NationStates Jolt Archive

See poll and discuss.

Never read it or seen the movie, but I have to give props to the Mobile Infantry Suits, which were (I'm pretty sure) the inspiration for the Mobile Suit (and Mobile Suit Gundam)

Hey Dai

The book was great, and the movie was funny as hell.

I saw the movie, but I didn't read the book. I find that in every case where a movie is based on a book, the book is better. So, I said the book was better.

The movie wasn't bad, but I haven't read the book. Should I?

The only saving grace of the movie was Casper Van Dien. Yum.

The only saving grace of the movie was Casper Van Dien. Yum.

Well, the whole run of "Do YOU Want to Know More?" infomercials were pretty funny, and the bugs were well done.

The book is definatley better. The movie totally butchers the message. Mind you, the movie is directed for 12 to 16 year old males. They won´t get the subtle messages in it - not to mention that disgusting Paul Verhoven did a terrible job in trying to put all those messages from the book into the movie. It´s a 100% failure. And don´t get me even started on "Heroes of the Federation" and that awful "Starship Troopers: Roughneck Chronicles".

Teh subject of the book at hand is certainyl NOT a thing which should be put into easy going pop-corn cinema style entertainment.

I´d recommend reading the book, but be warned. It´s a pretty strong piece of literature and despite Heinlein´s claims, it´s damn close to advertisement of fascism (I know, people will disagree on this one). Despite this fact, it´s still a good and interesting read, as long as you´re enlighetend enough not to fall for it and buy it´s glorification of certain "political" and "military" ideals.

I´d also recommend reading Joe Haldeman´s "Forever War", which plays with similar ideas, but is far more critical and certainly also a far better read.

EDIT: There is one good thing about the movie. Okay, it´s two.

Wonderful Dina Meyer and Basil Poledouris fanatstic soundtrack (which I´m listenint to right now).

The movie is a clever piece of political satire. With boobs, automatic weapons and giant bugs. What more could anyone want?

Well I'm 19 and male, so I would say the movie, since it wasn't a picture book, you don't get to see boobies in the book, so the movie was better.

I´d also recommend reading Joe Haldeman´s "Forever War", which plays with similar ideas, but is far more critical and certainly also a far better read.


That book both fascinated and terrified me, the way it portrayed those themes. Scary, intense stuff.

Also, on another note, everyone must read Ender's Game. This is non-negotiable.

That book both fascinated and terrified me, the way it portrayed those themes. Scary, intense stuff.

Also, on another note, everyone must read Ender's Game. This is non-negotiable.

Ender´s Game? Author? What´s it about?

EDIT: Now that looks intriguing. I´ll put it on my "must read list". Thanks for the info. It´s part of a series, right? Seems like only book 1 was published at my place so far. Should only be a matter of time until the other parts are translated.

Ender´s Game? Author? What´s it about?

EDIT: Now that looks intriguing. I´ll put it on my "must read list". Thanks for the info. It´s part of a series, right? Seems like only book 1 was published at my place so far. Should only be a matter of time until the other parts are translated.

Well, Orson Scott Card wrote two series of sequels to this particular book. Chronologically (and in order of writing), it goes Ender's Game, Speaker For The Dead, Xenocide, Children of the Mind; the actual sequels. The second is actually a parallel story to Ender's Game, focussing on another of the main characters. It runs Ender's Shadow, Shadow of the Hegemon, Shadow Puppets and Shadow of the Giant.

*pants*

The movie wasn't bad, but I haven't read the book. Should I?

Absolutely.

The book is definatley better. The movie totally butchers the message. Mind you, the movie is directed for 12 to 16 year old males. They won´t get the subtle messages in it - not to mention that disgusting Paul Verhoven did a terrible job in trying to put all those messages from the book into the movie. It´s a 100% failure. And don´t get me even started on "Heroes of the Federation" and that awful "Starship Troopers: Roughneck Chronicles".

Teh subject of the book at hand is certainyl NOT a thing which should be put into easy going pop-corn cinema style entertainment.

I´d recommend reading the book, but be warned. It´s a pretty strong piece of literature and despite Heinlein´s claims, it´s damn close to advertisement of fascism (I know, people will disagree on this one). Despite this fact, it´s still a good and interesting read, as long as you´re enlighetend enough not to fall for it and buy it´s glorification of certain "political" and "military" ideals.

I´d also recommend reading Joe Haldeman´s "Forever War", which plays with similar ideas, but is far more critical and certainly also a far better read.

EDIT: There is one good thing about the movie. Okay, it´s two.

Wonderful Dina Meyer and Basil Poledouris fanatstic soundtrack (which I´m listenint to right now).

