Go Back   Home > SciFlicks SQUAD! Forums > Sci-Fi Movies Galleria > Sci-Fi Movie Titles: [ S -- Z ] > Starship Troopers (1997, 2004) [movie series]

Welcome to the SciFlicks SQUAD! Forums.

You are currently viewing our community boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free and open-minded sci-fi community you will be able to start and reply to forum discussions, write movie reviews, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or with your account please contact support here.

Starship Troopers (1997, 2004) [movie series]

When you battle 6 trillion enemies that will eat you alive, there are only two rules... EVERYONE FIGHTS. NO ONE QUITS. | I guide

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 20, 2002, 10:03 PM   #1
Elm
Apprentice
2 flights since Feb 2002
Thumbs down Re: Bad, bad - bad movie!

To anyone who has read the book, this movie did not even come close. I appreciate the reviewer taking time to write a review of movie but we disagree on many points:
- This is not a smart movie trying to be dumb - it is a very stupid rendition of the original work succeeding at coming accross as a dumb movie!
- The politics were way off of what Robert Heinlein had described, and the reviewers statement that if you agreed with what Robert Heinlein wrote you need help shows that the reviewer did not get it when he read the book (if he read the book). Heinlein did not describe a facists society - that was totaly Paul Verhoeven's take on it.
- Robocop was by far a much better movie but the director - who did not even read the book before hand - missed a golden opportunity to make an outstanding movie from a great classic.

I guess that is what bothered me the most - this movie was a huge missed oportunity. Considering what usually comes out of Hollowood, I doubt a truely intelligent rendition of Starship Troopers will ever be done.
The only thing I did like about the movie was the bugs - it is too bad that they couldn't have killed off Paul Verhoeven before he massacred Heinlein's book.

P.S. For a really good, thoughtfull, review of both the movie and the book I recomend the following web page:
www.kentaurus.com/troopers.htm
Elm is offline Reply With Quote
Old Apr 22, 2002, 10:35 PM   #2
BalrogTim
X
BalrogTim's Avatar
1,044 flights since Mar 2002
Location: Sasebo, Japan
Re: Bad, bad - bad movie!

I agree that the movie was a total rape of the book. I just recently finished the book, and since I had already seen the movie, I was shocked. But, in a way, I almost expected it. I have not seen one movie where the book was faithful to the movie(save for LOTR).
BalrogTim is offline Reply With Quote
Old Jun 12, 2002, 06:48 AM   #3
Unregistered
n/a flights since
Re: Bad, bad - bad movie!

blah blah book.....sheeesh get over it people!
So you dont like the movie? Big deal! No movies remain totally faithful to their literary parent.
All this childlike whining is not going to erase the fact that the movie was made. I find it almost comical that some people have nothing better to do than echo the same sentiments over and over...For gods sake why continue to post on a message board devoted to a movie you abhor? Surely your collective time and obvious superior intellects could be used more productively? <rolls eyes>
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 15, 2002, 08:39 PM   #4
SF_not_Sci-Fi
Hellblazer
SF_not_Sci-Fi's Avatar
2,877 flights since Nov 2001
Re: Bad, bad - bad movie!

Quote:
Originally posted by Unregistered
blah blah book.....sheeesh get over it people!
So you dont like the movie? Big deal! No movies remain totally faithful to their literary parent.
All this childlike whining is not going to erase the fact that the movie was made. I find it almost comical that some people have nothing better to do than echo the same sentiments over and over...For gods sake why continue to post on a message board devoted to a movie you abhor? Surely your collective time and obvious superior intellects could be used more productively? <rolls eyes>
The book is not the film's 'parant' in any sense of the word.

Your own pompous proclimations are no less childish then my constructive critisism is. I would vwnture to say that it they are even more so.

Sure the film exists. So does gonneria. f this site had a board devoted to the latter of the two ailments I would warn people against getting it.

