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'd be interested in seeing a more faithful adaptation of the book, though, for what it was, the 1997 movie was a good mindless scifi flick even if almost entirely divorced from the book. Here's hoping to something cool

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'd be interested in seeing a more faithful adaptation of the book, though, for what it was, the 1997 movie was a good mindless scifi flick even if almost entirely divorced from the book. Here's hoping to something cool

I still laugh when people call the movie "mindless action" and similar.

I think the CGI film, Starship Troopers: Invasion is a severely underrated film, especially how it plays with all the classic sci-fi / action movie clichés

Wil there be tits? I think that's the real question here.

 Compel wrote:
I think the CGI film, Starship Troopers: Invasion is a severely underrated film, especially how it plays with all the classic sci-fi / action movie clichés

The CGI flick was pretty good, surprisingly so, but was also almost a reboot in and of itself while keeping the same visuals. The less said about the live action sequels, particularly #3, the better.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'd be interested in seeing a more faithful adaptation of the book, though, for what it was, the 1997 movie was a good mindless scifi flick even if almost entirely divorced from the book. Here's hoping to something cool

I still laugh when people call the movie "mindless action" and similar.

It wasn't totally mindless, but the stuff that I remember it for is mostly just the hilarious violence.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'd be interested in seeing a more faithful adaptation of the book, though, for what it was, the 1997 movie was a good mindless scifi flick even if almost entirely divorced from the book. Here's hoping to something cool

I still laugh when people call the movie "mindless action" and similar.

I still laugh when people say the book glorifies fascism.


As for this remake....I find it hard to imagine it will do either the book or the original film any sort of justice, in their own ways. If anything, it's more likely to be the worst of both worlds.

With Total Recall and Robocop there seems to be something of a pattern of taking Paul Verhoeven's work, taking out the full on crazy stuff that made the originals great, and instead turning out a really bland genre film.

Starship Troopers seems a perfect fit for that. They won't strip out hte political commentary entirely, but repackage in to something kind of meaningless. Like Total Recall keeping the 'is it a dream stuff?', but missing how the question was just a commentary on violence in film. Or Robocop keeping the criticism of corporations, but dropping any kind of reference to how those corporations are permitted and caused by a society in decline.

But the marines will almost certainly have power armour...

 Hordini wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'd be interested in seeing a more faithful adaptation of the book, though, for what it was, the 1997 movie was a good mindless scifi flick even if almost entirely divorced from the book. Here's hoping to something cool

I still laugh when people call the movie "mindless action" and similar.

I still laugh when people say the book glorifies fascism.

Sense of humour is obviously subjective, but I don't get what's funny about a factual statement - the novel is a soapbox upon which the author advocates, strenuously, for a society that, at the absolute minimum would be described as authoritarian. Whether the author actually believed in the point the book was making I don't know, but the only way to miss the intent that the reader is meant to find the society depicted desireable and sympathetic is to wilfully ignore it.

Christ the entire point of the movie is to satirise the fascistic slant of the original text.

Indeed, the politicial mumbo jumbo really took away from the book. It felt like someone writing about politics who only read about political theory and never actually viewed real life.

The politics really ruined the book for me, but its Heinlein-highly overrated in my book.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'd be interested in seeing a more faithful adaptation of the book, though, for what it was, the 1997 movie was a good mindless scifi flick even if almost entirely divorced from the book. Here's hoping to something cool

I still laugh when people call the movie "mindless action" and similar.

I still laugh when people say the book glorifies fascism.

Sense of humour is obviously subjective, but I don't get what's funny about a factual statement - the novel is a soapbox upon which the author advocates, strenuously, for a society that, at the absolute minimum would be described as authoritarian. Whether the author actually believed in the point the book was making I don't know, but the only way to miss the intent that the reader is meant to find the society depicted desireable and sympathetic is to wilfully ignore it.

Christ the entire point of the movie is to satirise the fascistic slant of the original text.

