Not 7,2
but a solid 8-8,5.
Sorry, not open for discussion. Anyone who doesn't get this movie is a moron.
"DEW YEW GET MEEEEEEEEE?"
MovieChat Forums > Starship Troopers (1997) Discussion > Not 7,2
[deleted]
It's that pretty goofy sci fi like independence day or deep impact. Just not very good.
shareNot 7.2 ... more like 3 or 4.
I get the film; it just is not very good when compared to the original source material.
by xenopharb
» 1 day ago (Wed Jul 29 2015 00:49:55)
IMDb member since January 2008
Not 7.2 ... more like 3 or 4.
I get the film; it just is not very good when compared to the original source material.
I am glad I do not know you personally. share
I get the film; it just is not very good when compared to the original source material.
There was source material? share
Yeah, ... a book.
They were stacked pages with words printed on them that were bound together.
They are obviously different mediums, but I thought the movie for a movie was even better than the book for a book. It's hard to read the book these days, so much tech has changed, most science fiction does not age well and it tends to get worse over time.
shareThe book has some things that don't age well, but it was far better than the film.
It's obvious that the screenwriters did not understand the book.
It was a missed opportunity.
I think they just re-interpretted the book. There is no way to write a faithful adaptation of that book. Movies are their own medium and few books fit a movie format exactly. Plays, but not books.
shareI disagree.
A faithful adaptation doesn't mean the same, but the ideas should be the same.
The film doesn't get what Heinlein was trying to say. In that, it failed.
OK, but that is a kind of limited view. I think Starship Troopers movie had the ideas of Heinlein, but they were couched in a kind of satirical viewpoint because to show those ideas too seriously would just irritate people. I wish they had gone a little more into the workings of the society and what citizenship meant and was, but I thought the comments about the body politic were enough and expressed the point well.
sharePaul Verhoeven did not agree with Robert Heinlein's premises, so he made a film that used those ideas in a satirical way. Verhoeven could not explain them because he misunderstood them.
If the writers and director do not agree with Heinlein, why use any of Starship Troopers as a source?
I haven't read the book, but the satire that Verhoeven was going for was clear to me just from watching the movie... It's a big critique of militerism, of fascism and of war...
I like that Verhoeven understood that fascism is not limited to a race ideology and made sure to show the young fascists as diverse, likeable teams of men and women...
Verhoeven has been quite clear that he departs from the source material in order to make his movie...
Do you really think Verhoeven missunderstood Heinlein? Or that he understood him, but saw his ideas as proto-fascist? I tend to think it's more the latter...
I think Verhoeven has to be very careful about what he says about this movie, and so I further think people who believe they know what he thinks or the message in this movie are wrong.
Heinlein was not a fascist, he actually ran for office as a Democrat.
The point of StarShip troopers is put simply because I don't want to argue or do into great depth is that defense, maybe even offense, is a critical function for any organism or body politic ... and this is done via imperfect people behaving in imperfect ways that leads to incompetence, stupidity, death, destruction, ... , but it is all we have if we want to survive.
The society in Starship Troopers acknowledges that, and allows civilian space for those who are pacifist or who do not want to pledge to defend society, but they are not allowed to gum up the works, so to speak.
If found this honest, and sincere, and true, the points about force is the ultimate power from which political rights derive is exactly correct. For example, if the Palestinians in the Middle East had the organization and weapons that Israel has Israel would not exist, so if a civilization or society wants to survive at least some of them had damn well better work to provide a strong enough defense to do that.
That is, the story of the people who do not commit to defend the body politic is the story of the father and mother who die.
I think Verhoeven clearly departs from what you've outlined... In the movie, he shows a version of this philosophy, but also shows that this is a road to fascism...
He has made a clearly satirical anti-fascist movie and sees the risk of fascism when the military is in control of a society (regardless of Heinlein's vision)... That much is clear from the movie itself, which should stand on it's own in my opinion... It's meant to be fun, absurd and very statirical of militerism.
I think the examples you give (that version of Heinlein's philosophy and modern Israel) are proto-fascist, but that is my interpretation and I cannot speak for Verhoeven on whether or not he thinks Isreal is proto-fascistic (not that I really care to discuss Israel). All I know is that he has called Heinlein's book militeristic and fascistic in interviews... Here is a facinating one he did recently on Starship Troopers (he gets to our discussion very early in the first few minutes)..
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0QotxGy4CKk
I think you'll like it... What I found very interesting is the reaction to Starship Troopers and how people and the press thought he had made a dangerous pro-fascist movie! He intended to show Heinlein's vision, but to also show that it was fascistic through satire... Maybe it backfired!
I've read some of those old reviews... It's facinating to see how people come to this movie from different perspectives and how that has changed over time... I still think ultimately, the movie must speak for itself and that we each perceive it subjectively.
I don't know of it is in that clip, but Verhoeven had interesting thoughts on the risk of censorship and such from left these days, rather than just from the conservative right... But that is a separate discussion...
military -> militaristic
These promotional clips are always BS. They are to get people interested in the movie or create some burning controversy that makes people want to see the movie to decide for themselves.
