Starship Troopers Remake in planning.

[Guardsman Bass]

It isn't a meritocracy at all. Through the entire book it is made entirely clear that the only way to gain citizenship and the privileges that come with it. (voting rights, ability to be in government, ability to work in law enforcement and so on) Sure, Heinlen went on in later years about how there were all sorts of other ways top get citizenship, just by performing government service jobs, but the fact is when Rico was listing the ways to get citizenship every single job he mentioned was in the military. It is a militant, fascist society where the government is essentially the military.

That was just Rico, though. He wanted to be in the military. It's mentioned in the book that most volunteers don't serve in the military, although the military seems to think it's the highest status position to get.

All that said, it is a fascist society. All their freedoms and duties are in the context of the State, and they win the right to wield political power by proving their devotion to the State.

[Simon_Jester]

The Terran Federation is hardly fascist-its a meritocracy. By comparison its electorate is larger percentage-wise than pre-Great Reform England and several other "liberal" states.

You're buying into the hype.

The Terran Federation is "meritocratic" only if you accept the premise that everyone who can tough out boot camp is superior to everyone who can't or chooses not to. And if, for example, you attach zero merit to anti-authoritarian people who criticize the way the state is structured. The Federation is rather well designed to create a class of smug warrior-elites to run itself, but that doesn't make it a good thing. It's not really much more democratic than ancient Sparta was- and ancient Sparta wasn't.

Personally, I consider the Terran Federation interesting because it represents a very alternate line of evolution from the common ancestor: 1950s Western democracy. Here, instead of the steady trend toward increased personal (and corporate) freedom of action, we see more or less the opposite. The idea worth exploring is how constant apocalyptic warfare (at least WWIII) causes people to emphasize conformity, a warlike spirit in parts of the population, and a public order at all costs.

The big conflict in the book is between this sort of... Spartanized democracy which is individualistic but conformist, and a mass-society that doesn't really contain "people" as humans comprehend the term because it's that optimized toward communal utility.

That was just Rico, though. He wanted to be in the military. It's mentioned in the book that most volunteers don't serve in the military, although the military seems to think it's the highest status position to get.

The exceptions to the "military service" option seem more along the lines of "manning a research station in Antarctica" and less like "work in an office for the government at minimal wages," though.

All that said, it is a fascist society. All their freedoms and duties are in the context of the State, and they win the right to wield political power by proving their devotion to the State.

One of the biggest problems the book's had over the years is how hard it is to tell whether Heinlein shares the political views of the book. Examining his other writings doesn't even really resolve it. On the one hand, it's pretty clear that he thought:

1) A universal franchise is a bad thing, because some people are not competent to have a voice in the fate of society. He may not have believed this at all times in his life, but he definitely avowed it later on, among other things in the context of discussing Starship Troopers. Although his actual suggestions are more like "voting booth prints out a quadratic equation. You must solve it to be able to vote. Humorously, this may mean Little Susie can vote and her father cannot..."

Which is at least less fascism-like than "military service required for the vote."

2) People should be generalists, not specialists- even though his politics shifted from socialist to libertarian to weirdtopian over the course of his life, this remains a constant throughout his work. The idea of a sentient species divided into castes by biology always seems to have been a nightmare scenario for Heinlein.

Later in his life, he began to associate the idea of such a species with communism, apparently believing this to be the logical outcome of the divide between Party intelligentsia and controlled masses in a communist society. How accurate was that? Certainly not 100%- but look at North Korea and tell me it's 0%. If the North Koreans could feasibly divide their society into classes Alpha through Epsilon a la Brave New World... I rather suspect they would.

3) Anything that tends to enslave the individual is bad- again, this stays constant throughout his work. Having obligations and dependents is not the same thing as being enslaved. But to take an example, he considers having a god, a real tangible superhuman being that lives in your temple/palace and controls and guides your actions mentally, to be a bad thing. At least for humans.

I could probably list some other recurring themes, but those are the big ones that come to mind.

