Starship Troopers: one of the most misunderstood movies ever(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
Starship Troopers: one of the most misunderstood movies ever
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/11/-em-starship-troopers-em-one-of-the-most-misunderstood-movies-ever/281236/
139 comments
> What it doesn't have is any major character questioning the state that they are living under - but then looking around today, sometimes that seems pretty accurate as well.
That's the "problem" - the film assumed the viewer had enough brain to see the satire instead of spelling it out. Apparently that wasn't true of most reviewers at the time. (I saw it when it came out and loved it. Much more than the book which was depressingly fascist apologetic.)
That's the "problem" - the film assumed the viewer had enough brain to see the satire instead of spelling it out. Apparently that wasn't true of most reviewers at the time. (I saw it when it came out and loved it. Much more than the book which was depressingly fascist apologetic.)
I saw it when it came out and loved it. Much more than the book which was depressingly fascist apologetic.
Maybe people were projecting the book onto the movie?
Maybe people were projecting the book onto the movie?
I suspect they were projecting the book onto the movie so strongly that it actually drown out the movie. That or they were just upset that the movie didn't feature the wildly unfilmable powered suits.
Rather, this seems like a clear case of Poe's law.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
> What it doesn't have is any major character questioning the state that they are living under - but then looking around today, sometimes that seems pretty accurate as well.
One scene I liked is when the only person in the film questioning the state, a TV reporter, is saying something like 'maybe this war wouldn't have started if we didn't attack them first, so maybe should we leave them in peace' and is promptly interrupted by zealous marines
One scene I liked is when the only person in the film questioning the state, a TV reporter, is saying something like 'maybe this war wouldn't have started if we didn't attack them first, so maybe should we leave them in peace' and is promptly interrupted by zealous marines
I don't think people got it, simply because it hit far too close to home. The message in the film and the message in the media at the time were too closely aligned.
"Would you like to know more?" was Fox News. The movie presaged an age where knowing more actually meant: "knowing only what we want you to know" ..
"Would you like to know more?" was Fox News. The movie presaged an age where knowing more actually meant: "knowing only what we want you to know" ..
well, in "Escape from Guantanamo Bay" they did show a one who got it :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_rzQtNGaZU&feature=player_d...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_rzQtNGaZU&feature=player_d...
Agreed. I had no idea there was any such controversy surrounding the film. I watched it when it was first released and I'm pretty sure most people watched it knowing from the outset it was a satire?
I was living in the US at the time and I assure you, lots of people, critics and magazine writers didn't quite 'get' it. Which in some ways made the movie's message even more powerful.
If they failed to see that, the Nazi uniforms should have been a dead giveaway. Plus Neil Patrick Harris in a Darth Vader suit...
[deleted]
This movie isn't misunderstood or clever at all. It was originally exactly as dumb as people think it is (working title: "Bug Hunt On Outpost Nine), but the studio realized they could get the license to Starship Troopers for free.
Verhoeven didn't even read Starship Troopers-- he skimmed a few chapters, decided it was depressing and that Heinlein was a fascist, and made the movie a parody of the book, and a lazy parody at that.
When people call this movie dumb, they're completely right, albeit not for the reasons they may think.
Verhoeven didn't even read Starship Troopers-- he skimmed a few chapters, decided it was depressing and that Heinlein was a fascist, and made the movie a parody of the book, and a lazy parody at that.
When people call this movie dumb, they're completely right, albeit not for the reasons they may think.
I've read the book, and seen the movie. Let me tell you, I can't say that anything more than a skimming of that book is necessary. It's about as one dimensional as sci-fi gets. Worse even than Scott Cards work, and I don't say that lightly. Both Enders Game and Starship Troopers replace that tedious work of actually figuring out what sort of character development you want to be in your story with "young naive guy matures as he learns the value of war."
The movie, for all of its self-aware cheese, has much more to offer.
The movie, for all of its self-aware cheese, has much more to offer.
I never read Starship Troopers (actually, never knew it existed) but always enjoyed it as a fun movie. I know, fun and dumb do overlap at certain points, and maybe that's why I liked it. I like one of the comments here describing it as "Ken and Barbie go to outer space" or something like that - sums it up well for me.
When I saw it, the thing that shocked me the most was that the people around me just didn't get it. I came out of the theatre (Manns Chinese in Hollywood) dumb-founded at the snippets of conversation I heard that revealed that, honestly, kids just didn't get that the target of the satire was them.
I wasn't prepared for the enlightenment that this movie gave me. I came to realize that we were living in the exact world that the movie depicts - teenage morons controlled by masters of jingo'ism, sending their sons and daughters off to fight in totally senseless, pointless wars.
It was shocking to me that, while I was able to see that it was a political statement masquerading as sci-fi, the kids only saw it as 'dumb sci-fi'. What was going on, I wondered to myself, that there are people who really just do not get it?
That question was answered a few years afterwards, on 9/11. I'll never forget the wide-eyed enthusiasm of an 18-year old I met in the days afterwards, who was preparing his life to sign up and go to war. It reminded me precisely of that movie, and that frankly scared the hell out of me.
I'm glad that this is getting some attention now, but I fear its too late. Too many kids grew up thinking that war was good for them and good for society, and it was the only option they had for employment, after all, so why not ..
I wasn't prepared for the enlightenment that this movie gave me. I came to realize that we were living in the exact world that the movie depicts - teenage morons controlled by masters of jingo'ism, sending their sons and daughters off to fight in totally senseless, pointless wars.
It was shocking to me that, while I was able to see that it was a political statement masquerading as sci-fi, the kids only saw it as 'dumb sci-fi'. What was going on, I wondered to myself, that there are people who really just do not get it?
That question was answered a few years afterwards, on 9/11. I'll never forget the wide-eyed enthusiasm of an 18-year old I met in the days afterwards, who was preparing his life to sign up and go to war. It reminded me precisely of that movie, and that frankly scared the hell out of me.
I'm glad that this is getting some attention now, but I fear its too late. Too many kids grew up thinking that war was good for them and good for society, and it was the only option they had for employment, after all, so why not ..
Young homo sapiens males have a natural instinct for war, which can be expressed or not depending on circumstances. Going to war is the historical high risk + high reward option: you might be killed, but if you survive, you have a good shot at becoming richer, more powerful, and having offspring (both by becoming a desirable husband/son-in-law, and through the pervasive rapes in which victors indulged after a won battle). Founding a startup is a modern incarnation of that instinct, appealing mostly to the same young males demographic, albeit skewed toward those with very favored socio-economical backgrounds.
So, the less hope people have to thrive the "regular" safe way, e.g. because of durable economical crisis and loss of upward social mobility, the more likely they are to respond well to jingoism.
As a side-note, polygyny and jingoism are strongly correlated. Indeed for each man with several spouses, there are unwilling bachelors. They're willing to take the high-risk road and fight battles to become patriarchs; as a bonus, war casualties increase the female/male ratio.
I recommend reading The Red Queen if you're interested by all aspects of mating strategies and risk acceptance, not limited to human beings nor even whole organisms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Queen:_Sex_and_the_Evol...).
So, the less hope people have to thrive the "regular" safe way, e.g. because of durable economical crisis and loss of upward social mobility, the more likely they are to respond well to jingoism.