I'm going to have to be one of those who disagrees about it being fascist.

:)
A fascist society doesn't try it's best to discourage people from joining the military (Fleet Sergeant Ho anyone?).
Nor do fascist societies tend to embrace multi-ethicism.

This page (http://www.kentaurus.com/troopers.htm#misperceptions) makes good arguments against it.
I agree with his conclusion:
Starship Troopers isn't really a book about the military, being a soldier, or even government; it's a book about civic virtue, and what distinguishes a citizen -- in the sense of one who recognizes that, with rights, come responsibilities, and that the two are proportional -- from a non-citizen. The military is a good model for this discussion, because it involves (at least theoretically and, I think, usually in practice) a relatively straightforward instance of consciously placing the interests of your society above your own personal interests.

Which is why I despise the movie for twisting the idea of civic resposibility into fascism.


The Forever War is also great. The thing about both books is that both authors were military men. At least they were writing what they knew.

The movie was a bit hoked up, I thought, but still pretty good, especially the special effects. The book was much more informative, especially about the structure of the planet-wide society established by the veterans of all nations. As a veteran, I kinda like that. :D

who else voted all sci fi is bad?

you rule

I still want to know why the central character was changed from an ethnic Filipino to a white Brazilian in the movie...

I still want to know why the central character was changed from an ethnic Filipino to a white Brazilian in the movie...

to sell it to a predominantly white american audience.

any more stupid questions? :D

The movie was terrible. Eventhough I haven't read the book, the movie probably ruined it. It had pointless violence, it really didn't have a very good story to it. To quote george lucas "Special Effects are used to help tell a story. Special Effects used without a story is a pretty boring thing."

Give it to the guy who won seven acadamy awards. I think that Peter Jackson would agree, for he won eleven academy awards including best picture and special effects. The special effects helped tell the LOTR stories.
(that, Lord of the Rings, if you didn't know).

to sell it to a predominantly white american audience.

any more stupid questions? :D

The novel was also sold to and consumed by a predominantly white american audience...

Any more insufficient answers?

I did not read the Book, But I did play the Game, its truly a KickAss game.

The movie was terrible. Eventhough I haven't read the book, the movie probably ruined it. It had pointless violence, it really didn't have a very good story to it. To quote george lucas "Special Effects are used to help tell a story. Special Effects used without a story is a pretty boring thing."

Give it to the guy who won seven acadamy awards. I think that Peter Jackson would agree, for he won eleven academy awards including best picture and special effects. The special effects helped tell the LOTR stories.
(that, Lord of the Rings, if you didn't know).

The movie was so bad it was nearly unrecognizable - try and imagine if the film version of "Schindler's List" had Schindler turning all the Jews in to the SS. That's how far from the book the movie was.

The novel was also sold to and consumed by a predominantly white american audience...

Any more insufficient answers?

You know, that's a very interesting question I hadn't thought of. Quite a fair bit of US SF literature is very ethnically liberal, even though it is (at least in my experience) a middle class WASP genre. Any suggestions or comments?

It's the book that moved me to serve my country, and it also moved me to join the infantry.

And, there's a Rodger Young range at Ft. Benning.

What *I* would like to know is why the movie cut out the combat suit things with nukes. Like, what was going through their minds when they cut out something so very cool like that, and instead gave the humans almost no armour and bad weapons? Seriously?

Beyond that, the movie was still pretty horrible and held almost nothing in common with the book beyond character names, the title and the fact that they were fighting bug-like aliens. The book, on the other hand, was good. Not something for the lower reading levels, but good.

You know, that's a very interesting question I hadn't thought of. Quite a fair bit of US SF literature is very ethnically liberal, even though it is (at least in my experience) a middle class WASP genre. Any suggestions or comments?

Well, as a sidenote, the central character in 'Tunnel In The Sky' was also hled to be black by both RAH and his wife Viriginia, although this is not explicitly mentioned in the novel, but there are a couple of hints to that effect IIRC.

As far as US SF being predominantly a WASP audience - I disagree, the large amount of Jewish writers (and presumably fans) argues against this.

The novel was also sold to and consumed by a predominantly white american audience...

Any more insufficient answers?


having not read the book i am not sure to what extent the race of the character is portrayed. however, books are not usually marketed with posters of the protagonist's face - trying to sell to a white audience is easier with a white face. also in a book the appearance of the characters is down to how you portray them in your mind and unless race is a point of reference throughout the novel that could be over looked by readers. it is harder to overlook that if its on a big screen.

sufficient?

:fluffle:

please note i do not accept that these are good reasons to change the race of the character - merely the most likely thought process behind that change

I have not read the book, but the movie was complete garbage.

