Dialogue Cut From "Starship Troopers" Film
JohnnyPez9
I only have *two* rules! Everyone fights! No one quits! Take no prisoners!
THREE rules! I only have THREE rules! Everyone fights! No one quits! Take
no prisoners! No fragging officers! *FOUR* rules! I only have...
(a beat)
Aw, fuck it, just go out and kill something.
Johnny Pez
Hello, my name is Bambi. You killed my mother. Prepare to die.
Dorothy J Heydt
To paraphrase a button of yore:
If they could cut one passage of dialogue from ST, why couldn't
they cut ALL of it?
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
_A Point of Honor_ is out....
tomlinson
: If they could cut one passage of dialogue from ST, why couldn't
: they cut ALL of it?
Didn't they? Certainly someone can answer that--did _anything_
of Heinlein's prose or dialogue make it into Verhoeven's film?
-tomlinson
--
Ernest S. Tomlinson - San Diego State University
------------------------------------------------
Gary Farber
: Dorothy J Heydt (djh...@kithrup.com) wrote:
: : If they could cut one passage of dialogue from ST, why couldn't
: : they cut ALL of it?
: Didn't they? Certainly someone can answer that--did _anything_
: of Heinlein's prose or dialogue make it into Verhoeven's film?
Sure. The movie used words such as "is" and "the," "he," "her," "him,"
"his," "me," "ship," "fight," and quite a few other bits of Heinlein's
prose quite frequently.
It wasn't so good at the more strung-out stuff, but that's not what you
asked about.
--
Copyright 1999 by Gary Farber; Web Researcher; Nonfiction Writer,
Fiction and Nonfiction Editor; gfa...@panix.com; B'klyn, NYC, US
Gary Farber
: Rasczak: I only have one rule! Everyone fights! No one quits! *Two* rules!
: THREE rules! I only have THREE rules! Everyone fights! No one quits! Take
: no prisoners! No fragging officers! *FOUR* rules! I only have...
: (a beat)
: Aw, fuck it, just go out and kill something.
They weren't competent to follow this rule in the movie, though.
"Bunch up and die while not possessing adequate weapons" seems to have
been the rule of the day. "Never learn any tactics" was another. It's a
long list, really.
[. . . .]
John Scott
(tomlinson) wrote:
> Dorothy J Heydt (djh...@kithrup.com) wrote:
>
> : If they could cut one passage of dialogue from ST, why couldn't
> : they cut ALL of it?
>
> Didn't they? Certainly someone can answer that--did _anything_
> of Heinlein's prose or dialogue make it into Verhoeven's film?
Sort of.
At the end of the film, Jonny Rico is framed in the doorway of a troop
lander (I think ... I've mercifully blotted out a lot of the memories of
this abort^H^H^H^H^H film) shouting "Come on you apes. You want to live
for ever?" which, if I recall correctly, Heinlein uses as a chapter
header, quoting "anonymous Drill Sergeant".
John
--
Welcome to Usenet, where having the last word is more important than
being right. Have a nice day.
**The University and I agree on a lot, but not necessarily this**
j.f....@brighton.ac.uk Karl...@postmaster.co.uk
kens...@hotmail.com
> they cut ALL of it?
Especially since there were only two good lines in the movie, and one of them
isn't actually in the movie. (Both lines are ironic and mock the film itself,
but that's part of what makes them good.)
(1) Protag's Dad, as the shadow of the impending asteroid covers his house:
"Is it going to rain?"
We thought this was pretty funny because it was so painfully redundantly clear
to the audience that he was about to get smacked. He couldn't have been much
more oblivious. Slapstick with a bolide--who'd'a thunk it? Probably
unintentional, though.
(2) People keep saying, "...until I [you] die or I [you] find someone
better", eg, "You're in charge, until you die or I find someone better."
They missed a real opportunity. Protag's on the starship, and the chesty
spacepilot is making eyes at him, amazed that they've been reunited, however
briefly. And he says, "I'll keep coming back," or something like that. He
should've added, "until I die or you find someone better."
But nooo . . . the film denied me even that small condolence.
John Kensmark
kens...@hotmail.com
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Scott Hendrick
Seriously, I wish they'd cut out some of the gore too. That ruined the
movie for me. What a disappointing movie that was! It really had some
good things going for it, and I was happy to see some of my childhood
memories (reading the actual Heinlein book) brought to life. It even
ended the way the book did, at kind of a standstill with minor victories
attached. I didn't mind the acting, and I liked the ferociousness of the
bugs (refer to "Aliens") and most of the special effects, but that Brain
Bug was just too much... I'll probably never watch it again...
Scott Hendrick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
Please remove 'PreventJunk' from my domain and e-mail address
to respond to me by e-mail
JohnnyPez9 wrote in message <19990121214048...@ng126.aol.com>...
>Rasczak: I only have one rule! Everyone fights! No one quits! *Two*
rules!
>I only have *two* rules! Everyone fights! No one quits! Take no
prisoners!
>THREE rules! I only have THREE rules! Everyone fights! No one quits!
Take
>no prisoners! No fragging officers! *FOUR* rules! I only have...
> (a beat)
>Aw, fuck it, just go out and kill something.
>
Spence Sanders
Craig West wrote in message <78b63r$ri8$1...@neuromancer.echo-on.net>...
>Gary Farber (gfa...@panix.com) wrote:
>+>They weren't competent to follow this rule in the movie, though.
>
>+>"Bunch up and die while not possessing adequate weapons" seems to have
>+>been the rule of the day. "Never learn any tactics" was another. It's a
>+>long list, really.
>
>It wasn't really their fault. They were trained to fight humanoids with
guns,
>and were sent against bugs with no technological weaponry (other than
>bio-tech). This seemed particularly odd because the MI of the movie was
formed
>specifically to fight bugs, which were considered non-sentient. They should
>have been trained and equipped as super-exterminators, not infantry.
>
Get real. If they were trained to fight huminoids the LAST thing they would
do is bunch up. And the MI were not formed specifically to fight the bugs.
Even in the movie that wasn't true or even implied. Verhoeven showed his
contempt for and complete lack of knowledge concerning the military by
portraying them as a bunch of idiots. It was still a fun bang bang movie,
just like the Chinese martial arts shows I watched on Saturday morning as a
kid. No substance, just allot of "hie" "he" and other yelling and "b"
actors biting blood capsules on command. V just had REALLY GOOD blood
capsules (Comp Graphics FX).
SS
Spence Sanders
Creoso 79 wrote in message <19990122202746...@ng36.aol.com>...
>>I think they cut out the plot, too...
>>
>>Seriously, I wish they'd cut out some of the gore too. That ruined the
>>movie for me. What a disappointing movie that was! It really had some
>>good things going for it, and I was happy to see some of my childhood
>>memories (reading the actual Heinlein book) brought to life.
>>bugs (refer to "Aliens") and most of the special effects, but that Brain
>>Bug was just too much... I'll probably never watch it again...
>>
>>Scott Hendrick
>>------------------------------------------------------------
>scene in the training camp. I remember the gasp of surprise from the
audience
>when that first bullet was fired... I love audible theater audience
>reactions...
> I just wish that they had cut out that cheesy Carmen Ibanez girl, and her
>prettyboy, and had kept how Heinlein *really* had the troopers journey down
to
>the planet... in those pods!! That was my favorite part.. very
disappointing to
>not see them rendered in the movie...
>
>As for that Brain Bug, it's blatant sexual overtones probably just make you
>uncomfortable.
>
The show was filmed well. But if they had followed at least the basic book
then it would have been MUCH better. The drop capsules didn't exist because
the battle armor didn't exist. Which in turn means the entire backdrop plot
didn't exist. All through the fighting part of the book the Federation is
fighting a hit and run war against a TECHNOLOGICALLY advanced race and their
allies. The first scene is a raid on a "skinny" world. In fact except for
a couple battles almost everything is a raid.
It was a neat flick, but it wasn't ST
SS
Craig West
+>They weren't competent to follow this rule in the movie, though.
+>"Bunch up and die while not possessing adequate weapons" seems to have
+>been the rule of the day. "Never learn any tactics" was another. It's a
+>long list, really.
It wasn't really their fault. They were trained to fight humanoids with guns,
and were sent against bugs with no technological weaponry (other than
bio-tech). This seemed particularly odd because the MI of the movie was formed
specifically to fight bugs, which were considered non-sentient. They should
have been trained and equipped as super-exterminators, not infantry.
--
Craig West Ph: (905) 821-8300 | It's not a bug,
Pulse Microsystems Fx: (905) 821-7331 | It's a feature...
2660 Meadowvale Blvd, Unit #10 | acw...@echo-on.net
Mississauga, Ont., Canada L5N-6M6 | cr...@pulsemicro.com
Creoso 79
Daniel Boyd Fox
Scott Hendrick <CornOnRunP...@AOLPreventJunk.com> wrote:
>I think they cut out the plot, too...
>
>Seriously, I wish they'd cut out some of the gore too. That ruined the
>movie for me. What a disappointing movie that was! It really had some
>good things going for it, and I was happy to see some of my childhood
Shoot the only problem with the movie was the cockroaches weren't eating
people fast enough. The cockroaches were the good guys, weren't they?
Linda Reames Fox
50% of Jocelin Foxe
PMccutc103
>It wasn't really their fault. They were trained to fight humanoids with guns,
Is it worth noting at this point that their tactics wouldn't work particularly
well against humanoids with guns, either? Their main formation, the Bunch, for
example, would be vulnerable if their humanoid enemy has gotten around to
inventing the fragmentation grenade or the the machine gun.
A while back, Ken McLeod suggested that the society as pictured isn't fascist,
it's communist. I won't word it quite as elegantly as he did, so I won't try
to paraphrase, but one of the obersvations that he made was that they seemed to
have forgotten anything more sophisticated than the human wave attack.
>and were sent against bugs with no technological weaponry (other than
>bio-tech). This seemed particularly odd because the MI of the movie was
>formed
>specifically to fight bugs, which were considered non-sentient. They should
>have been trained and equipped as super-exterminators, not infantry.
>
Well, the notion that they weren't intelligent was idiotic, but regardless of
what the society thought of the Bugs, it would have seemed logical to attempt
to tailor one's weapons so as to be, well, effective. Given the attributes of
the bugs as shown in the film, I would suggest that the weapons mix might
include a few flamethrowers, some fragmenation grenades with launchers capable
of launching them to a suitable distance, and perhaps some sort of high-powered
shotgun for close-in work.
Note that all of these suggested weapons are within easy reach of current
technology. Phasers would not be required.
