SA is dead on with this one -22 most awful moments in Sci Fi

[Adrian Laguna]

The Starship Troopers movie may not have had much in common with the book, but saying it dragged Heinlein's name through the mud is going a bit far. The book is awful after all.

I beg to differ and stand by my statement.

[Batman]

The book, being a Heinlein book, definitely had its faults, but it was a couple orders of magnitude better than that sorry excuse for a movie.

[Ford Prefect]

The book, being a Heinlein book, definitely had its faults, but it was a couple orders of magnitude better than that sorry excuse for a movie.

The book boils down to Heinlein droning on and on about how super his fictional society is. Then he takes some time out to beat on Communism for a while, then he goes back masturbating furiously to the training of soldiers. It's about as interesting as eating a piece of carboard and about sixty times more self-indulgent.

I have nothing against political messages hidden away in fiction novels, but when an author actually makes political motivations the subject upon which the story is focussed, conveyed by two dimensional characters like Rico, it almost impossible to drag it through the mud in any way. If you made a movie of that book, and stayed true to it, it would less enjoyable than an enema given by a madman with a cactus. I have read th novel, and I've seen the movie. The movie is fun and the book is drivel.

[Stark]

Yeah, the movie is an amusing political satire and oldscore action movie. It's funny.

[Adrian Laguna]

I have read the novel, and I've seen the movie. The movie is fun and the book is drivel.

Well I like the book at a lot and I think it makes interesting points. Regardless I never said I didn't like Verhoven's movie, I love it, I merely object to it being associated with Heinlein's work.

[Adrian Laguna]

I have nothing against political messages hidden away in fiction novels, but when an author actually makes political motivations the subject upon which the story is focussed, conveyed by two dimensional characters like Rico, it almost impossible to drag it through the mud in any way.

Yes it is, the society presented in the Starship Troopers movie is nothing but a caricature of a strawman of the society presented in the book.

[Batman]

I beg to disagree. The book was tolerable entertainment while the movie makes Highlander 2 look brilliant. Or would, if such a movie existed.

I have nothing against brainless action movies. Starship Troopers was an abysmally stupid action movie that became a blockbuster for the sole reason that it took the name of a famous Heinlein novel.

[fgalkin]

I beg to disagree. The book was tolerable entertainment while the movie makes Highlander 2 look brilliant. Or would, if such a movie existed.

I have nothing against brainless action movies. Starship Troopers was an abysmally stupid action movie that became a blockbuster for the sole reason that it took the name of a famous Heinlein novel.

No it wasn't. It was a brilliant satire, which, unfortunately, went right over the heads of some lesser specimens of humanity, and Heinlein fanboys.

Honestly, I'd take the movie over the book any day. It was a thoroughly lackluster piece of writing, and was one of Heinlein's weaker novels.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Plekhanov]

I have read the novel, and I've seen the movie. The movie is fun and the book is drivel.

Well I like the book at a lot and I think it makes interesting points.

Such as?

I have nothing against political messages hidden away in fiction novels, but when an author actually makes political motivations the subject upon which the story is focussed, conveyed by two dimensional characters like Rico, it almost impossible to drag it through the mud in any way.

Yes it is, the society presented in the Starship Troopers movie is nothing but a caricature of a strawman of the society presented in the book.

In what way is the society in the film a strawman of the books?

[Adrian Laguna]

Such as?

I rather like the idea that one should be proven willing to sacrifice for the nation in order to have a say in how it is run, rather than having the right merely by accident of birth. Doesn't necessarily mean I'd support it. There's issues with proper implementation, human nature's a bitch. Yet it's interesting.

In what way is the society in the film a strawman of the books?

The most obvious way is how they're assholes who wage wars of aggression on helpless neighbours. The bugs never showed the technology required to chuck asteroids at anyone, making it possible that the government blasted one of their own cities to make them into a credible threat. Meanwhile in the book the bugs have rough technological parity and are a very real threat.

Then there's something about the way the whole thing is presented that suggests fascism, while the book has nothing of the sort. On a more concrete level, in the movie the training of the troops seems to be brutal at points for the sake of brutal rather than for the soldier's own good. Though that may just be one particularly sadistic sergeant.

