MovieChat Forums > Starship Troopers (1997) Discussion > For those of you who think this even rem...

For those of you who think this even remotely resemble the book

posted 10 years ago by m_hanson76
33 replies | jump to latest

Too many people think they know what the book is about: they say it’s a war story where a fascist government goes to war with an alien race. That’s just a background for the book. Its really a coming of age story about a boy becoming a man through his experience with the military. It should come as no surprise that the discrepancies are as great as they considering Paul Verhoeven read only a few chapters of the book. For people like Paul Verhoeven fascism is defined as all things they don’t like wrapped up in a dress uniform.
All the beginning chapters deal with Rico’s experiences as a recruit in training and don’t touch on the wider universe or the war with the bugs. There are many minor inconsequential differences between the movie and book, but the big differences is what really bothers Heinlein fans like myself.

The nature of the government and society.

Heinlein’s (RH) world is really a libertarian model of society with the exception that only people who serve can be citizens and the only additional right citizens get is the right to vote. In RH’s Starship Troopers anyone could serve regardless of disability, a job will be found for them. The society was not built around the military which was quite small in the novel, until the war progressed.

The Nature of the War

In RH’s Starship Troopers the conflict between the bugs and the humans is an allegory of what happens when any two expanding cultures (which the bugs and the humans were) meet. Historically, when two expanding cultures meet they come into conflict. That conflict could be economic in nature but it almost involves warfare. Another point was societies either expand, or they contract and die ... they never stay static because competition for resources requires expansion.

Basically this movie sucks as both an adaptation of the novel and as a piece of satire because its so transparent.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] criztu 10 years ago

Its really a coming of age story about a boy becoming a man through his experience with the military.

Which is fascism. The concept that "the military makes you a man". When in fact you don't need to shoot a gun, ever, to become a man. Conversely, you can shoot guns all your life, and you'll keep staying immature.
Military does not make you a man. It makes you a gun.

only people who serve can be citizens and the only additional right citizens get is the right to vote.

Which is fascism. The concept that "the military gives you the right to vote". When in fact you don't need to shoot a gun, ever, to be a responsible and involved member of the community.

Historically, when two expanding cultures meet they come into conflict. That conflict could be economic in nature but it almost involves warfare. Another point was societies either expand, or they contract and die ... they never stay static because competition for resources requires expansion.

And that's fascism also. Historically, the empires came into conflict because the oligarchy needs an external enemy to justify its privileges. They had plenty resources (ever since the iron age, at least).
What they didn't have, was the incentive to work on exploiting those resources: eg. today you could develop solar energy plants. And then what? Energy will be so cheap, that nobody will have to slave his life away to take care of bankers and politicians, who simply don't want to work for a living. They prefer to print colored paper they call money, and give it to the Mexicans to clean their house, water their garden, clean their pool, make them tacos, and fix their car.

The oligarchy are psychotic madafakas who found out they can exploit other people by beating the sh!t out of them, or brainwashing them to beat others in their place. Like when you were a kid and some thug took your ice cream money. The thug then gave 80% to his Capo, who gave 80% of that to the Godfather.

Look at Europe today. No wars in 70 years, between the French, the English, the Germans. They fought against each other for centuries, before they've found themselves facing a common external enemy - the US and the SU.

What I think Verhoeven doesn't get, is that this is the human nature. Two dogs will always fight against each other, until a wolf threatens them both. At that moment, the dogs unite, but only to fight the common threat - the wolf.

And that's what I think is happening with the world right now: the rest of the world came to identify the USA as the wolf.

It really is fascinating, because even though Verhoeven is satirizing fascism, it is the very structure of the human societies. In 50-100 years, the humanity will have to either identify a common external threat, or humanity will keep going through cycles of One Empire to Rule Them All, that will be toppled by the coalition of its subjects, amongst which one will rise to become the Next One Empire to Rule Them All, and so on, ad infinitum.

