Originally Posted by Ky-Fi (Post 10523097)

And can someone please tell my why in Starship Troopers they would send infantry down to the bug's planet? Why wouldn't they just send down an endless barrage of nuclear missiles until the entire planet was rendered lifeless?

Originally Posted by RocShemp (Post 10523880)

Well that's really the whole joke of the movie. Clearly the humans were after something. The thing is that information and the media (like the film itself) is so controlled by the government, we never learn what that is. We only learn what they want us to know: the bugs are bad and we'll kick their ass.

Originally Posted by Suprmallet (Post 10521524)

OK, here's one. Why, in Signs, do the aliens invade a world which is covered in (and contains an atmosphere full of) the very thing that can kill them? It would be like humans deciding to invade a world made of methane with hydrochloric acid lakes.

Originally Posted by Deftones (Post 10524076)

maybe we were the closest planet to them and maybe our planet had something they needed to resupply no matter the cost.

Originally Posted by Sean O'Hara (Post 10524161)

So why don't the aliens have hazmat suits?

Originally Posted by Ky-Fi (Post 10523957)

Ahh, good explanation. I always found this movie pretty unsatisfying, as it never seemed to be coherent to me as either a straight-up action movie, or as the satire/parody many have claimed it to be. Others have said the book made a lot more sense---I'll have to check that out sometime.

Originally Posted by RocShemp (Post 10524579)

The book and the movie are two totally different beasts. They essentially tell the same story but have a very different theme. In fact, the book may make you dislike the movie even more.

To really get the satire of the film, it helps to be familiar with Triumph of the Will
(from where many of the opening shots and the overall vibe are derived). Though that's certainly not a requirement. It just helps.

Originally Posted by Ky-Fi (Post 10524630)

Oh, I got the fascist newsreel/propoganda influences in the film, but generally the point of a satire is to subtly point out the ridiculousness or folly of the subject. When the main characters basically all end up promoted, successful, brave, noble, heroic, paired up with sexy partners and saving the earth, and we have almost no concept of the negative impact this fascist system has had on them---I don't really see the satire.

Originally Posted by Suprmallet (Post 10524309)

Like coming to Earth, which is covered in it? What if it rains?

Originally Posted by RocShemp (Post 10524684)

The fact that the movie cheers them on is a huge joke. At the expense of the audience? Maybe. But still a funny joke if you get it.

Originally Posted by RocShemp (Post 10524684)

I get what war saying but therein lies the satire of the film. We have a bunch of HS kids brainwashed into thinking that blindly murdering some aggressors the media has led them to believe are evil with no real context of why they were fighting beyond they were told it was the right thing to do.

The key moments are the school lesson from Michael Ironside (where they learn of the "merit" of citizenship), when Casper Van Dien essentially becomes a junior Michael Ironside, and when Doogie Hauser went from a bright fun loving kid to a cold number cruncher that has little qualms about sending his friends to die if their deaths will be of use.

The fact that the movie cheers them on is a huge joke. At the expense of the audience? Maybe. But still a funny joke if you get it.

Originally Posted by Deftones (Post 10524697)

People walk along side active volcanic flow without special suits. That's harmful to you if you fall in but not if you are near it. That's the point. There's risk involved by being there but it's not always an immediate risk.

Originally Posted by Ky-Fi (Post 10524630)

Oh, I got the fascist newsreel/propoganda influences in the film, but generally the point of a satire is to subtly point out the ridiculousness or folly of the subject. When the main characters basically all end up promoted, successful, brave, noble, heroic, paired up with sexy partners and saving the earth, and we have almost no concept of the negative impact this fascist system has had on them---I don't really see the satire.

Originally Posted by Sean O'Hara (Post 10524772)

Good satire never steps outside itself to say, "This is satire, and here's the moral you should take away." Swift didn't end A Modest proposal with, "Nah, just kidding." He let the idiots in his audience think he really advocated eating the Irish.

Starship Troopers plays out like a propaganda film from the Federation, showing how awesome their fascist military state is and how evil the bugs are. It's not going to show the characters in anything less than a positive light, any more than 30 Seconds Over Tokyo portrayed the Doolittle Raid as the mass murder of civilians.

