Comments on: Starship Troopers, The Movie: A Review

By: Jose

Jose — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:10:18 +0000

The movie was originaly concieved with Starship Troopers in mind. It was originaly shopped around as Bug Hunt, they grabbed the rights to Starship Troopers during the “are we going to make this movie or not” process. RAH’s novel was acquired to spruce up an already exsisting conception of a SF marines vs. bugs shoot ‘em up.

But I didn’t mind that movie, I took it with a healthy grain of salt as I don’t doubt the director intended.

By: Craig

Craig — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:08:14 +0000

Starship Troopers the novel, is simply one of the better books written by an author with an unmistakable point of view, that there is a present, past, and future to all things. I believe the whole novel can be understood as an answer to the phrase: “A’int gonna study war no more”. When I read the story I was already an adult, I think this helps with perspective on why any sane person regards the military as necessary for the forseeable future. Just the same, as I read there was plenty of equilibration that took place on my part, but something else was tapped also, self-preservation can be a virtue for both a species and an individual. The Federal Service, the military, whatever, is a means to that end. We must never forget that some people are very good and/or bad at this sort of art.
The movie is to the original novel what “Talledaga Nights” is to stock car racing; you have got to have a sense of humour about these things. I agree with Lisa back earlier in the thread one can enjoy both pieces, although the power of a director’s choices can put one off at first (hunnh, maybe it was intentional?).
If you have read the book first you must see the movie twice: 1)to get all the wincing out of the way, 2)to get on with the “entertainment”. At the very least the movie can be a guilty pleasure.

By: Mike Crichton

Mike Crichton — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 00:52:37 +0000

Said before, I’ll say it again: Even as we speak, Heinlein is slowly but surely gathering together his watery ashes from their briny grave. Once he has finished, his squamously rugose revenant will shamble its way to Hollywood, where he will horribly slay everyone who is even remotely connected to the making of that cinematic abortion of a movie.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 08:48:07 +0000

ajvan– Heinlein said later on that 95% of Federal Service was non-military. That statement is nowhere in the book, which show it as being explicitly military (even paramilitary organizations like Merchant Marines aren't Federal Service).

By: sjvan

sjvan — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 01:02:10 +0000

“Sounds like military service to me – how many ‘civil service’ jobs require someone to ‘wager his own life, and lose it if need be’?”

Everyone entering Federal Service does indeed “wager his own life” when he volunteers. The book explicitly states that 95% of all Federal Service are non-military *and you don’t get a choice* where you go. You sign up, and they put you where they need you. Could be a cushy civil service type job, could be military, could be lab rat with uncertain future. You roll the dice.

By: Martyn Taylor

Martyn Taylor — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 22:21:04 +0000

I’m no great fan of RAH, or his love of things military – hardly surprising, given his background – but he was as entitled to his view as any of us is to ours. That he chose to ignore the long, sad history of what happens when you put military men of whatever genius in charge of civil government (Wellington anyone?) probably only shows he was an incorrigible optimist. Those calling him ‘fascist’ should study some 20th Century European history to discover what a ‘fascist’ is. I might not like RAH’s work and I might excoriate what I know of his political views, but he’d never have stood side by side with the Little Corporal or Il Duce. The use of the word in such context devalues it.

Another thing I think I know about RAH. He would never have cast Casper van Dein as Johnny Rico, for very obvious reasons to anyone reading the book.

By: Jim Wright

Jim Wright — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 19:48:26 +0000

You know what I find amazing about Starship Troopers and Heinlein in general? The simple power the book and the man had, and continue to have 50 years later, to invoke thought and debate – notice I didn’t say thoughtful debate! Though this is just about the only forum where I’ve seen thoughtful and polite debate (one of the main reasons I enjoy the Whatever so damned much. You’re all a classy bunch of people). Compare SST/RAH to other military Scifi, for example David Gerrold’s Chtorr series, the protagonist, LT Jim McCarthy could be charitably described as a cowardly, fraternizing, neurotic basket-case of a pedophile and the US Government as devious and totalitarian, yet I never hear any debate (good or bad) about it. Never hear much debate about Pournelle’s Falkenburg novels (which are pretty heavy handed in favor of military solutions), Drake’s Hammers Slammers, or even Scalzi’s stuff (which is, of course, beyond reproach and I can’t wait for my 75th birthday to volunteer). Lot of talk about Haldeman’s Forever War, but mostly praising it as an anti-war statement, which of course it was. And that’s the point: anti-war is okay, pro-military is bad. I think the difference between most military scifi and SST is that SST is pro-military. Juan Rico enjoys being a soldier, he volunteered and he eventually sees the military as his calling. He’s changed by his experience in war and he’s good with that, it’s who he is – he’s not damaged by his experience, he doesn’t suffer PTSD. He likes his government; he agrees with and supports his society’s basic foundation, whereas in the other works the protagonists may be good soldiers but hate their political masters or the systems they find themselves in. I think that SST is often vilified for making the statement that the military is an honorable profession even if war itself is the most terrible of human conditions. Those that enjoy being in the military are often seen as not quite right, especially in the post-Vietnam era. I know this from personal experience, and it often makes me smile – because they may be right.

