Will The New 'Starship Troopers' Reboot Stay Faithful To The Book? (hollywoodreporter.com) 457
HughPickens.com shares news from the Hollywood Reporter:
"Columbia Pictures is rebooting Starship Troopers, the 1997 sci-fi film directed by Paul Verhoeven... The studio is not remaking the film but is said to be going back to the original Heinlein novel for an all-new take." The original movie, considered a mixed success at the time of its release, went on to achieve a cult following, and during the DVD boom of the 2000s it became a mini-franchise for the studio, which produced three additional direct-to-DVD movies... "Starship Troopers [the novel] has been decried as promoting fascism and being racist in its creation of a society where democracy has been severely restricted..." writes Graeme McMillan. "The question then becomes: in updating Starship Troopers to make it more acceptable to today's audience, can it still manage to remain faithful enough to Heinlein's original to please the existing fan base?"
The script will be written by the writers of the upcoming Baywatch film starring Zac Efron and Dwayne Johnson.
The script will be written by the writers of the upcoming Baywatch film starring Zac Efron and Dwayne Johnson.
Right. (Score:5, Funny)
It's Guy Fawkes night, not April Fool's Day!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Given this recent election season, I think an unabashed film about a society where the vote is restricted to veterans only makes a heck of a lot of sense. Certainly better than the idiots who have voted for Republicans or Democrats.
Re:Right. (Score:4, Insightful)
Speaking as a veteran, limiting the vote to veterans is one of the stupidest, most dangerous things you can do.
Re: Right. (Score:5, Interesting)
If you never served your country in any capacity - neither military nor civil service - I don't trust you with voting and nobody should.
In the American Civil War, it was discovered that human beings really don't like pointing guns at other human beings -- the vast majority of shots fired during the war were deliberately fired into the air or the ground. So in order to create an effective fighting force, militaries the world over now subject recruits to humiliating, dehumanising treatment and instil in them a deep hatred of "the other". It works well in combat, but it has knock-on effects. For one thing, civilians in an overseas warzone are the same "them" as the other army, so become the "enemy" by default. This alone explains about 95% of atrocities committed against civilians during wars in the last century.
How is this relevant here? Because it has effects when the soldiers return home. The mindset in the parent post is one of us vs them, and if you're not one of "us", you're one of "them". It's a very dangerous position to take, because it allows the arbitrary dehumanisation of anyone you like, and the recasting of people with different opinions as "enemies".
It doesn't have to be that way. Instead we can respect everyone's right to an opinion, and assume their opinions are formed in good faith. If we disagree with their opinions or their reasoning, then we can discuss and explain. Telling them their opinion doesn't count isn't productive.
Re: Right. (Score:4, Interesting)
How is this relevant here? Because it has effects when the soldiers return home.
Specifically, the odds of domestic abuse [sfgate.com] go way, way up. We teach them to be shitheels and then we act surprised when they act like shitheels. There's also the issue that the military is a lot more desperate for recruits these days. Garbage in, garbage out. I do believe in rehabilitation, but that's not what the military's indoctrination is about. It's about making assholes into bigger assholes. Meanwhile, we create such animals we don't even let them have rights any more. No, really. The UCMJ forcing enlisted (or even former enlisted) into military courts is unconstitutional right on its face.
Re: Right. (Score:4, Interesting)
Disenfranchisement of felons in the US in principle seems acceptable, even though I am personally against it in principle. But then when you analyse it, it's unworkable. When you look at who ends up disenfranchised, there's a clear bias against non-WASPs. African-Americans and Latinos are more heavily affected than white people, and not just because they commit proportionally more crimes (that's a flawed statistic that ignores the correlation of social class with crime and the lack of social mobility for non-whites) -- it's because they get heavier sentences than whites for similar crimes, and in certain cases (e.g. drug possession) this can mean the difference between a sentence leading to disenfranchisement and one without.
Any other means of restricting the franchise is going to exhibit a similar unintended bias. Exclude military and you exclude groups that are overrepresented in the military; limit to ex-military and you exclude many other groups. Universal franchise is cleanest.
