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.

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.

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

So why don't the aliens have hazmat suits?

only direct contact with water hurts them. walking around won't, so there doesn't seem to be much of a problem unless they are in a situation where there might be large quantities of water.

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

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.

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.

I get what you're 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.

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.

Okay, I think that approach gave it less of an impact for me, but your explanation does makes sense.

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?

And they're told to stay away from any kind of hazy air, because it contains poisonous gases. The air on Earth is full of water vapor.

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.

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. Swift's WAS a satire, and it presented the outrageous idea that he really did advocate eating the Irish---the satire derives from leading the reader gradually, subtly and skillfully to an argument for something morally loathesome. The characters at the end of Starship Troopers don't engage in anything morally loathsome. They're not presented as cruel, sadistic, selfish, disloyal---quite the contrary, their friendships are warm and loyal, they're brave, selfless and heroic, and don't exhibit any negative impact from their fascist ideology---exactly the opposite from satire as done by Swift. I think rather than it being skillful satire, the actual satire was cut out of the film so it would be more marketable, and full of good-looking characters that everybody liked in the end.

edit: I agree with you that it plays out like a propoganda film, and I think it's fair to categorize it as a parody of that. I don't see it as successful satire, however.

the bugs did send the asteroid, but the satire was the life in the 1950's including the school system



the bugs were bugs because of the demonification of the enemy in WW1 and 2. look at some of the old posters like Beat back the Hun. and at the start of the book the earth soldiers are conquering some alien race which stands for the imperialism of the western powers

the movie made americans look like germans, but in the original book the author was trying to say that the western world was too much like Germany

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

Okay-- I see why it would make for a more exciting film to do it the way they did..

And they used more rounds than any movie ever has in the process. That film still holds the record for the highest number of rounds fired in a movie.

I think the word you're looking for is demonization.

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.

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?

Because it's all propaganda designed to spur people to fight to forward whatever the human agenda was (which isn't self defense). It was like in the Onion book "Our Dumb Century," where one of the headlines was "Nazi Germany Defeats Polish Menace!" and shows brave SS soldiers holding back an invading ghoulish figure coming out of Poland.

That's the story given in the movie, but it makes no sense -- what we're told about the bugs' technology and what we're told about the asteroid that hits Earth makes it impossible for the bugs to be behind the attack -- if it even was an attack. If Verhoeven had made the movie six years later, he would've thrown in some line about yellowcake.

Nope, can't agree. Having an Aryan "look" isn't morally wrong. Wearing SS-style uniforms isn't morally wrong. Joining the military and fighting to defend your land isnt morally wrong. In my personal life, I don't feel that I'm being racist by making derogatory comments towards insects.

Eating babies is morally wrong and over-the top offensive, and Swift understood satire enough to know that element was crucial for his writing to work. Sure, it has to be worked in subtly, but Verhoven vitrually didn't work it in at all. If the intent of Verhoven's satire was to point out how humans could support an awful fascist movement (and I think that was probably his intent), then I feel he needed to do a better job of SHOWING why it was such an awful idea, as Swift did with his subject. Verhoven might have been trying for a satire of Nazi propoganda films---IMO, he came much, much closer to making an ACTUAL Nazi propoganda film.

And as I said before, I think Verhoven's playing down of the negative sides of fascism was less about artistic intent and more about perceived box-office performance, but I'm just speculating there.