As a side-note, polygyny and jingoism are strongly correlated. Indeed for each man with several spouses, there are unwilling bachelors. They're willing to take the high-risk road and fight battles to become patriarchs; as a bonus, war casualties increase the female/male ratio.
I recommend reading The Red Queen if you're interested by all aspects of mating strategies and risk acceptance, not limited to human beings nor even whole organisms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Queen:_Sex_and_the_Evol...).
I think these sorts of glib 'truisms' are used to justify an awful lot of bad behaviour. Just ask the feminists if they think its an acceptable justification for young male misogyny .. its not going to help anyone if we justify continued transgression against our species with "natural law requires this 'natural' behaviour".
Beware not to get confused between explanation and justification. Whenever a social issue is worth struggling for, that's precisely because of the mismatch between how things are and how they ought to be, it's essential to have a fair assessment of things as they are.
Those who suffer from mental confusion between how things are and how they ought to be, tend at best to be ineffective, and often to discredit the cause they wish to defend. As you hinted, some variants of feminism are confronted with such issues.
Another kind of confusion to avoid is between "natural" and "legitimate". "Natural" means "spontaneous", it's almost the exact opposite of "civilized". Describing something as natural is certainly not justifying it. Some forms of populisms abuse the natural/legitimate confusion to manipulate masses, but that's no reasoning, let alone sound reasoning.
Those who suffer from mental confusion between how things are and how they ought to be, tend at best to be ineffective, and often to discredit the cause they wish to defend. As you hinted, some variants of feminism are confronted with such issues.
Another kind of confusion to avoid is between "natural" and "legitimate". "Natural" means "spontaneous", it's almost the exact opposite of "civilized". Describing something as natural is certainly not justifying it. Some forms of populisms abuse the natural/legitimate confusion to manipulate masses, but that's no reasoning, let alone sound reasoning.
Another unsung layer to this movie is just how well it ties into key influences on Heinlein prior to his writing the novel. The novel itself is heavily influenced by WWII wartime military and popular culture, and roots its social thought experiments in that context. The movie turns this into visual leverage, weaving together elements from WWII era propaganda films and Hollywood's subsequent decades of iconography of that era.
I'd like to like Starship Troopers more but I can't.
Starship Troopers had a couple smart things to say but said it through a shit movie. Turgid dialog, horrible acting, repugnant characters and general cheesiness. I know the writers wanted to say all these people are idiots but society doesn't go astray because everyone is an idiot – you have to show how smart characters are caught in situations that constrain them to be idiots or at least a have few characters that realise the ridiculousness but are overridden or sidelined. You can't just write a bad movie and blame the characters for being stupid.
My standard rule is that to properly satirise or ridicule something, a story must simultaneously be a good example of target being parodied as well as having a strong parody element.
Starship Troopers tries to parody the military machine but it fails because its a terrible military action movie. To be a good parody of the military (and the political and social machine around it), it must also be a good military action film – both levels must work for the film to be good.
I like to give Galaxy Quest as a good example of a film that's both excellent parody and an exemplar of the genre being parodied. It absolutely pillories Star Trek, bad sci-fi writing, unbelievable monsters, magic science, red-shirts, ridiculous sets with no purpose and humanoid aliens-of-the-week but at the same time it has likeable characters, excellent acting, a properly scary villain and has a real sense of "earning" the ultimate victory at the end.
Starship Troopers has none of this and tries to use cheesiness and parody as an excuse for failing to make the movie better. Sorry, I have to evaluate a film based on more than its satirical message.
Starship Troopers had a couple smart things to say but said it through a shit movie. Turgid dialog, horrible acting, repugnant characters and general cheesiness. I know the writers wanted to say all these people are idiots but society doesn't go astray because everyone is an idiot – you have to show how smart characters are caught in situations that constrain them to be idiots or at least a have few characters that realise the ridiculousness but are overridden or sidelined. You can't just write a bad movie and blame the characters for being stupid.
My standard rule is that to properly satirise or ridicule something, a story must simultaneously be a good example of target being parodied as well as having a strong parody element.
Starship Troopers tries to parody the military machine but it fails because its a terrible military action movie. To be a good parody of the military (and the political and social machine around it), it must also be a good military action film – both levels must work for the film to be good.
I like to give Galaxy Quest as a good example of a film that's both excellent parody and an exemplar of the genre being parodied. It absolutely pillories Star Trek, bad sci-fi writing, unbelievable monsters, magic science, red-shirts, ridiculous sets with no purpose and humanoid aliens-of-the-week but at the same time it has likeable characters, excellent acting, a properly scary villain and has a real sense of "earning" the ultimate victory at the end.
Starship Troopers has none of this and tries to use cheesiness and parody as an excuse for failing to make the movie better. Sorry, I have to evaluate a film based on more than its satirical message.
I don't understand this comment. What's "bad" about the movie? I think it works very well. Of course the characters say cheesy things sometimes, they're brainwashed kids acting macho. I always found the action compelling and the acting is good - it's a very well made movie, as you'd expect.
I think you're missing some sort of point here. None of the points in your comment hit home for me at all. Galaxy Quest is a baffling comparison to make and is not in the same league at all.
Edit: You do realise there's a difference between parody and satire, right? GQ is the former, ST is the latter.
I think you're missing some sort of point here. None of the points in your comment hit home for me at all. Galaxy Quest is a baffling comparison to make and is not in the same league at all.
Edit: You do realise there's a difference between parody and satire, right? GQ is the former, ST is the latter.
> My standard rule is that to properly satirise or ridicule something, a story must simultaneously be a good example of target being parodied as well as having a strong parody element.
The obvious counterexample that leaps to mind is Catch-22, which isn't a good war novel at all but is a brilliant antiwar satire.
The obvious counterexample that leaps to mind is Catch-22, which isn't a good war novel at all but is a brilliant antiwar satire.
I agree. The grandparent's rule seems to exclude many of the classics of satire.
Consider Voltaire's Candide. Taken at face value, its genre is somewhere between "young man's growth story" and "colony-era adventure novel". Is it a good example of high-quality writing in those genres? Certainly not.
Consider Voltaire's Candide. Taken at face value, its genre is somewhere between "young man's growth story" and "colony-era adventure novel". Is it a good example of high-quality writing in those genres? Certainly not.
I think they purposely show the protagonists serving in forces and promotional videos as too cheesy. That's the whole idea. We are over-glorifying violence. In the movies, they dumb down the bugs. In real life we dumb down human beings. There is a scene where kids are squashing roaches commenting 'everyone is doing their bit'. Ah hate hate everywhere?
>Star Trek, bad sci-fi writing, unbelievable monsters, magic science, red-shirts, ridiculous sets with no purpose and humanoid aliens-of-the-week
as they say, can't see a forest for the trees :)
Relax, man, you don't like it, obviously. Tastes are different. Galaxy Quest is a nice funny movie, Starship Troopers is a brilliant masterpiece. Kandinsky's black square is just a square a child can paint (i think i drew a lot of black squares among everything else while dreaming at classes in school).
as they say, can't see a forest for the trees :)
Relax, man, you don't like it, obviously. Tastes are different. Galaxy Quest is a nice funny movie, Starship Troopers is a brilliant masterpiece. Kandinsky's black square is just a square a child can paint (i think i drew a lot of black squares among everything else while dreaming at classes in school).
>Turgid dialog, horrible acting, repugnant characters and general cheesiness.