The question is, to what extent does Starship Troopers reflect the details on what he thought about those themes at that stage of his life? To what extent are the propaganda lectures in the book "Heinlein speaking" and to what extent are they, well, the same kind of political indoctrination almost everyone gets about how good their own brand of society is? The viewpoint character is not a political commentator, nor is he meant to be; he's not a technological or analytical genius, he's a grunt. People like this do tend not to worry very much about the political legitimacy of their society, to not ask a lot of questions about it, and when asked to talk about it, they tend to echo slogans without thinking very hard. A lot of them will, when asked to stop and think about it, actually do so- reconsider the slogan in light of what they know. But it's not an instinct for someone like Rico to ask whether the authoritarian line he hears in school is right.

Did Heinlein pick an uncritical protagonist because he's trying to brainwash gullible teenage nerds into becoming authoritarian-libertarians? Or did Heinlein pick an uncritical protagonist because he's trying to write the story of the Poor Bloody Infantryman, like he always said... and if the Poor Bloody Infantryman were a political type, war would look very different?

[PainRack]

You're buying into the hype.

The Terran Federation is "meritocratic" only if you accept the premise that everyone who can tough out boot camp is superior to everyone who can't or chooses not to. And if, for example, you attach zero merit to anti-authoritarian people who criticize the way the state is structured. The Federation is rather well designed to create a class of smug warrior-elites to run itself, but that doesn't make it a good thing. It's not really much more democratic than ancient Sparta was- and ancient Sparta wasn't.

It was never meant to be meritocratic, but it DID extend voting priveledges to a potentially larger percentage of the population than England or other liberal democracies did in the 18th century.

The premise is that in order to be a citizen, you had to go through sufficient hardship and scarifice for it, and the military is only one aspect of this.

Point out the utopian nature of Starship Troopers and its implausibility, as well as potential abuses, but you have to hit the right spots first.

The big conflict in the book is between this sort of... Spartanized democracy which is individualistic but conformist, and a mass-society that doesn't really contain "people" as humans comprehend the term because it's that optimized toward communal utility.

I don't get it, just where do you get the conformist aspects of society from? We just don't see enough details to justify this. Consider the fact that Rico father himself was rich, well connected but anti-military(albeit, whitewashed later in the novel). Its clear that society does allow deviants to prosper. He would had been an elite in our society and while the Federation denies Rico father political power, its clear he does enjoy significant material benefits.

In an utopia, such a society would have been fantastic, an elite ruling caste steeped in the ideas of scarifice, taking on the burden of ruling and unpleasant tasks so that the rest of society is left to prosper as it would. The thing is, we know from history that such a society could never have been formed, at least, not a libertarian society, which is what Heilein envisoned it to be.

The exceptions to the "military service" option seem more along the lines of "manning a research station in Antarctica" and less like "work in an office for the government at minimal wages," though.

Again. The basic aspect of Federation voting was that the franchise could only be extended to those who scarificed for the state.

Did Heinlein pick an uncritical protagonist because he's trying to brainwash gullible teenage nerds into becoming authoritarian-libertarians? Or did Heinlein pick an uncritical protagonist because he's trying to write the story of the Poor Bloody Infantryman, like he always said... and if the Poor Bloody Infantryman were a political type, war would look very different?

Wasn't Starship Troopers always meant to be an elaboration of the New Army, as well as what would be needed for the New Army to exist? Science fiction armies essentially split into two camps during that era, the super-soldier/genius route vs the highly comitted espirit de corp etc soldier. Think Ender vs Fremen.

It isn't a meritocracy at all. Through the entire book it is made entirely clear that the only way to gain citizenship and the privileges that come with it. (voting rights, ability to be in government, ability to work in law enforcement and so on) Sure, Heinlen went on in later years about how there were all sorts of other ways top get citizenship, just by performing government service jobs, but the fact is when Rico was listing the ways to get citizenship every single job he mentioned was in the military. It is a militant, fascist society where the government is essentially the military.

No... He listed scientific research, being experimented upon and manning dangerous outposts, of which, only the last appears remotely military. It IS clear that most people view military service as being the route to citizenship though, so, its does have facist/military worship views.

ST 2 was god awful, ST 3 was great, it took the same approach to religion as ST 1 took to fascism. That scene where the blond chick is praying and getting more and more over the top, begging for angels to come and save them, and the lights from the drop pods make a halo around her head was possibly the funniest individual scene in all three movies.

