www.ditl.org

He didn't even take the time to read it - as I recall he was already making a "bug hunt" movie, someone pointed out the similarities to SST, he read a few chapters and decided he didn't like it. Why he didn't then go back to plan A rather than producing that abomination I've no idea.

I was a fan of the book since I was a kid... had such high hopes for the movie. I was just plain angry when I saw what he'd done to it.

The way I deal with SST is by pretending it's just some other film that, through freak coincidence, happens to have the same name as a certain book I like.
After that, it becomes a mildly entertaining film about people getting eaten by giant insects.

What I meant was that, for example, the idea that citizenship depended on voluntary military service still existed, as did the feel of the governmental propaganda. The problem was that no value judgement on these themes was incorporated into the film, nor was there any accent on the fact that the humans were actually the aggressors.

While the basic idea of citizenship being dependant on "federal service" (Heinlein was pretty insistent in interviews that it wasn't limited to the military) remained, the execution in the film was abysmal.

In the film the recruits in question were treated as cannon-fodder, while the book depicted them as a highly-trained force along the same lines as the Paras or US Airborne. Overt government propaganda in the book was non-existent, unlike the badly OTT Nazi rip-off in the film. The film-MI are strong contenders for the title of "most incompetant fictional military", while the book-MI are strong contenders for "most effective fictional military". Most importantly, the film characters are encouraged not to think for themselves, while Heinlein's thinly-veiled political essays are presented by individuals attempting to encourage their audience to think.

The difference is summed up for me by the "What good is a knife in a nuke fight?" scene. In the movie when Ace asks that question Zim pins his hand to the wall with a knife and makes a stupid crack about not being able to push buttons with a disabled hand. It's a scene designed to make Zim look like a brutal, unthinking, uncaring man who punishes any questioning.

In the book, Zim is asked that question and gives a gentle, thoughtful lecture in which he points out that war is not just about dealing out maximum violence; often a proportionate response is called for and you have to have a military capable of being more subtle than just nuking everything in sight. He adds that if that's not a good enough explanation for the recruit then he'll give him permission to go and talk to their commanding officer about it. It makes Zim look like an intelligent, thoughtful man who wants those he trains to know exactly why they are doing what they are.

If I remember right, Verhoeven is on record as saying that all military organisations are inherently fascist. If so then Starship Troopers was not the book to pick for a movie.

Ah, yes. "There's no such thing as a 'dangerous weapon'. There are no dangerous weapons; only dangerous men." Great quote that.

Assuming that Verhoeven was using "fascist" in it's loosest colloquial sense of an organisation that demands instant, absolute obedience, rather than as a political ideology, he's correct that militaries are inherently "fascist". What he fails to do is ask why they're like that - the blatantly obvious answer being that the middle of a firefight is an exceptional poor time to start a political debate.

Hey, I'm on board here. I'm the one who brought it up, remember? All I'm saying is that some of themes were ate least paid lip service; unlike, for example, Jurassic Park which was turned from a thoughtful work of true "hard" science fiction into an action/adventure shoot-em-up.

The themes weren't paid lip service to at all - they were turned completely on their heads by Verhoeven sticking to the letter but completely reversing their spirit. At least the two Jurassic Parks (I haven't read the book BTW) could be treated as completely different entities rather than one being a deliberately twisted parody of the other.

Spin it how you like - as I mentioned, I'm certainly NOT a fan of how the film treatment of Starship Troopers dealt with the book. Jurassic Park, on the other hand, was the poster child of completely scrapping the intent and the artistry of a book in favor of summer-blockbuster-ness.

Do yourself a favor - read the book. You'll be amazed at the difference. Michael Crichton used to be an insightful and knowledgeable hard science fiction author.

Yeah, the book Jurassic Park was about a hundred times better than the film, IMO.

I'm not even talking merely about quality. The film was a decent action/adventure picture; unfortunately, that's not nearly the theme of the book.

Starship Troopers? Oh what a pile of fettid crap...

I remember the knife scene in both movie and book, Graham. Way to miss the point by a parsec.

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:Starship Troopers? Oh what a pile of fettid crap...

If you're talking about the film I heartily agree. If you're talking about the book, what don't you like about it?

I remember the knife scene in both movie and book, Graham. Way to miss the point by a parsec.

If the point is that Verhoeven doesn't like the book we got that - with all the delicate subtlety of a sledgehammer to the face. Other than that wahat's your point?

Mikey wrote:I'm not even talking merely about quality. The film was a decent action/adventure picture; unfortunately, that's not nearly the theme of the book.

It was a good film and I thought the theme was quite clear. They should have spent more time on it but I doubt the majority of movie goers would care about the message.