As to SST’s Federal Government, I always thought that it was a reasonable construct given the back story of the novel. War destroys the world at the end of the 20th century, the only organized force (the various militaries) band together to form a new world order based on THEIR ideals of service, duty, and personal responsibility. I always saw this as a simple vehicle to tell Rico’s coming of age story, almost irrelevant to the real story. Workable in the real world or even desirable? Of course not. The comments above regarding the ex-military and their resentment of those who hadn’t served skewing the whole shebang are probably spot on, given human nature. As an aside, I’ve known people who get their back up over the novel’s trashing of the current US Bill of Rights and claim that RAH MUST HAVE BEEN A FASCIST – yet have no problem with the drill sergeant in Scalzi’s OMW trashing the USMC (just an example, John, I’m not bashing you – I loved that scene – and yes, I know it’s comparing apples and oranges).

SCIFI is defined as the “willing suspension of disbelief,” what I’ve always found funny is that people can walk right past FTL starflight, giant sentient insects, powered armor armed with personal NUKES under the discretionary control of lowest grunt (described in detail) – but wig out over “Federal Service” which was described only vaguely and from ONLY the view point of the protagonist and the military veterans who train him. I suspect that the civilian viewpoint would be vastly different – Rico’s father gives some small insight into that – but that’s an entirely different novel.

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 18:09:50 +0000

I haven't gotten around to reading Starship Troopers. I've always found Heinlein pretty hit and miss, actually: he's fun when he's not political, and abysmal when he starts philosophizing. Sorry, that's just how I feel about it. As for the movie, let me join with Verhoeven's defenders: I think it's pretty brilliant. No, not Citizen Kane brilliant, but Verhoeven and his version of Starship Troopers are a helluva lot smarter than either are usually credited. What people seem to misunderstand about Verhoeven is that he's a satirist. Sometimes he misses the target (Showgirls), but his movies tend to be wickedly funny black comedies designed to mock institutions, expectations and genres. E.g. Robocop's subversive take on capitalism-run-amok or Basic Instinct's parody of film noir. Starship Troopers is a lampooning of fascism and the militarism that's crept into free societies over the past sixty years. ("Nike ads done by Leni Riefenstahl..."--have you seen TV recruitment ads for the Marines?) Unfortunately, part of the problem with Verhoeven's subversive approach is that a movie like Troopers gets sold (and widely perceived) as an action adventure, and aspects of the movie that are deliberately ludicrous (casting Doogie Houser as a psychic Gestapo; interchangeable and vapid kids being overwhelmed by monsters because the faceless powers-that-be obviously consider them expendable and are too lazy to come up with a better strategy than swarm, swarm, swarm; a scenery-chewing Michael Ironside; etc.) tend to get taken at face value. Taken at face value, Starship Troopers isn't particularly good in much the same way that Airplane is one of the least-suspenseful disaster movie ever made. Taken as Verhoeven intended, Troopers is pretty damn funny (and I laughed my ass off). Do I think Heinlein would have hated it? Yeah. Heinlein isn't exactly someone you associate with leftist European politics to start with, and I think Troopers goes out of its way to mock almost everything Heinlein seemed to believe in. (An aside: Hollow Man may be the least of Verhoeven's movies--I think he got talked into making a straight suspense film. In any case, it lacks his usual wit and isn't very good.) Anyway, there's my rant, and my advice: try watching Troopers as a comedy and see if you don't enjoy it more!

By: JimW

JimW — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 16:06:17 +0000

Once I got over my intense disappointment that the movie didn’t use Heinlein’s powered armor, I was able (unlike many of my friends) to enjoy it even though it wasn’t closely tied to the book .

Do not, under any circumstances, watch the second movie – it’s pure dreck.

By: Chryss

Chryss — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 15:33:52 +0000

So, what I hear you all saying is…Dina Meyer is SMOKIN’ HOT.

That’s OK, that’s the big message I took from the movie, too. Serious girlcrush material.

I just took the thread down a notch, didn’t I?