Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I thought they went after the Skinnies as the Skinnies were making moves to ally with the bugs, and had to be taught the error of their ways.

Of course attacking their planet doesn't seem smart unless you really attack their planet. Else you pull a WWII Britain and just ticki them off.

When they attacked the skinnies at the beginning of the book. They went after stratigic and tactical targets.

Yeah, it was a precision demonstration of force designed to have minimal bloodshed, to demonstrate to the "skinnies" that fighting the terrans was a bad idea, without having a massacre.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lux_Lucis wrote:I've always read the basic political premise of the book to be thus: you have to earn the right to vote, to prove that you care enough to actually think about the issues involved in politics and not just think about yourself.
Heinlein used the military as the method through which one proves themselves so that you recognise the right to vote is not a universal right (and thus treat it with respect, since you've worked hard to earn it) and also'give' yourself to a greater purpose. No-one could be barred from the military in the book, anybody had the right to try and earn their full citizenship.
I thought that was pretty well explained in those sections of the book which dealt with the system (in the citizenship class, whatever it was called and the officer training school).

That's my interpretation anyway. I personally wouldn't say it was fascistic, if compared to actual fascist regimes.

You've got it, except that civil service wasn't exclusively military. The military form of it was the focus of the book, as that's what the first-person narrator goes through, and it's wartime. Heinlein in later comments said that his intent was that it wasn't even primarily military. The point is that you have to sign up for a period of hard, difficult, unpleasant work, putting your life and personal interests second to the benefit of society, for "two years or as long as may be deemed necessary", to earn the vote.

Kanluwen wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I forget, on the ground, what did the bugs fight with again?

They had energy weapons, and I seem to recall that the Lieutenant in charge of the Roughnecks gets hit directly with a missile, though I may be misremembering that.

You are. The Lieutenant was hit by a rocket fired by a Skinny.

In any case, the bugs are described as technologically advanced; they were only bugs insofar as their social constructions worked. Militaristically, they were generally on par with the Terrans. I remember thinking the bugs from Starship Troopers book were a lot closer to the Bugs from District 9 than they were to the bugs in the Starship Troopers movie.

It's also important to remember that the bugs aren't that technologically advanced. They were a race which was very symbiotically enmeshed with the race which humans had dubbed "Skinnies", to the point where the humans decided to go after the Skinnies first to cut off the Bugs' weapon manufacturing, etc.

I stand corrected. I was close, though! Not bad for having not read the book in 12 years! (I should read it again. It's in my top 10)

Mannahnin wrote:Yeah, it was a precision demonstration of force designed to have minimal bloodshed, to demonstrate to the "skinnies" that fighting the terrans was a bad idea, without having a massacre.

.

That never seemed particularly smart to me. You can threaten an enemy, or you annihilate an enemy and their entire way of life. Anything else just is pussy footing around, and they are going to come for you later.

"Always burn your bridges. You never know who's coming to get you."
-Garak of the Obsidian Order.

Germany and Japan seem to demonstrate otherwise.

Mannahnin wrote:Germany and Japan seem to demonstrate otherwise.

Oh contraire. We left them in rubble.

We didn't annihilate them. Either you're moving the goalposts or you just wrote imprecisely.

Either way, it demonstrates that you can use violence and then still make a country an ally.

I'm sure we can come up with examples where people successfully used more minor violence/demonstrations of force, too.

I find myself profoundly uninterested. I might look forward to big screen treatments of Stranger in a Strange Land or The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, but frankly you could pick a dozen more deserving titles from the golden age of SF (Cat's Cradle, A Canticle for Leibowitz, Childhood's End, etc., etc.).

Mannahnin wrote:We didn't annihilate them. Either you're moving the goalposts or you just wrote imprecisely.

Either way, it demonstrates that you can use violence and then still make a country an ally.

I'm sure we can come up with examples where people successfully used more minor violence/demonstrations of force, too.