[–] xenopharb 10 years ago

Serving gives you the right of franchise. It is not just the military.

Basically, chickenhawks are not allowed.

[–] m_hanson76 10 years ago

So basically your counter argument boils down to “everything I don’t personally care for is fascism?

[–] criztu 10 years ago

So basically your counter argument boils down to “everything I don’t personally care for is fascism?

basically, you have no clue what is fascism.

Most of the states today, are fascist. From US and Canada to Germany and France, and finally Russia and China, they all have at their core, the fascism. It's not that they're bad dogs, it's just that no other form of state survived fascism.
Take monarchy. Monarchy succumbed to fascism. Britain, Holland, Sweden, all have monarchs, but they're ornamental, they have no power.
Look at Thailand, a monarchy. The military junta just seized the power, and the Thai king is gonna be stuffed, put in the window, just like the queen of England, to wave at the citizens and keep the spirits up. Jesters.

So called "communist" states? Fascist. So called "capitalist" or "democratic" states? Fascist also. The difference is in propaganda. Neither the "communist" nor the "capitalist" states are what they tell you they are.
North Korea calls itself "People's Democratic Republic of Korea". So it's a democracy, right? WRONG! It's just as fascist as South Korea, only less powerful, so it doesn't have access to resources, so it's a lot poorer. If the USA puts South Korea under embargo tomorrow, in less than 2 years, they get just as poor as North Korea (People's Democratic Republic of Korea).

Communism means abolishing the state, the money, private property, and other stuff.
Capitalism means free markets, private property, profit oriented economy, and other stuff.

Neither "capitalist" USA nor "communist" China, implement those utopian ideals. Both are about an Oligarchy controlling the rest of the society through the State, Media, and Entertainment. They're merely a rehashing of the Fascist Roman Empire - Panem et Circus. Companies are incapable of making profit, and survive through State subsidies and contracts, which also provide jobs to population, and together with a huge entertainment complex, keep the people distracted from rebelling. The media brainwashes you with all kinds of external threats - from Ebola to Talibans - while you're more prone to die at the hand of the police because you talked back...

So you see, this Verhoeven guy, is just an artist, who rebels against Reality. Reality is that the human societies are fascist in nature. He doesn't like it, because he feels like a tool in the hand of war mongers, he'd like more freedom of expression and eroticism...
Yeah, I'd like more eroticism my self, too. But those who are in control, can't get it up no more, they are actually angered by eroticism, because they can't fcvk a woman, because they're 70 years old farts, with lots of money and "power", but they can't do sh!t to get it up and fcvk a lady good. So at the core of their dying organic beings, there's a massive nexus of hate towards everything that is young and sexually fit.

These old farts are the ones who rule, and all they got left in them, is aggression. These old farts are sending the youth to wage war against other young people. It's like your grandma or grandpa tormenting you, as a young boy. These old farts are monstrosities. Nature designed them to die at around 60, yet the technology keeps them alive, to suffer for another 30 years, watching the young enjoying life, while they can't find peace in death, because they have dental prostheses, and antibiotics and surgeries and stuff.

They're undead.

They unconsciously seek war, to have themselves killed by some young rebels. The US oligarchy is actually a maelstrom of hate-aggression, because they need someone to end them, but nobody can defeat them.

[–] valarie7 10 years ago

Basically you have no clue what is grammar. Your point is irrelevant.

I feel good, I feel great, I feel wonderful... I feel good, I feel great, I feel wonderful...

[–] Alexander_elung 10 years ago

criztu - You said what I wanted to say. Good job.

[–] proteus122 10 years ago

That's got to be one of the weirdest manifestos I've ever read.

"But those who are in control, can't get it up no more, they are actually angered by eroticism, because they can't fcvk a woman, because they're 70 years old farts, with lots of money and "power", but they can't do sh!t to get it up and fcvk a lady good. So at the core of their dying organic beings, there's a massive nexus of hate towards everything that is young and sexually fit."