Maybe my understanding or interpretation of the book is a bit different from yours, but I don't think the political system described in the book is anything close to fascism. You might be able to make an argument that it's authoritarian, but even that I don't think holds up. The root of the society in the book is democracy, with the caveat that you can't vote until you've done some sort of public service. However, no one can be denied the right to do public service to earn their franchise, so ultimately, no one can really be denied the right to vote - they just have to be willing to do some sort of public service to earn it.

Authoritarianism generally has some sort of strong centralized power (other than the voting block of citizens) with limited social mobility or ability for citizens to have a political voice. In Starship Troopers, social mobility, at least in the political sense, is built into the fabric of the society. It's guaranteed to anyone who does service, and all civilians are guaranteed a right to do service in order to gain the right to vote. In some ways, the society described is more sociopolitically mobile than the democracy of the early United States, in which the franchise was mostly limited to white male landowners.

I'm not saying that the society in the book is necessarily one we should strive for, but I think hand-waving it away as authoritarian or fascist denotes either a misunderstanding of the system described in the book, or a misunderstanding of authoritarianism or fascism.

The book asks the question, " What makes you a citizen?"

Is it merely a product of the accidental place of your birth or did you earn that right? What is your contribution to society and what right do you have to criticize or change a government in which you haven't invested anything?

In the ST book, no one was oppressed if they hadn't earned citizenship, they could still have businesses, go to school, speak freely, enjoy most normal things that most people enjoy even now; except they could not participate in government if they hadn't put blood, sweat, and time in some service to the government.

I don't know where the idea that it promotes fascism or authoritarian government comes from as it is clearly more in line with meritocracy.

Did you know that foreigners could earn Roman citizenship by joining the Legion? Would you like to know more?

Heinlein is a bit of a sticky subject in the scifi world. On the one hand, he's often accused of advocating for fascist or authoritarian policies, on the ither he was also much more socially progressive in other areas. Starship Troopers is a great example, as the form of government seemingly advocated is authoritarian in ways, but the main character is a Phillipino, at a time when people of such an ethnicity were not main characters in popular fiction, and its revealed in such a way as to challenge the readers own perceptions (as its not really brought up until well into the book, IIRC, when most people would have been imagining a "normal" white character until then).

Heinlein's work isnt to everones tastes, but it is at least thought provoking.

 Frazzled wrote:
Indeed, the politicial mumbo jumbo really took away from the book. It felt like someone writing about politics who only read about political theory and never actually viewed real life.

The politics really ruined the book for me, but its Heinlein-highly overrated in my book.

For once I am in complete agreement with Frazzled about something other than the supremacy of wiener dogs. I don't get the popularity of preachy political sci fi.


However, his undeniable success and horde of loving fans really make me want to see what I could get out of my take on Atlas Shrugged with space battles.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'd be interested in seeing a more faithful adaptation of the book, though, for what it was, the 1997 movie was a good mindless scifi flick even if almost entirely divorced from the book. Here's hoping to something cool

I still laugh when people call the movie "mindless action" and similar.

I still laugh when people say the book glorifies fascism.

Sense of humour is obviously subjective, but I don't get what's funny about a factual statement - the novel is a soapbox upon which the author advocates, strenuously, for a society that, at the absolute minimum would be described as authoritarian. Whether the author actually believed in the point the book was making I don't know, but the only way to miss the intent that the reader is meant to find the society depicted desireable and sympathetic is to wilfully ignore it.

Christ the entire point of the movie is to satirise the fascistic slant of the original text.

Which the author admitted he did not read, and had a biased opinion of it beforehand. You can't satirize something if you only glanced at a few pages.
Its not fascism. No one is being oppressed, no rights are being taken.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

xraytango wrote:


I don't know where the idea that it promotes fascism or authoritarian government comes from as it is clearly more in line with meritocracy.

Probably because of the movie.

This:

The studio is not remaking the film but is said to be going back to the original Heinlein novel for an all-new take.