What *I* would like to know is why the movie cut out the combat suit things with nukes. Like, what was going through their minds when they cut out something so very cool like that, and instead gave the humans almost no armour and bad weapons? Seriously?

Beyond that, the movie was still pretty horrible and held almost nothing in common with the book beyond character names, the title and the fact that they were fighting bug-like aliens. The book, on the other hand, was good. Not something for the lower reading levels, but good.

Exactly! (As I understand it the suits and nukes were cut because of expenses...)

Well, as a sidenote, the central character in 'Tunnel In The Sky' was also hled to be black by both RAH and his wife Viriginia, although this is not explicitly mentioned in the novel, but there are a couple of hints to that effect IIRC.

As far as US SF being predominantly a WASP audience - I disagree, the large amount of Jewish writers (and presumably fans) argues against this.

Doh! Yes, you're correct about the Jewish writers and fans in the US. I can't belive I forgot Papa Asimov! Not religious but he was still fairly proud of his ethnic roots. (I popped "Jewish SAF into google and came up with this (http://www.sfsite.com/~silverag/jewishsf.html) and this (http://www.adherents.com/adh_sf.html).)
Also, there seems to be a large number of LDS SF writers.


(I'm going to post this as another thread, seeing as how far OT it is.)

Bad book made into a bad movie.

Bad book made into a bad movie.

In what way was it a bad book?

Great book, hellish movie. As to the point of why the character was changed from an ethnic Filipino to a honky Brazillian, the scriptwriters probably just didn't notice the hints in the book. It was obvious that they didn't read it with any depth whatsoever, even while claiming to be fans. :headbang: Unless you pay pretty close attention, you don't note the clues that tell you Juan Rico is not white or Latino.

People who turn good SF books into bad SF movies: :mp5:

The book was okay. I loved the movie a lot.

Bad book made into a bad movie.
:confused:

How so?

In what way was it a bad book?

I grew up on Heilein and to this day find Stranger in a Strange Land one of the most thought provoking sci-fi novels ever written. However, with Starship Troopers all of Heinlein's disdain for modern liberal democracy comes to the fore. He is at his most fascistic and sexist in this book, and his entire vision of the future is one of Spartan militarism, without art, literature, love, or anything else that makes life worth living. Heinlein envisions a caste society more rigid than ancient India, with blood thirsty warriors at the top and the rest of society be damned. His characters would fit nicely into the world of the Third Reich. They have no emotion, no sense of development over time; the violence they encounter and engage in leaves no mark on them and has no impact on who they are as people. What little there is in the way of a love story is adolescent at best.

It is a bitter, bleak view of a militaristic, fascist society utterly devoid of hope and humanity.

I thought it was brighter and breezier than reading Orwell.

I thought it was brighter and breezier than reading Orwell.

Except that Heilein looks forward to the world Orwell warned us about

I grew up on Heilein and to this day find Stranger in a Strange Land one of the most thought provoking sci-fi novels ever written. However, with Starship Troopers all of Heinlein's disdain for modern liberal democracy comes to the fore. He is at his most fascistic and sexist in this book, and his entire vision of the future is one of Spartan militarism, without art, literature, love, or anything else that makes life worth living. Heinlein envisions a caste society more rigid than ancient India, with blood thirsty warriors at the top and the rest of society be damned. His characters would fit nicely into the world of the Third Reich. They have no emotion, no sense of development over time, the violence they encounter leaves no mark on them and has no impact on who they are as people. What little there is in the way of a love story is adolescent at best.

It is a bitter, bleak view of a militaristic, fascist society utterly devoid of hope and humanity.


Hehh? It's as if we read totally different books. (I don't have a copy with me, but the link I posted above busts on every one of those misconceptions... )

Except that Heilein looks forward to the world Orwell warned us about
Well, instead of throwing you in prison for not supporting the state, you just lose the right to vote.

And instead of attacking other humans on a non-stop basis, we're attacking aliens.

I think it's the last part that would make world government work. Otherwise, the whole thing would fall apart when we started killing each other again.

Hehh? It's as if we read totally different books. (I don't have a copy with me, but the link I posted above busts on every one of those misconceptions... )

"The German philospher Ernst Nolte's classic Fascism in Its Epoch set out four key characteristics of fascism:

Strong belief that--through social darwinism--morality is ultimately tied to blood and race, understood as descent and genetic relationship.

Strong rejection of the classical "liberal" belief that individuals have rights that any legitimate state is bound to respect

In its place, an assertion that individuals have duties to the state, seen as the decision-making organ of the collectivity.