I never understood how ST 3 blasted religioon. At the end, it certainly seemed to endorse it, what with the I want god in my wedding shtick. Hell, that scene you like so much, IMO seemed to endorse religion as angels from heaven stepped in to rescue them.

Heilein differed from other authors merely by the fact that he wrote the novel in a manner that for such a military to exist, it must had pre-existing conditions attached to it, and what that society would need to survive and etc. This when Dune ignored this and so forth.

[Gaidin]

That was just Rico, though. He wanted to be in the military. It's mentioned in the book that most volunteers don't serve in the military, although the military seems to think it's the highest status position to get.

All that said, it is a fascist society. All their freedoms and duties are in the context of the State, and they win the right to wield political power by proving their devotion to the State.

I think the thing re: service was that every civilian had the right to serve and earn their status as a citizen. The government couldn't turn them away. Obviously the military can't use people with certain medical conditions, statuses, or they could otherwise not have space for the extra manpower. It didn't matter, the government was required to find somewhere for you to serve. There was also a cultural divide between civilians and citizens, iirc. One of the military personnel got jumped by civilian shippers one night while he was on the town in the book.

I don't know what Heinlen's political views were at the time of writing, nor have I really cared to do the research. And while I don't think such policies should ever be enacted, it was still an interesting mind game to think about the merits of the idea as I was reading it.

[Simon_Jester]

You're buying into the hype.

The Terran Federation is "meritocratic" only if you accept the premise that everyone who can tough out boot camp is superior to everyone who can't or chooses not to. And if, for example, you attach zero merit to anti-authoritarian people who criticize the way the state is structured. The Federation is rather well designed to create a class of smug warrior-elites to run itself, but that doesn't make it a good thing. It's not really much more democratic than ancient Sparta was- and ancient Sparta wasn't.

It was never meant to be meritocratic, but it DID extend voting priveledges to a potentially larger percentage of the population than England or other liberal democracies did in the 18th century.

The premise is that in order to be a citizen, you had to go through sufficient hardship and scarifice for it, and the military is only one aspect of this.

Point out the utopian nature of Starship Troopers and its implausibility, as well as potential abuses, but you have to hit the right spots first.

(Sacrifice != scarifice)

Although if scarifice isn't a word in its own right it probably should be: useful as a neologism and not entirely off the mark for describing a military service requirement. Reminds me of "scarification," the ritual creation of scars on the body as part of a religious or mystical rite.

Anyway, my point is that the argument behind making only military veterans voters is... well. It's expressed in the book itself during one of the "History and Moral Philosophy" discussions, the propaganda. One of the OCS students, I think, says it best: "Pick the toughest of the sheep and make them the sheepdogs, and the sheep will never give you trouble." Speaking cynically, that's the obvious nature of the Terran Federation: since there is a relatively accessible path to citizenship if you are the kind of person inclined to sweat out hardship and suffering to get there, most potential leaders of anti-establishment movements will go through that.

But when you put someone through boot camp you change them- that's intentional and Heinlein doesn't pretend otherwise. The "sacrifice" a citizen makes for the Federation is also an agreement to allow the state's agents to break down his individualism and civilian mindset and rebuild it along military lines.

Aren't there consequences to that? I would argue that by requiring all citizens to go through military indoctrination or something like it, the Terran Federation system is creating a self-perpetuating class of warriors who have the mindset to keep congratulating themselves on how warlike and free they are.

Just because it's a relatively large class doesn't mean it isn't a class system.

The big conflict in the book is between this sort of... Spartanized democracy which is individualistic but conformist, and a mass-society that doesn't really contain "people" as humans comprehend the term because it's that optimized toward communal utility.

I don't get it, just where do you get the conformist aspects of society from? We just don't see enough details to justify this. Consider the fact that Rico father himself was rich, well connected but anti-military(albeit, whitewashed later in the novel). Its clear that society does allow deviants to prosper. He would had been an elite in our society and while the Federation denies Rico father political power, its clear he does enjoy significant material benefits.