Awesome satire. (Score:5, Insightful)
> Starship Troopers has been decried as promoting fascism and being racist
unbelievable. The entire movie is biting satire of the perils of a society always at war and a society with a universally hated enemy. It's brilliant in its insights; coming out in 1997, it presaged the mess that was 9/11 / war in iraq / war in afghanistan / ISIS. It's a flippin awesome movie and I think they should show it in schools to educate about the dangers of mindlessly buying into the war economy.
At last weekend's Comikaze convention in Los Angeles, I had an extended conversation about this with Caspar Van Diem. A cool guy!
I assume the new movie will be a lame rehash of action scenes, without any insights to be had.
Re:Awesome satire. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Deeply unsure about that. I enjoyed that take, however.
Re:Awesome satire. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Awesome satire. (Score:4, Insightful)
which part are you deeply unsure of? That humans attacked the bugs first, and that news snippets during the movie actually spent a couple seconds talking about protestors pointing that out? Or that the whole thing was obvious satire?
I have found that a huge percentage of America does not understand satire at all. Satire requires introspection and an ability to think critically, both considered bad by a lot of people.
Probably the best example is Poe's law, which I end up passing through a lot. Where a satire ridiculing an extreme position is indistinguishable from what a person who actually believes that extreme position would write.
Re: (Score:3)
That the book is a satire. In fact, I don't think anyone who has read it thinks it is (though it doesn't take itself very seriously). The movie takes potshots at facism and war propaganda, yes.
Re:Awesome satire. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I was 15 when Starship Troopers came out, I thought it was fun movie to watch, I wasn't really into the more cerebral aspects of it.
Re:Awesome satire. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously do you think anyone in Hollywood will even read the book? Skim it maybe at best. Then watch the movie and rework the script to amp up special effects. Done and done.
Re: (Score:3)
Noah Haders felt able to criticise the article despite it being obvious he'd never actually read it- only someone relying on the misleadingly-edited summary would have taken it to refer to the film, rather than the book.
Meanwhile, his comment was edited up to "5: Insightful" by people who- equally obviously- hadn't read the article either.
Johnny Rico (Score:3)
The main character Johnny Rico was part Filipino in the original book.
Re: Awesome satire. (Score:3)
Especially now that one of presidential candidates is funded by the same people that fund terrorism and hold the oil needed to fight wars with.
Re: Awesome satire. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you're right, there is a lot of violence in some muslim countries. But I think the bigger threat to USA is his "war on terrorism" which by definition never ends and requires us to give up more and more of our freedoms.
Think about it. "Iraq war" we won because we caught Saddam. "Afghanistan war" I guess wound down because the Al Quaeda was pretty much broken. But the War on Terrorism has no fixed endpoint. We will be fighting it forever.
Pop quiz hotshot: there has always been terrorism, and there always will be terrorism.
"The war on Drugs" had it's role to play in the militarization of police forces. It too has no end and required giving up rights such as overly broad search and seizure laws, mandatory sentencing, etc. The War on terror takes it even further. But, in my opinion, without the war on drugs, the freedoms lost to the war on terror would have shocked people to no end.
Re:Awesome satire. (Score:4, Insightful)
To this generation, anything vaguely hinting of duty and authority is immediately branded fascist. Anything remotely offensive is immediately branded racist whether race is actually involved at all (for example, being against Islamic extremism is frequently called "racist" despite the fact that Islam is a religion, not a race). We've raised an entire generation of hyper-sensitive, easily-offended, thin-skinned "citizens" who are utterly repelled at the concepts espoused in Heinlein's "Starship Troopers." All this despite such a generation absolutely requiring a cadre of protectors dedicated to the very principles they abhor in order to shield them from the ramifications of their naivety.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Are those darn kids on your lawn again?
Re:Awesome satire. (Score:5, Funny)
Are those darn kids on your lawn again?
A few were on mine, but I shot 'em.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Are those darn kids on your lawn again?
A few were on mine, but I shot 'em.
Wanna Learn more?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Black" is not a race either, but making offensive statements about black people is pretty much racism. Islamophobia technically might not be racist, but in practice, those anti-Muslim policies are aimed at Muslims from predominantly Arabic countries. And how is "it's technically not racism, it's just religious intolerance" better, anyways?