A strong fear of Marxist communism, and an eagerness to use its weapons--suspension of parliamentary democracy, mass propaganda, rallies, street violence, and so forth--to combat it.

The viewpoint character in Starship Troopers adopts, and his sympathetically-drawn teachers preach, the first three of these at great length in the novel.

The fourth key charactgeristic is implicit in the novel. Consider the fear of the Bugs as a mighty adversary ("we were learning, expensively, just how efficient a total communism can be when used by a people actually adapted to it by evolution" (p. 152)). Consider the invented historical background of the novel, in which the twentieth-century United States collapsed because of its excessive solicitude for individual rights and its worship of the words of Thomas Jefferson and was replaced by the "veterans' government" that made no claim to derive its powers from the consent of the governed...."

http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Comments/starship_troopers.html

Well, it was the road the US was headed down at the time.

Besides, communism has ended up being a real failure. And who really consents to government in a way they would really like?

For most, that consent is only a dream.

Starship Trooper was just another one of Heinlein's fascist wetdreams, the man was xenophobic, jingoistic, criminally insane, fascist, full of shit and evil. I would never read let alone buy anything haven't to do with him.

Starship Trooper was just another one of Heinlein's fascist wetdreams, the man was xenophobic, jingoistic, criminally insane, fascist, full of shit and evil. I would never read let alone buy anything haven't to do with him.

Hmm. So "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" is xenophobic, jingoistic, and fascist?

Hmm. So "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" is xenophobic, jingoistic, and fascist?

Have you read the non-SciFi shit he wrote during the Veitnam War? The man was fascist.

Have you read the non-SciFi shit he wrote during the Veitnam War? The man was fascist.

Considering some of the stuff he wrote later (such as The Cat Who Walked Through Walls), he sounded more like someone who had a knock on the head.

I didn't have a problem with Starship Troopers. Mostly because I believe that if you believe in having a nation state, you had better be willing to show it. Otherwise, why bother having a state at all?

In which case you had best be willing to show that you believe in having no state. And be willing to lay down your life to prove it.

I didn't have a problem with Starship Troopers. Mostly because I believe that if you believe in having a nation state, you had better be willing to show it. Otherwise, why bother having a state at all?

In which case you had best be willing to show that you believe in having no state. And be willing to lay down your life to prove it.
Which goes to show that you personally harbor fascist sympathies

Which goes to show that you personally harbor fascist sympathies

Well, you're either a fascist or an anarchist, or well on your way to becoming one or the other (btw, I see communists as being closet fascists).

Well, you're either a fascist or an anarchist, or well on your way to becoming one or the other (btw, I see communists as being closet fascists).

Where do anarcho-communists fit into this schema?

Where do anarcho-communists fit into this schema?

They are people who haven't quite made up their mind.

They are people who haven't quite made up their mind.

Not really: the anarchist element is the political side of their vision, while the communist element is the economic side.

People always call that book racist and sexist but for some reason the main character is Fillipino and all the naval officiers female.

Not really: the anarchist element is the political side of their vision, while the communist element is the economic side.

I find the two concepts problematic.

First, I believe they are incompatible. It is not possible to establish communism without the state (of course, I'm really a Leninist). That, and the proletariat is too stupid to know what's good for it - so you'll always need the Party.

Second, communism as an economic system is unworkable.

That, and the proletariat is too stupid to know what's good for it - so you'll always need the Party.

Ergo: democracy is fatally flawed.

What is the qualifying feature which allows the bourgeoisie to know what is good for them (this seems to be implied by your comment)?

Ergo: democracy is fatally flawed.

What is the qualifying feature which allows the bourgeoisie to know what is good for them (this seems to be implied by your comment)?

The bourgeousie don't know crap, either. The Party knows all.

Just ask Lenin.

Democracy is flawed as well. Not as quickly flawed as communism.

But once people realize they can vote the treasury... it's all downhill from there (as soon as the money runs out). Such a state acts in a predatory manner on other states until resources expire.

Then it collapses on itself.

The bourgeousie don't know crap, either. The Party knows all.

So what makes fascism a workable system then?

So what makes fascism a workable system then?
Funkier uniforms

Bah.

I read for entertainment.
I watch movies for entertainment.

I don't care less if there is a "deeper" message...I'm here for the fun.

...and BOTH the movie and book are fun!

So what makes fascism a workable system then?

Complete control. In a perverse way, true Leninism is actually fascism.

If the Party can control all, it can eliminate members of the state when necessary, and use them whenever necessary.

Of course, this means the individual will completely suborn himself to the wishes of the Party, but that's the way it is with Leninism.