Surely your obviously superior intellect can be put to better use then to responding to pathetic fools such as ourselves. A genius of your caliber must be put to use for the betterment of the human condition. It is a crime against humanity for you to devote even a second of your precious time to discoursing with us.
SF_not_Sci-Fi is offline Reply With Quote
Old Aug 1, 2002, 09:25 PM   #5
lambertjr
Apprentice
lambertjr's Avatar
1 flights since Aug 2002
Location: englewood,Oh
Re: Bad, bad - bad movie!

I enjoyed the movie. My wife did not. I thought the book was ok. my wife liked it alot.
We have been married for over 11 years and have different taste in movies, but not once have I ever told her she is watching or wanted to see a "dumb" movie.
Everyone has different opinions on everything. So there is no use in argueing over a viewpoint.
lambertjr is offline Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2002, 04:03 AM   #6
SF_not_Sci-Fi
Hellblazer
SF_not_Sci-Fi's Avatar
2,877 flights since Nov 2001
Re: Bad, bad - bad movie!

Sure. So one should give equal consideration to the question to wether this was a movie or not. Sure the evidence is there. It is a set of moving pictures that produce an illusion of motion, but then again Everyone has different opinions on everything. So there is no use in argueing over a viewpoint. So my supposition that this was not a movie at all has equal merit to yours that it was actually one...

Well now i am just being a contrary ass
SF_not_Sci-Fi is offline Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2002, 04:14 AM   #7
Ivan
formerly known as Ivanhoe
Ivan's Avatar
1,574 flights since Nov 2000
Location: Europe - Balkans
Re: Bad, bad - bad movie!

SF , Aren't you mixing Physical reality and Interpretations of "A Good" and "A Bad" movie ?

A sequence of opticaly stored images played at rate of 25 images per second is a "playing movie". A movie is just a sequence of opticaly stored images. This is physical reality.

PS: Now I'm being contrary ...
Ivan is offline Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2002, 04:23 AM   #8
SF_not_Sci-Fi
Hellblazer
SF_not_Sci-Fi's Avatar
2,877 flights since Nov 2001
Re: Bad, bad - bad movie!

Quote:
"Universe is a simulation"
Extract taken from " Ivanhoe's words of wisdom" chapter 4, line 15
This objective reality is no more 'real' then subjective reality
SF_not_Sci-Fi is offline Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2002, 04:43 AM   #9
Ivan
formerly known as Ivanhoe
Ivan's Avatar
1,574 flights since Nov 2000
Location: Europe - Balkans
Re: Bad, bad - bad movie!

No , no. Don't go there . I didn't say anything about "Real" and "Not Real" . "Define Real" ... as one famous Movie character would say.

Clearly a "simulation" must reside in some sort of "enviorment" that "exist" somewhere. The question is do the laws we live by in the simulation aply to the "enviorment" . Hence does a question from a "simulation" (Individuals question, idea - spoken or thought) has any sence in the "Enviorment".

Anyhow, the conclussion. What a movie "is" has material definition in the simulation in the form of generaly accepted scientific grounds . (The definition we mentioned) . THat resides in the scientistc's head.

Anyones opinion on "what is a good movie" has a material definition also but in individual consciousness. But it's "definition" is only in the subject's head.

Ok now I'm tired.
Ivan is offline Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2002, 04:39 PM   #10
Pulse Rifle
Recruit Pilot
Pulse Rifle's Avatar
12 flights since Aug 2002
Location: A gun cabinet in a Colonial Marine APC. And sometimes cradled in sweaty hands.
Re: Bad, bad - bad movie!

I agree, this is by no means a good movie. And yet, somehow, I can stand to watch it, just recently it was on TV and I sat through it for the action scenes, and Denise Richards (SHE'S a fox). But often I'd see bits that made me say 'Woah... Cheesy.' Strange.
Pulse Rifle is offline Reply With Quote
Old Nov 22, 2002, 08:37 AM   #11
Unregistered
n/a flights since
Red face the men and womenm take shower naked

Is there in this fil people of men and women take bath shower nude together?
Or in which film?
Because I see them swim in a film in space ship and they are army of USA.

send me replies ro mosad777@hotmail.com
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2002, 02:41 AM   #12
Bogata
Apprentice
3 flights since Dec 2002
Re: Bad, bad - bad movie!

