Starship Troopers: A reply...
Bryan Shelton
Mr. Michael Brooke and Mr. Mark Edwards over "Starship Troopers".
My own position is that I disagree with BOTH of you on different
issues, and I want to offer my own two cents' worth:
Michael, you've been hammering home the fact that by definition
this film is "satiric" merely because it's been well documented that
Verhoeven made it with this in mind. But Mark hasn't really denied
this; for him the issue is TO WHAT DEGREE the film is satirical and
HOW SUCCESSFUL it is in the attempt. I'm afraid that I now have to side
with him on this one aspect. His recent posts of the last day or two
were in fact pretty convincing. He found these very compelling
statements straight from the horse's mouth: "Q: How much of that did
you intend as satirical? A: I tried to indicate that without making it
into the essence of the movie. Because I think the essence of the movie
is really young kids fighting giant bugs". And this: "It is a Western.
It's a classical Western situation, absolutely". There you have it.
Right from the man himself. And it's not lost on me that so far (Sunday
afternoon here in the States) you still have not replied to this damning
evidence.
I feel that although of course the satirical elements are there in the
movie, they are by no means THE THRUST of the film. To think, as you
seem to do, that the movie is virtually woven from a fabric of satire
is a rather extreme exaggeration. If I remember correctly, Siskel & Ebert
made only passing references to this element of the film in their reviews
and then they compared it unfavorably to the similar satirical parts in
"RoboCop". In fact, the review that you posted from Geoff Brown of the
Times doesn't even support your position! In a three-page review (three
pages at it scrolled by on my monitor), he makes exactly ONE direct
reference to satirical elements! In the third paragraph from the last,
the last sentence reads: "Spoofery is never far away in Ed Neumeier's
script". That's it! Oh, well, in the very last paragraph he also says:
"He bombards us with action, but also plays subversive games". This is
a bit more obscure. But think about it: your very own London critic,
whose review you posted for us, mentions the movie's satire in only one
(or two) sentences out of a three-page article!
And you mentioned that in the audience in which you saw the film, people
were laughing "pretty much from the start to the end. Not _at_ the film,
but _with_ the film". I seriously doubt this. This definitely didn't
happen in MY audience here in Houston. And why would Europeans find
satire about Fascism more amusing than we do? I strongly suspect that
once again you're exaggerating the response of your local audiences.
This seems to be something you do from time to time, as we ALL do!
For instance, I remember when you made the claim that you "vividly
recall" that there were "countless numbers" of 'Showgirls' reviews
that singled out the swimming pool scene for laughter and derision.
And then I proceeded to read all 44 reviews of that movie from the
IMDB and found exactly TWO reviews that mentioned it in this way.
Two out of 44. Enough said. I think sometimes we project our own
views onto what we think we remember from movies or reviews that we
experienced in the past.
More in a later post.
Bryan
Michael Brooke
> Michael, you've been hammering home the fact that by definition
> this film is "satiric" merely because it's been well documented that
> Verhoeven made it with this in mind.
Actually, no - the whole point of the argument that I constructed three
days or so ago was to demonstrate that the film's purpose is clearly
satirical solely through references to the film itself. No-one has, to
date, responded to my argument in any detail, even though its
point-by-point structure clearly invited such a response. Mark merely
told me twice that he'd already responded to it - to which I can only
reply: if he has, he must be psychic, as I certainly can't find any such
response in his recent posts!
> But Mark hasn't really denied
> this; for him the issue is TO WHAT DEGREE the film is satirical and
> HOW SUCCESSFUL it is in the attempt. I'm afraid that I now have to side
> with him on this one aspect. His recent posts of the last day or two
> were in fact pretty convincing. And it's not lost on me that so far
> (Sunday afternoon here in the States) you still have not replied to this
> damning evidence.
(a) This is the first time I've logged on since Saturday morning
(contrary to popular misconception, I do have a life!)
(b) One of my first actions on logging on was to respond to precisely
this alleged "damning evidence".
> I feel that although of course the satirical elements are there in the
> movie, they are by no means THE THRUST of the film. To think, as you
> seem to do, that the movie is virtually woven from a fabric of satire
> is a rather extreme exaggeration.
I don't think so, because the crucial difference between 'Starship
Troopers' and 'RoboCop' (whatever Roger Ebert says) is that the
satirical elements in 'RoboCop' are restricted to the take-offs of US
television (news programmes and TV commercials), but beyond that they
have no real relevance to the narrative beyond establishing that it's a
pretty violent, lawless kind of society.
The propaganda films in 'Starship Troopers' have a radically different
function, because they're the most overt expression of the ideology of
the dominant neo-Fascist authoritarian government that dominates the
characters in the film. As the films are clearly meant to provoke
laughter, their constantly recurring presence (note that they both open
and close the film, as well as pop up regularly throughout the
narrative) therefore forces us to conclude that Verhoeven intends to
satirise this ideology. And because the characters in the film seem to
accept its values unquestioningly, by logical extension Verhoeven is
satirising them, too (quite apart from all the blatant take-offs of
1950s sci-fi films, war films and glossy soap operas that constantly ram
home the fact that we're not supposed to take any of this seriously).
I'm not actually arguing that the satirical elements are the *thrust* of
the film - but I *am* arguing that there is no point in the film,
assuming you're watching it on its own terms (i.e. not under the
influence of preconceived ideas derived from a reading of the Heinlein
novel) where you can forget that the director is satirising the
foundations on which the film has been constructed, because we are
constantly being reminded of this. This is why I simply cannot agree
that the film is "a straight action film with satiric bits thrown in",
because that's a far more accurate description of 'RoboCop' - where
Verhoeven is doing something distinctly different.
> And you mentioned that in the audience in which you saw the film, people
> were laughing "pretty much from the start to the end. Not _at_ the film,
> but _with_ the film". I seriously doubt this. This definitely didn't
> happen in MY audience here in Houston. And why would Europeans find
> satire about Fascism more amusing than we do?
They might, they might not. I suspect it's the equally blatant (to
European eyes, anyway) satire of *American* culture that they were
responding to - which is certainly the impression I've been getting from
talking to friends and colleagues.
> I strongly suspect that
> once again you're exaggerating the response of your local audiences.
I don't think so - for the reasons I've cited above. And plenty of
other European commentators have noted similar reactions.
> This seems to be something you do from time to time, as we ALL do!
> For instance, I remember when you made the claim that you "vividly
> recall" that there were "countless numbers" of 'Showgirls' reviews
> that singled out the swimming pool scene for laughter and derision.
> And then I proceeded to read all 44 reviews of that movie from the
> IMDB and found exactly TWO reviews that mentioned it in this way.
> Two out of 44. Enough said.
Hardly. I can assure you that a substantial number of the reviews that
I read (which, for obvious reasons, were mostly British) singled out
that particular scene. One of the few reviews that I have immediately
to hand - Claire Monk's in the January 1996 issue of Sight and Sound -
singles out this very scene for derision *twice* (in the first and last
paragraphs). Was this one of the two reviews that you mentioned?
(I suspect the majority of the IMDB citations, going from previous
experience of such citations, were American, and I don't read American
critics on anything like as regular a basis).
> I think sometimes we project our own
> views onto what we think we remember from movies or reviews that we
> experienced in the past.
I completely agree - which is precisely why my latest arguments with
regard to 'Starship Troopers' have deliberately removed all external
references and concentrated on the internal evidence of the film itself.
Michael
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAN SVANKMAJER - ALCHEMIST OF THE SURREAL
http://www.illumin.co.uk/svank
a lavish tribute to the cinema's wildest imagination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philipp Lenssen
>..