You thought you were getting a worker's paradise, and control of the means of production, and the next thing you knew, you were relocated to somewhere to dig a dam with your bare hands in the middle of winter.

I first watched the movie, and then later read the book, and realised just how horrible the movie actually was. It was stupid to the point of hilarity, and essentially disgraced what is an extremely good book.

I paticularly liked the political system in the book, it was thought-provoking (if not much else). The concept of not being able to participate in the political process until you have put your life in danger for it is a potent one.

John Browning and B w/o O, props on smarts!

I kinda agree with BWOO on this one, though.

and USA is technically a republic, not a democracy, as is taught in schools

I paticularly liked the political system in the book, it was thought-provoking (if not much else). The concept of not being able to participate in the political process until you have put your life in danger for it is a potent one.
I have seen that "politcal system" work very well to tell you the truth - with street gangs like 18th St. and the Crips

READ THE BOOK B4 SAYING THE MOVIE IS BETTER

-they butchered the armor
-they screwed up the plot
-they changed the insertion method

and worst of all
- the chicks were all flat!!!

John Browning and B w/o O, props on smarts!

I kinda agree with BWOO on this one, though.

and USA is technically a republic, not a democracy, as is taught in schools


Ah, but that makes you a fascist, too...

I'm gonna go and say that they both sucked, and add that Heinlein is a fascist.

I have seen that "politcal system" work very well to tell you the truth - with street gangs like 18th St. and the Crips
Well then, maybe they aren't all bad ;)

The concept of "rights" that spontaneously pop into existence is a load of crap. In order to gain rights, you have to deserve them.

Also, on another note, everyone must read Ender's Game. This is non-negotiable.

great book

Complete control.

So, this just raises the question: if the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are not smart enough to control the state, who is left?

So, this just raises the question: if the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are not smart enough to control the state, who is left?
Nobody. So then, if there is nobody sufficiently qualified to run the state... then should there even be a state in the first place?

Well it looks like whoever reads the book hates the movie, so i wont bother reading the book because I thought the movie was great.

So, this just raises the question: if the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are not smart enough to control the state, who is left?

Select members of the Party, hand picked by the leaders of the Revolution.

Lenin was a fascist, as was Stalin.

Anything is better then the steaming pile of BS that was the Starship Troopers movie

Well it looks like whoever reads the book hates the movie, so i wont bother reading the book because I thought the movie was great.
Didn't you notice that most people who read the book also saw the movie, and preferred the book - yet, most people who didn't read the book saw the movie and preferred it?

That means that one side hasn't taken in all the information, and as such, has not made an informed judgement.

The bourgeousie don't know crap, either. The Party knows all.

Just ask Lenin.

Democracy is flawed as well. Not as quickly flawed as communism.

But once people realize they can vote the treasury... it's all downhill from there (as soon as the money runs out). Such a state acts in a predatory manner on other states until resources expire.

Then it collapses on itself.

very few governments are flawed they just cant work with the ultimate flaw of mankind, Capitolism

Didn't you notice that most people who read the book also saw the movie, and preferred the book - yet, most people who didn't read the book saw the movie and preferred it?

That means that one side hasn't taken in all the information, and as such, has not made an informed judgement.

Yes, thats what I was saying, I wont bother reading the book because I dont want to lose enjoyment of a movie I enjoy greatly.

Um, actually, there's nothing in the book placing the military at the top of the social pecking order. The term "veteran" is used to represent any percon who completes a term of "Federal Service," which, as is expressly pointed out, is not necessarily miltary. Nor is there an Orwellian state of constant war, as it is noted that most two year terms are served without extension. The only rights gained are access to certain jobs and the right to vote (not even the "paying for school" crap from the movie) -- and anyone who's applied for federal or state positions in the United States can tell you that veterans get preferential treatment anyway.

As for a rigid social caste system, this is totally untrue. Juan Rico's family is considered wealthy and high in the social pecking order; they had tons of luxuries and social status and he was slated to go to Harvard . . . they just couldn't vote. Yep, not serving made them equal with the untouchables, alright. And, as evidenced at the end of the book, you can apply for federal service at any time (Juan's father entered the military), and thus the opportunity to gain that last little bit of status is open at any time. Also, it is available to anyone who wishes to serve, regardless of ability ("sorting buttons" as the recruiter put it).

Apparently, as often happens, people have instantly disagreed with the premise of the book so violently that they didn't actually bother to read it in detail, only observing the points that they thought supported their own prejudices. And, if you happen to disagree, you are a "fascist". Unless you grew up under Mussolini or Hitler, you have no idea what fascism really is, so shut the fuck up. All you have is a bunch of books or professors chanting out a litany of backward-looking historical claptrap.