[Shroom Man 777]

The movie's government was meant to be insane, fascist and all that. Just change the bugs into Brown People and I think it'd be a really striking social commentary.

[NecronLord]

The bugs never showed the technology required to chuck asteroids at anyone, making it possible that the government blasted one of their own cities to make them into a credible threat.

Very definately. Reputedly this is the intent, and the idea's supposedly that the people who buy into this are shown to be suckers by the fact that they don't consider that the asteroid had no means of travelling faster than light...

[Ford Prefect]

Yes it is, the society presented in the Starship Troopers movie is nothing but a caricature of a strawman of the society presented in the book.

You mean the poorly constructed pseudo-utopian society which really shouldn't work?

The most obvious way is how they're assholes who wage wars of aggression on helpless neighbours.

Not that Verhoeven would know this, but the Terran Federation WERE assholes who waged wars of aggression on helpless neighbours. Remember the strike at the beginning of the book? It was targetted at a city of non-combatants, even if it was in retaliation for collaborating with the bugs.

I beg to disagree. The book was tolerable entertainment

There's nothing entertaining in the book. Nothing interesting happens. It's just a move from one political essay to more scenes of Rico talking about his training in the most boring way possible before moving back to another political essay. You know those parts which lots of science fiction fans think are cool? The power suits? Those scene aren't entertainig either.

Clearly you enjoyed the book though, and you're entitled to your opinion, given how subjective media is, but when you break the book down, it's difficult to see how it was 'entertaining'. Even the prose is stilted beyond belief.

[Plekhanov]

Such as?

I rather like the idea that one should be proven willing to sacrifice for the nation in order to have a say in how it is run, rather than having the right merely by accident of birth. Doesn't necessarily mean I'd support it. There's issues with proper implementation, human nature's a bitch. Yet it's interesting.

You seem to be confusing 'interesting' with moronic.

In what way is the society in the film a strawman of the books?

The most obvious way is how they're assholes who wage wars of aggression on helpless neighbours. The bugs never showed the technology required to chuck asteroids at anyone, making it possible that the government blasted one of their own cities to make them into a credible threat. Meanwhile in the book the bugs have rough technological parity and are a very real threat.

'Helpless neighbours' who dominate numerous planets and spend most of the film kicking Terran ass? And you accuse the film of strawmanning the book

Then there's something about the way the whole thing is presented that suggests fascism, while the book has nothing of the sort. On a more concrete level, in the movie the training of the troops seems to be brutal at points for the sake of brutal rather than for the soldier's own good. Though that may just be one particularly sadistic sergeant.

Yeah because there's nothing the least bit fascistic about a utopian militaristic society set up by veterans in reaction to what Heinlein erroneously believed to be the failures of liberal democracy

[NecronLord]

'Helpless neighbours' who dominate numerous planets and spend most of the film kicking Terran ass? And you accuse the film of strawmanning the book

Let's be fair. If the Terrans hadn't been unparallelled morons, that wouldn't have happened.

[Adrian Laguna]

'Helpless neighbours' who dominate numerous planets and spend most of the film kicking Terran ass? And you accuse the film of strawmanning the book

The movie utterly fails to show how the bugs are a threat. Had it been any half-way decent 20th Century Earth military force doing the drop the bugs would have been slaughtered. Fuck, the god-damned Ethiopian Army would have probably defeated the bugs. I'd really like to see one of those warrior insects do anything to a T-55 other than scratch the paint. Meanwhile, in the book they've got bigass beam cannons and a considerable space fleet, which IIRC they used to bombard Earth.

Yeah because there's nothing the least bit fascistic about a utopian militaristic society set up by veterans in reaction to what Heinlein erroneously believed to be the failures of liberal democracy

The Terran Federation is clearly a democracy, and in fact they are more democratic than the United States in 1900, and way more democratic than the United States in 1800.

[Junghalli]

Let's be fair. If the Terrans hadn't been unparallelled morons, that wouldn't have happened.

My personal conspiracy theory is that the equipment and doctrine of the Terrans' army was actually deliberately designed to increase casualties in order to keep the war going longer (shades of 1984). The Achuultani Master Computer did something like that in the Empire From Ashes series.