Sorry, but this is American politics today. In that sense, the movie scored big.
Sorry, but this is American politics today. In that sense, the movie scored big.
Well it has the brainy colonel Carl Jenkins, to show how smart people are can be oblivious of their society failings and participate to the "massacre". Also, there is little point insisting on this part given the recent history (nazism, war agains terrorism, etc).
As long as you don't evaluate the satirical message by the qualities of the film, that's ok.
I watched Starship Troopers a few months back. One of the thing I loved the most about the movie is those TV segment where it just broadcast propaganda and always ends with: "Do you want to know more?"
It remotely felt like when I read 1984 for some reason. Couldn't entirely tell why.
It remotely felt like when I read 1984 for some reason. Couldn't entirely tell why.
If you liked Starship Troopers, watch their straight-to-video sequels. Low production value, kitschy special effects, but written by the same guy.
They're terrible movies really, but a nice dose of the ultra-blatant satire.
They're terrible movies really, but a nice dose of the ultra-blatant satire.
It was the coercive positive / negative spin they put into each "story" that was 1984-ish.
Odds are that, if you read the book first, you'll probably hate the movie. They really are totally different. Personally, I don't believe fidelity to the source is necessary for an adaptation to be successful. Plenty of films have been made that are slaves to the source and are terrible as a result! Great films are often made from bad books, so why can't great films just be different from the great books they're based on?
I do think there's room for a more faithful adaptation of the book, but that doesn't change the fact that Verhoeven's film is brilliant and hilarious. If you go in expecting it to be faithful to the book (or you're a bit of a hawk yourself to begin with), I can see why you might interpret it as a serious, but bad flick. Great films aren't always intended for all audiences however!
If Verhoeven can be faulted, it's for making "Hollow Man". Now that flick sucked!
I do think there's room for a more faithful adaptation of the book, but that doesn't change the fact that Verhoeven's film is brilliant and hilarious. If you go in expecting it to be faithful to the book (or you're a bit of a hawk yourself to begin with), I can see why you might interpret it as a serious, but bad flick. Great films aren't always intended for all audiences however!
If Verhoeven can be faulted, it's for making "Hollow Man". Now that flick sucked!
Knowing that the movie was coming prompted me to read the book first, having seen it discussed fondly.
I enjoyed the book, but was surprised by its unfashionable celebration of martial values: in particular a viewpoint about the necessity and inevitability of war. They couldn't possibly get that into a modern mass-market sci-fi action flick, I thought.
But Verhoeven did! And he managed to work in overlapping layers of both respect and criticism for the militaristic source material. He makes the jingoism and quasi-fascism alternately seem attractive, clownish, revolting, and necessary.
Preserving some of the book's rhetorical case for warmaking, even though Verhoeven also simultaneously mocks that case, is a subversive achievement as interesting, and in a way as faithful to the book's ideas, as a film featuring more of the "super suits" and infantry-tactics would have been.
I enjoyed the book, but was surprised by its unfashionable celebration of martial values: in particular a viewpoint about the necessity and inevitability of war. They couldn't possibly get that into a modern mass-market sci-fi action flick, I thought.
But Verhoeven did! And he managed to work in overlapping layers of both respect and criticism for the militaristic source material. He makes the jingoism and quasi-fascism alternately seem attractive, clownish, revolting, and necessary.
Preserving some of the book's rhetorical case for warmaking, even though Verhoeven also simultaneously mocks that case, is a subversive achievement as interesting, and in a way as faithful to the book's ideas, as a film featuring more of the "super suits" and infantry-tactics would have been.
Verhoeven said in an interview that he never read the source material, only the screenplay. (sorry, no source online)
Fair enough - he was making a movie, not a book report for Heinlein fans.
Fair enough - he was making a movie, not a book report for Heinlein fans.
Verhoeven may have said that. Whether it's true is another matter; he could have been trolling the book's fans.
For a project that supposedly started as another entirely unrelated movie, by a director who hadn't read the book, it managed to fit in a lot of the book's particular rhetoric and plot points.
For a project that supposedly started as another entirely unrelated movie, by a director who hadn't read the book, it managed to fit in a lot of the book's particular rhetoric and plot points.
> Great films are often made from bad books
People never believe me when I bring up Shrek as an example of this.
People never believe me when I bring up Shrek as an example of this.
[deleted]
Verhoeven has a history of making completely ridiculous, tasteless movies, with poor scripts, atrocious acting and over the top special effects.
I don't blame people for missing the parody in Starship Troopers, because Verhoeven has consistently made such movies in absolute sincerity throughout his career. I suspect all the praise for Starship Troopers belongs with the writer of the screenplay, and that Verhoeven never had the remotest clue that he was making anything more than another dumb action movie.
I don't blame people for missing the parody in Starship Troopers, because Verhoeven has consistently made such movies in absolute sincerity throughout his career. I suspect all the praise for Starship Troopers belongs with the writer of the screenplay, and that Verhoeven never had the remotest clue that he was making anything more than another dumb action movie.
After reading this, watch Robocop again. Same director, same critique on society.
Really adds another layer to it.
Really adds another layer to it.
Robocop is even more over the top. One of the first scenes in Robocop is a guy being eviscerated with bullets in a board room meeting and one of the businessmen says "That's life in the big city!".
It's just dripping with satire.
It's just dripping with satire.
Starship Troopers has the heroes wearing Nazi uniforms, and it has a scene from in-fiction television, "teaching" children that killing terrestrial insects is what they should do to assist with the war on the bugs.
I don't remember much of Robocop, but how much more satirical can you get than that?
I don't remember much of Robocop, but how much more satirical can you get than that?
Here is an in-movie ad for a product that exists in the Robocop universe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmSSVt7Mfkk
In-movie propoganda reel from Starship Troopers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faFuaYA-daw Note Neil Patrick Harris sharply dressed in a rather SS-officer-esque uniform.
I'd say it's a tossup.
I'd say it's a tossup.
That's not much of a satire, given that the Nuclear War card game has been around since 1965. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_War_(card_game)
Could one of you folks downvoting me please tell me what you disagree with? I'm really not getting why this was controversial or offensive. Did you think I was badmouthing Robocop, or what?
That scene originally lasted much longer. The robot spends ages shooting the guy. So long that it becomes ridiculous, comical.
Censors didn't like that scene, and they insisted it was cut down, with a shorter amount of time for shooting.
The effect is to turn something almost funny into something chilling and horrific.
Having the ED 209 be unable to tackle stairs is another example of the robot failing.
Censors didn't like that scene, and they insisted it was cut down, with a shorter amount of time for shooting.
The effect is to turn something almost funny into something chilling and horrific.
Having the ED 209 be unable to tackle stairs is another example of the robot failing.
My memories are hazy, but Robocop felt very different. It did not criticize the establishment (i.e. the police) very much. In fact, the main character was a cop who got fatally wounded by "the bad guys" and then was resurrected as a badass robot and delivered sweet payback.
Most of the satirical elements in Robocop were directed at corporations.
Most of the satirical elements in Robocop were directed at corporations.
Watch it again.. the bad guys are not some random street thugs, it is OCP, a mega corporation that produces the robots and is essentially a government organization (since that world is a "corporatocracy").
More specifically, "the bad guys" and OCP were actually in cahoots. The CEO of OCP has the main villain kill a junior OCP executive after the executive humiliates the CEO.