> were in fact pretty convincing. He found these very compelling
> statements straight from the horse's mouth: "Q: How much of that did
> you intend as satirical? A: I tried to indicate that without making it
> into the essence of the movie. Because I think the essence of the movie
> is really young kids fighting giant bugs". And this: "It is a Western.
> It's a classical Western situation, absolutely". There you have it.
>..
The first one to say that Leni Riefenstahl's movie are not political or
following fascist ideology is, you guessed it, Leni Riefenstahl herself
(this is against the argument that the creator always is right, not
against Verhoeven in that case). Also what the creator says about a
movie may very well follow the same satirical pattern, but I don't
really think this needs discussion in this debate: if there's so little
evidence of satire in the movie that we had to go to external or second
hand sources, I'd agree it's not a real satire or failed in being one.
But the absolute out-of-proportions big scale of the war fought (and the
fact that it will go on, as mentioned in the end) is needed to
strengthen the meaninglessnes of it (if you want to parodize a genre
without keeping to its essence the effect is lost). And how serious can
"young kids fighting giant bugs" be taken under the circumstances which
the movie does stress (and I don't think anybody would disagree the
circumstances which literally surround the movie, being at the very
beginning and end, can be taken serious). Adam Smith in the new Empire
says of the movie it "may well be one of the snidest gags ever played on
the American psyche" (with even the majority of actors themselves not
knowing they're part of a "mischievous joke"): the more reactions I read
on the movie the more I'm convinced it was indeed needed in that sense,
and did work.
--
The Court http://start.at/the.court
Wolfgang Falck
br...@gemini.c-com.net (Bryan Shelton) wrote:
> And you mentioned that in the audience in which you saw the film, people
> were laughing "pretty much from the start to the end. Not _at_ the film,
> but _with_ the film". I seriously doubt this. This definitely didn't
> happen in MY audience here in Houston. And why would Europeans find
> satire about Fascism more amusing than we do? I strongly suspect that
> once again you're exaggerating the response of your local audiences.
> This seems to be something you do from time to time, as we ALL do!
> For instance, I remember when you made the claim that you "vividly
> recall" that there were "countless numbers" of 'Showgirls' reviews
> that singled out the swimming pool scene for laughter and derision.
> And then I proceeded to read all 44 reviews of that movie from the
> IMDB and found exactly TWO reviews that mentioned it in this way.
> Two out of 44. Enough said. I think sometimes we project our own
> views onto what we think we remember from movies or reviews that we
> experienced in the past.
>
Ok if you won't believe him may you'd believe me. In my audience and this
was at a packed German cinema in fact it was not the local off cinema but
a mainstream UCI cinema there even was standing ovations at the end of
this movie. The people laughed so hard with the movie, it was
unbelievable.
Bye
Wolf
| The opinions expressed above are of
| course my own. Share them now as long
Wo...@Wonko.prima.ruhr.de | as you are free to do so. Someday there
| might be no other choice!
Bryan Shelton
: Bryan Shelton <br...@gemini.c-com.net> wrote:
[...]
: ...the whole point of the argument that I constructed three
: days or so ago was to demonstrate that the film's purpose is clearly
: satirical solely through references to the film itself. No-one has,
: to date, responded to my argument in any detail, even though its
: point-by-point structure clearly invited such a response.
I just saw your four-point argument a while ago. I definitely will be
making a reply to it in a few days. I need a little time for this
because it's been several months since I saw the movie and although
I made a videotape of it, I loaned it to a friend. Should have it
back in a while. I respect your movie knowledge enough that I want
to refresh my memory of certain scenes before I make my reply! ;-)
:> I feel that although of course the satirical elements are there in the
:> movie, they are by no means THE THRUST of the film. To think, as you
:> seem to do, that the movie is virtually woven from a fabric of satire
:> is a rather extreme exaggeration.
: I don't think so, because the crucial difference between 'Starship
: Troopers' and 'RoboCop' (whatever Roger Ebert says) is that the
: satirical elements in 'RoboCop' are restricted to the take-offs of US
: television (news programmes and TV commercials), but beyond that they
: have no real relevance to the narrative beyond establishing that it's a
: pretty violent, lawless kind of society.
Yes, but it's extremely CRUCIAL in 'RoboCop' to establish that it IS
that kind of violent, lawless society. And one driven by slick,
manipulative media with people getting all there information from TV.
Shades of 'Wag the Dog" and 'Truman'!
Which do you think is a more immediately compelling satire for our time:
one which lampoons a kind of authoritarian government which is rapidly
disappearing in our real world, or one which gets in our face about
the very REAL problem of growing violence and lobotomized TV viewing?
: The propaganda films in 'Starship Troopers' have a radically different
: function, because they're the most overt expression of the ideology of
: the dominant neo-Fascist authoritarian government that dominates the
: characters in the film. As the films are clearly meant to provoke
: laughter, their constantly recurring presence (note that they both open
: and close the film, as well as pop up regularly throughout the
: narrative) therefore forces us to conclude that Verhoeven intends to
: satirise this ideology. And because the characters in the film seem to
: accept its values unquestioningly,
This is incorrect, Michael. In the class-room scene the instructor asks
Rico if he believes in this concept of "citizen" vs. "civilian". Rico
shrugs and says, "I don't know." The movie makes clear that at least
for the first half or so of the movie he is uncertain about these fine
points in the society. He only goes into the military to follow Carmen.
And Diz follows HIM. So the main characters are shown to be far from
being brainwashed into the military.
: ...by logical extension Verhoeven is
: satirising them, too (quite apart from all the blatant take-offs of
: 1950s sci-fi films...
Don't LOTS of sci-fi films have take-offs of OTHER sci-fi films? Does
this automatically mean we can't take them seriously?
: war films...
'Aliens' had LOTS of military humor in it. I don't recall anyone saying
that 'Aliens' was not to be taken seriously.
: ...and glossy soap operas that constantly ram
: home the fact that we're not supposed to take any of this seriously).
Hmmm... and LOTS of movies set in times of war involve turgid love
stories. Like 'The English Patient'. But people (MOST people) took
it seriously.
: I'm not actually arguing that the satirical elements are the *thrust* of
: the film - but I *am* arguing that there is no point in the film,
: assuming you're watching it on its own terms (i.e. not under the
: influence of preconceived ideas derived from a reading of the Heinlein
: novel) where you can forget that the director is satirising the
: foundations on which the film has been constructed, because we are
: constantly being reminded of this. This is why I simply cannot agree
: that the film is "a straight action film with satiric bits thrown in",
Do you have any idea at all what the relative proportions are of those
(in)famous satirical propaganda films vs. the straight, action-packed
battle scenes? Without actually watching the movie again with a couple
of timers in my hand (one to start up during humorous scenes and the
other to have running during all those heart-stopping action scenes
with jaw-dropping special effects), it might be my guess that the
former may comprise, oh, I dunno, maybe 5 to 10 percent of the whole.
The label "a straight action film with satiric bits thrown in" doesn't
sound to me to be too far off the mark.
:> And you mentioned that in the audience in which you saw the film, people
:> were laughing "pretty much from the start to the end. Not _at_ the film,
:> but _with_ the film". I seriously doubt this. This definitely didn't
:> happen in MY audience here in Houston. And why would Europeans find
:> satire about Fascism more amusing than we do?
: They might, they might not. I suspect it's the equally blatant (to
: European eyes, anyway) satire of *American* culture that they were
: responding to - which is certainly the impression I've been getting from
: talking to friends and colleagues.
Let's get right to the meat here: what aspects of *American* culture
were being satirized?? I'd appreciate it if you could itemize a few.
If I'm being obtuse, Michael, please forgive me!
Ummm... the classroom scene with the gung-ho teacher? Haven't Europeans
had similar classrooms? Ummm... the vicious football game? Don't
Europeans (in particular Brits!) go nuts over soccer? Ummm... the
beautiful guys and gals in the film? Is this an *American* phenomenon?