Music to my ears.

xraytango wrote:
In the ST book, no one was oppressed if they hadn't earned citizenship, they could still have businesses, go to school, speak freely, enjoy most normal things that most people enjoy even now; except they could not participate in government if they hadn't put blood, sweat, and time in some service to the government.

I don't know where the idea that it promotes fascism or authoritarian government comes from as it is clearly more in line with meritocracy.

One of the core ideas of fascism is that the individual serves the state, rather than the other way around. The idea that you must directly contribute with some kind of service (not necessarily military but generally assumed to be) has a fairly clear connection with fascism.

Personally I don't think that is enough to make Starship Troopers fascist (it really needs to have worship of the leader), but I can see where people who are making the claim are coming from.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its not fascism. No one is being oppressed, no rights are being taken.

That's literally untrue. The right to vote has become a privilege granted to only a few.

 sebster wrote:

xraytango wrote:
In the ST book, no one was oppressed if they hadn't earned citizenship, they could still have businesses, go to school, speak freely, enjoy most normal things that most people enjoy even now; except they could not participate in government if they hadn't put blood, sweat, and time in some service to the government.

I don't know where the idea that it promotes fascism or authoritarian government comes from as it is clearly more in line with meritocracy.

One of the core ideas of fascism is that the individual serves the state, rather than the other way around. The idea that you must directly contribute with some kind of service (not necessarily military but generally assumed to be) has a fairly clear connection with fascism.

Personally I don't think that is enough to make Starship Troopers fascist (it really needs to have worship of the leader), but I can see where people who are making the claim are coming from.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its not fascism. No one is being oppressed, no rights are being taken.

That's literally untrue. The right to vote has become a privilege granted to only a few.

But if to obtain the right to vote, you have to do some form of public service, and being given the opportunity to do service is a right, you can't really claim it's a privilege granted to only a few. Anyone who wanted to earn their vote would be given the opportunity. That's not really the same as it being a privilege granted to only a few if everyone literally has the right to do some sort of service in order to earn it. I could see the argument if the requirement was to pass something like BUD/S training or something to get the right to vote, but that doesn't seem to be the case in the book or in Heinlein's commentary of it.

If service was used to exclude people from earning the franchise by excluding them from the service, I think that would be more problematic, but as is, anyone can earn it. It's not like today, where you can get excluded from the military or the Peace Corps for medical issues or a variety of other reasons - in Starship Troopers, if you want to become a citizen, they will find a place for you to serve somewhere (this is also a big reason why a system like this most probably wouldn't work out in reality).

I could be incorrectly remembering things, but wasn't the political system of Starship Troopers dubbed "Enlightened Socialism" or something?

 Hordini wrote:
But if to obtain the right to vote, you have to do some form of public service, and being given the opportunity to do service is a right, you can't really claim it's a privilege granted to only a few. Anyone who wanted to earn their vote would be given the opportunity. That's not really the same as it being a privilege granted to only a few if everyone literally has the right to do some sort of service in order to earn it. I could see the argument if the requirement was to pass something like BUD/S training or something to get the right to vote, but that doesn't seem to be the case in the book or in Heinlein's commentary of it.

Sure, but that wasn't the statement made. CthuluIsSpy said that no-one was having their rights taken away, and that is not true. People's right to vote was being conditioned on some other thing, they are losing a right that they then had to earn back.

If he'd made the statement that while people lost the automatic right to vote, everyone who wanted to earn that right was able to do so, then what he said would have been accurate.

Forcing young, impressionable citizens to enter branches of service well known for homogenizing points of view and producing a specific political bent before giving them the right to vote is what bothers me about the system in the book. Well, one thing.

I don’t think the system is supposed to be ideal. The point of the political side of the book, IMHO, is to raise the question about the value of the vote and participation in government. Is it something that should be taken for granted? What happens when it’s not a right, but a privilege?

You may disagree with his politics, but a sign of good Sci-Fi is that it makes you think about the world today, via the lens of a potential future.