There is also a subplot where OCP is deliberately working with street gangs to drive up the crime rate and gather public support for demolishing the entirety of old Detroit and building the corporate-owned "Delta City" in its place.
The movie does criticize the establishment, it just stops short of criticizing the actual street cops.
Side note: I'm actually looking forward to the remake. I had strong fears that the reboot would be strictly all-action and contain none of the social commentary. While it looks like the movies will lose its satirical elements, the cynicism will remain. I watched another movie by Jose Padilha recently and I'm hopeful.
There is also a subplot where OCP is deliberately working with street gangs to drive up the crime rate and gather public support for demolishing the entirety of old Detroit and building the corporate-owned "Delta City" in its place.
The movie does criticize the establishment, it just stops short of criticizing the actual street cops.
Side note: I'm actually looking forward to the remake. I had strong fears that the reboot would be strictly all-action and contain none of the social commentary. While it looks like the movies will lose its satirical elements, the cynicism will remain. I watched another movie by Jose Padilha recently and I'm hopeful.
>>The movie does criticize the establishment, it just stops short of criticizing the actual street cops.
That is what I meant. Contrast that to Starship Troopers, where the military (the organization the main characters are a part of) is spared no criticism.
That is what I meant. Contrast that to Starship Troopers, where the military (the organization the main characters are a part of) is spared no criticism.
The central characters in Robocop were treated empathetically, the scathing social satire and black comedy were not central to the main storyline of heroes and villians, so there was still an engaging film even for those viewers lacking the social awareness needed to appreciate irony.
In Starship Troopers, every character was disposable, hence the gigantic 'whoosh'.
I recommend 'Hollow Man', Verhoeven's last, and largely forgotten Hollywood film, released in 2000. It's even more subversive, and the subversive message is even more subtle. So subtle in fact that I doubt even the film's producers were aware of what was going on. It's either a terrible B-grade hollywood sci-fi thriller, or brilliant black comedy, depending on whether or not you latch on to the subtext.
In Starship Troopers, every character was disposable, hence the gigantic 'whoosh'.
I recommend 'Hollow Man', Verhoeven's last, and largely forgotten Hollywood film, released in 2000. It's even more subversive, and the subversive message is even more subtle. So subtle in fact that I doubt even the film's producers were aware of what was going on. It's either a terrible B-grade hollywood sci-fi thriller, or brilliant black comedy, depending on whether or not you latch on to the subtext.
Another movie in the same vein is "Battleship." It "woooshed" a lot of people, but there are some controvertible clues that it was more than just an "America, fuck yeah!" movie. Most notably the song during the end credits which is Creedence's "Fortunate Son." I'm sure some people won't even be convinced by that fact, but then Reagan used Springsteen's "Born in the USA" during his campaign in 1984, so I guess some people just aren't wired for satire.
For me, the best thing about "Battleship" is how the director convinced the US military to donate the use of all that hardware to a movie with such an anti-military message. The DoD doesn't do that sort of thing lightly, they require script approval and have a strict policy that they won't help with a movie that is at all critical. Slipping that right under their noses like that was a real coup.
For me, the best thing about "Battleship" is how the director convinced the US military to donate the use of all that hardware to a movie with such an anti-military message. The DoD doesn't do that sort of thing lightly, they require script approval and have a strict policy that they won't help with a movie that is at all critical. Slipping that right under their noses like that was a real coup.
I agree with your analysis of Robocop, but I'm not looking forward to the remake at all. There's no need for a remake. There is nothing that feels old about Robocop. Watch it again and it still stands as a great movie altogether. The remake will just put more nonsensical special effects and you can bet there will tons of crappy acting in it.
Vice-President, not CEO, is working with the gangs.
yes it did critize the police. In Robocop,police officers are just cannon fodder for fabricated street wars set by big business.
In fact corps own the police,the media,the city,politics and gang bangers are hired as "consultants".
The police officers portrayed in the movie are not part of the establishment that exists in the movie.
Especially the several officers at the precinct. They are shown fighting the good fight, fighting for the people, in the face of the impossible conditions coming down from above.
Especially the several officers at the precinct. They are shown fighting the good fight, fighting for the people, in the face of the impossible conditions coming down from above.
Go watch the "you have 20 seconds to comply" part again.
Sadly it ends up feeling more like a roadmap these days.
When this first came out, the adverts on TV showed a movie full of action and dripping in coolness, I went to the first day of opening and the audience was dumbstruck about 15 minutes in, it was so 90210-esque. The social satire was brilliant in my opinion.
"Why Everyone Gets Robocop But Nobody Gets Starship Troopers"
http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/11/26/starship-troopers-f...
http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/11/26/starship-troopers-f...
I don't get it. Very much at the beginning of the movie a paraplegic army recruiter proudly proclaims: "Mobile infantry made me the man I am today."
How can anyone take that at face value?
How can anyone take that at face value?
As satire the brilliant part about that, and a few of the other really shocking things like the drill sergeant beating up a new recruit to establish himself as head of the pack, or the whipping, is that it's lifted fairly directly from the book.
A subset of the fans of the book get mad because the violence and fascism seemed so much cooler in their heads. Other fans recognize that Heinlein's books were to some degree experimental (it's science fiction!) and enjoy the joke. I've always been surprised at how many people who knew the book didn't get it, but that's life.
A subset of the fans of the book get mad because the violence and fascism seemed so much cooler in their heads. Other fans recognize that Heinlein's books were to some degree experimental (it's science fiction!) and enjoy the joke. I've always been surprised at how many people who knew the book didn't get it, but that's life.
> A subset of the fans of the book get mad because the violence and fascism seemed so much cooler in their heads.
A film that does a great job of exploring this discrepancy (how we think violence is really cool... right up to the point where the director portrays it to us in a blunt and unflattering way) is Funny Games (either the original, or the shot-for-shot American remake. whichever is your preference.)
Funny Games pulled a bait and switch, selling itself "torture-porn" to draw in that sort of audience, then refusing to give that sort of audience satisfaction. Brutal violence, but almost entirely offscreen. Broke the 4th wall on several occasions to openly mock the viewers.
A film that does a great job of exploring this discrepancy (how we think violence is really cool... right up to the point where the director portrays it to us in a blunt and unflattering way) is Funny Games (either the original, or the shot-for-shot American remake. whichever is your preference.)
Funny Games pulled a bait and switch, selling itself "torture-porn" to draw in that sort of audience, then refusing to give that sort of audience satisfaction. Brutal violence, but almost entirely offscreen. Broke the 4th wall on several occasions to openly mock the viewers.
The problem I had with the movie is that it took a well thought out book and reduced it to hollywood stereotype.
For example, later on in the book and the movie, a recruit asks why they learn to throw knives when guns make them obsolete. In the book, the sergeant gives an explanation of tradition and admits that knife throwing is a fairly useless skill for mobile gundam suit pilots. In the movie, the sergeant just throws the knife at the cadet's hand. Towards the end of the book it's revealed that drill sergeants are carefully screened not to be sadistic jerks, but to actually be decent people who are carefully calculating the best way to train their cadets.
The book was well thought out. The movie was just stereotype and mockery.