O...K....

[–] CrispSandwich 10 years ago

I loved his mad ravings about being young and sexually fit, makes it easier to realise he is a nut that isn't worth debating with. I look forward to reading it again in the future when he goes on a shooting campaign against old rich men with erectile dysfunction.

[–] hamiltondl 9 years ago

I would not be surprised. I treat "troubled people" who sound more stable than him. He has the makings of an interesting case study. Common, and unimaginative, but interesting.

[–] redjacksmd 10 years ago

You might want to read the book again (if you even have read it).

The society in the book (and movie) allows a person who serves in the Federal service for at least two years will become a Citizen, Johnny Rico was only in the Mobile Infantry (military) because he did not qualify for any other service. So yes, it's a coming of age story with the protagonist in the military.

Other than voting, a citizen can hold public office. Both book and movie make it clear that only those who have taken a personal responsibility in the welfare of that society can have a say in the governmental affairs. Civilians have complete freedom to travel, hold jobs, own businesses, become millionaires and so forth, they just cannot vote or hold elected office.

One of the themes of Starship Troopers (the book) is about personal responsibility (the movie hints at this but spends too much time with action scenes). Whether it's the responsibility of protecting your society, as Johnny Rico does, the responsibility of protecting lives, as General Diennes does, the responsibility of committing a crime, as N.L. Dillinger does or the responsibility of the M.I. to "take care of their own" (again with) N.L. Dillinger. In this society, if you don't hold yourself to personal responsibility, then the society will.

Another theme of the book is value. "Value has no meaning other than in relation to living beings. The value of a thing is always relative to a particular person, is completely and different in quantity for each living human- " and "Nothing of value is free. Even the breath of life is purchased at birth only through gasping effort and pain."

There is much more in the book, and again, I suggest you read it.

[–] wulfthar 10 years ago

I've read the book, and what you write is basically pure Fascism: every Japanese, German or Italian citizen would have recognise the propaganda his grandfathers were subject to explained the same concepts that are described in Starship Trooped, that's the reason why the movie could have just been made by and European, Americans don't get it and probably even Heinlein didn't notice what was writing.

Juliet Parrish: You can't win a war if you're extinct!

[–] dpcoronado 10 years ago

I don't think the system in the book is Fascism. Who is the dictator? It can't be the Sky Marshal...no dictator would step down unless forced out by a coup.

Regarding the first point you argued: Coming of age through experiences in the military does not mean the system is Fascist.

Regarding the second point you argued: The military doesn't give you the right to vote--It doesn't seem like a Sky Marshal can arbitrarily point to someone and say "You're a citizen." The willingness to lay down your life in service of the country is what makes you a citizen, even if it means counting the fuzz on caterpillars by touch. Fascism in Italy relied on conscription, which differs from service in the book, where everyone is a volunteer. No one has to serve.

The third point you argued, yeah that is an element of Fascism. Although there are other elements of Fascism in the book, overall the system is NOT Fascist.

[–] woodmage 10 years ago

I think some people read (or skimmed) the book, saw that only veterans (which could be non-military service as well) could vote, and decided that Heinlein was saying the military was in charge and ran everything... even though the book was clear that people could not vote until AFTER they got out, which could be two years or twenty.

The system could just as easily been one controlled by academics, but I'm ont sure how exciting the book would be if it described Rico's trials and travails as he struggled to join a frat, get into the right classes, and ultimately defend his doctoral thesis.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] doublethink03 8 years ago

It's only fascism if you're a Marxist. To anyone else it's common sense. Heinlein's book was prophetic.

[–] Inspector2211 8 years ago

I don;t think you understand fascism. Or this book.

[–] SmiffBeans0 10 years ago

You are forgetting the main difference between the two and that is the chick he bones in the movie is a dude in the book.