Conformity appears to be the political norm- we don't see a lot of political disagreement within the citizen class. What there is, mostly seems to get exorcised by "History and Moral Philosophy" bull sessions and lectures, which usually serve to reinforce the consensus that the Federation is doing everything right. It's less like an actual conversation, and more like up-and-coming new members of the warrior elite being educated in the virtues of the warrior-elite by the old members.

So sure, all the citizens seem to agree on how society should run (with them voting in it). And the only people who don't like the system are the ones who don't get to vote on it. How is that democracy?

Consider another problem with the system. You can get kicked out of boot camp for "moral turpitude." How does the Terran Federation define moral turpitude? In the 1950s, homosexuality would have counted- I bet most of the people reading the novel in 1959 would simply assume that anyone who got caught as a homosexual would get kicked out of boot camp and never become a citizen.

Stop to think about the consequences of something like that over the long run- the system acts to 'lock in' social conservatism, because the rules about who can and cannot get the vote are set by socially conservative institutions.

Did Heinlein pick an uncritical protagonist because he's trying to brainwash gullible teenage nerds into becoming authoritarian-libertarians? Or did Heinlein pick an uncritical protagonist because he's trying to write the story of the Poor Bloody Infantryman, like he always said... and if the Poor Bloody Infantryman were a political type, war would look very different?

Wasn't Starship Troopers always meant to be an elaboration of the New Army, as well as what would be needed for the New Army to exist? Science fiction armies essentially split into two camps during that era, the super-soldier/genius route vs the highly comitted espirit de corp etc soldier. Think Ender vs Fremen.

I'm not sure what you mean by "New Army," so I don't know what you're talking about really.

It isn't a meritocracy at all. Through the entire book it is made entirely clear that the only way to gain citizenship and the privileges that come with it. (voting rights, ability to be in government, ability to work in law enforcement and so on) Sure, Heinlen went on in later years about how there were all sorts of other ways top get citizenship, just by performing government service jobs, but the fact is when Rico was listing the ways to get citizenship every single job he mentioned was in the military. It is a militant, fascist society where the government is essentially the military.

No... He listed scientific research, being experimented upon and manning dangerous outposts, of which, only the last appears remotely military. It IS clear that most people view military service as being the route to citizenship though, so, its does have facist/military worship views.

It's the accessible one. If you can be an electrical engineer and design bombs for low pay, maybe that's a road to citizenship- but it requires you to lock yourself into the military-industrial complex. Being a glorified experimental animal, well, that's so self-evidently meant for the desperate that I'm not sure to consider it a serious path to citizenship: not a path that would be respected, or that a person with self-respect would take.

[Ultonius]

I don't think it's really fair to say that the Terran Federation is fascist because military/national service is a prerequisite for citizenship. For all that the Federation has been compared to Classical Sparta, its requirement of two years of service in peacetime from those wishing to become citizens may indicate that Heinlein was more inspired by Athens. There are also more contemporary examples of countries that would not typically be described as Fascist that made similar demands of their citizens. The early United States required all free white male citizens who were able-bodied and over 18 and younger than 45 to be enrolled in their State's militia. In the United Kingdom between 1948 and 1963, able-bodied men between 17 and 21 not employed in coal-mining, farming or the merchant navy were required to engage in National Service with the Armed Forces for 18 months, while from 1956 to just one year ago, Germany required male citizens to perform military, civilian protective, or overseas development service.

It could be argued that the Federation is less demanding than the latter three countries, since because citizenship was the default status for their inhabitants, they had little choice but to carry out the service asked of them. A civilian inhabitant of the Federation, on the other hand, can apparently live a prosperous, contented life, lacking only the right to vote, with no social stigma or legal penalty for not having performed military service.

[Beowulf]

"Mr. Salomon, I handed you a trick question. The practical reason for continuing our system is the same as the practical reason for continuing anything: It works satisfactorily."

