Starship Troopers

[Ellen Brown]

Years ago, my children and I sat and watched these preadolescent movies and I got a laugh out of them. I think there were two at the time?

Last night, being bored, I watched the first one, and then the second and third. Growing suspicious I did some internet looking and find that there are now, perhaps five or six of them, and the newer ones abandon the old plot line, and are very dark, both literally and plot wise.

It is doubtful that I will continue to watch the rest. What happened? They ruined it.

 

[SomeRandom]

Years ago, my children and I sat and watched these preadolescent movies and I got a laugh out of them. I think there were two at the time?

Last night, being bored, I watched the first one, and then the second and third. Growing suspicious I did some internet looking and find that there are now, perhaps five or six of them, and the newer ones abandon the old plot line, and are very dark, both literally and plot wise.

It is doubtful that I will continue to watch the rest. What happened? They ruined it.

I didn’t even know the movies continued past the second lol
I vaguely remember the book. Either we read it for class or my teacher talked about it. I’m not entirely sure. But I loved the movie.

 

[David1967]

I thought that the first one was entertaining due to the satire. After that, I didn't care much for them.

 

[Sunstone]

I thought that the first one was entertaining due to the satire. After that, I didn't care much for them.

The first one is the only one I watched, but I too enjoyed the wonderful satire. In that respect, it was a great improvement on the book.

Poor Heinlein was definitely channeling his inner eleven year old boy when he wrote Starship Troopers. It's incredible the brilliant author of Glory Road could not see how stupid was the premise of Starship Troopers. But genius is sometimes mad.

 

[David1967]

But genius is sometimes mad.

"Sometimes"?

 

[Nakosis]

Years ago, my children and I sat and watched these preadolescent movies and I got a laugh out of them. I think there were two at the time?

Last night, being bored, I watched the first one, and then the second and third. Growing suspicious I did some internet looking and find that there are now, perhaps five or six of them, and the newer ones abandon the old plot line, and are very dark, both literally and plot wise.

It is doubtful that I will continue to watch the rest. What happened? They ruined it.

The original novel by Heinlein was criticized for promoting fascism and of course xenophobic. The movie however was more satirical.

 

[Stevicus]

Years ago, my children and I sat and watched these preadolescent movies and I got a laugh out of them. I think there were two at the time?

Last night, being bored, I watched the first one, and then the second and third. Growing suspicious I did some internet looking and find that there are now, perhaps five or six of them, and the newer ones abandon the old plot line, and are very dark, both literally and plot wise.

It is doubtful that I will continue to watch the rest. What happened? They ruined it.

I actually think the song is much better than the movie.

 

[shunyadragon]

Years ago, my children and I sat and watched these preadolescent movies and I got a laugh out of them. I think there were two at the time?

Last night, being bored, I watched the first one, and then the second and third. Growing suspicious I did some internet looking and find that there are now, perhaps five or six of them, and the newer ones abandon the old plot line, and are very dark, both literally and plot wise.

It is doubtful that I will continue to watch the rest. What happened? They ruined it.

This actually the normal evolution of movie and book themes in recent history. Things evolved from simple clear conflicts between good and evil to more violent conflicts where the distinction between good and evil is not clear.

 

[Revoltingest]

Years ago, my children and I sat and watched these preadolescent movies and I got a laugh out of them. I think there were two at the time?

Last night, being bored, I watched the first one, and then the second and third. Growing suspicious I did some internet looking and find that there are now, perhaps five or six of them, and the newer ones abandon the old plot line, and are very dark, both literally and plot wise.

It is doubtful that I will continue to watch the rest. What happened? They ruined it.

When a movie is successful, there's typically a sequel.
Alas, they sometimes just phone it in.

 

[Cooky]

Years ago, my children and I sat and watched these preadolescent movies and I got a laugh out of them. I think there were two at the time?

Last night, being bored, I watched the first one, and then the second and third. Growing suspicious I did some internet looking and find that there are now, perhaps five or six of them, and the newer ones abandon the old plot line, and are very dark, both literally and plot wise.

It is doubtful that I will continue to watch the rest. What happened? They ruined it.

The storyline behind Sharktopus is actually like, really, really deep too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The first one is the only one I watched, but I too enjoyed the wonderful satire. In that respect, it was a great improvement on the book.

I have read the book a long time ago and only seen the first movie too. I rather enjoyed both.

Poor Heinlein was definitely channeling his inner eleven year old boy when he wrote Starship Troopers. It's incredible the brilliant author of Glory Road could not see how stupid was the premise of Starship Troopers. But genius is sometimes mad.