Did Heinlein write some inflammatory rhetoric against people protesting Vietnam? Sure. Let's look at it from his point of view: He grew up during both World Wars, observing firsthand their effects on society. He was rabidly anti-communist, again having lived through the eras of both Leninism and Stalinism, as well as travelling through Soviet territory for his own enlightenment on the subject. Then, in the 60's, he sees a war fought to prevent Communist expansion. Protests are being held against the war . . . mostly by priveleged baby boomers who had enough money and leisure to avoid going. And, rather than attack the political policies that first engaged the US in the Vietnam conflict, and then kept them there, those protests were as often as not targeted straight at the soldiers themselves. "Baby Killer" indeed. Perhaps the peace lovers never took into account the idea of "Hate the war, not the warrior." Take these instances, and an old-school Naval Academy graduate like Heinlein would of course be incensed. Providing someone with freedom and privilege only to have it casually tossed back in one's face would anger most any veteran . . . Heinlein no exception. So, an angry writer wrote something politically inflammatory that you disagree with! Shocking!

Get over yourself.

I paticularly liked the political system in the book, it was thought-provoking (if not much else). The concept of not being able to participate in the political process until you have put your life in danger for it is a potent one.

Check out Germany, circa 1939, for a better understanding of Heilein's Starship Troopers political system.

Did Heinlein write some inflammatory rhetoric against people protesting Vietnam? Sure...Protests are being held against the war . . . mostly by priveleged baby boomers who had enough money and leisure to avoid going. And, rather than attack the political policies that first engaged the US in the Vietnam conflict, and then kept them there, those protests were as often as not targeted straight at the soldiers themselves. "Baby Killer" indeed. Perhaps the peace lovers never took into account the idea of "Hate the war, not the warrior."

I have no comment, nor interest, in most of your rant, but allow me to point out the urban myth you repeat that the people who protested the war were anti-soldier (as well as the stories of soldiers being spit upon, which you did not mention, but implied).

I am not saying there were not incidents of soldiers being harassed by anti-war protesters, but the overwhelming majority of those protesters saw soldiers as victims of the government and their allies in the struggle against an unjust and illegal war. A 1971 Harris poll of returning Vietnam vets found that only 1% of returning soldiers encountered any degree of hostility and the overwhelming majority of soldiers did not see the protests as directed at them personally.

This crap you are spouting came about, in no small measure, after the release of the Hollywood film, Rambo, which began to perpetuate this myth.

Well, I'm too lazy to read all the other posts, but here's my take on it:

I saw the movie when it was in theaters, and a couple times since, and it's a damn good movie. But then I read the book a couple years ago, and OH MY GOD was it awesome. The movie just doesn't compare. It's definitely one of the best books I've ever read.

"The German philospher Ernst Nolte's classic Fascism in Its Epoch set out four key characteristics of fascism:

Strong belief that--through social darwinism--morality is ultimately tied to blood and race, understood as descent and genetic relationship.

Strong rejection of the classical "liberal" belief that individuals have rights that any legitimate state is bound to respect

In its place, an assertion that individuals have duties to the state, seen as the decision-making organ of the collectivity.

A strong fear of Marxist communism, and an eagerness to use its weapons--suspension of parliamentary democracy, mass propaganda, rallies, street violence, and so forth--to combat it.

The viewpoint character in Starship Troopers adopts, and his sympathetically-drawn teachers preach, the first three of these at great length in the novel.

The fourth key charactgeristic is implicit in the novel. Consider the fear of the Bugs as a mighty adversary ("we were learning, expensively, just how efficient a total communism can be when used by a people actually adapted to it by evolution" (p. 152)). Consider the invented historical background of the novel, in which the twentieth-century United States collapsed because of its excessive solicitude for individual rights and its worship of the words of Thomas Jefferson and was replaced by the "veterans' government" that made no claim to derive its powers from the consent of the governed...."

http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Comments/starship_troopers.html


Point 1: The world presented in ST is racially integrated, as has been pointed out again and again.

Point 2: No rights are denied, except the vote.

Point 3: Neither the society nor the government require service. In fact society disdains and the government attempts to discourage it.

Point 4: None of that appears in the book, (at least to the best of my recollection). The government is a democracy. The closest thing to propaganda are the Moral Philosophy classes. There are no mass rallies that I can recall. Nor is there any street violence.

Oh, and I seem to recall that the veteran's government was set up in the UK in the aftermath of a world war, not due to a collapse of the US over solicitude and words.

What can I say? Both the movies were OK, and I loved them. Even that cartoon they had was funny.
But the book was the best.