As far as being hyper-sensitive, easily-offended, and thin-skinned, somehow I think it's really the people defending nasty bigoted beliefs that are playing the victim car
Re:Awesome satire. (Score:5, Insightful)
Being of the "get off my lawn" age, I respond:
Authority must be earned, and upon being properly earned, respected.
Starship Troopers was an important part of my educational reading (not school assigned, but I learned much from it nonetheless...).
I learned to despise what passes for authority in the real human world, because they are utterly devoid of the sense of responsibility that Heinlein's officers and leaders showed in their actions and words. The contrast between Heinlein's descriptions of leaders and what we see today in authority figures could not be more clear.
Heinlein's leaders as described in Starship Troopers generally respected those they commanded, and were not on the take. There is no valid comparison of today's dipshit thieves and Heinlein's world.
Anyone linking what passes for authority today with Heinlein's story is bound to confuse the "wielding power" we see today, which is at best Feudalist and at worst Fascist, with respect-worthy leadership.
I am not sure whether a movie made today could possibly accurately reflect the leadership and social commitment philosophy in the book.
Re:Awesome satire. (Score:4, Insightful)
Propaganda pieces always present their most vile principles; e.g. the leader principle; in its most idealized, purest, and perfect form. The entire book is like that (As is "Atlas Shrugged" but that's another discussion). There are no flaws in the system as long as you obey you are well taken care of, except for that pesky "being ready to die at the drop of a hat on your leaders command" bit.
Re: (Score:3)
If it were a utopian ideal, then people wouldn't have been leaving the planet in droves(Or did you think all those colonists were just bored?). Indeed, apart from how you gain the franchise and that it is some form of representative democracy, very little specific to the operation of the government is even described in the book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
The behavior of troopers is also contrary to the modern rules and laws of war.
Re:Awesome satire. (Score:5, Insightful)
why they keep voting rights to military - the answer is basically "just because".
They don't restrict voting rights to the military - read it again. I could be wrong, but I think most of the serving military couldn't vote, not having finished their first term. You had to have completed some sort of term of service to the community (military was just one option) to earn the vote.
Heinlein himself couldn't even justify it in-novel
The entire book is presented from the point of view of people raised in the society. Therefore, everything about the society, our protagonist and his friends see as normal, because that's what they grew up with. It's neither presented as particularly good or bad, just the way things are. It's never "justified", merely explained.
Heinlein wrote many books about some particular political ideology taken to its logical extreme, in a (mostly) sincere and non-corrupt way, running the spectrum from fascism to libertarianism. They each explored the good and bad elements of that society, for there are always both in any interesting society.
The behavior of troopers is also contrary to the modern rules and laws of war.
There are no "laws" of war, there are treaties, binding only as long as both sides adhere to them. (As an aside, the last enemy the US fought that signed the Geneva convention was the Nazis - everyone since then has behaved worse than the Nazis towards captives and civilians). Do you believe the bugs signed any such treaties?
Or are you talking about the military traditions that set so much of modern military behavior? In a fictional world with its own history and traditions? Most of what played out in the military was exactly as Johnnie expected, suggesting it was fully in line with military tradition.
Re:Awesome satire. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Islam itself is racist - it is an ideology of Arabic supremacy.
Islam is a form of government that uses religion as it's basis of authority and legitimacy. It is an authoritarian theocracy designed for world conquest.
They stand (and kill) for almost everything the Progressive/Left and most of Western Europe hate. Extreme misogyny, murder of LGBTQ, female genital mutilation, forced religious indoctrination, etc etc etc.
And yet they defend them, call them the 'religion of peace' when they're anything but, import hundreds of thousands of young ME Islamic military-aged male
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if you look at what a "good" Christian from 1916 or 1516 would think of 2016's society he'd be pretty shocked and appalled. The religion we have today is the same religion as the one burning witches at the stake, but the content is malleable because the Bible is full of allegories and euphemisms, not to mention we often plain out ignore certain chapters that conflict with modern society. People think other religions are like their own religion and that their Holy Book is just as much a guideline as ou
Re: (Score:3)
Islam is a religion, not a form of government. Muslim countries tend to be authoritarian, but they aren't a single theocracy (well, ISIS purports to be the theocracy, but obviously isn't). Muslims tend to think that mixing religion and government is a good idea, which I intensely disagree with, much like a lot of Christians even now.