[HMS Sophia]

See, I've always liked that line, a lot. The state (in the form of... I think its the OCS commandant, no?) admits that it isn't the best, or the most perfect system... but that it works. And, like anything that works, until they come up with a better idea, they're not going to change it. It doesn't seem to be anything different from any other (free) government, but the fact it is admitted to the people who will go on to have a say in politics and the running of the system is certainly interesting, and to me pushes against the idea of a fascist state.
I wont argue that it isn't militant however. While there are other ways of becoming a citizen, military service for two years is the main one, and apparently can be the easiest at times. For instance there is a chap who fails out of basic (too old) but refuses a discharge and does his term as a cook aboard a fleet transport. Not a pretty job, but that man is still becoming a citizen. Even so, civilians have as many freedoms as citizens... they simply cant vote. There are sources outside of the book that imply that citizens get tax breaks, but Rico's father appears to have done okay for himself without them. The family is well off, and thinks little of buying Rico a helicopter (I think) or a holiday to Mars... both of which sound like significant expenses.
So yeah, the society is militant to the extent that the 'ruling' class are mostly ex-military... but fascist? I don't think so. It doesn't fit the common definitions. Too free, too accepting... It's a relatively liberal society despite what some people have described.

[Simon_Jester]

Relatively liberal compared to outright tyrannies and police states, but extremely conservative, or likely to be.

What would the US look like, if only veterans could vote and if by default heads of state were generally retired military officers?

[eyl]

Relatively liberal compared to outright tyrannies and police states, but extremely conservative, or likely to be.

What would the US look like, if only veterans could vote and if by default heads of state were generally retired military officers?

I don't think it would necessarily be as conservative as you're assuming. Israel* technically requires most of its populace to serve for several (and a big chunk of those who don't don't get involved in politics anyway), but "post-military" politicians come in all stripes, from far-right to far-left (see Uri Avnery, for example).

*While Israel has shifted to the right, I'd contend that's due to other factors

[Ultonius]

I think it's also important to remember that the Terran Federation comes from a background of society breaking down after a world war, with the perception that this was caused by 'unrestricted' democracy and a failure to teach responsibility. It's quite plausible that the survivors of such events would create a world state that would put a high emphasis on law and order and treat the right to vote as an privilege earned by service.

[aussiemuscle308]

I don't think hollywood like making intelligent movies, even though the target audience of SST (ie geeks) would probably enjoy a smart film more. I quite liked the 1997 movie, but i'd imagine the remake will just be more 'plosions.

some overly-dehumanized alien insect swarm that zerg rushes their opponents.

speaking of Zerg, how come starcraft has never been made into a movie?

[Imperial528]

Honestly, a StarCraft movie would suck. I like the story (Although the execution could've been better) but I doubt Hollywood would be better in that regard. And they'd probably fuck the setting and plot up anyway.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

I dunno how entertaining a "more realistic" or "closer to the book" take would be.

I'd say it should be more idealistic, not more realistic. It is the spirit of the book more than the particulars that I want to be retained.

You mean the scary fascism?

I read this book as a teenager and even then I was disturbed by it. Also, it was pretty boring.

[PainRack]

Although if scarifice isn't a word in its own right it probably should be: useful as a neologism and not entirely off the mark for describing a military service requirement. Reminds me of "scarification," the ritual creation of scars on the body as part of a religious or mystical rite.

Anyway, my point is that the argument behind making only military veterans voters is... well. It's expressed in the book itself during one of the "History and Moral Philosophy" discussions, the propaganda. One of the OCS students, I think, says it best: "Pick the toughest of the sheep and make them the sheepdogs, and the sheep will never give you trouble." Speaking cynically, that's the obvious nature of the Terran Federation: since there is a relatively accessible path to citizenship if you are the kind of person inclined to sweat out hardship and suffering to get there, most potential leaders of anti-establishment movements will go through that.

But when you put someone through boot camp you change them- that's intentional and Heinlein doesn't pretend otherwise. The "sacrifice" a citizen makes for the Federation is also an agreement to allow the state's agents to break down his individualism and civilian mindset and rebuild it along military lines.

Aren't there consequences to that? I would argue that by requiring all citizens to go through military indoctrination or something like it, the Terran Federation system is creating a self-perpetuating class of warriors who have the mindset to keep congratulating themselves on how warlike and free they are.

Just because it's a relatively large class doesn't mean it isn't a class system.