Why didn't the powered suits in the book make it to the movies?

I loved both the book and the movie. Everyone keep up the good work on the discussion.

BTW, Superpower07, the MI suits were the inspiration behind Mobile Suits in the original Gundam series.

Point 1: The world presented in ST is racially integrated, as has been pointed out again and again.

Point 2: No rights are denied, except the vote.

Point 3: Neither the society nor the government require service. In fact society disdains and the government attempts to discourage it.

Point 4: None of that appears in the book, (at least to the best of my recollection). The government is a democracy. The closest thing to propaganda are the Moral Philosophy classes. There are no mass rallies that I can recall. Nor is there any street violence.

Oh, and I seem to recall that the veteran's government was set up in the UK in the aftermath of a world war, not due to a collapse of the US over solicitude and words.

You are correct sir!

Actually a lot if people get the wrong idea of Hienlien's book, must be the German sounding name giving a knee jerk reaction. Hienlien was an American paratrooper during WWII and he integrated a lot of that experience into the story. The Starship Troopers like his own company was racially diverse.

In the book the military always use amputees for recruiters. They try in every way to discourage you from joining up. The basic training is exactly like advanced training for the SEALS, if you can't hack it you can quite at anytime. Of course in the SEALS your still an active Navy man if you hang it up, but in Starship Troopers you're totally out of the military.

Pity they made such a bad movie compared with the book.

I liked the book and enjoyed the move, because it reminds me of the Imperial Guard in 40K. Personaly though the book of his I have enjoyed the most, though I'm still working on finishing it the plots a little dull, was "For Us the Living" a book which in my opinion at least seems to be quite liberal in many of its prospectives and theories it presented.

You are correct sir!

;) Thank you, but unfortunately you are not. :(

Hienlien was an American paratrooper during WWII and he integrated a lot of that experience into the story. The Starship Troopers like his own company was racially diverse.

:confused:
Heinlein attended the US Naval academy from 1925 to 1929, served on the U.S.S Lexington and U.S.S. Roper, and was forced to retired due to TB in 1934. He applied to return to active duty for WWI, but was rejected as unfit due to bad eyesight and the lung damage from the TB. He spent the war working as an engineer at the Materials Laboratory at the Naval Air Experimental Station at Mustin Field, near Philadelphia.

He was never in the army, and most certainly was not a paratrooper.

http://www.heinleinsociety.org/rah/biographies.html

:D

Oh snap!

I actualy read that in the author's notes of the 2nd hand paperback copy I had! I've believed that for nearly 15 years!

Well thanks.

What can I say? Both the movies were OK, and I loved them. Even that cartoon they had was funny.
But the book was the best.

Why didn't the powered suits in the book make it to the movies?
Both movies? There was another one?

Both movies? There was another one?
Yes it was basicly a remake of The Thing only useing MI instead of artic scientists

To answer the Q about power suits, the budget said either bugs or suits. Since a Starship Trooper movie HAS to have bugs, Verhoven (who isn't given enough credit, who didn't love Total Recall?) cut the suits.

Both movies? There was another one?

Yea, Starship Troopers 2, Ok movie and all, but cheaper then the first.

hey, is no one else excited about the miniatures game?

It's being developed by Andy Chambers (of 40k fame)

www.mongoosepublishing.com

hey, is no one else excited about the miniatures game?

It's being developed by Andy Chambers (of 40k fame)

www.mongoosepublishing.com
I've heard of hat the modles look quite nice.

great...except that they used crappy non-book models!

To answer the Q about power suits, the budget said either bugs or suits. Since a Starship Trooper movie HAS to have bugs, Verhoven (who isn't given enough credit, who didn't love Total Recall?) cut the suits.The other problem was that they couldn't do the suits correctly because of the need to show the actors' faces. This also caused problems in the plotting of Spiderman 2.

It's also worth noting that the politics behind book and movie are almost completely opposite. As others have noted, the book is about the concept of civic virtue and is mostly pro-military. The movie is mostly anti-military, with Ironsides, et. al. essentially playing parodies of the characters in the books.

hey, is no one else excited about the miniatures game?

It's being developed by Andy Chambers (of 40k fame)

www.mongoosepublishing.com

The Classic ST game was published in 1976 (http://www.phd.msu.edu/storto/sst.htm). ;)

The Classic ST game was published in 1976 (http://www.phd.msu.edu/storto/sst.htm). ;)

It disturbs me that I'm probably the only person here that knows what you are talking about without hitting that link.

It disturbs me that I'm probably the only person here that knows what you are talking about without hitting that link.