Ummm... the sadistic drill sargeant and horrors of boot-camp? Doesn't
this happen in the military in every country in the world? Ummm... the
rest of the movie was set in outer space. So I'm at a loss as to what
specific part of *American* culture was being lampooned. Please itemize.
:> I strongly suspect that
:> once again you're exaggerating the response of your local audiences.
: I don't think so - for the reasons I've cited above. And plenty of
: other European commentators have noted similar reactions.
I see that you failed to comment on the fact that Geoff Brown made
only the most passing reference to the satire in this most highly
satirical movie! ;-)
:> This seems to be something you do from time to time, as we ALL do!
:> For instance, I remember when you made the claim that you "vividly
:> recall" that there were "countless numbers" of 'Showgirls' reviews
:> that singled out the swimming pool scene for laughter and derision.
:> And then I proceeded to read all 44 reviews of that movie from the
:> IMDB and found exactly TWO reviews that mentioned it in this way.
:> Two out of 44. Enough said.
: Hardly. I can assure you that a substantial number of the reviews that
: I read (which, for obvious reasons, were mostly British) singled out
: that particular scene. One of the few reviews that I have immediately
: to hand - Claire Monk's in the January 1996 issue of Sight and Sound -
: singles out this very scene for derision *twice* (in the first and last
: paragraphs). Was this one of the two reviews that you mentioned?
I don't think so. I don't recall either of the two mentioning that
scene *twice*, so evidently Claire's review was not one of the 44.
I'm not absolutely sure, though...
I'll have to agree with you on one thing, though: if your theory
is correct about American and European opinion differing so strongly
on these certain issues, that is indeed a fascinating phenomenon!
Bryan
Michael Brooke
> I just saw your four-point argument a while ago. I definitely will be
> making a reply to it in a few days. I need a little time for this
> because it's been several months since I saw the movie and although
> I made a videotape of it, I loaned it to a friend. Should have it
> back in a while. I respect your movie knowledge enough that I want
> to refresh my memory of certain scenes before I make my reply! ;-)
In which case you'll be in a much stronger position than me, as I've
only seen the film once, about four months ago!
<I'll return to your point about satire, but I've got a meeting in half
an hour - I always deal with responding to long posts from the bottom
up>
>
> This is incorrect, Michael. In the class-room scene the instructor asks
> Rico if he believes in this concept of "citizen" vs. "civilian". Rico
> shrugs and says, "I don't know." The movie makes clear that at least
> for the first half or so of the movie he is uncertain about these fine
> points in the society. He only goes into the military to follow Carmen.
> And Diz follows HIM. So the main characters are shown to be far from
> being brainwashed into the military.
You may well be right - I'll have to watch the film again - in which
case I must thank you profusely for being the first person in this
thread to come up with an intelligent counter-argument relating to the
film itself, instead of darting up irrelevant blind alleys.
> Do you have any idea at all what the relative proportions are of those
> (in)famous satirical propaganda films vs. the straight, action-packed
> battle scenes? Without actually watching the movie again with a couple
> of timers in my hand (one to start up during humorous scenes and the
> other to have running during all those heart-stopping action scenes
> with jaw-dropping special effects), it might be my guess that the
> former may comprise, oh, I dunno, maybe 5 to 10 percent of the whole.
> The label "a straight action film with satiric bits thrown in" doesn't
> sound to me to be too far off the mark.
I'd be surprised if the propaganda films amount to as much as 10%, but
that isn't my point - my point is that the structure of the film,
opening and closing as it does with the propaganda films, makes it
impossible (for me and many others, anyway) to read anything else in the
film on any terms other than satirical ones.
> Let's get right to the meat here: what aspects of *American* culture
> were being satirized?? I'd appreciate it if you could itemize a few.
> If I'm being obtuse, Michael, please forgive me!
No, not at all. The most obvious indication that the film is satirising
the US as well as European fascism comes right at the beginning, when
Verhoeven explicitly fuses the title "Why We Fight" (a famous series of
American propaganda films - directed by Frank Capra, incidentally) with
imagery lifted straight from both Capra's work and Leni Riefenstahl's.
Fascism exists in many forms, from the more overtly militaristic kind
(present in both the US and Europe) to the "body fascism" that you get
in parts of California, where physical perfection is everything. See
below.
>
> Ummm... the classroom scene with the gung-ho teacher? Haven't Europeans
> had similar classrooms?
Yes, but as the film is also satirising Nazism and fascism that's hardly
surprising!
> Ummm... the vicious football game? Don't
> Europeans (in particular Brits!) go nuts over soccer?
Not "Brits", the English - the Scottish and Welsh normally behave
impeccably, so there's no such thing as a generic "British football
hooligan". But it's worth noting that the Dutch have just as bad a
reputation as the English - not that that's particularly relevant here,
as the thing about football (or soccer, if you will) hooliganism is that
it's carried out between *spectators*, not players!
> Ummm... the
> beautiful guys and gals in the film? Is this an *American* phenomenon?
Actually, yes it is - or at least the phenomenon of casting people so
physically flawless (and lighting them in a way that emphasises that
flawlessness) that you can't believe they're real. Compare a US soap
opera with a British soap opera and you'll see what I mean - we tend to
favour gritty realism, probably because we don't share (utterly reject,
in fact) the Californian obsession with cosmetic surgery and the general
search for physical perfection.
> Ummm... the sadistic drill sargeant and horrors of boot-camp? Doesn't
> this happen in the military in every country in the world?
Yes, but I'm hard pushed to think of any *films* with such scenes that
aren't American! It's such a staple cliché of US war movies that I find
it hard to believe that Verhoeven wasn't specifically satirising them!
> Ummm... the
> rest of the movie was set in outer space.
Indeed it was - and isn't science fiction a staple part of US culture?
> So I'm at a loss as to what
> specific part of *American* culture was being lampooned. Please itemize.
You've done a pretty good job of that yourself!
> :> I strongly suspect that
> :> once again you're exaggerating the response of your local audiences.
>
> : I don't think so - for the reasons I've cited above. And plenty of
> : other European commentators have noted similar reactions.
>
> I see that you failed to comment on the fact that Geoff Brown made
> only the most passing reference to the satire in this most highly
> satirical movie! ;-)
If you want a selection of British reviews that emphasise the film's
satirical aspects, I'd be happy to supply them! The whole point of
reproducing the two Geoff Brown pieces was to counter Mark's repeated
assertions that he couldn't detect any essential difference between
'Starship Troopers' and 'Independence Day' (and Geoff Brown's reviews
were the easiest British ones to find on the Web).
> I'll have to agree with you on one thing, though: if your theory
> is correct about American and European opinion differing so strongly
> on these certain issues, that is indeed a fascinating phenomenon!
Which is of course where we came in - the reception of 'Starship
Troopers' (both critically and commercially) was often radically
different on both sides of the Atlantic.
Jim McLennan
Wo...@wonko.prima.ruhr.de "Wolfgang Falck" writes:
> In article <NyNu1.4723$K4.47...@news.giganews.com>,
> br...@gemini.c-com.net (Bryan Shelton) wrote:
>
> > And you mentioned that in the audience in which you saw the film, people
> > were laughing "pretty much from the start to the end. Not _at_ the film,
> > but _with_ the film". I seriously doubt this. This definitely didn't
> > happen in MY audience here in Houston. And why would Europeans find
> > satire about Fascism more amusing than we do? I strongly suspect that
> > once again you're exaggerating the response of your local audiences.
> > This seems to be something you do from time to time, as we ALL do!
> > For instance, I remember when you made the claim that you "vividly
> > recall" that there were "countless numbers" of 'Showgirls' reviews
> > that singled out the swimming pool scene for laughter and derision.