--
Pete McCutchen
Keith Morrison
> Well, the notion that they weren't intelligent was idiotic, but regardless of
> what the society thought of the Bugs, it would have seemed logical to attempt
> to tailor one's weapons so as to be, well, effective. Given the attributes of
> the bugs as shown in the film, I would suggest that the weapons mix might
> include a few flamethrowers, some fragmenation grenades with launchers capable
> of launching them to a suitable distance, and perhaps some sort of high-powered
> shotgun for close-in work.
>
> Note that all of these suggested weapons are within easy reach of current
> technology. Phasers would not be required.
I think someone noted that a modern NATO force would have performed
better. Based on the apparent capabilities of the warriors (note
that they were kept in simple cages when captured), a few M-1s,
Challengers and Leopard IIs could have cut them down just by running
over them (not to mention troops in IFVs). Judicious use of HE shells
would have cut enormous swathes through them. And, unlike Our Heroes,
NATO troops (especially Americans) have not forgotten the usefulness
of calling in air strikes.
--
Keith Morrison
kei...@polarnet.ca
Jonathan W Hendry
> I think someone noted that a modern NATO force would have performed
> better. Based on the apparent capabilities of the warriors (note
> that they were kept in simple cages when captured), a few M-1s,
> Challengers and Leopard IIs could have cut them down just by running
> over them (not to mention troops in IFVs). Judicious use of HE shells
> would have cut enormous swathes through them. And, unlike Our Heroes,
> NATO troops (especially Americans) have not forgotten the usefulness
> of calling in air strikes.
Cluster bombs would make quick work of them, I should think. Lots
of small-but-powerful HE charges dropped over a wide area.
FAE might work nicely.
Keith Morrison
> Cluster bombs would make quick work of them, I should think. Lots
> of small-but-powerful HE charges dropped over a wide area.
>
> FAE might work nicely.
Then again, that depends on how the Bugs adapted to weapons at
that particular point in the story. During the first battle
scene, it took about ten people spraying one warrior for quite
some time before they finally took it down. During the last
one, four people managed to hold off a whole whack of them,
with the same weapons, and pile the corpses up high.
Obviously, the Bugs are the anti-Borg: they become *less*
resistant to weapons as the show goes on. Which is fortunate
for the Mobile Infantry. If they last long enough, they might
be able to use sticks and rocks which would be more in line
with their apparent tactical abilities and training.
(Speaking of which, who in Ghu's name puts a live-fire range
in the parade square of a camp?)
--
Keith Morrison
kei...@polarnet.ca
Keith Morrison
> Cluster bombs would make quick work of them, I should think. Lots
> of small-but-powerful HE charges dropped over a wide area.
>
> FAE might work nicely.
Ah, screw all that anyway. The planet was a wasteland, just nuke it
till it glows. If you were inclined to be more ecological, intercept
the rocks they throw and toss the damn things back at them.
--
Keith Morrison
kei...@polarnet.ca
Spence Sanders
Keith Morrison wrote in message <36AA78F3...@polarnet.ca>...
>(Speaking of which, who in Ghu's name puts a live-fire range
>in the parade square of a camp?)
>
>--
>Keith Morrison
>kei...@polarnet.ca
A "never bother to do research" idiot movie maker like Verhoeven, who lack
any sense at all, even the "common" type.
SS
Gary Farber
PMccutc103 <pmccu...@aol.com> wrote:
[. . .]
: Well, the notion that they weren't intelligent was idiotic, but regardless of
: what the society thought of the Bugs, it would have seemed logical to attempt
: to tailor one's weapons so as to be, well, effective. Given the attributes of
: the bugs as shown in the film, I would suggest that the weapons mix might
: include a few flamethrowers, some fragmenation grenades with launchers capable
: of launching them to a suitable distance, and perhaps some sort of high-powered
: shotgun for close-in work.
: Note that all of these suggested weapons are within easy reach of current
: technology. Phasers would not be required.
Also of use would be mortars, artillery, tactical air support. . . .
Spence Sanders
mmcdon wrote in message <01be47fa$b0bc9e60$2992cbc1@default>...
>Why would any advanced civilisation still use infantry at all? Why not just
>drop nuclear missiles on the buggers?
>Is mise le meas,
>Brian Cahill
Actually the answer is, "yes, they would still use infantry". You can
bomb and blow up anything. But a most wars are being fought _OVER
SOMETHING_. If you are trying to gain more territory to COLONIZE, which
appeared to be Verhoevans' theme, of course the movie didn't seem to have
much more of a plot than bang bang. If you nuke it you can't settle there
later. Its hard to gain any benefit from a radioactive glass parking lot.
In the end, when you fight a war over an objective, you are going to have to
send in something to take and hold it. Thats the infantry. After all, why
expend effort on Bosnia and Iraq. A handful of tactical warheads and the
problem would be gone. Of course, then we would have to deal with fallout
and other nasties. The ecology, already in the semi-fragile stage would be
further damaged. In Heinleins book, which the movie bears no resemblance,
the Bugs were a technologic space faring race and the fight was over habital
planets.
SS
rcg...@esl.tamu.edu
>In <19990123143438...@ng20.aol.com>
>PMccutc103 <pmccu...@aol.com> wrote:
>[. . .]
>: Well, the notion that they weren't intelligent was idiotic, but regardless of
>: what the society thought of the Bugs, it would have seemed logical to attempt
>: to tailor one's weapons so as to be, well, effective. Given the attributes of
>: the bugs as shown in the film, I would suggest that the weapons mix might
>: include a few flamethrowers, some fragmenation grenades with launchers capable
>: of launching them to a suitable distance, and perhaps some sort of high-powered
>: shotgun for close-in work.
>
>: Note that all of these suggested weapons are within easy reach of current
>: technology. Phasers would not be required.
>
>Also of use would be mortars, artillery, tactical air support. . . .
mines (stacking claymores on "fort zindernerf" fi), tanks, apcs, raid
...
rcg...@esl.tamu.edu
mmcdon
Why would any advanced civilisation still use infantry at all? Why not just
Ross TenEyck
>Why would any advanced civilisation still use infantry at all? Why not just
>drop nuclear missiles on the buggers?
Well, *that* one was answered in the book, although I don't think the
movie mentioned it:
Because nukes are appropriate if and only if you want to obliterate
the enemy, or at least that portion of them underneath the nuke. If,
as is fairly common, you have some objective other than obliterating
the enemy -- such as, "Capture key enemy figures," or "Rescue our
buddies who are being held prisoner," -- then you need something
more flexible than a Big-Ass Bomb (TM).
Rico, in the book, contends that the Mobile Infantry are precisely
the flexible tool needed to handle any situation short of mass
genocide. One might think that they could still benefit, in some
situation, from a judicious leavening of airplanes and artillery --
yes, the powered suits could fly, kinda, and toss some pretty big
fireworks around; but an airplane could fly better, and an artillery
piece could throw bigger fireworks; surely there were situations
where this would have been helpful.
However, the general point about "Why not just nuke 'em?" stands.
--
================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ==================
Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen;
ten...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal
Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.
Keith Morrison
>
> mmcdon wrote in message <01be47fa$b0bc9e60$2992cbc1@default>...
> >drop nuclear missiles on the buggers?
> >Brian Cahill
>
> bomb and blow up anything. But a most wars are being fought _OVER
> SOMETHING_. If you are trying to gain more territory to COLONIZE, which
> appeared to be Verhoevans' theme, of course the movie didn't seem to have
> much more of a plot than bang bang.
But that is *not* Verhoeven's theme. Right at the beginning there's
the news story about the Mormons who, against advice, set up a colony
in the "Arachnid Restricted Zone" or whatever and were obliterated,
but it wasn't that big a deal because they went where they were not
supposed and paid for it. They only go to war when the Bugs attack
Earth and *then* they go to attack and invade Klendathu. It was an
attack to wipe them out (remember, they still weren't thought to be
intelligent so they could not have been invading in order to force
negotiation or concessions). So they the f@#$ didn't they just nuke
them?
The entire logic of the film is stupid. The Bugs toss an asteroid
and aim it at Earth and they're still debating the question of their
intelligence? Give me a freaking break.
--
Keith Morrison
kei...@polarnet.ca
Gary Farber
[. . .]
: Why would any advanced civilisation still use infantry at all? Why not just
: drop nuclear missiles on the buggers?
I gather you've not read the book.
To take and hold territory.
Niall McAuley
>Why would any advanced civilisation still use infantry at
>all? Why not just drop nuclear missiles on the buggers?
<sound of RAH spinning in grave>
--
Niall [real address ends in se, not es]
Thomas Womack
Gary Farber wrote in message <78hqht$2l6$5...@news.panix.com>...>: Why would any advanced civilisation still use infantry at all? Why
not just
>: drop nuclear missiles on the buggers?
>
>
>To take and hold territory.
In the film, they're unintelligent insects.
We *know* how to deal with unintelligent insects - you use
organophosphates. You could probably even manage something
differentially toxic to them and to us.
Tom
John Scott
wrote:
>
> Why would any advanced civilisation still use infantry at all? Why not just
> drop nuclear missiles on the buggers?
> Brian Cahill
For the very reason Heinlein had the Mobile Infantry. The navy and the
Air Force don't take and hold ground. They just pound it.
If you want to take land, some poor footslogger needs to go in and take it.
rcg...@esl.tamu.edu
>Why would any advanced civilisation still use infantry at all? Why not just
>drop nuclear missiles on the buggers?
>Is mise le meas,
>Brian Cahill
How many nukes would it take to kill a subtereanean civilization? How
would you find where to nuke? What if there's something you want
intact (relatively)?
rcg...@esl.tamu.edu
bbc...@hotmail.com
Western Expansion (aka Manifest Destiny) myth with the flagrant Nazi and
fascist imagery and lines used to clue us Americans into the harshness of our
past as seen by an outsider (Paul Verhoeven)? Clearly the scene at the HQ
was no different than a dozen scenes at "The Fort" in B-Movie westerns, I
mean, that's inarguable. I think that the book and the film are in fact
different because I felt really different after reading vs watching. So
Verhoeven's film, to me, is telling a different story with the same plot, you
know?
I don't know, Verhoeven grew up in Nazi-occupied Holland, so maybe the Nazi
uniforms had some other kind of meaning, but the western scenes are all over
that film. (ok, there's also a hefty dose of WWII-era hollywood scenes
reused)
So to me, they're using these individuals because they aren't telling a story
of a future age, they're telling a story of the past simply set in the
future, which is the case in LOTS of SF.
Don
In article <78gn7b$2...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Ross TenEyck) wrote:
> "mmcdon" <mmm...@iol.ie> writes:
>
> >Why would any advanced civilisation still use infantry at all? Why not just
> >drop nuclear missiles on the buggers?