It is a very controversial book. It is also interesting to note that Heinlein was in the beginning stages of writing Stranger in a Strange Land when he put that off to write Starship Troopers. In some ways, I wonder if, with the two starkly different stories, he wasn't subliminally telling the world that "You do not know me".

 

[Valjean]

Worst film ever. Never made clear what the conflict was about, or even who the 'good guys' were. The only motivation seemed to be blind loyalty to the state.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have read the book a long time ago and only seen the first movie too. I rather enjoyed both.
It is a very controversial book. It is also interesting to note that Heinlein was in the beginning stages of writing Stranger in a Strange Land when he put that off to write Starship Troopers. In some ways, I wonder if, with the two starkly different stories, he wasn't subliminally telling the world that "You do not know me".

I've noticed that when writers express their interest in an issue,
some people infer advocacy for some heinous aspect of it, &
get all riled up.
They need to expand their understanding, eh.

 

[Revoltingest]

Worst film ever. Never made clear what the conflict was about, or even who the 'good guys' were. The only motivation seemed to be blind loyalty to the state.

In the first movie, the conflict's origin was mentioned, ie, the human
expansion into "bug" space. I thought it was a clever movie....full of
camp, conflict, good fx, & visceral violence. I found it a real hoot.
Clancy Brown is always a treat to watch.

 

[Thief]

https://binged.it/302ywNi

silly me

 

[Stevicus]

In the first movie, the conflict's origin was mentioned, ie, the human
expansion into "bug" space. I thought it was a clever movie....full of
camp, conflict, good fx, & visceral violence. I found it a real hoot.
Clancy Brown is always a treat to watch.

I thought it had its moments. I was a bit confused by the battle scenes, though. Not being a military expert, I didn't see the point of sending infantry armed only with machine guns that didn't seem very effective at all against those huge bugs.

They should have used futuristic tanks or robots - or a giant can of Raid.

Or at least give them phaser rifles or something. It's the 23rd century, so we know they would have had phasers by then.

 

[Revoltingest]

I thought it had its moments. I was a bit confused by the battle scenes, though. Not being a military expert, I didn't see the point of sending infantry armed only with machine guns that didn't seem very effective at all against those huge bugs.

It's not about military objectives.
The point of using infantry is so that the main characters
face challenges, & we get to see vicious bugs rip them apart.

They should have used futuristic tanks or robots - or a giant can of Raid.

Or at least give them phaser rifles or something. It's the 23rd century, so we know they would have had phasers by then.

I'd have developed the Mother Of All Boots.

And then a robot to wear them, & squash the bugs.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I have a Blu-ray collection of the first 3 movies. My favorites are the first and third. I knew there was an animated movie they did after that but I wasn't aware that there are 6 movies!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've noticed that when writers express their interest in an issue,
some people infer advocacy for some heinous aspect of it, &
get all riled up.
They need to expand their understanding, eh.

With fiction, it is difficult to tell whether an author is using it as a vehicle to express personal views or expanding some speculative notion that they thought was a good idea for a story. Given that Heinlein was a graduate of Annapolis and spent six years as a naval officer, his affinity for a military basis within his work is obvious. I have taken from his work that he is also advocating for the military as an honorable career choice for a person. He was also an engineer and this is also reflected in the technical and scientific basis of his writing. At some point, he moved from being very liberal to being much more libertarian. This also seems to be reflected in his writing. But I do not see that he was advocating fascism, even if one story depicts a fascist future world run by a military elite.

For me, Heinlein bears the distinction of being the writer of the first science fiction story I ever read as well as being a fellow Missourian. Certainly, my interpretations are going to be biased.

 

[Revoltingest]

With fiction, it is difficult to tell whether an author is using it as a vehicle to express personal views or expanding some speculative notion that they thought was a good idea for a story. Given that Heinlein was a graduate of Annapolis and spent six years as a naval officer, his affinity for a military basis within his work is obvious. I have taken from his work that he is also advocating for the military as an honorable career choice for a person. He was also an engineer and this is also reflected in the technical and scientific basis of his writing. At some point, he moved from being very liberal to being much more libertarian. This also seems to be reflected in his writing. But I do not see that he was advocating fascism, even if one story depicts a fascist future world run by a military elite.

For me, Heinlein bears the distinction of being the writer of the first science fiction story I ever read as well as being a fellow Missourian. Certainly, my interpretations are going to be biased.

Fascism is very much at odds with libertarianism.
what some far leftish wags claim notwithstanding.