> > And then I proceeded to read all 44 reviews of that movie from the
> > IMDB and found exactly TWO reviews that mentioned it in this way.
> > Two out of 44. Enough said. I think sometimes we project our own
> > views onto what we think we remember from movies or reviews that we
> > experienced in the past.
> >
>
> Ok if you won't believe him may you'd believe me. In my audience and this
> was at a packed German cinema in fact it was not the local off cinema but
> a mainstream UCI cinema there even was standing ovations at the end of
> this movie. The people laughed so hard with the movie, it was
> unbelievable.
I'm also prepared to back Michael up on this one. When I saw the film,
it definitely got a great audience reaction; I've seen enough bad films
to know when people are laughing AT a movie, and this certainly was NOT
the case with 'Starship Troopers'.
As for why "Europeans find satire about fascism more amusing", it's
probably just that Europeans generally seem to find satire of ANY kind
more amusing than Americans.
--
Jim McLennan
-- TC 20/21 is back from the printers! To see the cover and contents, --
-- or to take part in the Trash City World Cup: --
-- http://www.trshcity.demon.co.uk --
Luis Canau
[...]
>As for why "Europeans find satire about fascism more amusing", it's
>probably just that Europeans generally seem to find satire of ANY kind
>more amusing than Americans.
After just seing "Susana", by Luis Bun~uel and finding the ending very funny,
I went to read some oppinions on my cinemania cd, where L. Maltin says the
movie' is ok, until the "cop-out" ending. Is this a case of lack of sense of
irony? It seemed to me the happy ending was supposed to look ridicullous (the
characters, at least), or am I an over-ironised European? :-)
--
luis canau_________________________________
<luis....@mail.euNOT.pt> euNOT -> EUnet)
cinema: http://home.EUnet.pt/cinedie
opinativo informativo pouco decorativo
____________[pro-widescreen]________________
chameleon
>
> jmcl...@SPAMBLOCKtrashcity.org (Jim McLennan) escreveu:
> [...]
> >As for why "Europeans find satire about fascism more amusing", it's
> >probably just that Europeans generally seem to find satire of ANY kind
> >more amusing than Americans.
Seeing that I (me being Norwegian) saw the film as nothing but a big
soap opera involving a lot of stupid people, stupid bugs, guns and gore,
you may have a point here. I was laughing my ass off throughout the
entire movie, much thanks also to the satirical angle, as I interpreted
it. I guess I can safely say that I, and those I know who have seen it,
saw it as a big parody on not only soap, but Hollywood, and the American
entertainment industry in general. We didn't think too much of fascism
though, the film was a bit to lighthearted to us to have such an effect.
Another example on how we may or may not percieve movies differently in
Europe from how you do in America;
when I went to the premiere of Pulp Fiction in my hometown (Oslo), the
scene that arose the loudest, longest and _most_ laughter was the scene
where this guy's head gets blown off in the backseat. Practically the
entire theatre just turned into one laughing orgy. Now tell me, is this
the consensus in America too? That this is funny? Or are we sick over
here? What about other European countries?
Einar
--
- Einar Sjursø
Bryan Shelton
: Seeing that I (me being Norwegian) saw the film as nothing but a big
: you may have a point here. I was laughing my ass off throughout the
: entire movie, much thanks also to the satirical angle, as I interpreted
: it.
Ahhh... you were laughing your ass off throughout the ENTIRE movie, which
includes all the very lengthy horrific battle scenes, full of graphic
images of soldiers being impaled, decapitated, dismembered and sliced
into pieces, and sights of dismembered and decapitated corpses and
various body parts strewn across the landscape? This was a real
laugh-riot for you? Do you think this was in any way the reaction
of a reasonable and rational individual to such horrifying scenes?
: I guess I can safely say that I, and those I know who have seen it,
: saw it as a big parody on not only soap, but Hollywood, and the American
: entertainment industry in general.
Michael has been attempting to explain to me what he sees as satire
directed at "American culture". Perhaps you would be kind enough
to tell me what you see as a parody on Hollywood and "the American
entertainment industry in general".
: Another example on how we may or may not percieve movies differently in
: Europe from how you do in America;
: when I went to the premiere of Pulp Fiction in my hometown (Oslo), the
: scene that arose the loudest, longest and _most_ laughter was the scene
: where this guy's head gets blown off in the backseat. Practically the
: entire theatre just turned into one laughing orgy.
I'm absolutely ASTOUNDED by this statement! Are you completely serious?
: Now tell me, is this the consensus in America too? That this is funny?
No. I'm sure the consensus here is that this was the GROSSEST scene
in the movie. In fact, I remember our critics Siskel & Ebert warning
their TV audience that a lot of people were probably going to be turned
off by that particular scene. That Tarantino had stepped over the line.
: Or are we sick over here?
Gosh, I'm hard-pressed to think of ANY OTHER explanation...
Bryan
Michael Brooke
> chameleon <esj...@sn.no> wrote:
> : Seeing that I (me being Norwegian) saw the film as nothing but a big
> : soap opera involving a lot of stupid people, stupid bugs, guns and gore,
> : you may have a point here. I was laughing my ass off throughout the
> : entire movie, much thanks also to the satirical angle, as I interpreted
> : it.
>
> Ahhh... you were laughing your ass off throughout the ENTIRE movie, which
> includes all the very lengthy horrific battle scenes, full of graphic
> images of soldiers being impaled, decapitated, dismembered and sliced
> into pieces, and sights of dismembered and decapitated corpses and
> various body parts strewn across the landscape? This was a real
> laugh-riot for you? Do you think this was in any way the reaction
> of a reasonable and rational individual to such horrifying scenes?
If you read the film in the way I suspect you were meant to read it,
then yes - it's an entirely reasonable and rational reaction. I also
found those scenes hilarious, precisely *because* they were so
ludicrously extreme. And this absolutely ties in with Einar's (and my)
reaction to 'Pulp Fiction' below.
I'd better stress that I'd only find such scenes funny if the context
clearly suggests that I'm supposed to - for example, I didn't laugh once
during the Russian film 'Come and See' (one of the most relentlessly
gruelling experiences I've ever had in the cinema), and I doubt I'm
going to find 'Saving Private Ryan' particularly amusing either. The
crucial difference is that in those films you genuinely care about the
characters and what happens to them, which absolutely is not the case
with 'Starship Troopers' or 'Pulp Fiction'.
> : I guess I can safely say that I, and those I know who have seen it,
> : saw it as a big parody on not only soap, but Hollywood, and the American
> : entertainment industry in general.
>
> Michael has been attempting to explain to me what he sees as satire
> directed at "American culture". Perhaps you would be kind enough
> to tell me what you see as a parody on Hollywood and "the American
> entertainment industry in general".
The American entertainment industry is notorious for churning out
glossy, vacuous, stereotyped crap. What 'Starship Troopers' does is to
take stock characters straight from US soaps, sci-fi and war movies, and
then eviscerate them in a truly spectacular way - which of course also
relates to why those scenes are funny: characters like this aren't used
to blood and entrails and severed limbs because the kind of films and TV
programmes they normally appear in are supposed to be family-friendly (I
honestly can't remember this, but does anyone utter any four-letter
words at any point in the film?).
> : Another example on how we may or may not percieve movies differently in
> : Europe from how you do in America;
>
> : when I went to the premiere of Pulp Fiction in my hometown (Oslo), the
> : scene that arose the loudest, longest and _most_ laughter was the scene
> : where this guy's head gets blown off in the backseat. Practically the
> : entire theatre just turned into one laughing orgy.
>
> I'm absolutely ASTOUNDED by this statement! Are you completely serious?