Originally Posted by whoopdido (Post 10524725)

I absolutely hated the movie and didn't appreciate any of the satire it attempted. It's been a while since I actually watched it so I've forgotten some plot points.

Did the bugs actually send the asteroid or whatever it was to Earth that killed so many people, or in other words, strike first? Or was part of the satire that the humans just blamed it on the bugs and then brainwashed everybody into going to war because the bugs are bad?

Originally Posted by Ky-Fi (Post 10523097)

And can someone please tell my why in Starship Troopers they would send infantry down to the bug's planet? Why wouldn't they just send down an endless barrage of nuclear missiles until the entire planet was rendered lifeless?

Originally Posted by al_bundy (Post 10524849)

in the book they operated in small groups across large distances and the infantry had mini nuclear weapons. that doesn't translate well to a movie screen especially with a smallish SFX budget so they changed it to mass infantry assaults

Originally Posted by al_bundy (Post 10524849)

in the book they operated in small groups across large distances and the infantry had mini nuclear weapons. that doesn't translate well to a movie screen especially with a smallish SFX budget so they changed it to mass infantry assaults

Originally Posted by al_bundy (Post 10524845)

because of the demonification of the enemy

Originally Posted by Ky-Fi (Post 10524831)

Your two paragraphs contradict each other. Starship Troopers WAS like 30 Seconds over Tokyo, and 30 Seconds over Tokyo WASN'T a satire---that's my whole point.

Originally Posted by Sean O'Hara (Post 10525977)

Starship Troopers was in the mode of propaganda films, yes, because that's what it was satirizing, just as Northanger Abbey was in the mode of Gothic novels because that's what Austen was satirizing.



Now you're contradicting yourself. Swift is engaged in subtlety by leading readers down the garden path until they reach the bit about cannibalism at the end, without ever stepping out of character to say that baby eating is bad. But when Verhoeven creates a propaganda-style film that shows its protagonists as typical sci-fi heroes fighting for a military dictatorship in an unjust war, all without breaking the propaganda style to reveal his characters are evil, it's the exact opposite.

Sorry, but anyone paying attention can see that the humans in Starship Troopers are the villains -- they live in a military dictatorship; their government trumped up a war by blaming the bugs for a meteor wiping out Buenos Aires; all the Hispanic characters are played by Aryan-looking actors; the intelligence officrs dress in SS style uniforms; everyone talks about the bugs in terms taht, if applied to humans, would be offensively racist. The satire comes from presenting the film as a propaganda piece justifying their villainy and getting the audience to essentially root for the Nazis, while inserting enough clues that anyone who thinks about afterwards will realize the truth.

Originally Posted by whoopdido (Post 10526050)

Why are the humans villains? Say what you want about the militaristic society, but from what I understand, the bugs attacked first and wiped out millions of humans. What's wrong with defending themselves?

Originally Posted by Sean O'Hara (Post 10525977)

Starship Troopers was in the mode of propaganda films, yes, because that's what it was satirizing, just as Northanger Abbey was in the mode of Gothic novels because that's what Austen was satirizing.



Now you're contradicting yourself. Swift is engaged in subtlety by leading readers down the garden path until they reach the bit about cannibalism at the end, without ever stepping out of character to say that baby eating is bad. But when Verhoeven creates a propaganda-style film that shows its protagonists as typical sci-fi heroes fighting for a military dictatorship in an unjust war, all without breaking the propaganda style to reveal his characters are evil, it's the exact opposite.

Sorry, but anyone paying attention can see that the humans in Starship Troopers are the villains -- they live in a military dictatorship; their government trumped up a war by blaming the bugs for a meteor wiping out Buenos Aires; all the Hispanic characters are played by Aryan-looking actors; the intelligence officrs dress in SS style uniforms; everyone talks about the bugs in terms taht, if applied to humans, would be offensively racist. The satire comes from presenting the film as a propaganda piece justifying their villainy and getting the audience to essentially root for the Nazis, while inserting enough clues that anyone who thinks about afterwards will realize the truth.