We just don't see enough of Federation society to analyze this. We do know that the Federation allows anyone who wishes to serve to join, he cannot be refused. A MI trooper had multiple attempts to join during Rico batch and later on, we saw a soldier reject join the navy, and that's Rico perspective. The recruiting officer stated explictly that the Federation couldn't refuse anyone who wished to join, although they have some form of streaming and selection process as seen in Rico case.

I would note again that in a Utopian aspect, the idea of a ruling caste, especially one bred to think in terms of sacrificing itself for the greater good would be appealing, and other societies like H.G Well Republic also endorsed this.

Conformity appears to be the political norm- we don't see a lot of political disagreement within the citizen class.

What citizen class? We never saw anyone voting, unless you believe that the Sky Marshal and the military apparatus comprise the Federation government.

What there is, mostly seems to get exorcised by "History and Moral Philosophy" bull sessions and lectures, which usually serve to reinforce the consensus that the Federation is doing everything right. It's less like an actual conversation, and more like up-and-coming new members of the warrior elite being educated in the virtues of the warrior-elite by the old members.

Errr...... what? We saw history and moral philosophy in two context only. In school, where it was taught by a retired citizen and in OCS.

If anything, the grading context, relaxed nature of the course outside of the abusive nature of the teacher just doesn't give the vibe you're attributing to it. In OCS, it would be abnormal not to see some form of indoctrination and norming of culture course in the military. The paper Rico wrote appears to be some form of sociological essay which he scraped through.

So sure, all the citizens seem to agree on how society should run (with them voting in it). And the only people who don't like the system are the ones who don't get to vote on it. How is that democracy?

In our modern context, sure, but compared to the number of voters in other suggested systems, like only landowners could vote, it doesn't become that gregarious.

Consider another problem with the system. You can get kicked out of boot camp for "moral turpitude." How does the Terran Federation define moral turpitude? In the 1950s, homosexuality would have counted- I bet most of the people reading the novel in 1959 would simply assume that anyone who got caught as a homosexual would get kicked out of boot camp and never become a citizen.

So? Most people reading the novel in 1959 would had assumed Rico, living in Beunos Ares, materially well off with a rich businessman father would had been white and likely blonde. The Federation wasn't racist and we have no reason to believe that it was sexist either.

Stop to think about the consequences of something like that over the long run- the system acts to 'lock in' social conservatism, because the rules about who can and cannot get the vote are set by socially conservative institutions.

Ah.... Sure. I don't think a system as set by Starship troopers is sustainable or even desirable over the long run. Hell, I live in SUCH a system. Prior to last year, the electoral system here locked in socially conservative leaders with the same lockstep political ideology as the ruling party.

Answering your point, yes, I can see the issue. Its a socially conservative government that is insular, as such, in an OCP, the system might not be able to adapt and collapse.

I'm not sure what you mean by "New Army," so I don't know what you're talking about really.

Its not termed new army, and I'm trying to find the relevant essay, but it was essentially a trend in science fiction that's echoed in the US attempts to revitalise its military post Korean war. Essentially, how should a new modern military be organised and trained? Especially to fight against the enemy hordes.

There emerged two main camps of authors who wrote signature series around the two methods.

In retrospect, I realised that my comments here on this bit was wrong.

It's the accessible one. If you can be an electrical engineer and design bombs for low pay, maybe that's a road to citizenship- but it requires you to lock yourself into the military-industrial complex. Being a glorified experimental animal, well, that's so self-evidently meant for the desperate that I'm not sure to consider it a serious path to citizenship: not a path that would be respected, or that a person with self-respect would take.

The Federation philosophy is that any "citizen" has to have paid for the right to vote, evolving a citizenship who are willing to sacrifice for the greater good.

Certainly, the military is the most visible aspect of this but I can think of several others such as policemen, firefighters who would fall under this although I find it glaring that they're not mentioned. This is actually one of my objections to the Federation society. Just what consitutes sacrifice? Are doctors not part of this group? Engineers? What do we call the heroes who built the Panama Canal?