[–] landgrantproductions 8 years ago

What the hell? I need the lowdown for this *beep*

[–] willtell-2 9 years ago

That sounds like the most rehashed and over used generic *beep* you could ever read..

Did the young boy have amnesia also? Maybe he's from the future!

Ugh, stop pretending the book is some great work of literature and enjoy a fun movie..

[–] woodmage 9 years ago

I bet you're one of those people that thinks the Lord of the Rings totally ripped off Harry Potter. :)

[–] hamiltondl 9 years ago

hahahahah. Lmao. 😁

[–] evolution_500_2 9 years ago

Moria Review had an excellent review that pointed out the film's problems:

"Starship Troopers is a highly disappointing adaptation of Robert Heinlein’s novel. In the book, Heinlein portrayed a society that regarded military duty as the only means to attain citizenship and argued fervently for the necessity of a strong military. (Apparently, Starship Troopers is a required reading text in several US military academies). It was a dazzling vision, all the more so for the persuasiveness with which Heinlein argued a repellent idea. Whether or not you agree with its outlook, Heinlein’s novel is a powerful political treatise; on the other hand, the film retains the idea of the military society, strips all of the philosophy arguing in favour of it and turns the story into a big-budget bug hunt. Other than the basic idea, the stories do not have a great deal in common. Heinlein was more interested in the philosophy and politics; the film is more interested in the shoot-‘em-ups and the grunt angle of the story to which extent it has to invent an entire new plot that Heinlein never had. There is, for instance, no central romantic triangle in the book; in fact, there do not appear to be any women in service in Heinlein’s military. Oddly, the one thing we don’t get, which one would have thought would have had great special effects potential on the screen, is Heinlein’s marvellous image of soldiers being dropped from orbit and going into action in armoured power spacesuits.

The differences between film and book become more readily apparent when one reads how the film came into being. Initially, the film started as an original script about war in space until someone pointed out the similarities to the Heinlein book. Rather than face accusations of plagiarism, the producers brought up the rights to the Heinlein novel, made a few surface changes such as naming some of the characters after the ones in the book, retained Heinlein’s idea of a militaristic future, but mostly went back and made the film they originally intended to. There are few more blatant examples within the genre of all-but outright contempt for source material than this – Verhoeven claims that he started reading the Heinlein book but became “bored and depressed” after several chapters and went away and made the rest up.

As a film, Starship Troopers lacks any real effect. Characteristically, Paul Verhoeven loves to make big, slick packages of full-on sex and violence. When this works – Flesh and Blood, RoboCop, Basic Instinct – the results are entertaining; the rest of the time his films become bludgeoning, overstated and with a forward-heavy brutality that treats the people in them with callous disregard. This is even more evident in Starship Troopers than it is in other Verhoeven films – Verhoeven leaps in with a high degree of violence directed against aliens, and shows the cast being shot up, gored and hacked apart with great enthusiasm. The effects work – of masses of insect-like bugs, of scenes of spaceships being shot down and the like – are dazzlingly good. However, Verhoeven seems to have done little to study how soldiers behave and think, let alone go into action in reality. Casper Van Dien and Denise Richards seem perfectly presented and beautiful people without any character depth below the surface. It feels exactly like a war film populated with people that have stepped out of Beverly Hills 90210 (1990-2000) – as a film, it has all the effect of a game of Doom. For a far better filmed work that captures something of what Starship Troopers should have been see either Aliens (1986) or the late, lamented tv series Space: Above and Beyond (1995-6).

Starship Troopers was slammed (as the book had been) for upholding the values of fascism. This is both inaccurate and accurate. On one hand, the film is simply portraying a society that is fascist, one is unable to see any points where the film clearly argues in favour of this as a desirable society, unlike the book. You never knew whether Robert Heinlein upheld such pro-militaristic values himself – in view of the strong libertarian ideas he continued to argue in later life, this was eminently possible – but that did not matter so much as the manner in which he portrayed this as an alarmingly viable society, which is after all what good science-fiction is all about. The film is far more satirical about this society than Heinlein ever was with RoboCop-like cuts away to Net info bites that parody public service announcements. Say what you will about the society but in terms of its depiction we go from one version (Heinlein) that at least offers a strong and potent argument in favour of why it should be that way to a version (the film) that satirises the society and regards everything as a big black joke but offers no particular reason or argument why other than to inundate the audience with a spectacle of mass slaughter.