Today of all days, I think it’s quite relevant. I went out and voted. Would I still have my sense of civic duty if I hadn’t read Starship Troopers at an impressionable age? I’d like to think so. But the idea that the ability to vote, and participate, in the government is a special thing is a core part of the book. As much as the power armor and nuking aliens.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Forcing young, impressionable citizens to enter branches of service well known for homogenizing points of view and producing a specific political bent before giving them the right to vote is what bothers me about the system in the book. Well, one thing.

Except they're not forced to, and civil service does not have to be military. Whilst the Army was one of the ways to gain citizenship, it wasn't the only way. Hell, teaching is one of the ways to become a citizen. Want to vote? Become a teacher and educate the masses.
It is true though that the military is the most glorified and advertised.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
But if to obtain the right to vote, you have to do some form of public service, and being given the opportunity to do service is a right, you can't really claim it's a privilege granted to only a few. Anyone who wanted to earn their vote would be given the opportunity. That's not really the same as it being a privilege granted to only a few if everyone literally has the right to do some sort of service in order to earn it. I could see the argument if the requirement was to pass something like BUD/S training or something to get the right to vote, but that doesn't seem to be the case in the book or in Heinlein's commentary of it.

Sure, but that wasn't the statement made. CthuluIsSpy said that no-one was having their rights taken away, and that is not true. People's right to vote was being conditioned on some other thing, they are losing a right that they then had to earn back.

If he'd made the statement that while people lost the automatic right to vote, everyone who wanted to earn that right was able to do so, then what he said would have been accurate.

Ok fair enough, that is a bit more accurate. I'd argue that its not that much different than applying for citizenship and/or registering to vote when moving to an another country, but at that point its just splitting hairs.

 Frazzled wrote:
Indeed, the politicial mumbo jumbo really took away from the book. It felt like someone writing about politics who only read about political theory and never actually viewed real life.

The politics really ruined the book for me, but its Heinlein-highly overrated in my book.

While I agree in part, that's not entirely true. While Heinlein's later, longer works are generally very preachy and much overrated (including "Stranger in a Strange Land"), his short stories -sadly a dying art- are nothing short of genius. Stuff like "All you Zombies", "The unpleasant profession of Jonathan Hoag", "The Green Hills of Earth", and their ilk are genre classics for a very good reason.

Bran Dawri wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Indeed, the politicial mumbo jumbo really took away from the book. It felt like someone writing about politics who only read about political theory and never actually viewed real life.

The politics really ruined the book for me, but its Heinlein-highly overrated in my book.

While I agree in part, that's not entirely true. While Heinlein's later, longer works are generally very preachy and much overrated (including "Stranger in a Strange Land"), his short stories -sadly a dying art- are nothing short of genius. Stuff like "All you Zombies", "The unpleasant profession of Jonathan Hoag", "The Green Hills of Earth", and their ilk are genre classics for a very good reason.

I was going to post this but saw you already had. *shakes fist angrily at sky*

 Orlanth wrote:
This:

The studio is not remaking the film but is said to be going back to the original Heinlein novel for an all-new take.

Music to my ears.

That is a big surprise, but a very welcome one.

Very unlikely that we will have any political philosophy in the film, but at least perhaps big armoured suits jumping over buildings and launching shoulder-mounted mini nukes.

Depends on the writing and who is directing it, The ones after Paul Verhoeven one, were mediocre at best.

They should at least have a Johnny Rico cameo, reboot or not.

 adamsouza wrote:
They should at least have a Johnny Rico cameo, reboot or not.

Do you mean a Van Dien cameo?

I like the philosophy bits of the book. It raised some interesting questions about "rights" and getting what you put in. I read it more like Hordini did. Despite being a military man myself I thought it glorified military service a bit much, though. I did like the accountability versus God given right discussions. Even if the film is truer to the action in the book it could be an improvement, but I'm not holding my breath.

Yes, Casper Van Dien played John "Johnny Rico" in the first and third Starship Troopers movies.

Last time we saw him he was saving the day in experimental Maruader Armor.