I noticed a near-identical reaction in the audience I saw 'Pulp Fiction'
with, and I remember being fascinated by it at the time. The friend I
saw the film with was also laughing (as was I), and one of the first
things we talked about afterwards was that particular scene and the
reaction it got. My friend, incidentally, really hated the film - so
she was particularly intrigued by her own reaction.
> : Now tell me, is this the consensus in America too? That this is funny?
>
> No. I'm sure the consensus here is that this was the GROSSEST scene
> in the movie. In fact, I remember our critics Siskel & Ebert warning
> their TV audience that a lot of people were probably going to be turned
> off by that particular scene. That Tarantino had stepped over the line.
Actually, I'd argue that the laughter was *because* the scene was so
extreme, and *because* Tarantino had so clearly stepped over the line.
There's absolutely nothing in the actual content of the scene that is in
itself particularly funny - so why else did the audience(s) laugh?
> : Or are we sick over here?
>
> Gosh, I'm hard-pressed to think of ANY OTHER explanation...
It depends on whether you always take things absolutely literally or
whether you accept that it's possible to use extreme violence for comic
effect - which has a long and noble tradition in British comedy.
For example, how do you react to the scene in 'Monty Python and the Holy
Grail' where the knight gets his arms and legs chopped off in full,
blood-spurting close-up? Or, better still, the notorious 'Sam
Peckinpah's Salad Days' sketch, in which a country picnic becomes a
bloodbath on a scale that would make Peter Jackson jealous? Or indeed,
now that I've brought him up, films like 'Bad Taste' or 'Braindead'
['Dead/Alive'], or the work of Sam Raimi, or 'Flesh for Frankenstein'?
People laugh at those films *despite* the gore (and I've cited some of
the goriest films ever made in that last paragraph) because the context
tells them that it's supposed to be funny. And although 'Pulp Fiction'
and 'Starship Troopers' are less overtly comedic (this is where the
distinction between satire and outright comedy comes in), the context
still suggests that we're meant to find this stuff funny.
chameleon
Thanks, Michael, that was exactly what I was meaning to say, only you
said it so much better :)
Einar
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> JAN SVANKMAJER - ALCHEMIST OF THE SURREAL
> http://www.illumin.co.uk/svank
> a lavish tribute to the cinema's wildest imagination
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
--
- Einar Sjursø
Wolfgang Falck
br...@gemini.c-com.net (Bryan Shelton) wrote:
> chameleon <esj...@sn.no> wrote:
> : Seeing that I (me being Norwegian) saw the film as nothing but a big
> : soap opera involving a lot of stupid people, stupid bugs, guns and gore,
> : you may have a point here. I was laughing my ass off throughout the
> : entire movie, much thanks also to the satirical angle, as I interpreted
> : it.
>
> Ahhh... you were laughing your ass off throughout the ENTIRE movie, which
> includes all the very lengthy horrific battle scenes, full of graphic
> images of soldiers being impaled, decapitated, dismembered and sliced
> into pieces, and sights of dismembered and decapitated corpses and
> various body parts strewn across the landscape? This was a real
> laugh-riot for you?
Exactly!
> Do you think this was in any way the reaction of a reasonable and
> rational individual to such horrifying scenes?
Yes you were supposed to do so! Supposed to hate those idiotic characters:
"Ahh more flesh to the grinder!"
>
> : I guess I can safely say that I, and those I know who have seen it,
> : saw it as a big parody on not only soap, but Hollywood, and the American
> : entertainment industry in general.
>
> Michael has been attempting to explain to me what he sees as satire
> directed at "American culture". Perhaps you would be kind enough
> to tell me what you see as a parody on Hollywood and "the American
> entertainment industry in general".
>
> : Another example on how we may or may not percieve movies differently in
> : Europe from how you do in America;
>
> : when I went to the premiere of Pulp Fiction in my hometown (Oslo), the
> : scene that arose the loudest, longest and _most_ laughter was the scene
> : where this guy's head gets blown off in the backseat. Practically the
> : entire theatre just turned into one laughing orgy.
>
> I'm absolutely ASTOUNDED by this statement! Are you completely serious?
>
> : Now tell me, is this the consensus in America too? That this is funny?
>
> No. I'm sure the consensus here is that this was the GROSSEST scene
> in the movie. In fact, I remember our critics Siskel & Ebert warning
> their TV audience that a lot of people were probably going to be turned
> off by that particular scene. That Tarantino had stepped over the line.
>
So Siskel&Ebert are wussies knowing their fellow countryman and their
audience. Good for them, bad for their audience and indeed very bad for
us all. Cause of Hollywood reacting to such strange marketing ideas, like
pre screening everything over and over again and listening to what the
average Joe Doe thinks we all get such incredible movies like ID.
Ok I know this one was directed by a fellow from germany but what should
I expect as I disliked most of his former work! Ahh yes of course such
a lamer was perfect Hollywood fodder.
> : Or are we sick over here?
>
> Gosh, I'm hard-pressed to think of ANY OTHER explanation...
>
Of course the only explanation available, US Citizens are so sick of it
(graphic sex and violence) they will on the long run rule out all those
ideas to complicated to understand and soften out into complete dumbness!
What a pity that this already seems to work on you Bryan
Philipp Lenssen
> The
> crucial difference is that in those films you genuinely care about the
> characters and what happens to them, which absolutely is not the case
> with 'Starship Troopers' or 'Pulp Fiction'.
I disagree it has something to do with how much you care for characters
if you laugh at killings. Even if an anonymous crowd is killed, that on
its own isn't funny, though you may not feel sorry, or be scared,
shocked, etc. by it.
>..
> > : Now tell me, is this the consensus in America too? That this is funny?
> >
> > No. I'm sure the consensus here is that this was the GROSSEST scene
> > in the movie. In fact, I remember our critics Siskel & Ebert warning
> > their TV audience that a lot of people were probably going to be turned
> > off by that particular scene. That Tarantino had stepped over the line.
>
> Actually, I'd argue that the laughter was *because* the scene was so
> extreme, and *because* Tarantino had so clearly stepped over the line.
> There's absolutely nothing in the actual content of the scene that is in
> itself particularly funny - so why else did the audience(s) laugh?
>
The point of the scene was that it's a pointless killing. The only
reason was within the killer himself, which made it to the godly act, no
other force, circumstances, plot, the boss, called for it. It was so
cruel because the life of the character was absolutely in the hands of
Vincent.
>..
> For example, how do you react to the scene in 'Monty Python and the Holy
> Grail' where the knight gets his arms and legs chopped off in full,
> blood-spurting close-up? Or, better still, the notorious 'Sam
> Peckinpah's Salad Days' sketch, in which a country picnic becomes a
> bloodbath on a scale that would make Peter Jackson jealous? Or indeed,
> now that I've brought him up, films like 'Bad Taste' or 'Braindead'
> ['Dead/Alive'], or the work of Sam Raimi, or 'Flesh for Frankenstein'?
>
> People laugh at those films *despite* the gore (and I've cited some of
> the goriest films ever made in that last paragraph) because the context
> tells them that it's supposed to be funny. And although 'Pulp Fiction'
> and 'Starship Troopers' are less overtly comedic (this is where the
> distinction between satire and outright comedy comes in), the context
> still suggests that we're meant to find this stuff funny.
>..
The comedy effect here is always the absurdness of the scenes, of
something going ways that things don't normally go, of structure falling
apart, chaos. Dark humor is closely related to death. The Vincent Vega
kill in Pulp Fiction is absurd, body parts lying around en masse in
Starship Troopers is absurd, as is Braindead's zombie party show-down,
or the holy grail scene. You _don't_ want to fight on without arms and
legs, you _don't_ accidentally shoot someone, you _don't_ put a baby in
the mixer, and so on. The problem is with a global audience of today,
the satirized subject may very well be too close to the truth somewhere.