>
> Well, *that* one was answered in the book, although I don't think the
> movie mentioned it:
>
> Because nukes are appropriate if and only if you want to obliterate
> the enemy, or at least that portion of them underneath the nuke. If,
> as is fairly common, you have some objective other than obliterating
> the enemy -- such as, "Capture key enemy figures," or "Rescue our
> buddies who are being held prisoner," -- then you need something
> more flexible than a Big-Ass Bomb (TM).
>
> Rico, in the book, contends that the Mobile Infantry are precisely
> the flexible tool needed to handle any situation short of mass
> genocide. One might think that they could still benefit, in some
> situation, from a judicious leavening of airplanes and artillery --
> yes, the powered suits could fly, kinda, and toss some pretty big
> fireworks around; but an airplane could fly better, and an artillery
> piece could throw bigger fireworks; surely there were situations
> where this would have been helpful.
>
> However, the general point about "Why not just nuke 'em?" stands.
>
> --
> ================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ==================
> Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen;
> ten...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal
> Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
bbc...@hotmail.com
super-controlled Nazi-world. There are visual clues and dialog lines
throughout the film. I have a hard time with people who don't see this movie
being far far removed from the book. I don't think they tell the same story
at all.
Because definitely in the movie, the humans were negative characters who were
up to evil, hence Doogie Houser in an SS uniform. I mean what does the Brain
bug think at the end, "I'm scared." Like if it was the enemy it would be
defiant, so not being defiant makes him the audience's... ally. In one of
the final scenes, the brain bug becomes the torture subject of the State.
We've all seen Hollywood films before, enemy is defiant, our side keeps our
individuality. Our side does not torture a scared enemy. You can't get hit
over the head with so much Naziism and still think those human characters
were the heroes, can you? Would you like to live in their Nazi-world? no,
their world is creepy and unlike ours.
I mean, one line I just thought of which further illustrates fascist ideals
of the country before the self is "you'll be my corporal until someone better
comes along." I mean, if anything, the main character in most films is
special, different, or in some ways worthy of our attention more than anyone
else- NOT someone to fill the cog until someone else fills that same cog in
the State. In a fascist or totalitarian world, the people are
interchangeable-- hence Mao's "Mao Suit" to make individualism
indistinguishable, plus a million right wing examples, etc.
I mean the characters were white, blue-eyed and lived in Argentina...
semi-mythical home of former Nazis.
But really I think the film's main point is that the humans are Americans
during the Westward Expansion and the bugs the Native Americans, there are
many scenes taken from classic Westerns and several lines are from US history
of that time (in early US history only certain people had the right to vote-
and not just African Americans and Women were "non-citizens" but many white
male indentured servants as well). I think that either Verhoeven's trying to
explain the racial hostility which our country is based on or else his point
is as muddled as it was in Showgirls, which was nearly meaningless. But
seriously, Paul Verhoeven is the author of the movie, not Heinlein, so you
can expect a LOT of differences.
Don
In article <78bjcc$d4n$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
bbc...@hotmail.com
movie, because almost no studio in the world would make a film without a
theme. Watch it again and soon all kinds of weird themes will become quite
apparent. Starship Troopers is by no means a cut and dried religious film
like Star Wars-- so what the theme of it is, is up in the air. But yeah,
Verhoeven is showing his contempt for the military in this world he created.
I want to know why, so I started poking around on the newsgroups.
In article <78bij1$i7l$1...@news-2.news.gte.net>,
"Spence Sanders" <spen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Craig West wrote in message <78b63r$ri8$1...@neuromancer.echo-on.net>...
> >Gary Farber (gfa...@panix.com) wrote:
> >+>They weren't competent to follow this rule in the movie, though.
> >
> >+>"Bunch up and die while not possessing adequate weapons" seems to have
> >+>been the rule of the day. "Never learn any tactics" was another. It's a
> >+>long list, really.
> >
> >It wasn't really their fault. They were trained to fight humanoids with
> guns,
> >and were sent against bugs with no technological weaponry (other than
> >bio-tech). This seemed particularly odd because the MI of the movie was
> formed
> >specifically to fight bugs, which were considered non-sentient. They should
> >have been trained and equipped as super-exterminators, not infantry.
> >
>
> Get real. If they were trained to fight huminoids the LAST thing they would
> do is bunch up. And the MI were not formed specifically to fight the bugs.
> Even in the movie that wasn't true or even implied. Verhoeven showed his
> contempt for and complete lack of knowledge concerning the military by
> portraying them as a bunch of idiots. It was still a fun bang bang movie,
> just like the Chinese martial arts shows I watched on Saturday morning as a
> kid. No substance, just allot of "hie" "he" and other yelling and "b"
> actors biting blood capsules on command. V just had REALLY GOOD blood
> capsules (Comp Graphics FX).
>
> SS
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Larry Caldwell
> And, unlike Our Heroes,
> NATO troops (especially Americans) have not forgotten the usefulness
> of calling in air strikes.
That part of the film was true to the book. The most advanced military
science Heinlein ever studied was WWI, and he evidently slept through
most of his military science classes. He had no concept of the tactics
of modern warfare, like aerial surveillance, artillery and air support,
minefields, supressing fire, etc, etc.
If RAH had been a 2nd lt. in Viet Nam, they would have rolled
an officer replacement requisition under his bunk his first week in
command.
-- Larry
Spence Sanders
Larry Caldwell wrote in message ...
No, I think if he would have been there, his book would have been different
to take into account the experience. Don't flame me too hard, but the first
date I have for ST's printing was 1959. The numbers I have found for US
involvement was 1962 to 1973, though there are names on the Memorial for as
early as 1959. It would be hard for any author to take into account
tactics and knowledge still unknown.
SS
Spence Sanders
Keith Morrison wrote in message <36AC37C2...@polarnet.ca>...
>But that is *not* Verhoeven's theme. Right at the beginning there's
>the news story about the Mormons who, against advice, set up a colony
>in the "Arachnid Restricted Zone" or whatever and were obliterated,
>but it wasn't that big a deal because they went where they were not
>supposed and paid for it. They only go to war when the Bugs attack
>Earth and *then* they go to attack and invade Klendathu. It was an
>attack to wipe them out (remember, they still weren't thought to be
>intelligent so they could not have been invading in order to force
>negotiation or concessions). So they the f@#$ didn't they just nuke
>them?
>
>The entire logic of the film is stupid. The Bugs toss an asteroid
>and aim it at Earth and they're still debating the question of their
>intelligence? Give me a freaking break.
>
>--
>Keith Morrison
>kei...@polarnet.ca
Ooops...my mistake. I keep talking about Starship Troopers. Which has
nothing to do with the movie at all. I totally agree with you. When
referring to the movie you are correct.
SS
Juston Anderson
>
> We *know* how to deal with unintelligent insects - you use
> organophosphates. You could probably even manage something
> differentially toxic to them and to us.
In the last week or so they've started showing a TV commercial here (New
Zealand) for an insect spray - using scenes from the movie (bugs get
napalmed, etc). Anyone else seen this?? It can't be unique to NZ.
bbc...@hotmail.com
aliens are not really insects. What I mean is- logically you would not kill
insects by hand, so then either a) the studio spent hundreds of millions of
dollars on a script that makes no sense b) the director is using these bugs
as a parallel for a fascist world so out of control that it can't see
"humanity" in the enemy.
AND he tries to suck us into this world, to get us to believe in the MI all
along knowing that the MI are fascists bent on destroying an entire culture
and feeding it's leader to the quasi-SS 'Games and Theory' branch for torture
(which we see at the end of the film). Kinda like the afterschool special,
"The Wave."
been thinking about this film way too much, but it's so leaden with Nazi
imagery, you can't just ignore it.
Don
In article <78hqsu$mo5$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>,
"Thomas Womack" <mert...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Gary Farber wrote in message <78hqht$2l6$5...@news.panix.com>...
> >In <01be47fa$b0bc9e60$2992cbc1@default> mmcdon <mmm...@iol.ie> wrote:
> >[. . .]
> >: Why would any advanced civilisation still use infantry at all? Why
> not just
> >: drop nuclear missiles on the buggers?
> >
> >I gather you've not read the book.
> >
> >To take and hold territory.
>
> In the film, they're unintelligent insects.
>
> We *know* how to deal with unintelligent insects - you use
> organophosphates. You could probably even manage something
> differentially toxic to them and to us.
>
> Tom
Geoff Wedig
> In article <788rkk$pas$1...@hole.sdsu.edu>, etom...@rohan.sdsu.edu
> (tomlinson) wrote:
> > Dorothy J Heydt (djh...@kithrup.com) wrote:
> >
> > : If they could cut one passage of dialogue from ST, why couldn't
> > : they cut ALL of it?
> >
> > Didn't they? Certainly someone can answer that--did _anything_
> > of Heinlein's prose or dialogue make it into Verhoeven's film?
> Sort of.
> At the end of the film, Jonny Rico is framed in the doorway of a troop
> lander (I think ... I've mercifully blotted out a lot of the memories of
> this abort^H^H^H^H^H film) shouting "Come on you apes. You want to live
> for ever?" which, if I recall correctly, Heinlein uses as a chapter
> header, quoting "anonymous Drill Sergeant".
> John
Actually, there are some scenes where they were pretty good. I had just
reread the book the morning I went to see it and the classroom scene and the
argument with dad both had large sections that were nearly word for word,
though abreviated in places.
The rest of the movie though... :/
Geoff
Jim Ericson
all sci fi (especially military themed) is unrealistic. They might not bomb
the planet with nukes, but as advanced as they are, I have to assume they
can have some robotic vehicles. The entire concept of infantry is, well,
stupid given the technological advances postulated.
Mind you, so is human pilots for starcraft. Yet, for some reason, no one
seems to get all bent over that. That's even more idiotic than the infantry.
(I can make some plausible reason for not using robotic vehicles - given the
advent of guided, man portable, nukes, it may make no sense to drop bucks on
something that is just going to get greased.)
It is interesting though, that people who hated the film are still talking
about it almost 15 months after its release. (For what's worth I enjoyed the
film. At no time was I expecting a film showing good military tactics or
leadership. I don't know that I have ever really seen one.)
Jim
Keith Morrison
> AND he tries to suck us into this world, to get us to believe in the MI all
> along knowing that the MI are fascists bent on destroying an entire culture
> and feeding it's leader to the quasi-SS 'Games and Theory' branch for torture
> (which we see at the end of the film). Kinda like the afterschool special,
> "The Wave."
>
> been thinking about this film way too much, but it's so leaden with Nazi
> imagery, you can't just ignore it.
Oh please. You give Verhoeven way to much credit.