For example, later on in the book and the movie, a recruit asks why they learn to throw knives when guns make them obsolete. In the book, the sergeant gives an explanation of tradition and admits that knife throwing is a fairly useless skill for mobile gundam suit pilots. In the movie, the sergeant just throws the knife at the cadet's hand. Towards the end of the book it's revealed that drill sergeants are carefully screened not to be sadistic jerks, but to actually be decent people who are carefully calculating the best way to train their cadets.
The book was well thought out. The movie was just stereotype and mockery.
The book showed its fascist world in a somewhat flattering light, or at least explaining it as necessary. The film rightly mocked that attitude by showing just how close the US already is.
>The movie was just stereotype and mockery. //
Aren't they the essential features for a parody. You enlarge the characteristics of your subject to demonstrate their absurdity - in short you build a stereotype and mock it. That's parody, no?
Aren't they the essential features for a parody. You enlarge the characteristics of your subject to demonstrate their absurdity - in short you build a stereotype and mock it. That's parody, no?
The object of the film's satire became front page all around the world in 2001. Until then it was easier to take it at face value. For example, in the 80s it was common to portray torture as a suitable, non controversial means of war in films with well known action stars, without satire or criticism.
Think of it now as Starship Troopers, the George W Bush's cut, without any actual edits having taken place.
Think of it now as Starship Troopers, the George W Bush's cut, without any actual edits having taken place.
I love, love this film. I remember being a bit disappointed by it when it first came out because of how different it was from the book. But after Sept. 11, one of the cheap cable channels, either TBS or TNN, put it on constant rotation...I don't know if they were in on the joke! but after the fifth or so viewing of it, and while the whole War on Terror was emotionally raw...I finally saw the brilliance in SS
Verhoven's other work is brilliant too, but SS is one of my most treasured DVDs
Verhoven's other work is brilliant too, but SS is one of my most treasured DVDs
So, you take a famous sci-fi novel, completely change it, then use it's good name to make money and push your own politics. What exactly is misunderstood? You love money, you have a particular agenda, and you fuck over something else to achieve your personal goals. Other people are upset about this. Again: What is misunderstood?
Quite, if you wanted to make a satire then start with a blank slate.
Do not take a known work (of which the audience will have their pre-conceptions if they read it) then eviscerate it for your own satirical needs then act surprised when said audience gets pissed off for the butchery.
Do not take a known work (of which the audience will have their pre-conceptions if they read it) then eviscerate it for your own satirical needs then act surprised when said audience gets pissed off for the butchery.
Isn't the point that it's satirizing its own source material?
In the broad sense, it is satirizing a sort of militaristic/jingoistic mentality. Specifically it does this by satirizing one particular manifestation of this mentality, its source material.
That is the problem though, it doesn't satirize the source material.
It satirizes a strawman of the source material since it cuts out or alters almost every part of the book that does not support the movie's satirical objective.
I think that is what pissed a lot of people off who read the book.
If they wanted to satirize jingoistic mentality they could have done it without butchering the book by starting with a new IP (but then they couldn't have taken advantage of the "Starship Trooper" title.)
It satirizes a strawman of the source material since it cuts out or alters almost every part of the book that does not support the movie's satirical objective.
I think that is what pissed a lot of people off who read the book.
If they wanted to satirize jingoistic mentality they could have done it without butchering the book by starting with a new IP (but then they couldn't have taken advantage of the "Starship Trooper" title.)
I thought your comment was satire. I'm still not sure.
I love Verhoeven and the long running joke he played at the expense of Hollywood (mostly with Starship Troopers, Robocop, Basic Instinct and Showgirls - Flesh + Blood is great but not as sarcastic as his later american movies).
Starship Trooper, the novel, is hilarious on its own, with its hawkishness and interesting political views (it's less creepy than Ender's Game in that aspect though). But Heinlein is a much better writer than Card and Stranger in a Strange land makes up for the juvenile tripe he wrote earlier. I guess Vietnam had to happen for some people to reflect on the Rah-rah-rah kind of military Sci-Fi.
(I know there's a cult of Heinlein on HN - I've always wondered if there was an intersection with the Cult of Rand and the Cult of Card)
Edit: as a thought experiment, it would be interesting (as in "depressing") to imagine the exact opposite: an adaptation of Old Man's War by the current Hollywood industry.
Starship Trooper, the novel, is hilarious on its own, with its hawkishness and interesting political views (it's less creepy than Ender's Game in that aspect though). But Heinlein is a much better writer than Card and Stranger in a Strange land makes up for the juvenile tripe he wrote earlier. I guess Vietnam had to happen for some people to reflect on the Rah-rah-rah kind of military Sci-Fi.
(I know there's a cult of Heinlein on HN - I've always wondered if there was an intersection with the Cult of Rand and the Cult of Card)
Edit: as a thought experiment, it would be interesting (as in "depressing") to imagine the exact opposite: an adaptation of Old Man's War by the current Hollywood industry.
I've never understood the praise for Old Man's War; I read it, and it felt like a Heinlein tribute act, with no creativity or originality, and saying nothing that Heinlein and his contemporaries hadn't already said. Did I miss the point?
Old Man's War is an ironical counterpoint to Starship Troopers (something that becomes more blatant in the later novels). It's a bit like Hadelman's Forever War mixed with slapstick. It's no masterpiece, but the humor makes it a great read.
I mean, I read it all the way through, but yeah, there didn't seem to be anything that wasn't in The Forever War. Did it really top the Locus poll just because of slapstick humour? shakes head
As someone who saw a lot of satire in flicks Robocop and Red Dawn in the 80's, it bugged me when people took Troopers at face value years later.
I mean, did Neil Patrick Harris have to do a German accent or what? Did the Gestapo coat not make it obvious?
I mean, did Neil Patrick Harris have to do a German accent or what? Did the Gestapo coat not make it obvious?
A comment to the article paraphrases Verhoeven's DVD commentary track as "yes, this was a satire, and I'm baffled that people don't get that".
I'm surprised the author never even mentions the book by Robert Heinlein. Granted the movie tells a different story than the book but they share the similarity in that on the surface they both preach of the virtues and nobility of war but upon closer inspection, we see that they're telling a different story entirely.
It's not just a different story; the book has some political points to make which, I think, the movie is trying to directly rebut. Feels a bit tasteless to use the book license for this purpose, to me, but then again I'm a Heinlein fan and I thought Robocop was dumb.
One of the big issues in the book is that patriotism isn't just a rhetorical trick to get naive young boys to volunteer for a meatgrinder (though of course Verhoeven and Neumeier are right, it does that too). If no one stands up for a society, then that society is vulnerable to predators. Sometimes it's foreign invasion, sometimes it's internal predators like corruption and profiteering. I think this call to have a little backbone is relevant in every era. (This position is straightforwardly argued by the mouthpiece character, Dubois.)
And another issue, a little less prominent but often-criticized, is the idea of only giving the franchise to those who earn it. Heinlein later wrote that he wasn't so much advocating this particular plan for the franchise, (e.g. forwarding an alternative: only give the franchise to mothers!), but that he felt that democracy was going in a bad direction (bread, circuses, demagoguery, and holy-war-style partisanship), and that maybe this "franchise-for-all" premise should be revisited.