Female genital mutilation is not a Muslim practice, although it seems to be predo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like I said, anything remotely offensive is branded racist...or, in your case, bigoted. Can't say anything critical about certain politically-protected groups, now, can we? Even when it's true, speaking it aloud gets you the PC equivalent of the scarlet letter.
Please, find me something incorrect in the poster's statement regard the central tenets of Islam? Homosexuality is a deadly sin, repression of women, religious indoctrination...if this were called "Christianity" instead of "Islam" you'd be calling th
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Awesome satire. (Score:4, Informative)
You are aware, I trust, that the majority of Muslims aren't Arabs, right?
Or maybe not. The level of knowledge of some people here outside fairly limited technical areas is stunning. It's like a forum filled with Rain Man-like idiot savants who can memorize phone books, but have absolutely no knowledge of the world outside their house.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Remove head from rectum, and read SiaSL, TMiaHM, Friday, and Job.
Re:Awesome satire. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's no way to talk about Hillary!
There's an insightful meme going around to the effect that this election is a choice between everything that's wrong about US government and everything that's wrong about US culture. Lest anyone accuse me of false equivalence, one corollary of this is that at least (and, quite possibly at most) Clinton won't make things worse.
Re: (Score:3)
Lest anyone accuse me of false equivalence, one corollary of this is that at least (and, quite possibly at most) Clinton won't make things worse.
That's an incredibly stupid thing to say. The status quo is that things keep getting worse for the populace. Clinton is the status quo candidate. Thus, the one thing we can place money upon is that under Clinton, things will get worse. This is not an endorsement of Trump; it is rather a condemnation of your sloppy thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Excuse me for my confusion, as I'm a feebly minded AC, but why is the book considered to promote racism and fascism?
It's outright stated that the Citizens gain the right to vote via federal service, and heavily implied that it's the only right they gain by doing so. It's also stated that they will take anyone, be they blind, deaf, or dumb, so the only requirements to vote is a willingness to offer up whatever you actually can for the country. A far cry from the modern take on democracy, that being that ob
Re: (Score:2)
He was all based around the leader principle.
Re: (Score:3)
Heinlein's society is basically a military controlled utopia. If Fascism had worked like fascist thought it would, it would have turned out something like this. Because its fiction, Heinlein can portray everything turning out fine, but you don't have to believe it.
What happens when those who did not serve want political power nevertheless? What does the military do to stop them? Do we even need to pose this hypothetical? There are thousands and thousands of histories of countries run by a military back
Re: (Score:2)
As if anyone in Hollywood reads books.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I was working at a (computer) gaming company when the original movie was first released, and our whole company went and watched it.
These were not stupid people, but I was soooo disappointed after the movie when I realized I was the only one who recognized it as satire.
"It's afraid!" *crowd cheers*
It is a brilliant movie, but to most, it's just an awesome action movie. So sad.
Re: (Score:2)
Despite being critical, the movie was actually fairly faithful to the book's tone. The characters believed what they were saying and believed in their society. Verderhoven (sp) only turned up the dial an extra 5% to achieve the satirical effect. But the basic material was already there.
Whitewashing the books would be much worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Verhoeven's Starship Troopers is based on the book in the same way that Monty Python's Life of Brian is based on the Gospel of Mathew.
Don't get me wrong: the movie was awful and I loved it, it remains one of my favorites; but it wasn't "Starship Troopers", it was "Klendathu 90210" or "Doogie Howser, SS".
Heinlein's book was an unselfconscious Libertarian fantasy, Verhoeven's movie was a sarcastic anti-authoritarian polemic.
Re:Awesome satire. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
was completely unambiguous. The absence of power suits was an Instant Loser for me, in terms of faithfullness to the book, philosophy be damned.
Re: Awesome satire. (Score:2)
Well, yeah. You saw what they did to robocop, right
Re:Awesome satire. (Score:4, Informative)
Starship Troopers has been decried as promoting fascism and being racist
unbelievable. The entire movie is biting satire of the perils of a society always at war and a society with a universally hated enemy.