I mean how else do you explain Starship Troopers II? They've been fighting the Bugs for how many years, and they still haven't figured out that a handful of machine gun nests on that tower could have slaughtered that entire horde?

[LadyTevar]

How do you explain an alien society independently and coincidentally coming up with the same Declaration of Independence, and even the same flag? "Unbelievable" is, if anything, a huge understatement.

Um, Hodgsons Law of Paralell Planetary Development?
I can't, I was really talking about BO's statement about the UFP wanking the USA, but you're right that that's absolutely nothing next to the whole idea of post-nuclear-war-world (which if anything is even worse than Roman-world and gangster-world).

I though that the people on the planet were the remnants of two colonyships that crashed there... Am I mis-remembering?

[Spanky The Dolphin]

I though that the people on the planet were the remnants of two colonyships that crashed there... Am I mis-remembering?

They were presented as natives of the planet. Ages before the episode the Yangs and the Khoms engaged in a destructive bout of biological warfare that ended up giving the Khoms extended lifespans; one of them was over a thousand years old. Speaker's right that they were an example of the show's silly Hodgsons Law.

I just don't understand why Roddenberry had such a hard on for the story idea. It was one of the first dozen or so episode proposals in the series' bible from 1964 (or whenever), and it lingered until he finally wrote the teleplay, which he ended up submitting for an Emmy nomination personally!

Which just shows how much Roddenberry was deluded by his own work, because the ridiculousness of the concluding revelation ends up almost totally ruining what was otherwise a fairly excellent episode...

[Darth Wong]

Starship Troopers apologists always argue that Verhoeven's version was wrong because it made Heinlein's idea look bad, whereas they think a proper adaptation would have made it look good. This pre-supposes that Heinlein's idea was, in fact, a good idea.

[Adrian Laguna]

Starship Troopers apologists always argue that Verhoeven's version was wrong because it made Heinlein's idea look bad, whereas they think a proper adaptation would have made it look good. This pre-supposes that Heinlein's idea was, in fact, a good idea.

I would prefer a neutral portrayal, though it may be that's impossible. Regardless I argue that Verhoven's version has nothing to do with Heinlein's ideas.

[Shroom Man 777]

I would prefer a neutral portrayal, though it may be that's impossible. Regardless I argue that Verhoven's version has nothing to do with Heinlein's ideas.

Fair and balanced!

And you are correct. Verhoven didn't even finish reading the book when he made the movie!

[fgalkin]

I would prefer a neutral portrayal, though it may be that's impossible. Regardless I argue that Verhoven's version has nothing to do with Heinlein's ideas.

Fair and balanced!

And you are correct. Verhoven didn't even finish reading the book when he made the movie!

Which means absolutely nothing, of course, since he didn't have to.

He only filmed the screenplay, which was written by Edward Neumeier.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Darth Wong]

Starship Troopers apologists always argue that Verhoeven's version was wrong because it made Heinlein's idea look bad, whereas they think a proper adaptation would have made it look good. This pre-supposes that Heinlein's idea was, in fact, a good idea.

I would prefer a neutral portrayal, though it may be that's impossible. Regardless I argue that Verhoven's version has nothing to do with Heinlein's ideas.

Bullshit. Heinlein's central idea was fascist to its core: the idea that individuals must serve the State (a process which conveniently requires a strict indoctrination program) in order to have a full set of rights. That idea was intact in Verhoeven's version; he simply didn't pretend it was anything other than fascism.

[Skylon]

Let's do our own... Necronlord's list of the twenty two most cringe inducing moments in Sci-Fi.

In roughly ascending order...
[*]Star Trek: TOS: Bread and Circuses - "Son of God" Christians? Rome? Gladiators? Goofy grins all 'round? Why? WHY?

I actually like this episode compared to most of the alternate planet episodes...as a dig on TV production.

Not that it made a lot of sense as to how this planet ended up with all those earth elements.

My money for worst TOS episode still goes to the Space Hippierific "Way to Eden". "Spock's Brain" has comedy value. I can only watch this episode drunk.