And how can you ignore the Nazi imagery? They use a bloody big
sledgehammer to make sure you get it, Hauptsturmfurheur Doogie's
SS trenchcoat only the most blatant example.
--
Keith Morrison
kei...@polarnet.ca
Thomas Womack
<78l4gp$9lb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>That's why I think Verhoeven is specifically trying to show us that
these
>aliens are not really insects. What I mean is- logically you would not
kill
>insects by hand, so then either a) the studio spent hundreds of
millions of
>dollars on a script that makes no sense b) the director is using these
bugs
>as a parallel for a fascist world so out of control that it can't see
>"humanity" in the enemy.
Let's cast aside any connection between the film and the book; the film
borrows the character names from the book, little more. The film's doing
something very different, and rather more subtle, than the book.
What you're watching is clearly, and almost explicitly (look at the
adverts!), a *propaganda* film made by the humans. It's using images
from propaganda films based around everything from the Boer war - the
insect-wave attack on the fort was straight out of Michael Caine's
'Zulu' - to *both sides* of WW2. Of course the aliens come over as
without humanity - that's what propaganda films *do*.
Tom
Gary Farber
: Umm, everyone is missing the obvious here. SST is unrealistic. Pretty much
: all sci fi (especially military themed) is unrealistic.
Okay, let's shut down the newsgroup, and the genre, now. Party's over.
We've been found out. Nothing more to discuss here. Move along,
citizens. Move along.
[. . . .]
David Joseph Greenbaum
electrons:
: been thinking about this film way too much, but it's so leaden with Nazi
: imagery, you can't just ignore it.
Absolutely true. And it reflects all kinds of tropes of fascist propaganda.
It's a teenager surfing a propaganda website - the website of the
Waffen-SS, then the Ministry of Propaganda, then some websites of KdF.
It is a brilliant film. Pity people think that because it's based on a
Heinlein book that it has to follow the Heinlein weltanschauung.
Dave G.
--
Such fragrance -
from where,
which tree?
k...@tsoft.net
> Umm, everyone is missing the obvious here. SST is unrealistic. Pretty much
> the planet with nukes, but as advanced as they are, I have to assume they
> can have some robotic vehicles. The entire concept of infantry is, well,
> stupid given the technological advances postulated.
The large infantry "justifies" recruiting a large number of people into
the military;
The probably bogus asteroid strike (by unintelligent bugs?) "justifies"
the war in the first place and thus keeps the military government in
power;
The horrendous casualties taken by the infantry keep the population
enraged and supportive of the war.
It's all a propoganda machine -- "Wag the Dog" with live ammo and real
(albeit relatively primitive) enemies. Using real tactics, bombing the
bugs from space with nukes, etc. would end the war too quickly, leading to
questioning of the need for a military-run government.
Maybe.
Or maybe I'm giving Verhoeven too much credit.
Surely in a world with such a large military presence, there would be
people who would know enough about strategy and tactics to question the
stupidity of the army's actions. High human casualties might drive the
anti-bug propoganda machine, but it should also create a backlash like
the Vietnam protests. Or is the gov't too powerful to allow that kind of
dissent?
I hate to say it, but I've developed a kind of fascination with the movie.
It's got just enough ambiguity to make me wonder if it's not the piece of
crap that it appears to be on the surface.
--
KarlHiller [] Systems Librarian, ne'er-do-well, axolotl fancier, INTP
"I've got a piece of poo on a stick! Back off!" - Precious Roy
k...@tsoft.net
> In <01be47fa$b0bc9e60$2992cbc1@default> mmcdon <mmm...@iol.ie> wrote:
> [. . .]
> : Why would any advanced civilisation still use infantry at all? Why not just
> : drop nuclear missiles on the buggers?
> I gather you've not read the book.
> To take and hold territory.
Maybe in the book they wanted to take territory, but I didn't see anything
in the movie to suggest this. The government's main priorities seemed to
be (a) keeping the war going and (b) "revenge" on the bugs. The bug
planet didn't seem very habitable, and even if it had mineral resources,
surely there'd be closer, uninhabited planets with those resources between
here and there (wasn't it on the other side of the galaxy?)
Spence Sanders
k...@tsoft.net wrote in message <78ng5r$9g1$2...@remarQ.com>...
What you say is true about the abortion of a movie, Karl. But the snips you
are quoting referred to real world and the book Starship Troopers. Which
has nothing to do with V's pathic attempt at a film. I agree with you (this
post and others) that V's movie was about a quasi-nazi state. But that's
what makes it even more pathic. 1) it was laid on so crudely and heavy that
it resembled a high school production (sorry to insult the high schools) and
2) If after 50 years he is still not able to realize its over, he needs
professional help. If he wants to do a WWII film, do one. If he wants to
make a scifi film about a fascist state, do one. But don't claim the name
of a well known book as your subject and make something entirely different
and expect people thank you for lying to them.
SS
Tom Rittenhouse
>
>Let's cast aside any connection between the film and the book; the film
>borrows the character names from the book, little more. The film's doing
>something very different, and rather more subtle, than the book.
>
>What you're watching is clearly, and almost explicitly (look at the
>adverts!), a *propaganda* film made by the humans. It's using images
>from propaganda films based around everything from the Boer war - the
>insect-wave attack on the fort was straight out of Michael Caine's
>'Zulu' - to *both sides* of WW2. Of course the aliens come over as
>without humanity - that's what propaganda films *do*.
>
Yes, I can agree with that.
I came away from the movey feeling that it was a spoof of all
the propaganda films I had ever seen. I also felt they had used
bug as the enemy to avoid any "how could you kill those cute little
things" flak from the public.
--
Tom Rittenhouse (graywolf)
K. Laisathit
electrons:
>
>: been thinking about this film way too much, but it's so leaden with Nazi
>: imagery, you can't just ignore it.
Ummm... I apparently avoided the movie on the advice of folks on
this NG. Did Heinlein's name show up anywhere in the opening
"credit"?
Later...
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
K I R A T I L A I S A T H I T kir...@u.washington.edu
Jim Ericson
Umm, no. Bitching about unrealistic tactics in a genre which is patently
unrealistic is kind of silly.
The book doesn't really have a good reason for using the MI - he makes a
point that the Navy feels they are useless. He goes on to state that the
reason for the MI is for strikes in the first chapter of the book . (The
fact that it is basically a raid by terrorists on a civilian population
center with no military value is something he doesn't discuss - merely that
the fact is to instill fear in the enemy so they will surrender. It might
works on Skinnies, but certainly has a poor track record here on Earth.)
Jim
Gary Farber wrote in message <78ltfp$rr5$3...@news.panix.com>...
Eli Bishop
k...@tsoft.net wrote:
>
> Maybe in the book they wanted to take territory, but I didn't see
> anything in the movie to suggest this. The government's main
> priorities seemed to be (a) keeping the war going and (b) "revenge" on
> the bugs. The bug planet didn't seem very habitable, and even if it
> had mineral resources, surely there'd be closer, uninhabited planets
> with those resources between here and there (wasn't it on the other
> side of the galaxy?)
So it seems like one of several things is true, and we'll probably never
know which:
1. Verhoeven thought he was adapting Heinlein, but screwed up
completely.
2. He was satirizing Heinlein, or at least the militarism of _ST_.
3. He was making a point about the political uses of war and used some
of _ST_ as a vehicle for this.
4. He really thinks like that. (shudder)
5. He was just messing with us.
My only opinion is that if Verhoeven's motivation was #2 or #3, it would
probably have been better served by doing a straight adaptation of John
Steakley's _Armor_.
--
Eli Bishop / www.concentric.net/~Elib
"I been tryin' to put a chicken in the window,
to chase away the wolf from the door" - John Prine
Scott Drellishak
Jim Ericson <jeri...@erinet.com> wrote:
)Umm, no. Bitching about unrealistic tactics in a genre which is patently
)unrealistic is kind of silly.
Jim, science fiction which doesn't make any sense isn't any more
interesting than an action movie which doesn't make any sense. How good
the science-fictional component of an sf story is is in large part a
function of how well thought out the details are. When the author/director
poses a question (What happens if you have cheap teleportation? What might
an interstellar war look like?), the answer had better fit with what we
know today, and had better be internally consistent, or else there'd better
be an explanation. If you saw a mystery movie in which a murder took place
in a lab full of glassware, but nobody bothered to dust for fingerprints,
wouldn't that be a problem with the movie.
Some people (me included) were especially bothered by the stupid tactics in
_ST_ because the tactics in the book were much more interesting (powered
spacesuits dropped in capsules from orbit).
All fiction is false, Jim, but that's not an blanket excuse for the
characters to behave stupidly.
--
/ Scott Drellishak \
| "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced." |
\ "Perfect paranoia is perfect awareness." /
Rick
>
> So it seems like one of several things is true, and we'll probably never
> know which:
>
> 1. Verhoeven thought he was adapting Heinlein, but screwed up
> completely.
>
> 2. He was satirizing Heinlein, or at least the militarism of _ST_.
>
> 3. He was making a point about the political uses of war and used some
> of _ST_ as a vehicle for this.
>
> 4. He really thinks like that. (shudder)
>
> 5. He was just messing with us.
>
> My only opinion is that if Verhoeven's motivation was #2 or #3, it would
> probably have been better served by doing a straight adaptation of John
> Steakley's _Armor_.
>
NOOO!!! Don't let Verhoeven get his inept hands on one of my favorite
SF books of all time! Please! It was bad enough to see him butcher
Heinlein. I can see it now, Felix doing naked shower scenes with female
troopers, no powered armor and the Dutch bastard cuts Jack Crow out of
the script.
Dave Nee/Other Change of Hobbit
>So it seems like one of several things is true, and we'll probably never
>know which:
>
>1. Verhoeven thought he was adapting Heinlein, but screwed up
>completely.
>
>2. He was satirizing Heinlein, or at least the militarism of _ST_.
According to Verhoeven's interview in _The Making of Starship Troopers_, he
read about fifty pages of the novel before throwing down as not being the
movie he wanted to make. So mainly he worked from the script he had on hand,
which meant what we wound up with was Heinlein at a one-generation remove.
And he was certainly approaching it satirically, viz, the addition of the
newscasts . . .
--
________________________________________________________________
Dave Nee/The Other Change of Hobbit
2020 Shattuck Ave, Berkeley CA 94704-1117
voice: 510-848-0413 | fax: 510-595-9029
ocho...@dnai.com | http://www.dnai.com/~ochobbit
PMccutc103
>(Speaking of which, who in Ghu's name puts a live-fire range
>in the parade square of a camp?)
The set designer.
