in Texas when George W Bush was governor. I really have no idea why Wikipedia says what it does. Someone should edit it. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/jan/22/how-we-made-starship-troopers-paul-verhoeven-nazis-leni-riefenstahl https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/jan/22/how-we-made-...

watwut 8mo ago

> But we also don't see any evidence in support of their claims of an "existential threat" beyond the fascists claiming there is one. That is pretty clutching at straws argument. It would turn basically any movie into satire, because this thing is normal. Like, it was a bad movie and failed both as satire and as action movie.

int_19h 8mo ago

The threat is undeniably real in the movie. The point is that it doesn't justify the fascist society also depicted therein.