(looks at what was left of Germany after WWII)
Wow, I take it back. If Germany is your idea of "sending a message" then you're now a member of Frazzled's Zombie Games militia! "Killin zombies is our business and business is good!" Manny's hardcore!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

English Assassin wrote:I find myself profoundly uninterested. I might look forward to big screen treatments of Stranger in a Strange Land or The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, but frankly you could pick a dozen more deserving titles from the golden age of SF (Cat's Cradle, A Canticle for Leibowitz, Childhood's End, etc., etc.).

Yea but its a book made for Baysplosions!

Manchu wrote::/

I had no idea that the subversive content of Total Recall had been cut out for the remake. Now I'm not sure if I care ...

I do believe its true that many people remember it for the triple-boobed alien. Or at least that's the first thing that comes to mind when they think of it.

Kanluwen wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I forget, on the ground, what did the bugs fight with again?

They had energy weapons, and I seem to recall that the Lieutenant in charge of the Roughnecks gets hit directly with a missile, though I may be misremembering that.

You are. The Lieutenant was hit by a rocket fired by a Skinny.

They never mention who or what killed the Lieutenant, just that he was killed on a raid making a pickup on a downed trooper and his wounded assistant section leader, and while throwing them into the retrieval boat was hit and killed. (pgs 182-184 in my copy)

KingCracker wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I forget, on the ground, what did the bugs fight with again?

They had energy weapons, and I seem to recall that the Lieutenant in charge of the Roughnecks gets hit directly with a missile, though I may be misremembering that.

In any case, the bugs are described as technologically advanced; they were only bugs insofar as their social constructions worked. Militaristically, they were generally on par with the Terrans. I remember thinking the bugs from Starship Troopers book were a lot closer to the Bugs from District 9 than they were to the bugs in the Starship Troopers movie.

District 9 was a strange yet good movie

I agree. District 9 was good


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The film that is being talked about isnt this film is it?










But honestly a PG-13 version of starship troopers would suck hairy balls

*sighs* Well looks like this is another movie I HAVE to see. Hope its not going to be dissapointing like Prometheus.

At least it has the jump suits. And the extreme violence isnt neccesarily needed since fighting wasent the main focus of the book anyways

Also, does it go along with the story of the previous movies? I hope not. I hope they loosely follow the book.

Oh it will be now. It will be.

Jumpin Jesus wrote:Also, does it go along with the story of the previous movies?

No, it is a reboot of the franchise. I am loathe to apply to the term when referring to a bunch of straight-to-dvd sequels, but here we are.

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Yeah, it was a precision demonstration of force designed to have minimal bloodshed, to demonstrate to the "skinnies" that fighting the terrans was a bad idea, without having a massacre.

.

That never seemed particularly smart to me. You can threaten an enemy, or you annihilate an enemy and their entire way of life. Anything else just is pussy footing around, and they are going to come for you later.

Wasn't that the whole idea behind 'shock and awe'?

You leave your opponent in absolutely no doubt that you annihilate their military (and more) if you need to. But, because hey we are not uncivilised, we settle for a small slap across the face just to let you know who is boss.

Obviously if it then escalates to 'total war' (going on the WW2 examples given) then that is a different matter, and the gloves come off.

My impression of the book was that the Skinnies were under control of the Federation Hegemony. Much as the same way that Britain dealt with the colonial powers that disobeyed (the Indian Mutiny for instance), the Germans dealt with resistance groups of occupied countries during WW2, it's often self-defeating to inflict too much damage.

Also, it was one of the coolest bits in the book

It's funny that people have mentioned Michael Bay. I think these days the SFX in films is definitely up to the task of recreating those scenes, if Transformers and the Avengers/Iron Man are anything to go by.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Sherlock Holmes (2009) had an international cast, and was produced and distributed by a multinational corporation. It isn't anymore British then it is American.

I think that was kind of the point

It was not exclusively british, so my point still stands. But, that's getting off point.


On one hand, I would be interested in seeing another StarShip Troopers movie, as the three current movies are the only experiances I have with them. I am slightly put off by it being animated, though.