Once upon a time, long long ago, I saw a movie on USA Up All Night in which a
team of scantily-clad women with automatic weapons culled from death row staged
a commando raid to rescue some people being held by terrorist, and I have to
say it was truly amazing how those ladies on death row all look like
chearleaders and Playboy centerfolds.
Anyway, at one point, one of the cheerleaders/commandos remarked that the
intelligence types had really done a great job; their model terrorist camp used
for training looked so much like the real terrorist camp. Of course, any
casual viewer could see that they used the same set both for the training
scenes and the raid scenes, thereby cutting on costs.
That was is probably a long story for such a small payoff, but _ST: The Motion
Picture_ had the same sort of cheap reuse-the-sets feel about it, at least to
me. It was like they rented ten acres of land somewhere and filmed the whole
movie there, with the exception of the scenes they filmed at the college campus
which _Star Trek_ used to use.
One of the excuses that they gave for not using powered armor was that the
budget couldn't handle it. But for the life of me, I couldn't figure out what
they spent all that money on: the fx looked like something from B-5; they never
really went anywhere; none of the actors was particularly expensive. It really
did look like a B-movie.
--
Pete McCutchen
Scott Fluhrer
pmccu...@aol.com (PMccutc103) wrote:
>That was is probably a long story for such a small payoff, but _ST: The Motion
>Picture_ had the same sort of cheap reuse-the-sets feel about it, at least to
>me. It was like they rented ten acres of land somewhere and filmed the whole
>movie there, with the exception of the scenes they filmed at the college campus
>which _Star Trek_ used to use.
Ummm, are you talking about _Star_Trek:_The_Motion(less)_Picture_??? Unless
my memory has totally gone on me [1], that movie was:
80% scenes on the Enterprise
15% scenes in star dock, or inside V'ger
5% scenes elsewhere (eg. Federation HQ, Klingon battle cruiser, Federation Starbase)
Except for possibly a quick shot of Federation HQ, I don't remember *any* outdoors
shots.
What movie did you mean to talk about?
[1] (not unbelievable given my recent gaff on another thread)
--
poncho
John Scott
> One of the excuses that they gave for not using powered armor was that the
> budget couldn't handle it. But for the life of me, I couldn't figure out what
> they spent all that money on: the fx looked like something from B-5; they
As I recall, the arguement went "The powered armour is easy, but to put
actors in the armour in the desert we need refrigeration units which cost
X [where X was either $10,000 or $100,000 - I don't recall which] and we
can't afford to do that for all the 1000 extras we'll have on screen."
This was, to my mind, a bogus arguement for two reasons.
1. Film somewhere cooler.
2. The whole point of the MI was that there weren't (except for _major_
operations) thousands of them in the same place. In the raid on the
Skinny city, wasn't Jonny about 2 miles from his nearest MI when they
landed?
It struck me that the film-makers didn't _want_ powered armour, and then
constructed reasons to justify that.
John
--
Welcome to Usenet, where having the last word is more important than
being right. Have a nice day.
**The University and I agree on a lot, but not necessarily this**
j.f....@brighton.ac.uk Karl...@postmaster.co.uk
Eli Bishop
Rick wrote:
>
> Eli Bishop wrote:
> > My only opinion is that if Verhoeven's motivation was #2 or #3, it
> > would probably have been better served by doing a straight
> > adaptation of John Steakley's _Armor_.
>
> NOOO!!! Don't let Verhoeven get his inept hands on one of my favorite
> SF books of all time! Please! It was bad enough to see him butcher
> Heinlein. I can see it now, Felix doing naked shower scenes with
> female troopers, no powered armor and the Dutch bastard cuts Jack Crow
> out of the script.
No no no no. I said "a straight adaptation"-- not that that's what
would really happen, but if Hollywood could somehow have been induced to
trust the material, Verhoeven did have at least the visual skill to do
something with it... and if what he had in mind was really to tear apart
the iconography of _ST_ and still to tell a story that had something to
do with humanity, that would have been a much better approach.
Keith Morrison
> Once upon a time, long long ago, I saw a movie on USA Up All Night in which a
> team of scantily-clad women with automatic weapons culled from death row staged
> a commando raid to rescue some people being held by terrorist, and I have to
> say it was truly amazing how those ladies on death row all look like
> chearleaders and Playboy centerfolds.
I think I once saw that one. And I know that prison is popular.
They make a lot of films there. Usually with the word "heat"
somewhere in the title and starring a moderately well known B
actress with the best body money can buy (and plastic surgeons
can install).
> Anyway, at one point, one of the cheerleaders/commandos remarked that the
> intelligence types had really done a great job; their model terrorist camp used
> for training looked so much like the real terrorist camp. Of course, any
> casual viewer could see that they used the same set both for the training
> scenes and the raid scenes, thereby cutting on costs.
"Amazon Women on the Moon" did a wonderful bit where the three
intrepid astronauts set out on a long grueling journey and
pass directly in front of Vasquez (sp?) Rocks again and again
and again and again...
What would have been funny was to have them come across a bunch
of Stone Age people driving around in wood-and-rock cars while
a starship captain with a ripped shirt battled a badly-made reptile
costume nearby.
--
Keith Morrison
kei...@polarnet.ca
PMccutc103
>Ummm, are you talking about _Star_Trek:_The_Motion(less)_Picture_???
Oh, sorry. I just find it hard to use the term "_Starship Troopers_" for the
awful film, and so I abbreviate, forgetting for a moment that ST has a more
common usage.
Sorry about the confusion caused by my lack of clarity. And your recollection
of _Star Trek: the Motion Picture_ is indeed correct, though it's been a while
since I saw it.
--
Pete McCutchen
PMccutc103
>> One of the excuses that they gave for not using powered armor was that the
>> budget couldn't handle it. But for the life of me, I couldn't figure out
>what
>> they spent all that money on: the fx looked like something from B-5; they
>
>As I recall, the arguement went "The powered armour is easy, but to put
>actors in the armour in the desert we need refrigeration units which cost
>X [where X was either $10,000 or $100,000 - I don't recall which] and we
>can't afford to do that for all the 1000 extras we'll have on screen."
Of course, if they'd done digital armor, there would be no reason not to put it
in a digital desert. And the scenes of faces of people inside the armor could
easily have been filmed on a soundstage; there would be no reason to have
people actually walking around in the desert in the things.
Nor am I convinced that cooling would have cost $10,000 per suit. If nothing
else, just make it so the helmet opens and pack some ice bags around the
actor's neck. When the ice melts, insert a new bag. Cost: about $20 a day,
assuming you don't get a good deal on the ice.
>
>This was, to my mind, a bogus arguement for two reasons.
>
>1. Film somewhere cooler.
>2. The whole point of the MI was that there weren't (except for _major_
>operations) thousands of them in the same place. In the raid on the
>Skinny city, wasn't Jonny about 2 miles from his nearest MI when they
>landed?
>
>It struck me that the film-makers didn't _want_ powered armour, and then
>constructed reasons to justify that.
>
I think that's right. Given today's technology, "we can't do x affordably" is
never an escuse. Sit around and think about it for a while, and you'll figure
out a way to do it.
--
Pete McCutchen
Major oz
movie there...>>
...they did -- in central Wyoming...
cheers
oz
PMccutc103
>
>The book doesn't really have a good reason for using the MI - he makes a
>point that the Navy feels they are useless.
But at least Heinlein, unlike the filmmakers, put some thought into the
question. He outlined several circumstances under which ground action might be
justified: 1) we want to capture a habitable planet and MI do less damage to
the planet that full-scale bombardment; 2) we want to rescue still-living
prisoners; 3) the enemy lairs are too far underground to nuke; or 4) the
situation requires application of less-than-maxium force.
Those strike me as being good and sufficient justifications for having a
ground-action component in such a force, though the space-based arm might very
well be the primary element of the force mix. (And we don't know that this
isn't the case in the book; Our Hero tells the story from his perspective, but
the Sky Marshall might very well see the ground-action component as the least
important front.)
Further, you migiht want to note that Heinlein rather cleverly made the proper
role of the Army a matter of controversy between the Army and Navy. The "real
navy position," we are told, is to forget this hopping around crap and "nuke
'em from orbit." It makes sense to me that, even if it were obselete in a
military sense, the army might be able to hang on, either because of intertia
and habits of thought, or because many ex-Armie people are voters.
I don't know about you, but it strikes me as more realstic to have a situation
in which the navy takes one view, "just nuke 'em from orbit," and that view is
rejected for military and political reasons, than it would be to have a
situation in which the military tactics are plumb useless and nobdy notices.
As I said, at least he gave it some thought.
>He goes on to state that the
>reason for the MI is for strikes in the first chapter of the book . (The
>fact that it is basically a raid by terrorists on a civilian population
>center with no military value is something he doesn't discuss - merely that
I dunno if we can say that there's no military value. Rico does happen in on
some sort of command center, after all, and the Skinny City may very well be a
major industrial center.
>the fact is to instill fear in the enemy so they will surrender. It might
>works on Skinnies, but certainly has a poor track record here on Earth.)
True enough, that one.
--
Pete McCutchen
Rick
>
> j.f....@bton.ac.uk (John Scott) wrote:
>
> >
> >It struck me that the film-makers didn't _want_ powered armour, and then
> >constructed reasons to justify that.
> >
>
> I think that's right. Given today's technology, "we can't do x affordably" is
> never an escuse. Sit around and think about it for a while, and you'll figure
> out a way to do it.
> --
>
> Pete McCutchen
I would not be surprised. I think Verhoeven wanted this to be a parody
of the classic war movie, and to do that you have to have a bunch of
young guys bunched together so they can watch each other die horribly.
Chris Camfield
>Jim Ericson <jeri...@erinet.com> wrote:
>> Umm, everyone is missing the obvious here. SST is unrealistic. Pretty much
>> all sci fi (especially military themed) is unrealistic. They might not bomb
>> the planet with nukes, but as advanced as they are, I have to assume they
>> can have some robotic vehicles. The entire concept of infantry is, well,
>> stupid given the technological advances postulated.
>
>The large infantry "justifies" recruiting a large number of people into
>the military;
>
>The probably bogus asteroid strike (by unintelligent bugs?) "justifies"
>the war in the first place and thus keeps the military government in
>power;
Keep in mind - in case you didn't know - that in the book the
"unintelligent" bugs have SPACECRAFT and NUKE Buenos Ares(sp) from
orbit.
Other reasons for having infantry:
The bugs aren't the only ones out there. There are the Skinnies, and
who knows who else that might come along. I think the book makes the
point that infantry are more "personal", and can take out targets
selectively that perhaps the navy doesn't have the ability to
distinguish.
"Nuke the site from orbit" works if (a) you don't want the piece of
real estate in question, and (b) the target isn't dug in so deep that
the nukes won't do the job.