Know how I can tell you didn't read the article? (#) Because it's quite clear that in its original context- rather than the misleadingly-edited summary- that it refers to the original book, not to the film:-
Despite being not only one of Heinlein's best-selling titles and winning the prestigious Hugo Award for Best Novel in 1960, Starship Troopers has been decried as promoting fascism and being racist [..]
Verhoeven's [1997 film of] Starship Troopers was anything but faithful to the novel, discarding massive elements of the book's mythology — sorry, those who wanted to see the power armor — and ramping up some of its more outré parts to create something that's as much political and social satire as it is a science fiction action movie.
At any rate Hugh Pickens' original unedited submission [slashdot.org] is also quite clear that the writer was referring to the original book. The responsibility therefore lies with "EditorDave" who we can assume was the one who cut it down. Admittedly it needed trimming, but it's also an editor's job to make sure that the meaning hasn't been misleadingly altered in the process. (##)
(#) Yeah, I know. I've been on Slashdot approaching fifteen years, and it was a cliche back then.
(##) Yeah, I know. The jokes about editors not doing their job have been a staple of Slashdot as far back as I can remember too. Doesn't excuse it, though.
Re:Awesome satire. (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, the poster messed up but the book isn't really fascism as we know it either.
Politically it is the Roman Republic in space which is not a bad model to use in SF and Heinlein turned it into a more believable space empire than anyone else I can think of (others generally don't go into detail and use it for plot) . Yes I where the word fascism comes from but Heinlein's space Romans do not resemble the English definition.
As for pinning the views on the author (despite various characters even giving justifications and explanations in the text), his book "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" has politics that is almost the opposite (and just as believable in the situation.
The thing that annoyed me the most about the movie, which had about as little to do with the book as Abrams version of Trek had to do with others, is that the troops just ran around like sheep getting killed by bugs instead of working together like in the book.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. People seem to be unable to recognize satire these days. I though it was really, really well done and really funny in many of its gross exaggerations.
Re: (Score:3)
Trigger warning (Score:5, Insightful)
to make it more acceptable to today's audience
Yeah, because today's audience prefers to be in a nice echo chamber rather than having to face something that could challenge their ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he meant it's cheaper to subtitle or voice-over if there is a minimum of spoken dialogue.
That was kind of the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Heinlein didn't picture a "Service guarantees citizenship" society just to have it whitewashed away by today's PC standards. Any reboot that ignores the societal aspects may as well be filmed by Michael Bay, and just go straight to CGI exploding aliens; it won't be true to the book in any way.
Re:That was kind of the point (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought the book was a great thought-provoking read, in that it was morally honest.
The movie was definitely fun, but not really honest, apart from a couple of scenes. Not surprising considering the director didn't even read the entire book. The director behaved precisely the way a fascist reading something that made them uncomfortable would (he didn't read it, and called it crap).
One concept that certainly didn't translate from the book to the film was that serving didn't necessarily mean toting around a weapon. It meant putting your blood, sweat, and tears into service for society. There was also the telling commentary on who deserves blame for a crappy society in the book, with the example of the untrained puppy.
I only wish the politicians here actually had skin in the game with these wars. About the only ones I sort of trust about these wars are those who have served or have kids serving.
My guess is that a society like the one in the book would actually be less fascist, and less war-mongering than what we have now.
An equally good idea that Heinlein had was the concept that everyone votes to go to war or not. All those who voted yes, are the first ones drafted. If you believe that going to war is necessary, then you should put your own ass on the line.
Re: (Score:2)
Good points, I agree. Too bad reality does not and can never measure up.
What makes the book a piece of fiction rather than "serious commentary" is the idea in the book that leaders of society could be worthy of respect, wielding their authority responsibly. What I've found in way too many years in Corporate America is that we see all of the authority and none of the responsibility.
Thus, a nicely thought-provoking read is left behind in my childhood, overrun by reality.
on the jump (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Its "on the bounce", not "on the jump" ;)
Or do a different Heinlein book (Score:2)
Friday would be my preference.