Like the satire which advices you to eat your kids when you're hungry.
If you tell this to a cannibal, he might think that you're sick. The
context of the society you live in and of the values you take for
granted might be lost on someone else. What would be so absurd about
mass killings in a concentration camp, how would you spot an even
not-so-subtle satire on fascism if you actually live inside fascism. It
works the other way round, too. If I listen to Nazi Goebbels speech in
the Berlin Sport Stadium, this sounds so absurd, as if he was doing a
satire ("Do you want the total war?" "Yes!" and so on). This is very sad
but at the same time the only reaction that I have towards this, due to
the lack of any rational explanation, is a grin (and yes this is a
different kind of grin then when you see a kid playing, or someone gives
you a present. Come to think of it, there can be many different reasons
for laughing at a movie). To parodize Hitler nowadays in germany is not
to exxagerate him, you just need to say exactly the same things in the
exact same way, and you'll have a laugh.
Bryan Shelton
Just a couple of comments about what Philipp said:
Philipp Lenssen <Jes...@t-online.de> wrote:
: Bryan Shelton wrote:
:>..
:> were in fact pretty convincing. He found these very compelling
:> statements straight from the horse's mouth: "Q: How much of that did
:> you intend as satirical? A: I tried to indicate that without making it
:> into the essence of the movie. Because I think the essence of the movie
:> is really young kids fighting giant bugs". And this: "It is a Western.
:> It's a classical Western situation, absolutely". There you have it.
:> Right from the man himself. And it's not lost on me that so far (Sunday
:>..
: The first one to say that Leni Riefenstahl's movie are not political or
: following fascist ideology is, you guessed it, Leni Riefenstahl herself
Sure, but if YOU were Leni Riefenstahl, wouldn't YOU say that, too? ;-)
I bet that is one woman who REALLY tried to remain inconspicuous after
the war!
: <<snip>>
: But the absolute out-of-proportions big scale of the war fought (and the
: fact that it will go on, as mentioned in the end) is needed to
: strengthen the meaninglessnes of it (if you want to parodize a genre
: without keeping to its essence the effect is lost).
I guess I don't understand what you mean by "out-of-proportions" and
"meaninglessness". The movie made it quite clear that the humans were
FIGHTING FOR THEIR LIVES! Look at the devastating attack launched on
Buenos Aires by the bugs. Or were you referring to the FUTILITY of the
humans' continued battle against the bugs? Remember that the movie
ends on an up-note: the capture of the "brain-bug", suggesting that
the tide of battle had turned.
: ...And how serious can
: "young kids fighting giant bugs" be taken under the circumstances which
: the movie does stress (and I don't think anybody would disagree the
: circumstances which literally surround the movie, being at the very
: beginning and end, can be taken serious).
Of course not. But the beginning and ending sequences are completely
separated from the battle sequences in time and in tone. The warfare
is graphic and visceral and isn't mitigated (much less made hilarious)
by the fact that Verhoeven made some rather juvenile jokes at the
beginning.
: ...Adam Smith in the new Empire
: says of the movie it "may well be one of the snidest gags ever played on
: the American psyche" (with even the majority of actors themselves not
: knowing they're part of a "mischievous joke"): the more reactions I read
: on the movie the more I'm convinced it was indeed needed in that sense,
: and did work.
Well, once again I request that somebody reveal to me what the "gag"
or the "joke" was! Or was it just the list of things Michael and I
came up with? Seems rather insufficient to deserve the description,
"snidest gag ever played on the American psyche"!
Bryan
Bryan Shelton
:> Ahhh... you were laughing your ass off throughout the ENTIRE movie, which
:> includes all the very lengthy horrific battle scenes, full of graphic
:> images of soldiers being impaled, decapitated, dismembered and sliced
:> into pieces, and sights of dismembered and decapitated corpses and
:> various body parts strewn across the landscape? This was a real
:> of a reasonable and rational individual to such horrifying scenes?
: If you read the film in the way I suspect you were meant to read it,
: then yes - it's an entirely reasonable and rational reaction. I also
: found those scenes hilarious, precisely *because* they were so
: ludicrously extreme.
But the scenes WERE NOT "ludicrously extreme"! They might be an
accurate depiction of what such battles would be like, assuming their
sci-fi premise actually came true. Do you think that REAL battles have
been a lot more clean and sanitary? Do you think that soldiers throughout
history have never been bayoneted, decapitated, or blown to pieces? These
things (or their equivalent) were depicted with frightening realism in the
movie, and without benefit of any kind of mitigating humor such as in the
Black Knight scene in Monty Python, to which you refer below.
: ...And this absolutely ties in with Einar's (and my)
: reaction to 'Pulp Fiction' below.
: I'd better stress that I'd only find such scenes funny if the context
: clearly suggests that I'm supposed to - for example, I didn't laugh once
: during the Russian film 'Come and See' (one of the most relentlessly
: gruelling experiences I've ever had in the cinema), and I doubt I'm
: going to find 'Saving Private Ryan' particularly amusing either. The
: crucial difference is that in those films you genuinely care about the
: characters and what happens to them, which absolutely is not the case
: with 'Starship Troopers' or 'Pulp Fiction'.
Hmmm... you seem to be changing horses in mid-stream. First you maintain,
correctly, that a violent scene can be funny in the *context* of humor.
Then you turn right around and say that the crucial condition is that we
not care about the characters under stress. These are two entirely
different things. And I don't agree with the second one, BTW.
<<snip>>
: I noticed a near-identical reaction in the audience I saw 'Pulp Fiction'
: with, and I remember being fascinated by it at the time. The friend I
: saw the film with was also laughing (as was I), [...]
: Actually, I'd argue that the laughter was *because* the scene was so
: extreme, and *because* Tarantino had so clearly stepped over the line.
: There's absolutely nothing in the actual content of the scene that is in
: itself particularly funny - so why else did the audience(s) laugh?
You're asking ME?! :-)
So does this mean that you're INCAPABLE of being offended by any scene,
no matter how gross, vile, disgusting, or violent it is? Because if it
is simply extreme ENOUGH, you will be reduced to uncontrollable fits of
laughter?
:> : Or are we sick over here?
:>
:> Gosh, I'm hard-pressed to think of ANY OTHER explanation...
: It depends on whether you always take things absolutely literally or
: whether you accept that it's possible to use extreme violence for comic
: effect - which has a long and noble tradition in British comedy.
: For example, how do you react to the scene in 'Monty Python and the Holy
: Grail' where the knight gets his arms and legs chopped off in full,
: blood-spurting close-up?
Ah, now we're getting to the heart of the matter! Yes, I laughed at that
scene (nervously) because IT WAS A COMIC SCENE! I haven't seen that film
in more than 20 years, so my memory may be a bit fuzzy. But I seem
to recall that the Black Knight gets a foot chopped off but wants
to continue the fight saying, "It's just a flesh wound!" And King Arthur
says, "Your bleedin' foot's cut off, you silly ass!" and then after
being reduced to a limbless torso sitting on the ground, he STILL says,
"Come back! I'll bite you on the ankle!" or some such... Do you now
understand, Michael, that this has ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE WHATEVER
to the battle scenes in "Starship Troopers"? There was no humor involved
in those scenes! The bugs didn't quip one-liners as they were graphically
decapitating the soldiers! It was all deadly serious. And the fact that
maybe a half-hour before there was one of the silly propaganda films does
not somehow cast the onscreen carnage in a new and mirthful light.
: ...Or, better still, the notorious 'Sam
: Peckinpah's Salad Days' sketch, in which a country picnic becomes a
: bloodbath on a scale that would make Peter Jackson jealous? Or indeed,
: now that I've brought him up, films like 'Bad Taste' or 'Braindead'
: ['Dead/Alive'], or the work of Sam Raimi, or 'Flesh for Frankenstein'?