I wonít say this is a bad movie. The special effects were decent. The storyline was palatable. The characters were semi-likable, but if you read the book, itís about as far from the story as a movie adaptation can get. Itís just another example of Hollywood taking another personís work and totally twisting it to reach target audiences and sate the directorís own personal politics.
I know most people will say, ďItís just a movie. Just get over it (such as Unregistered)Ē, but if everyone here is truly a fan of science fiction, this movie should appall you. Robert Heinlein was the Hemmingway of the science fiction genre. He took a medium that was, at the time, regarded as junk food for snot nosed kids and turned it into form of literature, today, taught in universities.
Iíd have to disagree with Elm on one point. The director of Starship Troopers didnít misinterpret the original story; he mocked it. He took the idea of the struggles a few must endure to preserve a way of life (and if you want a say in the way things are run, that maybe you should have to earn it, if not just a little) and manipulated it into a World War 2 propaganda poster. Near the end, having his friend Carl in a Nazi SS-type uniform was proof that the director had a serious problem with the philosophy behind the book, so he decided to portray patriotism as jingoism. To sum it up, I think they should have just named the movie Bugfight in Dystopia.

P.S.
As for guys like Unregistered, maybe youíre right. We shouldnít get angry about the misrepresentation of ideas. We should just keep watching movies and shouldnít voice our opinions, but I found it almost comical that some people have nothing better to do than to critique critiques of a movie. Surely your time and obvious superior intellect could be used more productively? <rolls eyes>
Bogata is offline Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2002, 08:27 AM   #13
Jove
Sector Marshall
Jove's Avatar
743 flights since Nov 2002
Location: In front of my computer.
Re: Bad, bad - bad movie!

Bogata, I agree with you in that as an adaptation of the novel it is a laughable, if not an insulting effort.

Maybe it should have been called "Bugfight in Dystopia" (I actually like this title - it has a certain 50s comic book ring to it) and maybe the film should have stated that it was only "loosely based on the novel by Heinlein".

But then the point of his film would have been lost.


Quote:
Originally posted by Bogata
Itís just another example of Hollywood taking another personís work and totally twisting it to reach target audiences and sate the directorís own personal politics.

Firstly, isn't that the point of the Director, to reach his target audience and to put his own slant on the film?
If all directors were the same then why would people prefer, say, Tim Burton's style to Cameron's or to Ridley Scott's?
If all directors did the same to the material then why would we bother paying them so much?

I for one thought that this film was superb - and very daring of the director as well. It took a well-known and well-loved story and not only changed it but satirised it beautifully.

He could have made a faithful adaptation. It would have been a very different film. It would be (if someone did it) a good film as well. But once you accept the fact that this is NOT a faithful adaptation and has merely used the book as a starting point on which to overlay the director's own (or at any rate different) views on the politics behind the book then you should be able to better appreciate the film.

Quote:
...but if everyone here is truly a fan of science fiction, this movie should appall you.
Why should this appall me? I read nothing but SF and Fantasy novels. I loved this film.
Novels and films are very different media. The director and the writer are two very different people in most cases.

A faithful adaptation can only really be achieved if the Director is also the writer or the writer has written so much about the book (what certain things mean, character's philosophies, hidden subtext, the points he was trying to get across etc) as to leave no room for interpretation.

But then it also requires the Director to want to make a faithful adaptation.
Why should he be restricted to such a thing?


Would Heinlein have appreciated the film?
Most would think probably not.
I would actually suggest that Heinlein would greatly appreciate the irony and satire of the film and remark on how clever the director has been to twist certain things very slightly to create such a vastly different tone.

By accentuating the patriotism into the jingoism, by highlighting elements that show how average people are, how they all look the same, how they all must act the same, how only those who join up can vote (thus reducing freedom of choice) Verhoeven has changed very little but has arrived at a film with almost the opposite viewpoint of the book.

An excellent socio-political satire that must almost take an understanding of the source novel to truly work.