Re: (Score:2)
The Baywatch director might have managed that one. Although cats are tough.
Re: (Score:3)
I understand neither women nor cats. Although there are lots of things I disagree with RAH about, on that we agree.
Re:Or do a different Heinlein book (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, definitely. One of his best books. Alternately I would look at one of the juveniles, like Farmer in the Sky or Have Spacesuit will Travel. Both have stood the test of time and would form the basis of a great book.
I would love to see Stranger made into a movie or series but I have no idea how it would work out.
Why would it (Score:2)
The 1997 film wasn't faithful to the book
The MI weren't in amoured suits.
They got the characters of the teacher (of history and moral philiosophy) and the Leiutent mixed up
RAH must have been spinning in his grave.
The award of best Heinlein adaptation goes to The Puppet Masters with Donald Sutherland as 'the old man
Re:Why would it (Score:5, Informative)
However, it was still an enjoyable film even if it wasn't a faithful book adaptation. Even today, I'm skeptical that a faithful adaptation could work as a movie, so at best we get a vacuous CGI action movie.
Re: (Score:2)
You people are so easily trolled. That was the working title, not an original script. Do you actually think the guy who wrote Robocop had never heard of Heinlein or Starship Troopers?
Re: (Score:2)
The Puppet Masters with Donald Sutherland as 'the old man
Its a low bar then. That was a horrible movie. Almost as bad as Varley's Millennium.
Re: (Score:2)
Armored suites not being anything to be used? Well have you ever looked at your SWAT teams or even normal police officers? They look like robots already. I tend to think that when we reach the point to have d
I cheered for the bugs (Score:3)
The special effects were pretty cool, but Verhoeven totally missed the point of the book.
Re: (Score:2)
So how the fsck do you make a movie of a book you haven't read, and have -any credibility-? It's one thing to "adapt for the cinema", it's a whole nuther thing to steal the title and a couple character names and ignore the intent of the book.
Will Starship Troopers Follow Heinlein's Book? (Score:5, Interesting)
No. Not only no, but HELL NO! Hollyweird will implode into its own singularity before that happens.
"Starship Troopers has been decried as promoting fascism and being racist in its creation of a society where democracy has been severely restricted..."
Democracy severely restricted? Nothing like that in the book; separate states have their own governments, and ANYBODY can get Federal citizenship by putting in a 2-year tour of Federal service. You can't buy a franchise, you have to EARN it - but it's open to EVERYONE. If you have one eye and one hand and an IQ of 80, they'll find something for you to do for two years.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice to see a comment from somebody who's actually read the book.
Re: (Score:2)
And if you survived in a war against a near peer interstellar enemy. In the books I vaguely recall that the bugs weren't primitive or stupid and were a deadly foe. If NATO had fought the Soviets, with nukes left off the table, there would have been massive death tolls on both side. (yeah, NATO would probably have "won" in the end...at which point the nukes start flying and gg)
Re: (Score:3)
More like a simply unnecessary job, one that subjected you to systemic indoctrination and peer pressure. Like the poor shlubs who got drafted into Vietnam, and were placed in the position of gunning down innocent villagers minding their own business and watching their friends in the platoon get shot by snipers.
what could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
Verhoeven's version is too smart for its own good. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm afraid that if someone produces a sincere, straightforward film adaptation of the novel, the result will be unintentionally hilarious. At least Verhoeven's take is satirical on purpose. Verhoeven's original project "Bug Planet" probably would have been a good movie, too, even if they hadn't opted to get the Heinlein license after the similarities to Starship Troopers became apparent. My point in bringing that up is this: Verhoeven's people had a movie idea, and it wasn't just "adapt a novel". The idea "young beautiful people fall in love, fight aliens, become Nazis" was the kernel, and they built a great movie around that. I'm not sure "make Heinlein's book into a movie" is in and of itself such a great idea. I would need to know more before I thought it was good or bad. Would you like to know more? (Click here.)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid that if someone produces a sincere, straightforward film adaptation of the novel, the result will be unintentionally hilarious. At least Verhoeven's take is satirical on purpose. Verhoeven's original project "Bug Planet" probably would have been a good movie, too, even if they hadn't opted to get the Heinlein license after the similarities to Starship Troopers became apparent. My point in bringing that up is this: Verhoeven's people had a movie idea, and it wasn't just "adapt a novel". The idea "young beautiful people fall in love, fight aliens, become Nazis" was the kernel, and they built a great movie around that. I'm not sure "make Heinlein's book into a movie" is in and of itself such a great idea. I would need to know more before I thought it was good or bad. Would you like to know more? (Click here.)