Keeping the infantry around for strategic flexibility makes sense to
me.
>The horrendous casualties taken by the infantry keep the population
>enraged and supportive of the war.
In the book, the infantry are relatively FEW in number and wear
powered armour to (among other things) protect the infantry.
As far as robots and computer-controlled vehicles are concerned,
remember that Heinlein wrote the book in the 1950s. Be that as it
may, perhaps there could be a cultural mentality of not 'trusting'
computers to do the job right. Although given the attitude of the
military today towards electronics, it doesn't seem likely. :-)
CC
Bertil Jonell
John Scott <j.f....@bton.ac.uk> wrote:
>At the end of the film, Jonny Rico is framed in the doorway of a troop
>lander (I think ... I've mercifully blotted out a lot of the memories of
>this abort^H^H^H^H^H film) shouting "Come on you apes. You want to live
>for ever?" which, if I recall correctly, Heinlein uses as a chapter
>header, quoting "anonymous Drill Sergeant".
Supposedly a real quote from a real USMC sergeant at Belleu Wood in
WWI, although I belive he said 'motherfuckers' instead of apes.
-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
exercise for your kill-file."
Bertil Jonell
Thomas Womack <mert...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>In the film, they're unintelligent insects.
>
>We *know* how to deal with unintelligent insects - you use
>organophosphates. You could probably even manage something
>differentially toxic to them and to us.
In the book they did just that.
(Btw, I'm pretty certain organophosphates won't work on a random
alien species since they work by disrupting very specific biochemical
mechanisms. I even doubt that mustard gas would work, since it is said
to work by disrupting the cell's metabolism.)
>Tom
Eoghann Irving
> So it seems like one of several things is true, and we'll probably never
> know which:
> 1. Verhoeven thought he was adapting Heinlein, but screwed up
> completely.
> 2. He was satirizing Heinlein, or at least the militarism of _ST_.
> 3. He was making a point about the political uses of war and used some
> of _ST_ as a vehicle for this.
> 4. He really thinks like that. (shudder)
> 5. He was just messing with us.
I remember reading an interview with Verhoeven shortly before the
film was released. Basically he just went on and on about the
bugs. He wanted to make a film with giant bugs in it. He wasn't
remotely interested in Starship Troopers as a story.
So lets rule out 1 completely.
Given his recored satire is not unlikely but since he showed no
interest in Heinleins original novel I don't think it was
Heinlein he was satirising. So I'll rule out 2 and 4 as well.
That leaves 3 and 5.
--
Eoghann Irving ICQ:14497218 mailto:eoghann...@usa.net
FSF mailing list - http://www.solarflare.freeserve.co.uk/fsf/
Solar News - http://www.solarflare.freeserve.co.uk/fsf/news.html
Free email - http://www.solarflare.freeserve.co.uk/email.html
PMccutc103
>
>In a fit of divine composition, bbc...@hotmail.com inscribed in fleeting
>electrons:
>
>: been thinking about this film way too much, but it's so leaden with Nazi
>: imagery, you can't just ignore it.
>
>Absolutely true. And it reflects all kinds of tropes of fascist propaganda.
>It's a teenager surfing a propaganda website - the website of the
>Waffen-SS, then the Ministry of Propaganda, then some websites of KdF.
>It is a brilliant film. Pity people think that because it's based on a
>Heinlein book that it has to follow the Heinlein weltanschauung.
I have to compliment you, David; only somebody really smart could possibly make
so much out of such a stupid film. With Verhoeven, there just isn't any
"there" there, if you get my meaning.
--
Pete McCutchen
M w stone
>John Scott <j.f....@bton.ac.uk> wrote:
>I think ... I've mercifully blotted out a lot of the memories of
>>this abort^H^H^H^H^H film) shouting "Come on you apes. You want to live
>>for ever?" which, if I recall correctly, Heinlein uses as a chapter
>>header, quoting "anonymous Drill Sergeant".
> Supposedly a real quote from a real USMC sergeant at Belleu Wood in
>WWI, although I belive he said 'motherfuckers' instead of apes.
>
>
Not original even then - I have seen it attributed to Frederick the Great ( or
one of his officers) in the 1750s
"Advance you swine! Would you live forever?"
Mike Stone - Peterborough England
Last words of King Edward II.
"I always said that Roger Mortimer was a pain in the - - -A AARGHH!!!
Larry Caldwell
writes:
> No, I think if he would have been there, his book would have been different
> to take into account the experience. Don't flame me too hard, but the first
> date I have for ST's printing was 1959. The numbers I have found for US
> involvement was 1962 to 1973, though there are names on the Memorial for as
> early as 1959. It would be hard for any author to take into account
> tactics and knowledge still unknown.
Artillery support and aerial surveillance were developed during the
American Civil War, and used extensively during WW1.
ST wasn't really SF at all. Rather, it was a juvenile adventure story.
I think Heinlein just omitted inconvenient details so his tin cavalry
wouldn't confuse his adolescent male readers. In retrospect, I'm sure he
knew that the military parts of his story were absurd. The man was just
putting beans on the table. Like he thought SIASL would sell well
because he put a lot of sex in it.
-- Larry
Larry Caldwell
> It is interesting though, that people who hated the film are still talking
> about it almost 15 months after its release. (
It just played on HBO last week. That probably brought in a new round of
viewers. I know I never bothered to actually *pay* to see that stinker.
High point of the film: When sidechick comes up with the play to win the
training exercise, so of course Juannie gets to be squad leader instead
of sidechick. Pretty clear who the brains of that outfit was.
-- Larry
David Joseph Greenbaum
in fleeting electrons:
: I have to compliment you, David; only somebody really smart could
: possibly make so much out of such a stupid film. With Verhoeven, there
: just isn't any "there" there, if you get my meaning.
Cheek firmly filled with tongue? I'll agree that most of Verhoeven's
stuff is species crap in the genus shit. It may be that Starship
Troopers was a total accident; hell, it's *hard* to produce echt
propaganda if you're consciously satirizing it. However, I will add that
Starship Troopers (the novel) was also a little fascist screed. And
practically everything of Heinlein I've read has rubbed me raw backwards.
(The Sixth Column, Revolt in 2100, SIASL, CWWTW, various shorts). So,
maybe it's a bit of justice that Heinlein got so totally trashed. (Okay,
so it's my own glee, but forgive me). But it really is brilliant, in a
dada-meets-Ernst Juenger kinda way.
Dave G.
--
Such fragrance -
from where,
which tree?
Rick
ST the novel was hardly facist. It may be your opinion that the ideas
represented in ST the novel lean towards facism, but that hardly stands
up under scrutiny. And Heinlein was certainly no facist. I don't know
if you are saying that you thought that the other works you listed were
facistic or you simply didn't like them---if the latter, fine, everyone
has different tastes. If the former, I would have to say you are
incorrect.
JohnnyPez9
>Keep in mind - in case you didn't know - that in the book
<snip stuff from the book>
But we're not talking about the novel, we're talking about the movie. Don't
let the similarity of names confuse you -- the novel is irrelevant to the
movie, so there's no point in saying "such and such happened in the movie
because the book says so and so". What we're trying to determine here is
whether the Mobile Infantry make sense in terms of what we're shown in the
movie.
Johnny Pez
I dream of a world where someday you can buy liquor, cigarettes and firearms at
a drive-thru window and use them all before you get home. Basically, anything
that gets rid of people is okay with me. --St. Dogbert
Major oz
dada-meets-Ernst Juenger kinda way>>
You are in the:
1. Poly-sci dept (40% prob)
2. Psych-soch (40%)
3. Art (20%)
...right...?
cheers
oz
David Joseph Greenbaum
fleeting electrons:
: ST the novel was hardly facist. It may be your opinion that the ideas
: represented in ST the novel lean towards facism, but that hardly stands
: up under scrutiny.
Oh, don't press 'em me buttons, boychickeleh. You be treadin' on *my*
turf here.
In short, _Starship Troopers_ (the novel) is structured within a fascist
aesthetic. Most of the imagery, thematic complication, and
characterization develop neatly along those lines. If you want the long
bit, all you need to do is ask.
: And Heinlein was certainly no facist.
I'll suggest that you don't know what fascism *is*. Hint: it's not a
definition of a form of government.
: I don't know if you are saying that you thought that the other works
: you listed were facistic or you simply didn't like them---
Okay, once again, short bit: Farnham's Freehold, Sixth Column (aka Day
After Tomorrow), Starship Troopers, Revolt in 2100 - these are all
clearly adhering a fascist aesthetic. SIASL, CWWTW, those are just plain
bizarre. If you want the rant, just ask. Please don't ask.
David Joseph Greenbaum
fleeting electrons:
: <<But it really is brilliant, in a dada-meets-Ernst Juenger kinda way>>
Journalism, history, medicine, rural sociology - in that order. Call
this my hobby.
Spence Sanders
David Joseph Greenbaum wrote in message
<78vkk8$g...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...
>In a fit of divine composition, PMccutc103 (pmccu...@aol.com) inscribed
>in fleeting electrons:
>
>: I have to compliment you, David; only somebody really smart could
>: possibly make so much out of such a stupid film. With Verhoeven, there
>: just isn't any "there" there, if you get my meaning.
>
>Cheek firmly filled with tongue? I'll agree that most of Verhoeven's
>stuff is species crap in the genus shit. It may be that Starship
>Troopers was a total accident; hell, it's *hard* to produce echt
>propaganda if you're consciously satirizing it. However, I will add that
>Starship Troopers (the novel) was also a little fascist screed. And
>practically everything of Heinlein I've read has rubbed me raw backwards.
>(The Sixth Column, Revolt in 2100, SIASL, CWWTW, various shorts). So,
>maybe it's a bit of justice that Heinlein got so totally trashed. (Okay,
>dada-meets-Ernst Juenger kinda way.
>
>Dave G.
Now I get it. You're one of those people who believe that since you don't
like it. Its evil and bad. So since you have, in your very finite wisdom,
decided to dislike Heinlein. And you feel the need to manufacture negative's
about his work. I bet that if false accusations of fascism didn't work, you
would start saying he was a racist or perhaps a tree killer. What wouldn't
matter, just your delusional warm and fuzzy.
SS
Spence Sanders
Larry Caldwell wrote in message ...
Once again, are you discussing the book or the movie? If the movie,
artillery support and aerial surveillance were indeed used in WW1. BUT
where pray tell were the paratroopers used? Or how about the ability to
airlift artillery THOUSANDS of MILES to forward areas?