Why do I think Verhoeven was spitting in Heinlein's face? I probably shouldn't try to paraphrase Heinlein, because he was a complex guy with complex political opinions, but I think he generally favored military strength (though he generally did not favor a strong central government). I'm not as familiar with the Verhoeven oeuvre, but seems to be focused against military-industrial complex (though that's more straightforwardly a Robocop thing), and his anti-war rhetoric is so un-nuanced (it's so slapstick that some people thought it was pro-war) that it's tempting to believe he's anti-all-war (contrasting with people who think the phrase "just war" is meaningful, a group I feel confident includes Heinlein). As I said earlier, I think it's a bit tasteless to try to make a franchise work into a direct attack on the original.
For some contrast: IIRC, Haldeman wrote The Forever War in part as a direct reply to Starship Troopers. Haldeman had lots of direct combat experience, too (as contrasted with Heinlein, who I think never saw combat), which partially informed his views on books like Heinlein's. Personally, I think The Forever War is too good at raising new issues to be seen entirely as a reply to anything, but I understand that was a motivator.
One of the big issues in the book is that patriotism isn't just a rhetorical trick to get naive young boys to volunteer for a meatgrinder (though of course Verhoeven and Neumeier are right, it does that too). If no one stands up for a society, then that society is vulnerable to predators. Sometimes it's foreign invasion, sometimes it's internal predators like corruption and profiteering. I think this call to have a little backbone is relevant in every era. (This position is straightforwardly argued by the mouthpiece character, Dubois.)
And another issue, a little less prominent but often-criticized, is the idea of only giving the franchise to those who earn it. Heinlein later wrote that he wasn't so much advocating this particular plan for the franchise, (e.g. forwarding an alternative: only give the franchise to mothers!), but that he felt that democracy was going in a bad direction (bread, circuses, demagoguery, and holy-war-style partisanship), and that maybe this "franchise-for-all" premise should be revisited.
Why do I think Verhoeven was spitting in Heinlein's face? I probably shouldn't try to paraphrase Heinlein, because he was a complex guy with complex political opinions, but I think he generally favored military strength (though he generally did not favor a strong central government). I'm not as familiar with the Verhoeven oeuvre, but seems to be focused against military-industrial complex (though that's more straightforwardly a Robocop thing), and his anti-war rhetoric is so un-nuanced (it's so slapstick that some people thought it was pro-war) that it's tempting to believe he's anti-all-war (contrasting with people who think the phrase "just war" is meaningful, a group I feel confident includes Heinlein). As I said earlier, I think it's a bit tasteless to try to make a franchise work into a direct attack on the original.
For some contrast: IIRC, Haldeman wrote The Forever War in part as a direct reply to Starship Troopers. Haldeman had lots of direct combat experience, too (as contrasted with Heinlein, who I think never saw combat), which partially informed his views on books like Heinlein's. Personally, I think The Forever War is too good at raising new issues to be seen entirely as a reply to anything, but I understand that was a motivator.
> For some contrast: IIRC, Haldeman wrote The Forever War in part as a direct reply to Starship Troopers.
Everyone assumes he does, but he denies it. For example, on his blog:
http://joe-haldeman.livejournal.com/51726.html?thread=31758#...
"Hey, you're writing an answer to Starship Troopers." I told him don't be silly -- of course the soldiers have powered suits, working in a vacuum, in space. What, they should fight in long underwear?
There is more there about his views on Starship Troopers, among other things.
Everyone assumes he does, but he denies it. For example, on his blog:
http://joe-haldeman.livejournal.com/51726.html?thread=31758#...
"Hey, you're writing an answer to Starship Troopers." I told him don't be silly -- of course the soldiers have powered suits, working in a vacuum, in space. What, they should fight in long underwear?
There is more there about his views on Starship Troopers, among other things.
Thank you so much for that link. Obviously I recalled incorrectly, I thought I'd read Haldeman make that claim. And as you say, it's interesting to read his views on ST.
Multiple sources I've come across over the years have claimed that the movie started out as an original property and only became an "adaptation" of Starship Troopers shortly before it went into production, when the studio realized they had an option on Heinlein's book and that it was sorta-kinda similar. (This is much the same thing as what happened to the movie I, Robot, which started out as an unrelated script, I believed called Hardwired.)
My suspicion is that Verhoeven -- like Alex Troyas with I, Robot -- knew full well that their movies had very little to do with the source material and put on a game face in interviews. I've always wondered if the movie might not have done better in its initial run without the studio forcing that connection onto it. A film can't really be both a military dystopia satire and a good adaptation of Starship Troopers, any more than a brutal deconstruction of Objectivism would make a good adaptation of Atlas Shrugged.
My suspicion is that Verhoeven -- like Alex Troyas with I, Robot -- knew full well that their movies had very little to do with the source material and put on a game face in interviews. I've always wondered if the movie might not have done better in its initial run without the studio forcing that connection onto it. A film can't really be both a military dystopia satire and a good adaptation of Starship Troopers, any more than a brutal deconstruction of Objectivism would make a good adaptation of Atlas Shrugged.
I would actually like to watch that!
I don't know about that. Heinlein seems pretty keen on his notion of citizenship through military service, albeit perhaps as a means of preventing "unnecessary" wars rather than enabling them. Either way, it's a pretty terrible political philosophy.
That aspect of serious advocacy is completely absent from the movie.
That aspect of serious advocacy is completely absent from the movie.
Note that in Starship Troopers, the novel, the franchise was restricted to service veterans, not necessarily military. And currently serving troops or other government workers were not eligible to vote.
Not military, just service. Any kind of public service. As they said in the book, they'll have you count caterpillar hairs if there's nothing else to do--anyone can get franchise.
The problem with Heinlein's corpus is there are so many characters who can be read as author avatars representing his views that it's hard to tell if any of them should be read that way.
I actually think that all of them should be, but in a nuanced way -- that is, they all represent points of view that Heinlein wanted the reader to think about, but not necessarily points of view that Heinlein held, or wanted the reader to adopt.
What's wrong with that?
Universal suffrage for free seems an obviously bad idea.
Universal suffrage for free seems an obviously bad idea.
"The screenplay, by Robocop writer Edward Neumeier, furnished the old-fashioned science-fiction framework of Robert A. Heinlein’s notoriously militaristic novel with archetypes on loan from teen soaps and young adult-fiction, undermining the self-serious saber-rattling of the source text."
Although I haven't read the novel, it would be most meta irony if the article's author was missing the book's subtle societal criticism.
The novel is really short. It's good, I enjoy Heinlein's writing anyway.
He lays out an interesting model for democracy, but it depends critically on permanent war.
It has been a long time since i read the book, but i think the author gives it a fair shake. Nothing really screams unfair representation to me.
He lays out an interesting model for democracy, but it depends critically on permanent war.
It has been a long time since i read the book, but i think the author gives it a fair shake. Nothing really screams unfair representation to me.
> He lays out an interesting model for democracy, but it depends critically on permanent war.
That's not true in the fiction, and I can't understand how you would claim that it would "really work that way" or any other claim.
In the book, this model of government has existed for a long time, and there has been no war for a long time. So, Heinlein claims that it works without war. But, you know, maybe he's full of shit. (that's devil's advocacy; I'm generally a big fan of RAH.)