People who haven't read the book will see the surface (and enjoy it as a popcorn no-brainer).
Those who have read the book will see underneath and see how Verhoeven has arrived at a very different conclusion.


In summary - excellent film (except for the acting, which I still have reservations about).
Jove is offline Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2002, 02:17 PM   #14
SF_not_Sci-Fi
Hellblazer
SF_not_Sci-Fi's Avatar
2,877 flights since Nov 2001
Re: Bad, bad - bad movie!

It is one thing to 'add one's slant' onto a story, and quite another to do so in such a blunt, hatefull, and vulgar manner. This was no adaptation, it was an intentional mockery, and not a very good one at that. The creator of an adaptation ought to have some affection for the subject matter, or at least a lack of outright hostility to it.

This was like a film based on Mellville's Moby **** but directed by a disgruntled schoolboy who had just been forced to read it for his English class.

I could see it now...
Quote:
Call me Ishmael, 'cause I suck Moby's ****. huh he huh huh he he.

And freind, I actually agree with the director's politics more than I do with those of the author which in their naked form quite frankly repulse me.

Last edited by SF_not_Sci-Fi : Dec 10, 2002 at 02:23 PM.
SF_not_Sci-Fi is offline Reply With Quote
Old Dec 11, 2002, 06:05 AM   #15
Jove
Sector Marshall
Jove's Avatar
743 flights since Nov 2002
Location: In front of my computer.
Re: Bad, bad - bad movie!

Fair point - a director's "slant" should be just that and not an intentional mockery. But the film would have lost its satirical edge if it wasn't billed as being "Starship Troopers" and supposedly a faithful adaptation.

Don't get me wrong, I love the book despite all its flaws.
And the film can be seen as a mockery by someone who obviously disagreed with the book's/writer's philosophies. And as such the film can be seen as a "bad bad film".

But seen as a satire of a much-loved book, and to do it with a mixture of subtle and blunt changes (some of which I'm sure were due to cost constraints more than desire of the Director) this film stands out and should be lauded as such.

If all you can see in the film is a failed attempt to faithfully adapt the book then you are missing much of the point of the film - and you will miss why it such a damn fine film.

To compare it to a disgruntled schoolboy's efforts is to completely underestimate the intellect required to have created the film. Verhoeven hasn't merely debased the story to toilet humour. He hasn't merely said "I disagree with you and will change your book drastically to make my point".
He has fully understood the book, the politics, the philosophy. He has merely emphasised elements to show people how ludicrous they can be.
I don't think a schoolboy can do that.

I think I'll stop ranting now.

I would like someone like Ridley Scott to do a faithful adaptation though, to see what he would come up with.
Jove is offline Reply With Quote
Reply

← Previous Thread | Next Thread → Home > SciFlicks SQUAD! Forums > Sci-Fi Movies Galleria > Sci-Fi Movie Titles: [ S -- Z ] > Starship Troopers (1997, 2004) [movie series]

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Silent hill: The movie
Many many many many, Heck a whole plethora (I just love using that word... it's all Iwata's fault if you need someone to blame for it) load of you...
22
replies
Sending a Terminator Back in time during the war...
by Phlub  |  Forum: Terminator 4 (2008)
Just pure and rampant speculation. But what about in order for John to fulfill his destiny of leading mankind to victory over the machines, that...
14
replies
Love this movie.
I recently became obsessed with this movie when I decided to give it a rent. Id never seen it before. Shocked and blown away at how incredible it...
12
replies
Iwata Likes the Resident Evil Movie??
????? Amazing! It got your vote of confidence? :p I really liked that movie (despite the gainsayers here!) and I thought I read somewhere that...
19
replies
The Bashing must stop! This movie fukin Rocks!
by Phlub  |  Forum: Independence Day (1996)
Okay I've noticed TONS of negativity towards this movie. And the only reason is the fact that you all are expecting this to be 2001, or X-Men or...
6
replies
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
 

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:09 PM.
SciFlicks cannot be held liable for the opinions expressed in these public forums.
SciFlicks Copyright © 1998-2011, Popcorn Studios.
vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.