[Guardsman Bass]

Conformity appears to be the political norm- we don't see a lot of political disagreement within the citizen class. What there is, mostly seems to get exorcised by "History and Moral Philosophy" bull sessions and lectures, which usually serve to reinforce the consensus that the Federation is doing everything right. It's less like an actual conversation, and more like up-and-coming new members of the warrior elite being educated in the virtues of the warrior-elite by the old members.

That's why I think it's better to look at Rico's thoughts and education as propaganda designed to turn him into a soldier for the Federation. It seemed obvious to me on re-read that things aren't all well - the OCS teacher mentions that complaints are "loud and unceasing". The teachers are also pretty cynical about what keeps the Federation in power: it co-opts the people most likely to lead a revolution against it, which prevents others from presenting a threat that could force changes.

[Simon_Jester]

PainRack, I hope you'll forgive me if I don't respond to your last post, the line-by-line nature of it makes my head hurt.

[Themightytom]

tbh the Paul Verhoeven movie was fun due the campiness of it, the sequels were bad (well I've seen only the first one but from what I've heard the second wasn't any better).

I dunno how entertaining a "more realistic" or "closer to the book" take would be.

The third one (if you CAN spoil such a steaming pile of crap)
Spoiler

literally ended with T'Pol finding Jesus.

Any reboot of the Star ship Troopers franchise would be like washing your hands after shooting a zombie. it's a great idea, it makes us all feel better.

The only thing I hope they preserve is the soundtrack.

[Stark]

This thread is pretty much a great example of why the book is a huge snore and the movie was amazing, perhaps even more relevant today than when it was made.

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah. The book is about soldiers and arguing politics, which are boring. The movie is about parodying American jingoism, which is always good rousing fun!

[Stofsk]

I remember liking Starship Troopers the Book a lot when I was young, but that was I think primarily because of juvenile shit like 'zomg they're in power armour holy shit this is awesome'. I liked the film but the lack of power armour disappointed me at the time. (Having said that, I did appreciate the subtle and not-so-subtle bashing of the bullshit society and philosophy Heinlein espoused)

Nowadays I am pretty sure if I were to reread the book I'd think it was a gigantic piece of shit.

[Gandalf]

I loved the book, primarily because I just really like expository dialogue and dystopias.

As a result, I found the combat kinda dull. "Yep, killed bugs, made THE DROP, blah blah."

[jollyreaper]

Aside from the politics, what are you expecting in terms of power armor? The suits are powerful but not pretty, not graceful. They're raw, ugly power. An Iron Man suit is really far out of line, both in terms of power and small size. Space Marines are basically trying to do ST armor but are too wanked out in other ways. Same goes for Clan Elementals.

Space Marines, they're just anatomically-challenged. you could explain it like Robocop if the head and some organs are the only human bits left but there's supposed to be arms and legs inside. Ain't happening.



So, what look good?

This came up from a power armor search, unsourced.


While in no ways power armor, I've always liked the Jin-Roh aesthetic.




Fallout suits don't seem much bigger than Jin-Roh and look awesome. In terms of servo power they seem about equivalent to ST armor, perhaps a little lighter, but they lack the jump jets. Might have equivalent firepower if you equip the mini-nukes.



Gasaraki mecha have a brutal, practical look. The best description I've heard of them is "If the IDF did mecha." Of course, they're also too far too big to be power armor. I think power armor becomes mecha once it's too big for your limbs to fit inside the suit's limbs.



This is from Armored Trooper Votoms. A big armor suit or a small mech?



A modern atmospheric diving suit, just for comparison.



And out of left field, the Aliens powerloader. Could something like that even be effectively weaponized?



I just can't quite fathom what you could do for armoring the arms. Some kind of wide plate over the front and just hope no shrapnel gets through? Try to stick her arms into the suit's arms and you end up with Space Marine anatomy fails all of the place.

[Simon_Jester]

Huh.

Yeah, Space Marine armor has issues. Granted that Marines are supposed to be physically much bigger and differently built than normal humans, but the only way a roughly human-proportioned man could wear that Terminator suit is if his shoulders have been horribly dislocated.

I'm not sure if their normal armor is that messed up.

[Steve]

Ah, this thread brings back memories. Old ones, from the mists of time on old SB....