BWO, just remember this - old age and guile will beat youth and exuberance. :)
(You wouldn't by any chance play SL or ASL, would you? Just the odd bit here and there suggests pegging you as another player....)

It disturbs me that I'm probably the only person here that knows what you are talking about without hitting that link.

I still own it.

The book was better hands down. It got into issues of how civic responsibility, fascism, and military culture overlap. I disagree with the earlier poster who said that the movie turned Heinlein's noble view of civic service into a fascist military state. I think that there were plenty of hints along those lines in the book.

Plus, the descriptions the book gives for the ape suits and combat are much cooler than in the movie. The soldiers in the movie are basically contemporary soldiers with better guns. The book goes way further.

I still own it.

Sweet. Never got a chance to play that one.

BWO, just remember this - old age and guile will beat youth and exuberance. :)

As long as the 'age before beauty' rule stands, I'm still in with a chance.


(You wouldn't by any chance play SL or ASL, would you? Just the odd bit here and there suggests pegging you as another player....)

No, 'fraid not, but I have wasted many a night playing the computer game which probably comes closest - the Steel Panthers series originally from SST and now various other semi-official versions. Certainly several of the scenarios in that are admitted adaptions of SL battles. Hex based, turn based, squad level WWII combat - you can't beat it with a big stick.

The book was better hands down. It got into issues of how civic responsibility, fascism, and military culture overlap. I disagree with the earlier poster who said that the movie turned Heinlein's noble view of civic service into a fascist military state. I think that there were plenty of hints along those lines in the book.

Plus, the descriptions the book gives for the ape suits and combat are much cooler than in the movie. The soldiers in the movie are basically contemporary soldiers with better guns. The book goes way further.

Good to hear it, but you'll have to do better than that (or the above attempts) to show the book was fascist. The "SST was a fascist book" crowd seem to have been routed for the moment... ;)

Good to hear it, but you'll have to do better than that (or the above attempts) to show the book was fascist. The "SST was a fascist book" crowd seem to have been routed for the moment... ;)

First off, I'm not saying Heinlein was a fascist. You can write a book that depicts a fascist society without being a fascist. It's like calling Orwell a fascist.

Second, I'm not saying that the book "is fascist" or that it promotes fascism. That said, I don't really see how you can deny that the culture of Starship Troopers has a lot of fascist/totalitarian features. First and foremost being that only soldiers get the vote. Then we've got the military at the core of the culture and martial law being more or less the only law. These are limitations on the individual to empower the state, which is pretty central to fascism. At the same time, in the world of the novel, the survival of mankind may hinge on this kind of discipline and order. So it's a fine line.

As I said before, I think the book deals with how fascism, civic duty, and military culture overlap. I'll add that it's also complicated by issues of the survival of the species and by the fact that our main character is an indoctrinated member of this culture. There's more to the book than the movie, including a consideration of fascism that goes beyond Neil Patrick Harris in a Gestapo jacket.

Finally, don't tell me I'm routed. I just got here.

bud

Good to hear it, but you'll have to do better than that (or the above attempts) to show the book was fascist. The "SST was a fascist book" crowd seem to have been routed for the moment... ;)

Not routed. Just bored. How much time can one spend talking about a mediocre book that envisions a wonderfully fascist future or the subsequent vacuous McMovie made from it?

Not routed. Just bored. How much time can one spend talking about a mediocre book that envisions a wonderfully fascist future or the vacuous McMovie it was based upon?

A cop out, and an insulting one at that. I'm dissapointed in you.

If you felt strongly enough to present an argument in the first place, especially one as inflamitory as you have, you should at least respond to the critique.

The best way to enjoy a movie based on a book is, get this: Put a healthy distance between the two mediums. Yes, there were differences, some more glaring than others. No, it doesn't matter all that much. I loved the book, it was an exciting read for a fourteen year-old. I loved the movie. Action, impressive graphics, phenominal soundtrack and an interesting setting. Perhaps my status as an animator affects my judgement, but that's where I stand. I can enjoy jabs at fascism while simultaneously staring wide-eyed at exploding insects.

Would you like to know more?

The book was silly, but similar to what I used to read the old Soviet Union was like. Join the Army, join the Party, get some influence. Nothing special, but an interesting read. I prefer "1984" infinitely more.

As for the film, it's a B-movie par excellence, making fun of the book, of the actors, of the entire premise, which covers any of Verhoeven's Hollywood movies, from "Flesh and Blood" on. If you're expecting great Sci-Fi, well, you went to the wrong movie. If you wanted to see the foolishness that can be Hollywood, it's the right one. All a question of relativity.

(Personally, I prefer Tarkovskiy's "Stalker", but that's a much slower film, no violence, no war.)