I see from Comment Moderation that I've been accused of trolling for the parent comment. Anyone who is offended care to explain? I don't get it. Who have I offended?
so have the script wirters actually read the book? (Score:3, Insightful)
Have the script writers actually read the book and understood it or are they just going to go by the movie and what today's self entitled individuals want? Just try to tell someone now that they have to put in 2 years of civil service to vote or hold certain jobs and they will claim it is facist, racist, sexist or some type of istism as 2 years of any type of service would interfere with their lives.
Starship Troopers is one of my favorite films (Score:4, Interesting)
I watched Starship Troopers when it came out in the movie theater and had no expectations at all. And I loved it. It was a fun action movie and, at the same time, a fun satire of fascism. And the fact that I enjoyed it harmlessly until the last couple scenes (where it became obvious to me) managed to show me how much I enjoy fascism. Which is an important lesson, IMHO. Especially considering how enjoyable and thus rating friendly Trump currently is. The stuff is awesome.
A rare admission (Score:5, Insightful)
"The studio is not remaking the film but is said to be going back to the original Heinlein novel for an all-new take."
So, by "all-new," they admit that it won't be based on the actual novel. Because that wouldn't be new.
A more accurate description would be, as always, "Based on the title of a popular novel we didn't read."
Of course not (Score:2)
Of course it won't. It won't be anything like the book. A modern movie has to film some percent in China so they can get a release there, and the book discusses a future that is not particularly bright for several reasons, and it does not do so critically- it portrays it in the same way that a story that takes place in the middle ages has feudalism- as an unfortunate effect of the setting. I'd be literally shocked if it was true to the book. There's a reason all these amazing writers only have their bes
Re: (Score:3)
The Lord of the Rings movies, while not without flaws, were really rather good and pretty true to the books. Likewise with Phillip K Dick's A Scanner Darkly, which considering the treatment his work usually gets by Hollywood, truly surprised me with how close to the original source material it was. Especially since it was a Keanu Reeves movie.
I agree the odds are against it, especially considering the budget required to make it look good and the writing credentials of the script writers, but it is possible
"Faithful" (Score:2)
Will The New 'Starship Troopers' Reboot Stay Faithful To The Book?
Should it have to?
1997 Movie was awful (Score:2)
Re:1997 Movie was awful (Score:4, Interesting)
True, there's an entire huge category of Japanese Animation more closely inspired by the book than the movie was.
Its one of those shows (Score:2)
that should be left alone. Personally I love the show and the CGI, my kids loved it too when I played it for them. Its got action, cool CGI and some cheese for the ultimate SCIFi Action Flick.
Bring the remake. (Score:4, Insightful)
Would love to see a movie that was very true to the book, though I think a lot of liberals heads would explode at the concept of service meaning picking up a gun and standing between danger and society. That you can't vote or hold office till you serve and as a "civilian" (non-citizen) are only allowed to have 1 child.
Imagine if that was the world today. Nearly all the Democratic part and most of the Republican party would be fired from office/ineligible to vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Only the shitty movie had that. The novel had a far more subtle message.
Re: (Score:2)
Says someone who doesn't know the meaning of the word.
Re: (Score:3)
Semantics was one of Heinlein's passions. The idea that the word "fascist" would lose its actual meaning would sadden and infuriate, but not surprise him. That he would be called one would earn the mouth-breather a well-earned verbal beatdown. The man was the opposite of a fascist. Infuriating.
Re: (Score:2)
Does somebody want to tell him or should I?
Re: (Score:3)
Worked for Sean Connery [duckduckgo.com], sort of.
Re: (Score:2)
The one singular redeeming scene was the naked co-ed shower scene
Surely that was a reference to The Number of the Beast.