Unfortunately, Starship Troopers wants to have its cake and eat it too. It both wants to portray this society with black satirical relish and at the same time pose for heroic triumph. It tries to celebrate hero Casper Van Dien in saving his girlfriend Denise Richards and humanity achieving a major victory over the Bugs (although notedly the climax fails to finish the Bugs off and ends only on the winning of a potential advantage against them thus leaving the way open for a sequel). However, these heroic victories are considerably undercut by Verhoeven cutting away to blackly sadistic scenes of humanity torturing the bugs and satirical public service announcements/recruiting ads featuring the main characters. This final coda shows a film divided against itself – while also celebrating its heroic triumph, the satiric scenes belittling the heroes surely shows that Verhoeven doesn’t care about this. It also shows that, despite the satirical presentation of his society, the film will gleefully jump in with a bit of mindless torture to an inhuman object for the sake of a laugh. As a result, you have a film that seems to celebrate the xenophobia represented by the likes of Independence Day (1996) taken to a mindless extreme, while also trying to satirise the society that upholds such – in other words, at the same time as it is making a statement supposedly about the mindless xenophobia of a militaristic society, it is a film that is also applauding the same mindless violence with an enthusiastic cheer."

[–] conedust 9 years ago

That review misunderstands Starship Troopers and Verhoeven's American films in general. His work is generally satirical, yes, but the primary object of its satire is the context in which it exists. He mercilessly lampoons the American cultural landscape, sneering at anyone who might actually enjoy his breathtakingly crass films as they superficially seem to present themselves.

Casper Van Dien and Denise Richards seem perfectly presented and beautiful people without any character depth below the surface. It feels exactly like a war film populated with people that have stepped out of Beverly Hills 90210 (1990-2000) – as a film, it has all the effect of a game of Doom.

That's precisely the point. Americans seem to enjoy watching the two-dimensional doings of lovely but vapid young catalog models just as we seem to enjoy mind-numbing drivel dressed up as heroic action. Verhoeven indulges these tastes only to savage his audience. It's worth noting that both Starship Troopers and Robocop take place in debased, pointedly soulless, brutally fascist futures that strongly resemble these United States today.

Pushing the point even further, both films are frequently interrupted by station breaks - not-so-subtle suggestions that what we're watching has been designed to resemble television programming. In Starship Troopers, this becomes a crucial point, as the film is best understood not as a direct depiction of a possible fascist future, but rather as a fictional piece of propaganda originating from within such a future. It's a cruddy, juvenile TV show created to indoctrinate the youth of the war-driven society it only indirectly reflects. It's therefore no coincidence that its characters seem to "have stepped out of Beverly Hills 90210", or that it has all the moral and emotional depth "of a game of Doom".

I do agree, however, that Verhoven "wants to have [his] cake and eat it too". He clearly relishes (outright wallows in!) the boorish, bloodthirsty grotesquery that his films ostensibly satirize. I don't see this as a fault, though. Verhoeven's sadistic and arguably hypocritical relish gives his films the bracing charge of the raw id unleashed. It helps keep them at least as enjoyable as the are repellent.

The less said about the film's relation to Heinlein's novel, the better. There's little to be gained by analyzing Starship Troopers as a literary adaptation.

so high on eyes i almost lost my way...

[–] woodmage 9 years ago

That review misunderstands Starship Troopers and Verhoeven's American films in general.

I'm not sure if you mean just the movie or not, but it also misunderstands the book.