Certainly it was militaristic, and the military is semi-fascist, by necessity. You cannot have a democratic military, at least we do not now how to yet.
Heinlein was a libertarian pragmatist. He definitely believed in the use of force when necessary, but he also believed in free will, free markets, and free thought.
He also believed that there were situations when democracy of all did not fit. The captain is the captain. There is no vote on the ship, spacecraft, or perhaps even a space colony.
From what I read of Heinlein you have most of this correct, but you also have to remember he is writing a book and telling a story, not proposing a government for other than speculation.
I read just about everything Heinlein wrote, but it was a long time ago. A very interesting guy who wrote a lot of stories who made a big impression on me.
Certainly, he is writing stories. Starship Troopers and Stranger in a Strange Land are quite different. That stated, he was not for government interference in people's lives unless it was needed. He called himself a small "L" libertarian.
shareI am extremely confident that if Heinlein saw what was being done today in the name of libertarianism he would flip out and repudiate that statement.
The time Heinlein lived in were just the beginning of the Libertarian extreme right-wing, and face it, he was naive about high-level politics as almost everyone was back then.
Heinlein hammered big "L" Libertarians as naive and soft. I agree that he would not agree with the right wing politics of Libertarians today.
That brings us to the point of the book. It was not a right wing fascist manifesto as some would believe; it was a book about honor, patriotism, duty, and democracy. Unlike today, corporations could not influence government with money; corporations did not have the rights of people, and governments did not do the will of corporations or banks. It wasn't perfect, but it was less corrupt than what we have now.
Duty ... and I think that is what the movie was about, and the reason it got so much resonance is that anymore duty to the nation is a joke. Heinlein and the movie both seemed to say, yes, it is a rip-off, but it is the only thing you can do, and you can opt-out if you like.
You just caught me at the end of a book I am finished that is stark gritty reality ... non-fiction, but I am going to recommend it even though it has little to do with this discussion or Starship Trooper, but a lot to do with how systems get so corrupt that they evince so much distrust.
For a detailed history and analysis of the war to subvert the America government, if you are interesting in NON-fiction, try checking out "The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule" by Thomas Frank. Best book on the descriptive model of what is going on and going wrong in America.
Yes, a good find.
Robert Heinlein was a military veteran. He believed that the military is needed to defend democracy from tyranny. He also believed that those individuals who did not do so, through a voluntary commitment to civil service, should not be allowed to have franchise or hold office.
He saw too many chickenhawks using the military for their own personal gain rather than for the defense of democracy. People would risk other's lives and other's children when they would not stand up when it was their turn.
During the growth of Fascism in Europe after World War I, veterans had similar thoughts. This had them travel down the dark road that was much worse but only because the rule of law and democratic institutions were not guarded.
This is a similar theme presented in Orwell's 1984. Big Brother and the Fascist state came about through the erosion of democracy through fear, manipulation of the press, and demagoguery.
Verhoeven did not understand that the Fascist state did not come from the military itself but from those willing to use it for their own means - often irresponsibly and often from those who have never served.
Honestly, I am not seeing a great overlap with Heinlein and Orwell, though both were memorable writers, I think Orwell has the edge there because he was more cautionary, whereas Heinlein was more speculative. Orwell was also closer to the British government and it's imperialism, being a part of it, he saw the beginning of the trends that we now see closing up today. It's chilling.
sharePerhaps 1984 should have been called 2004, but what we have today began in the Neocon movement of the Reagan administration, so perhaps it fits.
The book version of Starship Troopers was more a response to Orwell, and of what would have to come of that for democracy to survive, than a rehash of those subjects.
I would perhaps relate the two thusly ...
Orwell's 1984 was complaining about Big Brother, government, the ultimate abuse of power such that people live in unreality under an ever-shifting blanket of lies, whereas Heinlein is putting forward ideas of what it might look like if we were to avoid that.
I guess this is why I did not see the movie as being fascistic, because everyone knew the score. Under fascism reality is manipulated, and that happened at a minimum in Starship Troopers the movie.
Heinlein was often criticized for preaching, but I think he needed to preach more if he really had any serious ideas to transmit.
You can make those claims, but I see you make no attempt to prove them or back them up, you are basically saying you are some kind of authority and we all have to defer to you because you have superior understanding. It's a bit aggravating to see someone who expects to have an intelligent conversation do that. Back up or support your ideas or just express them as opinions.
share[deleted]
Less than seven and make it a 2? Take your hand off that keyboard and put it on that WALL!
Luke Skywalker, your Mom was hawt! Darth Vader
I love this movie. Don't get me wrong. And yeah, it's not at all faithful to the original book, but I don't judge by source materials.
My big gripe about the film is that, by being a satire, you are supposed to think. Problem is, the moment you turn your brain on, this entire movie just really falls to pieces.
i *beep* love this movie, but realistic rating would be (considering other imdb ratings) about 7,8. cause this movie is really good, and fun and _everything_
shareIt's not 7,2 anywhere
It is 7.2 on IMDB