I haven't seen these, so I can't really comment. But I suspect that
they are in fact funny because they have comedic elements.
: People laugh at those films *despite* the gore (and I've cited some of
: the goriest films ever made in that last paragraph) because the context
: tells them that it's supposed to be funny.
Of course. I personally got a big kick out of the last scene in
"Andy Warhol's Frankenstein" where Dr. Frankenstein gets impaled with
a huge, long pole (with his liver or something dangling from the tip
of the pole several feet away!) and he slowly turns around to face the
audience and (since the movie is in 3-D) that damned pole with the liver
dangling from it swings right up to our faces! Hilarious!
: ...And although 'Pulp Fiction'
: and 'Starship Troopers' are less overtly comedic (this is where the
: distinction between satire and outright comedy comes in), the context
: still suggests that we're meant to find this stuff funny.
The context FROM A DIFFERENT PART OF THE MOVIE ENTIRELY is satirical.
The battle scenes are played straight as an arrow. It's inconceivable
to me (or to my friend to whom I referred in an earlier post and who
just got through watching the film and now agrees with me on this) that
anyone would find the battle scenes amusing.
Bryan
Wolfgang Falck
There you have it. If you're going to watch the movie again be careful of
this very crucial point. When you get the impression that the ads and news
are government means for manipulation of society you don't see a
devastating attack launched on Buenos Aires by bugs. Instead you'll be
able to see a government using the forging of news namely an asteroid
destroying Buenos Aires to get a certain reaction from their people by
blaming the catastrophe on the bugs for there actually is no proof that
the bugs had anything to do with it at all!
Later however there is proof that a prepared government would at least
have had means to evacuate parts of Buenos Aires or even destroy the
asteroid!
So you had the misreception that when there is something in the news it's
plain truth! Do you wanna know more?
Philipp Lenssen
>
> In article <y5Tw1.6393$k73.2...@news.giganews.com>,
> br...@gemini.c-com.net (Bryan Shelton) wrote:
> >
> > Just a couple of comments about what Philipp said:
> >
> > Philipp Lenssen <Jes...@t-online.de> wrote:
> > : <<snip>>
> > : But the absolute out-of-proportions big scale of the war fought (and the
> > : fact that it will go on, as mentioned in the end) is needed to
> > : strengthen the meaninglessnes of it (if you want to parodize a genre
> > : without keeping to its essence the effect is lost).
> >
> > I guess I don't understand what you mean by "out-of-proportions" and
> > "meaninglessness". The movie made it quite clear that the humans were
> > FIGHTING FOR THEIR LIVES! Look at the devastating attack launched on
> > Buenos Aires by the bugs.
>
(Bryan Shelton: Yeah, right. There was a big meaning to it. Just look at
the 'news', which are very objective, being a one-channel fascistic TV
program.)
> There you have it. If you're going to watch the movie again be careful of
> this very crucial point. When you get the impression that the ads and news
> are government means for manipulation of society you don't see a
> devastating attack launched on Buenos Aires by bugs. Instead you'll be
> able to see a government using the forging of news namely an asteroid
> destroying Buenos Aires to get a certain reaction from their people by
> blaming the catastrophe on the bugs for there actually is no proof that
> the bugs had anything to do with it at all!
>
> Later however there is proof that a prepared government would at least
> have had means to evacuate parts of Buenos Aires or even destroy the
> asteroid!
>..
Yes, there was the feeling to it those bugs were as responsible for that
desaster as were the jews for burning the Reichstag. It's interesting
how the big-scale attack can be seen as "fighting for their lives", when
neither it was self-defense (and some people may mix up revenge with
self-defense, which clearly does not include invading another planet,
then capturing and torturing some of it's beings), nor was there
actually any life-saving tendency to it (when it looked like thousands
of their own people were killed as cannon-fodder).
Take the scene when they record some interviews on-board:
Trooper: "I just hope it's not over before we get some."...Host: "Some
say the bugs were provoked by the intrusion of humans into their natural
habitat, that a 'live and let live'-policy is preferable to war with the
bugs..." ...Rico: "Let me tell you something, I'm from Buenos Aires, and
I say: kill them all!"
Mpoconnor7
>> > Buenos Aires by the bugs.
>>
I couldn't understand how a race like the Arachnids with no tangible technology
were able to send an asteroid all the way across the Galaxy in such a short
time (a couple of months?) and hit Buenos Aries with pinpoint accuracy. In the
news reports they blamed it on "Bug Plasma"; this rock would have had to have
been travelling very, very fast.
Don't get me wrong, I loved the movie. I thought it was the best black comedy
in years. But there were a lot of "holes" in the plot and this was one of the
big ones.
Michael Brooke
Verhoeven's reply to this and similar points is to emphasise that the
film is science FICTION - "In sci-fi films illogicality comes with the
genre".
The vast majority of sci-fi films (just about anything that uses time
travel as a plot device, for instance) come apart when subjected to this
kind of scrutiny - and it's rather less relevant with this particular
film, given that Verhoeven's tongue was very obviously in his cheek
throughout!
Michael
Wolfgang Falck
mpoco...@aol.com (Mpoconnor7) wrote:
> > Look at the devastating attack launched on
> >> > Buenos Aires by the bugs.
> >>
>
> I couldn't understand how a race like the Arachnids with no tangible
> technology were able to send an asteroid all the way across the Galaxy in
> such a short time (a couple of months?) and hit Buenos Aries with pinpoint
> accuracy. In the news reports they blamed it on "Bug Plasma"; this rock
> would have had to have been travelling very, very fast.
> Don't get me wrong, I loved the movie. I thought it was the best black
> comedy in years. But there were a lot of "holes" in the plot and this was
> one of the big ones.
Accept this plothole as you name it as a plot device. Got the idea?
le...@ix.netcom.com
> Verhoeven's reply to this and similar points is to emphasise that the
> film is science FICTION - "In sci-fi films illogicality comes with the
> genre".
And as my boy Kurt Vonnegut said, "Science fiction writers are synonymous with
cartoonists."
-Mike
--
"What was once rebellion is now clearly just a social sect,
but are you just upset cuz your own social clique has left?"
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
SHANNON E HUBBELL
> Actually, I did laugh my ass off, because those scenes were so unbelievable,
> and the acting so horrific, it came off as funny. I have never seen a worse
> movie in my entire life. If you want to see horrific battle scenes, see
> All's Quiet on the Western Front, Bridge Over the River Kwai, Apocalypse Now,
> or even Spielberg's new flick. But, Starship Troopers was a genuine big
> propaganda piece of shit.
if you actually feel that ST was a piece of propaganda, then i feel sorry
for you and most of the film-viewing public (or the public in
general, for that matter) because at some point you all lost your sense of
irony.
shannon
Mpoconnor7
It was not propaganda, rather it was a satire of propaganda films made by the
Allies and Nazis from WW2.
Thomas Franklin Harris Jr
: It was not propaganda, rather it was a satire of propaganda films made by the
: Allies and Nazis from WW2.
If it was meant to be satire, it failed. The actors are too earnist and
the script too dumb to convey satire.
Of course, if it was meant to be straight SF, it also failed. And if it
was meant as just a passable action movie, it didn't do too well, either
-- as even action movies need to make some sense.
Maybe it was just meant to be stupid, like a "Dumb and Dumber." Nah,
everyone's still too earnest.
Maybe it was meant to be a failure?
--
******
T. Franklin Harris, Jr.
tfha...@HiWAAY.net
"[T]he more taboos and prohibitions there are in the world,
the poorer the people will be;..." -- Lao-Tzu
Frank B.
familiar ?
--
"I will have the most ETHICAL administration in history!" Clinton; Nov.