But on top of that, why would it depend on war? You're born without a franchise, like in modern democracy. But in modern democracy, you get your franchise simply by waiting 19 years (or some other number). In the book, you get your franchise by agreeing to do Federal Service. You apply, you choose a preferred form of service, you do aptitude testing, and you give up control over your own life for N years. When each term is up, you can either re-enlist, or retire. When you retire, you gain full citizenship! There's no requirement that Federal Service be military (Heinlein has claimed in other writing that he intended for "95%" of service to be non-military, but others have noted that this is less-than-clear in the book-as-written). But even if it was all military... Switzerland has a military, with mandatory civil service, but no war.
That's not true in the fiction, and I can't understand how you would claim that it would "really work that way" or any other claim.
In the book, this model of government has existed for a long time, and there has been no war for a long time. So, Heinlein claims that it works without war. But, you know, maybe he's full of shit. (that's devil's advocacy; I'm generally a big fan of RAH.)
But on top of that, why would it depend on war? You're born without a franchise, like in modern democracy. But in modern democracy, you get your franchise simply by waiting 19 years (or some other number). In the book, you get your franchise by agreeing to do Federal Service. You apply, you choose a preferred form of service, you do aptitude testing, and you give up control over your own life for N years. When each term is up, you can either re-enlist, or retire. When you retire, you gain full citizenship! There's no requirement that Federal Service be military (Heinlein has claimed in other writing that he intended for "95%" of service to be non-military, but others have noted that this is less-than-clear in the book-as-written). But even if it was all military... Switzerland has a military, with mandatory civil service, but no war.
That's a pretty interesting point. I don't remember the book well enough to recall astronauts or firefighters getting the vote. I must have projected some later thought on my reading.
In that light, it seems a lot more like the Fifth American Republic (i think that's what they were called) in the Diamond Age. People would be required to show up at a certain place and time and perform some activity. For example, walk in a room, pour poison into a cup, leave the room. Five minutes later, walk back in the room, drink the liquid in the cup. Someone else has the job of emptying the poison and replacing it with water. They never get to see each other, but they build immense trust in their fellow citizens.
In any case, thanks, I thought mechanized infantry veterans who had actually seen combat were the only voters in the Starship Troopers system.
In that light, it seems a lot more like the Fifth American Republic (i think that's what they were called) in the Diamond Age. People would be required to show up at a certain place and time and perform some activity. For example, walk in a room, pour poison into a cup, leave the room. Five minutes later, walk back in the room, drink the liquid in the cup. Someone else has the job of emptying the poison and replacing it with water. They never get to see each other, but they build immense trust in their fellow citizens.
In any case, thanks, I thought mechanized infantry veterans who had actually seen combat were the only voters in the Starship Troopers system.
The novel was far more explicit in its commentary. In fact, most of the novel is the protagonist wondering why they're going from planet to planet, destroying other races as they go.
The movie, on the other hand, conceals the irony well enough that it bleeds over into the real world.
The movie, on the other hand, conceals the irony well enough that it bleeds over into the real world.
I only recently read the book, and I was surprised just how different from the movie it was, and better.
The book is a good read.
The book is a good read.
> I'm surprised the author never even mentions the book by Robert Heinlein. Granted the movie tells a different story than the book but they share the similarity in that on the surface they both preach of the virtues and nobility of war but upon closer inspection, we see that they're telling a different story entirely.
Except that the "we" that see that in the case of the book excludes many of its critics (and, notably, the creators of the movie), and that, in the case of the movie, it doesn't actually take "closer inspection" to see that, since it pretty much hits you over the head with it.
Except that the "we" that see that in the case of the book excludes many of its critics (and, notably, the creators of the movie), and that, in the case of the movie, it doesn't actually take "closer inspection" to see that, since it pretty much hits you over the head with it.
"Roger Ebert, who had praised the “pointed social satire” of Verhoeven’s Robocop, found the film “one-dimensional,” a trivial nothing “pitched at 11-year-old science-fiction fans.”
I was about that age when it came out. Still one of my favorite movies, sci-fi, satire and all. I think I'll sit down and watch it this weekend.
I was about that age when it came out. Still one of my favorite movies, sci-fi, satire and all. I think I'll sit down and watch it this weekend.
It's funny the article mentions rifftrax. For their halloween special they did a live performance over night of the living dead. One of the jokes during the movie was the fact that online bloggers will never stop trying to educate the rest of the world about the brilliance of starship troopers.
Really? There were people who didn't understand that the movie was satirical? Even though it was made by Paul Verhoeven?
I just lost some respect for Roger Ebert. I thought he was more perceptive than that.
I just lost some respect for Roger Ebert. I thought he was more perceptive than that.
I strongly suspect Ebert and the other critics were in on the joke. They knew if they played it straight and panned the movie, even more unwitting teenagers would pour into the theaters on opening weekend.
(At least, I had no idea the movie was satire until the opening scene started playing. The early internet reaction was mostly nerdrage from Heinlein fans.)
Edit: In retrospect, I was very familiar with Verhoeven's films, but somehow still bought into the hype that he may have 'sold out' until the movie started playing. This movie really had some great marketing/pr.
(At least, I had no idea the movie was satire until the opening scene started playing. The early internet reaction was mostly nerdrage from Heinlein fans.)
Edit: In retrospect, I was very familiar with Verhoeven's films, but somehow still bought into the hype that he may have 'sold out' until the movie started playing. This movie really had some great marketing/pr.
I lost most of mine when he said "video games can never be art" http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/video-games-can-nev...
Not that I had a lot prior to that, for a variety of reasons (Starship Troopers and other "really? you didn't notice that? you caught it in X" moments). But still.
Not that I had a lot prior to that, for a variety of reasons (Starship Troopers and other "really? you didn't notice that? you caught it in X" moments). But still.
Starship Troopers 3 is great too, with a lower-budgeted, more aggressive critique of patriotism, nationalism, propaganda and religion. It's also hilarious. Avoid part 2 like the plague.
This. The moichendizing was a riot - "It's a good day to... buy!"
I have to wonder if the failure of so many people to pick up on the blatant satire in, for example, Starship Troopers and Robocop is due to something akin to Poe's Law as applied to so many other films which were not satirical muddying the waters.
Dirty Harry is, seemingly, not satirical, yet it is every bit as ridiculous as Robocop.
Dirty Harry is, seemingly, not satirical, yet it is every bit as ridiculous as Robocop.
Science fiction has always had a somewhat uncomfortable relationship with fascism; I'm reminded of the response to Spinrad's "The Iron Dream", where he was trying to point out the fascism inherent in a lot of sci-fi stories:
To make damn sure that even the historically naive and entirely unselfaware reader got the point, I appended a phony critical analysis of Lord of the Swastika, in which the psychopathology of Hitler's saga was spelled out by a tendentious pedant in words of one syllable. Almost everyone got the point... And yet one review appeared in a fanzine that really gave me pause. "This is a rousing adventure story and I really enjoyed it," the gist of it went. "Why did Spinrad have to spoil the fun with all this muck about Hitler?"
To make damn sure that even the historically naive and entirely unselfaware reader got the point, I appended a phony critical analysis of Lord of the Swastika, in which the psychopathology of Hitler's saga was spelled out by a tendentious pedant in words of one syllable. Almost everyone got the point... And yet one review appeared in a fanzine that really gave me pause. "This is a rousing adventure story and I really enjoyed it," the gist of it went. "Why did Spinrad have to spoil the fun with all this muck about Hitler?"
