Unpopular Geek Media Opinions

[Mannahnin]

I think that speaks to a general divide. To me, there is always a difference when we're talking about different media. I don't view a movie as successful only to the extent that it slavishly follows the original book (or other source).

For example, I think that the HBO miniseries Watchmen is far superior to the movie Watchmen, even though the movie undoubtedly follows the comic book. Or take the Cronenberg movie, Naked Lunch. By not slavishly attempting to adapt the book (to the extent that it is possible), he made a great movie.

It's the same here. Starship Troopers is a great movie. It's one of Verhoeven's best (if not the best), and admirably skewers the dangers of propaganda and militarism. Much like Robocop, it can be misinterpreted, but the message is still clear. It is an absolute stunner of a movie. It would have been much worse if it had attempted to follow the book; just another forgettable Wing Commander.

Maybe some day, a person will make a faithful adaptation of the book into a prestige miniseries. But I would bet good money that if they do, it won't be as good a piece of art as the Verhoeven film.

I agree with 90% of that.

And I do think that Heinlein's paean to civic duty as embodied in military service (and to a lesser extent non-military civil service, though the book gives that short time despite his later clarifications) could stand some critique. Especially (but not limited to) the book's stupid advocacy of corporal punishment.

I just think Verhoeven was more broadly satirizing the F word (and doing so beautifully), not really responding to the Switzerland-inspired system in the book. Or at all addressing the core subjects of civic duty and leadership which were the main focus of the book, and have kept it on military academy reading lists all these years. And of course in making his satire, Verhoeven had to change details of the book, like Johnny's ethnicity, to climb on his own hobby horse.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I agree with 90% of that.

And I do think that Heinlein's paean to civic duty as embodied in military service (and to a lesser extent non-military civil service, though the book gives that short time despite his later clarifications) could stand some critique. Especially (but not limited to) the book's stupid advocacy of corporal punishment.

I just think Verhoeven was more broadly satirizing the F word (and doing so beautifully), not really responding to the Switzerland-inspired system in the book. Or at all addressing the core subjects of civic duty and leadership which were the main focus of the book, and have kept it on military academy reading lists all these years.

So without going too deep into the weeds, I think that while Verhoeven was certainly making the direct reference to the F word (if you didn't get it from NPH's uniform, you never would), I also think that it was a more subtle critique ... well, for various definitions of subtle.

By playing so much of it straight, he was trying to show how the very same impulses that drive civic duty and leadership are easily twisted. That's not a comfortable subject, which is why I think that the movie was misunderstood at the time, and continues to be disliked by fans of the book. But it's very much a critique of, as you put it, a paean to civic duty as embodied in military service; it's the flip side to show what Heinlein was not examining.

 

[Mannahnin]

So without going too deep into the weeds, I think that while Verhoeven was certainly making the direct reference to the F word (if you didn't get it from NPH's uniform, you never would), I also think that it was a more subtle critique ... well, for various definitions of subtle.

By playing so much of it straight, he was trying to show how the very same impulses that drive civic duty and leadership are easily twisted. That's not a comfortable subject, which is why I think that the movie was misunderstood at the time, and continues to be disliked by fans of the book. But it's very much a critique of, as you put it, a paean to civic duty as embodied in military service; it's the flip side to show what Heinlein was not examining.

Respectfully, I think you're giving Verhoeven more credit (for subtlety and for understanding the book) than he's due.

 

[trappedslider]

I should note that Verhoeven didn't even finish the book and that until it was brought to his attention the movie was going to called "bug hunt"

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Respectfully, I think you're giving Verhoeven more credit (for subtlety and for understanding the book) than he's due.

Well, I did say for various definitions of subtle. I will reiterate that when it was released, many people did not realize that the movie was a satire. Again, this may seem unbelievable, but ... yeah. Just like when it was released, a lot of people didn't get the satire of Robocop (and today, a lot of people miss it because many of the things it was satirizing have come to pass).

But Verhoeven (visually) and the writer (Neumeier) did all of this quite deliberately- they were sending up the tropes and themes of the book. As Verhoeven said, "All the way through I wanted the audience to be asking, 'Are these people crazy?”

I will reiterate that if you were a fan of the book, this probably wasn't what you wanted to see. But the appeal of militarism (and the F word) are real, and dangerous. That's the whole point; none of the characters understand that they are in a dystopian reality.

Anyway, if you don't see the parallels with this work and his other movies, it's fine. Again, it's similar to other films of that type (American Psycho comes to mind) where the film takes on and satirizes the material on which it is based.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

As Verhoeven said, "All the way through I wanted the audience to be asking, 'Are these people crazy?”

Evergreen question for all his characters.

 

[Erekose]

Star Trek V isn’t as awful as it’s made out to be … OK there are some terrible parts of it but also some very touching, if a bit cheesy, moments between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy.

 

[Zardnaar]

Star Trek V isn’t as awful as it’s made out to be … OK there are some terrible parts of it but also some very touching, if a bit cheesy, moments between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy.

More low side of average for me. It's not Highlander II bad.

Not a trekking, barely remember ToS.

 

[Zardnaar]

Nu trek isn't as bad as internet has you believe at least S1 vs S1. They're not great but TNG and Voyager ate really bad early.

 

[MGibster]

Star Trek V isn’t as awful as it’s made out to be … OK there are some terrible parts of it but also some very touching, if a bit cheesy, moments between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy.

The Final Frontier's biggest problem might have been that it followed the well regarded Voyage Home. But it wasn't a good movie, and I'm glad the TOS crew got a much better send off with The Undiscovered Country.