'92
Bryan Shelton
: Of course, if it was meant to be straight SF, it also failed. And if it
: was meant as just a passable action movie, it didn't do too well, either
: -- as even action movies need to make some sense.
Sheesh! What exactly is your problem with it?? I've polled a few people
at work; we ALL like it (as straight SF) a lot. Everybody has given it
a rating of either 3, 3 1/2, or 4 stars.
Bryan
Harris Porter
>
>Mpoconnor7 <mpoco...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>: It was not propaganda, rather it was a satire of propaganda films
>: Allies and Nazis from WW2.
>
>the script too dumb to convey satire.
>
>was meant as just a passable action movie, it didn't do too well,
either
>-- as even action movies need to make some sense.
>
>everyone's still too earnest.
>
Lord knows that it's not meant to be realistic, but one aspect that is
overlooked is the fact of WHERE'S THE ARMORED GROUND SUPPORT? No tanks,
no armored vehicles, nothing. How does it make sense that we'd just
send in wave after wave of infantry against a clearly superior foe.
Discounting the one shot in the film of air support napalming the
planet, wouldn't it make more sense to send in some type of armored
vehicles against the bugs? Instead, we get what amounts to pitting an
infant against a herd of lions.
MrBlue845
>at work; we ALL like it (as straight SF) a lot. Everybody has given it
>a rating of either 3, 3 1/2, or 4 stars.
I like the movie a helluva lot as a cheesy non-plot action movie with SF
overtones (plus it has Denise Richards). Basically a great movie to watch with
a few beers. Everyone is slagging this movie as if it was supposed to be a
"serious" SF movie... come on, didn't you think anything when they played "Song
2" in the preview?
Mr. Blue (mrbl...@aol.com)
Check out my movie review/John Woo tribute site at:
http://members.aol.com/mrblue845/reviews.html
"Give a man a gun and he thinks he's Superman" - HardBoiled
Bryan Shelton
: I like the movie a helluva lot as a cheesy non-plot action movie
: with SF overtones (plus it has Denise Richards).
Oh, man!! I dunno about the rest of you guys, but I'd sell my soul
to the devil for 30 minutes alone with Denise Richards!
: ...Basically a great movie to watch with
: a few beers. Everyone is slagging this movie as if it was supposed
: to be a "serious" SF movie... come on, didn't you think anything when
: they played "Song 2" in the preview?
Well, Verhoeven is attempting to have it both ways in this particular
film: it's mainly a slam-bam action sci-fi shoot-'em-up with spectacular
special effects for the kid in all of us; that is, about 90% or so of it
is this way. But then for the intellectuals among us, the cinematic
*cognoscente*, he throws in a few satirical elements here and there
that range from obvious to subtle. How well this works is a matter
of opinion. My friend who recently watched it for the first time
felt obliged to subtract a full star from the rating he WOULD have
given it because he felt this conflicting style did not work to the
movie's advantage. I believe he said he WOULD have given it four stars
had it stuck to the serious approach, but ended up giving it only three.
BTW, he said he felt that the propaganda films that punctuated the movie
were completely LUDICROUS. He said that for him, these actually required
a LARGER suspension of disbelief than was required for the actual sci-fi
elements, because he just could not make himself believe that a future
society would still use old WWII era newsreel techniques.
Bryan
Jim McLennan
br...@gemini.c-com.net "Bryan Shelton" writes:
> MrBlue845 <mrbl...@aol.com> wrote:
> : I like the movie a helluva lot as a cheesy non-plot action movie
> : with SF overtones (plus it has Denise Richards).
>
> Oh, man!! I dunno about the rest of you guys, but I'd sell my soul
> to the devil for 30 minutes alone with Denise Richards!
I take it you've seen 'Wild Things' then....? :-)
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
Denise Richards and Neve Campbell in three in a bed romp. Mm-MMM...
Er, we now return you to your normal programming i.e. largely people
failing to understand 'Starship Troopers'... :-) Oh, sod it, on second
thoughts, let's just keep thinking about Denise and Neve... <vbeg>
--
Jim McLennan
-- TC 20/21 is back from the printers! To see the cover and contents, --
-- http://www.trshcity.demon.co.uk --
Ulrich Schreglmann
SHANNON E HUBBELL <se...@gnofn.org> wrote:
> mis...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > Actually, I did laugh my ass off, because those scenes were so unbelievable,
> > and the acting so horrific, it came off as funny. I have never seen a worse
> > movie in my entire life. If you want to see horrific battle scenes, see
> > All's Quiet on the Western Front, Bridge Over the River Kwai, Apocalypse
Now,
> > or even Spielberg's new flick. But, Starship Troopers was a genuine big
> > propaganda piece of shit.
> if you actually feel that ST was a piece of propaganda, then i feel sorry
> for you and most of the film-viewing public (or the public in
> general, for that matter) because at some point you all lost your sense of
> irony.
If they ever had it. When you make a straight-faced remark that is
recognizable as a joke only through its absurdity, your audience is
divided into three groups:
a) Those who laugh and appreciate the joke.
b) Those who know it's a joke but don't find it funny or just generally
sneer at anyone who would stoop so low as to make jokes.
c) Those who not only fail to appreciate the joke but don't notice it
as one at all, expressing their opinion about of edging away from a
guy who is apparently dangerously insane to make an absurd remark
like that.
There's some bleeding into each other between group b) and c). When
identifying a joke as such in advance you'll be mostly unable to dis-
tinguish the two.
Actually c) are the most preferable audience. Not only do they not
derail your train of thought with impromptu laughter and apprecia-
tion, they also provide nearly unlimited material for further sar-
casm.
That's why I LOVE to hang around in groups with Starship Troopers
bashers in'em.
Ool.
mailto:s...@forwiss.de
http://www.forwiss.de/~uhschreg/
"There's nothing good--unless you do't." (German saying, stupid translation)
Mpoconnor7
>recognizable as a joke only through its absurdity, your audience is
>divided into three groups:
>
>a) Those who laugh and appreciate the joke.
>b) Those who know it's a joke but don't find it funny or just generally
> sneer at anyone who would stoop so low as to make jokes.
>c) Those who not only fail to appreciate the joke but don't notice it
> as one at all, expressing their opinion about of edging away from a
> guy who is apparently dangerously insane to make an absurd remark
> like that.
>
>There's some bleeding into each other between group b) and c). When
>identifying a joke as such in advance you'll be mostly unable to dis-
>tinguish the two.
>
>Actually c) are the most preferable audience. Not only do they not
>derail your train of thought with impromptu laughter and apprecia-
>tion, they also provide nearly unlimited material for further sar-
>casm.
>
>That's why I LOVE to hang around in groups with Starship Troopers
>bashers in'em.
I don't see how one could watch the scene with the cow being put in the room
with the Arachnid and not laugh. The "censored" box
covered the cow's body but you saw the blood and body parts flying everywhere.
The same can be said for the scene with the newsreel with the soldiers and the
kids where the kids were playing tug of war with the gun, and it ended with the
soldiers handing out bullets to the kids.
Martin Koolhoven
SHANNON E HUBBELL wrote:
> mis...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > Actually, I did laugh my ass off, because those scenes were so unbelievable,
> > and the acting so horrific, it came off as funny. I have never seen a worse
> > movie in my entire life. If you want to see horrific battle scenes, see
> > All's Quiet on the Western Front, Bridge Over the River Kwai, Apocalypse Now,
> > or even Spielberg's new flick. But, Starship Troopers was a genuine big
> > propaganda piece of shit.
>
> if you actually feel that ST was a piece of propaganda, then i feel sorry
> for you and most of the film-viewing public (or the public in
> general, for that matter) because at some point you all lost your sense of
> irony.
Well spoken