Communication is the writer's job, not the reader's. If a creator sets out to convey a message and 99% of the audience does not receive the message, it's not the audience that has failed.
I watched Robocop as a boy, a film about a cop that gets "killed" and comes back as a robot. Awesome.
I watched Starship Troopers as a Uni student, a film criticising the military-political attitudes and that prevail in [Western] society. Awesome.
If however I'd watched ST as a child then it too, I imagine, would have merely been a film about soldiers who go in to space to fight bugs.
The inability of a viewer/reader to understand the message being conveyed doesn't mean that a writer should dumb it down. It's grown-up food.
Presumably the ability to read Animal Farm as a story about farm animals means, for you, that Orwell failed?
I watched Starship Troopers as a Uni student, a film criticising the military-political attitudes and that prevail in [Western] society. Awesome.
If however I'd watched ST as a child then it too, I imagine, would have merely been a film about soldiers who go in to space to fight bugs.
The inability of a viewer/reader to understand the message being conveyed doesn't mean that a writer should dumb it down. It's grown-up food.
Presumably the ability to read Animal Farm as a story about farm animals means, for you, that Orwell failed?
What if the creator just wants to reach a particular 1%... and maybe some of the other 99%, when they're a bit older and wiser?
Neither creator nor audience has 'failed'... they just aren't yet right for each other.
Neither creator nor audience has 'failed'... they just aren't yet right for each other.
I always saw it as satire, as I'm on&from the eastern side of the Atlantic the references to facism was unavoidable.
The thing is that it's stopped being satire after 9/11. Just replace "bugs" with "islamists" and it becomes depressingly prophetic. I end up thinking of Pat Tillman every time I see the mobile infantry.
The thing is that it's stopped being satire after 9/11. Just replace "bugs" with "islamists" and it becomes depressingly prophetic. I end up thinking of Pat Tillman every time I see the mobile infantry.
I was too young to understand it, but I did really like Robocop and I thought it was really cool when I was a kid.
The movie had some satirical elements, but regardless, it was mostly just crap. This is just revisionist hipsterism, just like the script writer of Far Cry 3 claiming it was all satire of "tropes" after it caught some flak.
I always described it as happy hardcore.
Everyone doing it was in on the joke and played for it. At first glance it was Ken & Barbie go to Space War, but then there was sooooo much blood...
Everyone doing it was in on the joke and played for it. At first glance it was Ken & Barbie go to Space War, but then there was sooooo much blood...
Okay, so a movie about all-out war for survival against genocidal aliens is supposed to be a good setting for an anti-war story?
No wonder so many missed the satire.
No wonder so many missed the satire.
The genocidal aliens were the humans. Seemed pretty subversive to me.
No-one else has noted that Paul Verhoeven was a young boy in Nazi occupied Holland. There's no way he didn't know what he was conveying...
No-one else has noted that Paul Verhoeven was a young boy in Nazi occupied Holland. There's no way he didn't know what he was conveying...
Have you seen the movie? Did you see Neil Patrick Harris's outfit in the movie? You would have to be clinically braindead to not pick up on the satire.
I still don't understand why didn't they just bomb-carpet that worthless bug planet.
At what point is the satire become so thickly veiled that it's not actually satire?
are Americans that daft? seriously, how can one not see this movie for what it is?
feels like a giant whoosh.
feels like a giant whoosh.
I mean, there are some really terrible sci-fi B-movies out there. It's sometimes hard to tell satire from actual terribleness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
I didn't really see it as satire until I read articles saying it was. I thought it was just a really campy military sci-fi movie. I also don't really see how the movie portrayed the bugs as acting in self-defense. The movie begins with them slinging an asteroid that destroys Buenos Aires.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
I didn't really see it as satire until I read articles saying it was. I thought it was just a really campy military sci-fi movie. I also don't really see how the movie portrayed the bugs as acting in self-defense. The movie begins with them slinging an asteroid that destroys Buenos Aires.
It's been a while, but I think the movie makes it relatively clear that the asteroid attack was in response to violent colonization by the humans.
This is a country that took the original Red Dawn as a serious drama. Nicaraguans invading the Rockies.
There's nothing too ridiculous a good portion won't buy.
There's nothing too ridiculous a good portion won't buy.
Red Dawn was a serious drama. It was also pretty ridiculous. Stuff isn't always black-and-white.
Seriously, there's plenty of reasons not to like Red Dawn, but I get tired of people talking like it's just a bunch of rah-rah America-wins jingoism. You may have forgotten that the movie ends with most of the protagonists dead and no end to the war in sight.
Seriously, there's plenty of reasons not to like Red Dawn, but I get tired of people talking like it's just a bunch of rah-rah America-wins jingoism. You may have forgotten that the movie ends with most of the protagonists dead and no end to the war in sight.
Uh, there was a lot of rah-rah and jingoism. You must be exhausted of someone else saying it had a happy ending.
"I was there, serving at the time as senior vice president for production in the administration of Frank Yablans, then-CEO of the company, when Yablans declared in no uncertain terms that he wanted to make the ultimate jingoistic movie and that Al Haig would take him there. “It will be a sure-fire international blockbuster,” Yablans enthused. ... Even Milius, a stoic, good-natured individual who is more about bluster than action, became alarmed. Wandering into my office one day, he confided his concern that he was being railroaded into what he described as “a flag-waving, jingoistic movie.” Milius said his intent was to make a movie about the “futility of war,” adding, “I have a nervous feeling that Yablans and Haig are jabbering away on their hot line about a different movie.”"
http://variety.com/1997/voices/columns/red-dawn-shooting-it-...
"I was there, serving at the time as senior vice president for production in the administration of Frank Yablans, then-CEO of the company, when Yablans declared in no uncertain terms that he wanted to make the ultimate jingoistic movie and that Al Haig would take him there. “It will be a sure-fire international blockbuster,” Yablans enthused. ... Even Milius, a stoic, good-natured individual who is more about bluster than action, became alarmed. Wandering into my office one day, he confided his concern that he was being railroaded into what he described as “a flag-waving, jingoistic movie.” Milius said his intent was to make a movie about the “futility of war,” adding, “I have a nervous feeling that Yablans and Haig are jabbering away on their hot line about a different movie.”"
http://variety.com/1997/voices/columns/red-dawn-shooting-it-...
Wow, The Atlantic sure is on a streak of foul smelling turds lately.
Going on a couple of years now.
i instantly understood it was sarcastic
Wow, what a smart, timely and appropriate comment. However, making a smarter and even more condescending one is too easy. Here:
Folks, consider this for a moment: the movie is better than that crappy blog post, the book is better than the movie, it isn't the best book of that author, and that the author, while good, isn't the best the literature can offer.
Why waste time discussing the blog post?
Folks, consider this for a moment: the movie is better than that crappy blog post, the book is better than the movie, it isn't the best book of that author, and that the author, while good, isn't the best the literature can offer.
Why waste time discussing the blog post?
[deleted]
At the beginning it has a speech about the failure of democracy, how violence is the only legitimate force in the universe. Government by an elite, with restricted rights for civilians (want children? become a citizen), a propaganda network, a perpetual state of war; including belittling the enemy ("I find the idea of a bug that thinks offensive") and belittling anyone who wants to live differently (mormon extremists).
What it doesn't have is any major character questioning the state that they are living under - but then looking around today, sometimes that seems pretty accurate as well.