Say what you want about this film, but the only thing it has in common with Heinlein's "Troopers" is the title, the bugs, and the character names.

To use the title of Heinlein's story for a spoof on war films is an absolute travesty.

Hmmm...I first read this in 9th grade, when I read it I'd say that young males were less interested in the boring political parts of the book than the whiz-bang powered armor and the combat....

FWIW, I read '1984' at least three times before I read Starship Troopers...

I enjoyed the hell out of the movie and I think you will too. As for the dust, well that just comes from an old thread.

Umm... I don't think either of the 1st two poster are with us anymore. RIP you film buffs.

With that said, how can you not like huge fire spitting shit bugs getting blown up, giant brains that control the whole damn bug colony, and dudes getting sliced up by even more killer bugs. It's bugtacular!!! One of the earliest movies in my DVD collection.

Sort of a contradiction here. How can you say in one sentence that RAH never intended the ideas in ST to be taken seriously, while in the next describe it as his proposal as to what an ideal government would be like? In fact I think that RAH was quite serious. While I generally like the film, Verhoven was way off base (in typical liberal fashion) in describing the society of Juan Rico as fascist. In fact it is radically libertarian. No fascist society can tolerate any dissent or possible alternative power bases. Heinlein (and the film) both have Rico's parents as opponents to the state (largely passive ones, though) who have obviously not suffered insofar as lifestyle or wealth is concerned. To describe it as fascist merely reveals ones own agenda and/or ignorance of what fascism actually _is_.
One area where ST (the book) is taken quite seriously is the U. S. military: see www.techcentralstation.com/051203B.html for a fascinating look at the quite conscious manner in which our grunts are taking RAH to heart. As for me: well, after I read the book, I joined up and spent 10 years in the Army.

Well, as the Mad Arab wrote in <Al Azif>,

"That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die."

:-)

Scott

Except for the fact that they are denied citizenship and cannot participate in any government affairs due to their disagreement with the established order.

Just look at how few people bother to exercise their franchise today, or who gripe when asked to serve on a jury? Anyway, it is not their disagreement with the System that disenfranchises them: RAH made it clear that anyone, regardless of physical disability, who successfully completes a term of federal service (which need not necessarily be military, but could be something along the lines of changing bedpans in a nursing home, point being that they don't choose, it's a combination of what they can do [can't expect a paraplegic to serve in the Infantry, although there was that one recruiting sergeant...] and needs of the service) becomes a Citizen. (Of course, the common experience of Federal service becomes a social unifying force, much as it did in Switzerland). It's all a matter of how much value a society puts on having the vote: when it is something hard to attain, then it is desirable, but if it is literally handed out even to illegal aliens, as witness by a couple of stolen congressional races in California, it is denigrated. Best, Scott

Hey Scott, old buddy, calm down. I really liked the way Verhoven cast "soap-opera" type young clueless actors in the leads. And he was very provocative in showing us the future of a fascist state. It was a SATIRE. Calm down.

I don't how half of that stuff is even relevant other than as a way to make sure everyone knows exactly where you stand politically. The straining to rationalize away Josh Z's point is palpable and not at all convincing. What happens if the person's disagreement is with the mandatory service itself? The only way that you'd even have a chance to legally change the goverment's policies is to first act in service of precisely what you're fighting against. Kind of a catch-22, don't you think?
That doesn't sound very libertarian to me. Rather, it seems like a rather shrewd way of instituting facism while hiding behind a facade of free will and choice. You know that the majority of people who are going to accept those terms and go through the hassle will be those who already agree with your principles in the first place!

Starship Troopers is a great movie. If you have a good home theater system buy the Superbit version for the slightly better transfer and DTS sound, if not get the original version. Invite some of your male buddies over, grab some beer and enjoy.

If you missed that this movie is a fairly ingenious satire of both Melrose Place and Triumph of Will, you reeeeeaaallly weren't paying attention.

good movie, too bad it didn't follow the book all that closely

But the thread leaves us hanging ... what did Buffs end up thinking about the movie?!?

Wow, talk about bringing a thread back from the dead! BigStar has been gone forever... they had great coupons, though!

I think the book was pretty much meant seriously. Maybe it went a bit overboard, but Heinlein was a product in part of the Red Scare, and he was very patriotic and libertarian, but the bugs were an allegory for the 'Reds'. And it does work on multiple levels, either just as a cool suit/big bad BEM type scifi action yarn, and/or as expression of political opinion.
The movie was definitely satirical. In fact, comparing the movie to the book, I was a little offended. But the movie in itself is obviously a satire on war films and blind patriotism and propaganda, etc. Come on, Doogie's departments uniforms, complete with, IIRC, SS logos? The fact that Buenos Aires is filled with a bunch of pretty, rich white folks? Keeping that in mind, the movie works.
Plus, the Poledouris [sp?] music is incredibly militaristic and fitting, and, well, propagandistic, for most of the film; it's one of my favorite soundtracks. Even though you 'know' it's a satire, and the troops' blind fervor is a little bit frightening, the music gets you supporting them.
I agree, some of the acting is a bit flat, primarily Denise Richards and her smarmy flyboy friend, but the rest of it is decent. But the picture and sound are both great as well; this was one of the first dvd's I bought, and I accidentally had it on 2.0; switching it to 5.1 was like 'wow.'

I think it's a darn good movie. Full of gooey monsters, awesome action, stellar FX, and tons of broad socio-political commentary. Fun stuff. I've always dug the Verhoeven.