I just finished reading Forever War for the first time since junior high or high school... I think Verhoeven would have been much happier making a movie based on it.

[–] evolution_500_2 8 years ago

"I'm not sure if you mean just the movie or not, but it also misunderstands the book."

That was only a portion of the review that delved into the actual film itself. At the beginning of the review, it goes into detail about Robert Heinlein and his work.

[–] lepunkdigitale 9 years ago

Conedust - Thanks, you saved me a similarly lengthy rebuttal! I think Verhoeven purposely makes his audiences question their enjoyment of violence. Tarantino has done this himself, throughout his career as a director. None more so than during then end of Inglorious Basterds. We are made to watch a Nazi audience relish in the violence they witness on screen, as Zoller guns down Jewish soldiers from above. We're forced to deplore this relish they take, but then are morally questioned when worse blood-thirsty violence is dealt to the Nazis in return. Should we feel justice has been done through this violence, and revel in it? Are we at all better than the Nazis if we feel this way?

[–] lepunkdigitale 9 years ago

[–] johnf_sf 8 years ago

Liberals aren't the hypocrites everyone thinks they are.

THey're really intellectual hipsters and you're just not cool enough to realize it's circular satirism.

[–] evolution_500_2 8 years ago

"His work is generally satirical, yes, but the primary object of its satire is the context in which it exists."

That is a somewhat questionable statement, especially considering Verhoeven himself. One can ask if movies such as "Robocop" are even satire at all; in terms of that film, for instance, is the film a satire on action movie ultra-violence, or is it, seen in the larger perspective of Paul Verhoeven’s career, more a fortuitous case of coincidence between a savvy script and a director who is indulging his penchant for excess?
Usually Verhoeven's movies tend to disappear under a desire upon his part to bombard his audience with an overkill of sex and violence. Sometimes there is a sarcastic sense of black humour run through it all – both "Total Recall" and "Starship Troopers" feature the same satiric snippets from commercials and tv news soundbites playing in the background as "Robocop". On the other hand, when the script is not attuned to Paul Verhoeven’s predilections, as was the case with "Total Recall", which wasn’t a mindless action film at all, or "Starship Troopers" – the films only end up a jumble of directorial sadism. You sense that Verhoeven constantly seeks justification for serving up the things he does. The truth about Paul Verhoeven, one suspects, is that he doesn’t like people very much. Not many of the central characters in Paul Verhoeven’s films are particularly likable as people – he invests little to no effort in our empathy with them, while there is little warmth and certainly no sentimentalism in a Paul Verhoeven film. Most of the character arcs of the heroes/heroines in Verhoeven’s films are defined simply by their learning to toughen up in a world of hard and brutal edges. Verhoeven piles on violence and excess in his films but it frequently feels like something that is there for its own sake and indifferent to the people present. The sum effect often feels like directorial sadism being randomly applied to innocent people, for no particular reason other than that the director in question is trying to work out some sadistic urges of his own. "Total Recall" offers mass destruction applied against innocent bystanders; "Robocop" and "Starship Troopers" find violence against others a gloating joke and invites audiences to laugh at it; both "Basic Instinct" and "Hollow Man" invite us to participate in rape fantasies; while in "Showgirls" you are not entirely sure if the film is asking us to feel anger about or voyeuristically enjoy Elizabeth Berkeley’s humiliations by an exploitative stripper industry. Through it all, you feel there is a director who has a cynical contempt for humanity – there are few other filmmakers whose heroes and heroines must undergo such a battering and brutalisation before achieving their catharsis; while anybody cast as a bystander along the way seems like dogmeat.

[–] Seriona1 9 years ago

Anyone who watches all four movies and compares it to the book can write a book on the differences between the two. I think the most angry thing for me about the difference was the casus belli and you pointed it out how in the book, two aggressive species were expanding when they met into contact of Pluto and both sides are claiming rights to the planet while in the movie, they make it seem the Bugs are completely aggressive.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]