ST was about DROPTROOPS being used way out there. The WW1 comparison dies
because WW1 used fairly stable lines allowing artillery to be deployed and
remain in position for long periods of time. Depending on your opinion of
the word "rapid". Rapid deployment of artillery (and recovery) only became
possible in the Vietnam Era (or Korea Era, or the '80's). All of which
fall way after Heinlein.
Heinlein's MI had the benefit of aerial surveillance (read orbital pics) and
used it. He didn't specifically mention artillery (IIRC) because of either
1) paratroops that hit and run don't usually carry any, 2) airdropped
artillery wasn't a standard military practice yet. And here is another,
why would I want artillery in the first place when I am popping off tactical
nuclear warheads? And if the artillery was deployed it wouldn't keep up
with troops. If my gauge of time is right the first drop in the book had
the MI on the ground and recovered in less than 30 minutes.
You have decided to label his books absurd because the don't fit into your
narrow view. I think he did a pretty good job if you take into account that
he knew nothing of modern capabilities and used what are essentially raider
teams. Drop from orbit, hit and get out under an hour. If each man IS a
limited air unit and carries his own artillery (HE-rockets) and can use
nukes (A-rockets, atomic weapons), then all of you objections are worthless.
After all why don't we use trench warfare now? It worked in WW1.
SS
Spence Sanders
JohnnyPez9 wrote in message
<19990130153146...@ng-fq1.aol.com>...
>Chris Camfield writes:
>
>>Keep in mind - in case you didn't know - that in the book
>
><snip stuff from the book>
>
>But we're not talking about the novel, we're talking about the movie.
Don't
>let the similarity of names confuse you -- the novel is irrelevant to the
>movie, so there's no point in saying "such and such happened in the movie
>because the book says so and so". What we're trying to determine here is
>whether the Mobile Infantry make sense in terms of what we're shown in the
>movie.
>
>Johnny Pez
>
Hmmmm...well I know that since I'm on rec.arts.sf.WRITTEN. I'm talking
about the book. Perhaps this should be on rec.arts.sf.movies.
But actually the thread is discussing both. Perhaps everyone should put
"movie" or "book" into their posts to let people know which one they are
making their point about.
SS
Phil Fraering
>"Amazon Women on the Moon" did a wonderful bit where the three
>intrepid astronauts set out on a long grueling journey and
>pass directly in front of Vasquez (sp?) Rocks again and again
>and again and again...
>What would have been funny was to have them come across a bunch
>of Stone Age people driving around in wood-and-rock cars while
>a starship captain with a ripped shirt battled a badly-made reptile
>costume nearby.
You _have_ seen "Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey," haven't you?
Phil
--
Phil Fraering "It is also for adults, of course, except for those
p...@globalreach.net who think they do not want to see a film about
/Will work for *tape*/ anything so preposterous as a seal-woman, and
who will get what they deserve." - Roger Ebert
Christopher Ans
> . It may be that Starship
> Troopers was a total accident; hell, it's *hard* to produce echt
> propaganda if you're consciously satirizing it. However, I will add that
> Starship Troopers (the novel) was also a little fascist screed. And
> practically everything of Heinlein I've read has rubbed me raw backwards.
> (The Sixth Column, Revolt in 2100, SIASL, CWWTW, various shorts). So,
> maybe it's a bit of justice that Heinlein got so totally trashed. (Okay,
> so it's my own glee, but forgive me). .
>
>
I like Heinlein, but some of his stuff left me with an off-center feel as
well(he really lost me in Farmnham's Freehold with the daughter telling her
father he could've had her any time.) He just came at things from a different
perspective.
As far as the movie is concerned, I think the infantry went in expecting to
mop up, but due to bad intelligence or government manipulation, they ran into
more than they expected. Their mission then became to retrieve a brain-bug so
experiments could be performed on it. It was the first battle of a war and
they were still learning. I assume most of you are from the country with the
largest, most advanced military in the world. In a totalitarian society such
is being portrayed in the movie, people are the most expendable resource and
inovation is somewhat stifled. There are still alot of wars fought with
infantry and probable always will be(I hesitate to bring up a couple of Asian
engagments that showed a dedicated opponent can overcome technical
superiority.)As for nuking the planet, aren't cockroaches supposed to be one
of the only living things to be able to survive.
Spence Sanders
Spence Sanders wrote in message <7904ja$8oh$2...@news-1.news.gte.net>...
>
>Larry Caldwell wrote in message ...
>>In article <78jpor$rv3$7...@news-2.news.gte.net>, spen...@hotmail.com
>>writes:
>>
>>> No, I think if he would have been there, his book would have been
>different
>>> to take into account the experience. Don't flame me too hard, but the
>first
>>> date I have for ST's printing was 1959. The numbers I have found for US
>>> involvement was 1962 to 1973, though there are names on the Memorial for
>as
>>> early as 1959. It would be hard for any author to take into account
>>> tactics and knowledge still unknown.
>>
>>Artillery support and aerial surveillance were developed during the
>>American Civil War, and used extensively during WW1.
>>
>>ST wasn't really SF at all. Rather, it was a juvenile adventure story.
>>I think Heinlein just omitted inconvenient details so his tin cavalry
>>wouldn't confuse his adolescent male readers. In retrospect, I'm sure he
>>knew that the military parts of his story were absurd. The man was just
>>putting beans on the table. Like he thought SIASL would sell well
>>because he put a lot of sex in it.
>>
>>-- Larry
>
>Once again, are you discussing the book or the movie? If the movie,
ops....that should have been "If the book", I hate it whan I do that.....
Spence Sanders
David Joseph Greenbaum wrote in message
>In a fit of divine composition, Spence Sanders
><spen...@hotmail.com> inscribed in fleeting electrons:
>
>[in another post, our fearless hero attributes, to me, motives and
>opinions unseen and unknown by any reasonable readings of any of my
>USENET postings.]
>
>> Now I get it.
>
>Ooh, ooh, regale us with your new-won wisdom, oh Zen Master of the
>Heated Envelopes!
>
>> You're one of those people who believe that since you don't like
>> it. Its evil and bad.
>
>you don't see me calling them fascist, now do you? (Or evil and
>bad, for that matter.) It's because [drumroll] *fascist* is a
>specific word meaning a specific idea - not some catchall
>condemnation for pulchritude!
>
>> So since you have, in your very finite wisdom,
>
>
>> decided to dislike Heinlein.
>
>I actually don't dislike *Heinlein*, the man, at all. Never met
>him. What I do have a grudge against are those nasty little
>fascist screeds of his.
>
>> And you feel the need to manufacture negative's about his work.
>
>Heinlein's work. That has never been my hobby. Nuh uh.
>
>> I bet that if false accusations of fascism didn't work, you
>> would start saying he was a racist or perhaps a tree killer.
>
>less directly refutable.
>
>Now, if you want to pick a bone with my use of the term *fascist*
>in describing Heinlein's works, hell, start a fight about that!
>But don't you ever come barging around, calling me names, limiting
>my *infinite* wisdom, without a damn good reason (aka, a good
>argument, rather than a blanket put-down and random belly-ache).
>
>> What wouldn't matter, just your delusional warm and fuzzy.
>
>she's getting married!]. So, here, I guess you're right.
>
>Dave G.
>--
>Such fragrance -
>from where,
>which tree?
So are you saying you aren't calling his books fascist? Did you reverse
your position or did I misunderstand you originally?
SS
Robert A. Woodward
Joseph Greenbaum) wrote:
<Snip>
>
> In short, _Starship Troopers_ (the novel) is structured within a fascist
> aesthetic. Most of the imagery, thematic complication, and
> characterization develop neatly along those lines. If you want the long
> bit, all you need to do is ask.
>
Utter ignorant morally despicable bilge.
> : And Heinlein was certainly no facist.
>
> I'll suggest that you don't know what fascism *is*. Hint: it's not a
> definition of a form of government.
Ahem! Any definition of fascism MUST be derived directly from the
political and economic policies of Mussolini's government or it possess no
meaning whatsoever. Thus fascism IS the definition of a form of government
(and a method of mismanaging an economy as well for that matter).
Sea Wasp
>
> In a fit of divine composition, PMccutc103 (pmccu...@aol.com) inscribed
> in fleeting electrons:
>
> : I have to compliment you, David; only somebody really smart could
> : possibly make so much out of such a stupid film. With Verhoeven, there
> : just isn't any "there" there, if you get my meaning.
>
> Cheek firmly filled with tongue? I'll agree that most of Verhoeven's
> Troopers was a total accident; hell, it's *hard* to produce echt
> propaganda if you're consciously satirizing it. However, I will add that
> Starship Troopers (the novel) was also a little fascist screed.
Then you haven't read it. There's nothing facist in the novel.
And the movie didn't seem Nazi to me. It seemed, quite deliberately, to
be a larger-than-life version of the America of the 1950s, in which
STroopers was originally written. I have a CD-Rom of advertisements and
government announcements that feels JUST LIKE Vhoven's movie of
STroopers.
And
> practically everything of Heinlein I've read has rubbed me raw backwards.
> (The Sixth Column,
Written by Heinlein, yes, but plot by John W. Campbell. Campbell's
version was much worse and much more Caucasians Uber Alles. Heinlein
TONED IT DOWN.
Revolt in 2100, SIASL, CWWTW, various shorts).
Of all those, only Revolt might be considered representative (well, I
don't know which short pieces you read) and Revolt works a lot better
when read in context -- i.e., in the Future History series. SIASL was
the first indication of his downturn, and CWWTW not only draws on
material from prior novels (making a lot less sense as a standalone) but
is from FAR into his disintegration; in fact, it is his next-to-last
novel, and only two others are clearly WORSE examples: IWFNE and TSBTSS.
Heinlein was an individualist who had no fondness for controlling
governments at all. Calling him a fascist is so utterly incorrect that
it'd be funny... if people didn't say it so often. I have to wonder if
it's just that people associate a large military with facism for some
reason, and therefore anyone who seems to favor the military, in any of
their writings, must be a fascist.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
David Joseph Greenbaum
PMccutc103
>In a fit of divine composition, PMccutc103 (pmccu...@aol.com) inscribed
>in fleeting electrons:
>
>: I have to compliment you, David; only somebody really smart could
>: possibly make so much out of such a stupid film. With Verhoeven, there
>: just isn't any "there" there, if you get my meaning.
>
>Cheek firmly filled with tongue?
Actually, no. I meant it. Kind of like Foucault -- only somebody really smart
or really dumb could believe that shit. You're not dumb. Q.E.D. Not that I'm
accusing you of being a fan of Foucault (please, don't tell me if you are).
But the principle is the same.