Bran Dawri wrote:

Recently producer Toby Jaffe—who was also partly responsible for cutting the satirical chaff from Total Recall, until he got to the Len Wiseman action movie that was always at its center, apparently—reaffirmed to Empire that his Starship Troopers would be more faithful to both Robert Heinlein's original novel and American values by being less violent, "grounded," and way more patriotic.

This is mathemathically impossible.

Also, article comes across as more than a bit sarcastic towards Jaffe & his crew, but maybe that's just me.

In any case, Hollywood should be forbidden to feth with the books I grew up with any longer, at least until they get people who understand irony and the simple concept of quality once more.

What does math have to do with it?

SilverMK2 wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:I love when non American Flaggers complain about the patriotism in American films. What has Britain put out recently?

When a film about a fictional state in the future killing space aliens comes out as "America HURRR!" then you are doing something wrong

And a significant amount of a films income comes from non-american sales, so to say it is purely an "american film" when it is for worldwide distribution isn't really looking at the whole picture. Plus, it does get a little wearing when every single fething american film is just spouting the same message.

And we have pretty much cornered the market in gangster movies, and also have a reasonably good low budget horror film industry. Not that it has anything to do with being able to comment on what other people are making, but hey...

The film being patriotic doesn't mean it's going to be American patriotism, that's an assumption and a poor one.

Jihadin wrote:Ugh its just a spin on the book. If I remember correctly there were two catagory in it. A civilian and a citizen. So what I'm hearing its american MI doing battle with the bugs....with JUMP SUITS...For all we know...they might take it another but similiar direction like the Posleen War

I rather liked the Posleen War until it was over...now the books are just WTF for chapter after chapter.

Frazzled wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Read the book lol

I did. its been a few decades however and it wasn't particularly entrancing when I read it.

How dare you sir! I reread ST from time to time, it's no longer entrancing but its repeatable.

Jihadin wrote:Read Armor to. Another good one

I've always wanted to see Armor as a movie, but I realize it's a little surreal; which makes it all the more do-able these days.

Mannahnin wrote:

Lux_Lucis wrote:I've always read the basic political premise of the book to be thus: you have to earn the right to vote, to prove that you care enough to actually think about the issues involved in politics and not just think about yourself.
Heinlein used the military as the method through which one proves themselves so that you recognise the right to vote is not a universal right (and thus treat it with respect, since you've worked hard to earn it) and also'give' yourself to a greater purpose. No-one could be barred from the military in the book, anybody had the right to try and earn their full citizenship.
I thought that was pretty well explained in those sections of the book which dealt with the system (in the citizenship class, whatever it was called and the officer training school).

That's my interpretation anyway. I personally wouldn't say it was fascistic, if compared to actual fascist regimes.

You've got it, except that civil service wasn't exclusively military. The military form of it was the focus of the book, as that's what the first-person narrator goes through, and it's wartime. Heinlein in later comments said that his intent was that it wasn't even primarily military. The point is that you have to sign up for a period of hard, difficult, unpleasant work, putting your life and personal interests second to the benefit of society, for "two years or as long as may be deemed necessary", to earn the vote.

Perfect response. Service Based Meritocracy=/= Fascism.

ChocolateGork wrote:
The film that is being talked about isnt this film is it?

No. Casper Von Diems was Johnny Rico in the previous version of ST, and reprises the role in at least one video game and ST3. This looks like something he is producing because...well what else do you know CVD from?

Slarg232 wrote:I am slightly put off by it being animated, though.

The reboot in pre-production is not the animated trailer someone posted later. The new movie should be a live action film. Invasion is set for release this year but reboot is 2014 atm.

AustonT wrote:The film being patriotic doesn't mean it's going to be American patriotism, that's an assumption and a poor one.

It wasn't an assumption, it was a speculative "when a film about 'x' turns out 'y' then you are doing something wrong", not "this film will be 'y' when it is about 'x' and so will be wrong".

[quote=AustonT
The film being patriotic doesn't mean it's going to be American patriotism, that's an assumption and a poor one.