>I'll agree that most of Verhoeven's
>stuff is species crap in the genus shit. It may be that Starship
>Troopers was a total accident; hell, it's *hard* to produce echt
>propaganda if you're consciously satirizing it. However, I will add that
>Starship Troopers (the novel) was also a little fascist screed. And
Actually, David, I would expect more from you, particularly where political
theory is concerned. _I_ don't think that the political theory of _Starship
Troopers_ is correct; I've studied public choice theory. But even if you think
that the political theory of _Starship Troopers_ is wrong, hell even if you
think it's downright repugnant, it's not fascism.
I realize that it's popular, particularly among those on the left, to use the
term "fascist" as an all-purpose pejorative rather than as a term of art, but I
rather expected more from you.
>practically everything of Heinlein I've read has rubbed me raw backwards.
>(The Sixth Column, Revolt in 2100, SIASL, CWWTW, various shorts). So,
I would suggest that you haven't picked the best sample, but I'm certainly not
going to make additional recommendations -- you probably wouldn't like the
rest of his work, either.
However, I will note that both _Sixth Column_ and _CWWTW_ are generally
considered lesser works, though for opposite reasons.
_Sixth Column_ was a very early work, back when RAH was still relying very
heavily on _Astounding_ for his livlihood. The story of _Sixth Column_ (If I'm
recalling correctly, and if I'm not I'm sure that somebody will jump in and
correct me) is that John Campbell gave Heinlein one of his own stories and
asked Heinlein to use it as the basis of something that could be published
quickly.
Heinlein did so. The part about different racial groups having different
frequencies was, apparently, Campbell's notion; Heinlein was the one who added
the sympathetic Asian-American character. (Of course, this version could well
be an attempt to excuse what is clearly a rather weak early effort.)
_Stranger_ was from the middle of Heinlein's career, and I personally liked it
quite a bit. However, it is a rather weird book; a lot of people who otherwise
like Heinlein don't like _Stranger_.
And _CWWTW_ is later Heinlein, which most people don't think is particularly
strong.
_Revolt in 2100_, IIRC is the collection that has "If this goes on --" in it.
It surprises me that you don't like that, a successful revolt against a
theocracy and all. To the extent that there's a poltical message, it's
pro-free-speech and anti-theocracy. Which I would think that you would agree
with. What about it bothered you?
If you ever decide to give Heinlein another whirl -- which I'm not urging you
to do, since you seem genuinely not to like his work -- I'd suggest that you
take a look at the pre-_Trooper_ juveniles. Actually, I'd be rather curious to
know what you think of _Space Cadet_. (Of course, if you read it with the view
that you will hate it, rather than with an open mind, you will probably hate
it.)
>maybe it's a bit of justice that Heinlein got so totally trashed. (Okay,
>so it's my own glee, but forgive me).
Again, this strikes me as odd. One author whose work I don't particularly like
is C.J. Cherryh. Not that I have anything against her as a person; I just
don't enjoy her work. Different utility curves, and all that.
But I wouldn't take glee in seeing some movie that took one of her books and
trashed it. It wouldn't bother me, the way the movie version of _Troopers_
did, but it wouldn't make me happy, either. This is what I don't get. People
who don't like, say, Asimov, or Cherryh, don't _hate_ them as people. I don't
get the visceral hatred that seems to be directed at Heinlein.
>But it really is brilliant, in a
>dada-meets-Ernst Juenger kinda way.
>
I don't think so.
In order for a satire to work, it has to pick up on elements actually present
in the work being satirized. Even as satire, _Starship Troopers: the Movie_
doesn't work, because it doesn't pay careful enough attention to the source
material. The elements that it satirizes simply are not present in the
original.
--
Pete McCutchen
PMccutc103
>In short, _Starship Troopers_ (the novel) is structured within a fascist
>aesthetic. Most of the imagery, thematic complication, and
>characterization develop neatly along those lines. If you want the long
>bit, all you need to do is ask.
Take your best shot, kid.
--
Pete McCutchen
Larry Caldwell
writes:
> Not original even then - I have seen it attributed to Frederick the Great ( or
> one of his officers) in the 1750s
> "Advance you swine! Would you live forever?"
> Mike Stone - Peterborough England
It's fairly easy to push it almost 1000 years earlier, since it was a
common battle cry of the Vikings. Odin would send the Valkyries to
choose valiant warriers slain in battle to live in Valhalla. The only
way to become an immortal was to die in battle. Call it 9th century, if
not earlier.
-- Larry
David Joseph Greenbaum
inscribed in fleeting electrons:
: So are you saying you aren't calling his books fascist? Did you reverse
: your position or did I misunderstand you originally?
I'm saying that the books that I listed follow a fascist aesthetic. I
think you misunderstood me (a common problem when words are so debased).
I mean a very specific thing when I use the term "fascist". I *don't*
mean "bad".
Rick
So basically, you have invented your own personal definition of "facist"
and expect others to guess what it means? Is that it?
Nancy Lebovitz
David Joseph Greenbaum <dj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>In a fit of divine composition, Spence Sanders (spen...@hotmail.com)
>inscribed in fleeting electrons:
>
>: So are you saying you aren't calling his books fascist? Did you reverse
>: your position or did I misunderstand you originally?
>
>I'm saying that the books that I listed follow a fascist aesthetic. I
>think you misunderstood me (a common problem when words are so debased).
>I mean a very specific thing when I use the term "fascist". I *don't*
>mean "bad".
>
David Joseph Greenbaum
fleeting electrons:
: So basically, you have invented your own personal definition of "facist"
: and expect others to guess what it means? Is that it?
I swallowed the first reply I considered to this remark. Be thankful.
"Fascism" is a ideological philosophy that considers individuality as
valuable only in service to a greater social union, and that greater
union is defined by certain intrinsic qualities on the part of the
individuals that make it up. There's more, and all of it is in the
academic and critical mainstream.
David Joseph Greenbaum
inscribed in fleeting electrons:
: OK--what *do* you mean?
Fascism is an ideological philosophy of community identity. Ideological,
its base assumptions are religiously unquestioned. The community
identity it postulates is that of intrinsic (inborn, unlearnable or
unacquireable) individual qualities deriving from the metaphysical
greater whole - people are the expression of race and society, not the
other way around. As philosophy, it is all-embracing, applied in every
single realm of social and personal activity. It is whole and separate,
as far from us as another universe.
From _life in fragments_ by Zygmunt Bauman, page 186-187:
"The simultaneous focus of contentious social spacing and
identity-building is now the contrived, made-up community
masquerading as a Toennies-style inherited Gemeinschaft. In
fact, they are much more akin to Kant's aesthetic communities,
brought into being and kept in existence mostly, and even perhaps
solely, by the intensity of members' dedication....The rejection
of strangers verbalizes itself in terms of the incompatibility
or immiscibility of cultures, and of the self-defence of a form
of life bequeathed by tradition."
*That* is fascism. In a nutshell. I'll post Omer Bartov's "5 identities
of fascism" when I find my copy. (this evening). And I find I am
justified in calling Starship Troopers, when measured by the above
metric, a fascist screed.
PMccutc103
>I'm saying that the books that I listed follow a fascist aesthetic. I
>think you misunderstood me (a common problem when words are so debased).
Well, I seem to recall your use of the term "fascist screed," which is a little
bit different from "following a fascist aesthetic."
>I mean a very specific thing when I use the term "fascist". I *don't*
>mean "bad".
I, for one, would like to know exactly what you mean by "fascist aesthetic,"
and exactly how that differs from "subscribing to fascist political and
economic theories."
I prefer realisti sculpture to sculpture that looks like it was put together
with a big erector set. Does that mean that I follow a "fascist aesthetic?"
--
Pete McCutchen
Rick
> its base assumptions are religiously unquestioned. The community
> identity it postulates is that of intrinsic (inborn, unlearnable or
> unacquireable) individual qualities deriving from the metaphysical
> greater whole - people are the expression of race and society, not the
> other way around. As philosophy, it is all-embracing, applied in every
> single realm of social and personal activity. It is whole and separate,
> as far from us as another universe.
>
> From _life in fragments_ by Zygmunt Bauman, page 186-187:
>
> "The simultaneous focus of contentious social spacing and
> identity-building is now the contrived, made-up community
> masquerading as a Toennies-style inherited Gemeinschaft. In
> fact, they are much more akin to Kant's aesthetic communities,
> brought into being and kept in existence mostly, and even perhaps
> solely, by the intensity of members' dedication....The rejection
> of strangers verbalizes itself in terms of the incompatibility
> or immiscibility of cultures, and of the self-defence of a form
> of life bequeathed by tradition."
>
> *That* is fascism. In a nutshell. I'll post Omer Bartov's "5 identities
> of fascism" when I find my copy. (this evening). And I find I am
> justified in calling Starship Troopers, when measured by the above
> metric, a fascist screed.
>
Then you are STILL incorrect, even by your own definitions. The society
in ST the novel WAS questioned by many of the people in it without any
repercussions. Also, I don't see how you can say that the society in ST
assigned worth to people based on their race or society of origin---that
comes more from your fevered imagination than any reading of Heinlein.
In short, your definition of facism is a pretty screwed up and
overgeneralized one but even by your own definition, ST the book is not
facist. You sound like some of the Deconstructionist kooks I ran into
while working on my Masters in History.
Drew Stowers
>> I'm saying that the books that I listed follow a fascist aesthetic. I
>> think you misunderstood me (a common problem when words are so debased).
>> I mean a very specific thing when I use the term "fascist". I *don't*
>> mean "bad".
>>
>> Dave G.
>
>
>So basically, you have invented your own personal definition of "facist"
>and expect others to guess what it means? Is that it?
Actually Rick, I think we are supposed to bow down and humbly ask
David for his definition of facism. He does seem to go beyond the
'If it glorifies the military it must be facist' definition.
Of course he could just be a troll.
Martin Wisse
wrote:
>In a fit of divine composition, Rick (rang...@leading.net) inscribed in
>fleeting electrons:
>
>: So basically, you have invented your own personal definition of "facist"
>: and expect others to guess what it means? Is that it?
>
>I swallowed the first reply I considered to this remark. Be thankful.
>
>"Fascism" is a ideological philosophy that considers individuality as
>valuable only in service to a greater social union, and that greater
>union is defined by certain intrinsic qualities on the part of the
>individuals that make it up. There's more, and all of it is in the
>academic and critical mainstream.
Well, if you think Heinlein embodied these characteristics in his
novels, i'd suggest you look again.
Obsf: _A torrent of faces_ tries to describe a future earth which has
become a socalled corporate or fascist state, roughly coinciding with
the above. Written by James Blish and Norman Knight.
Martin Wisse
--
You have permission to read as much sarcasm into that statement as you like,
so long as you start with "lots".
-Ailsa Murphy in rasfw.