Would people stop putting down Starship Troopers!

[kirk]

NO, we will not stop putting down Starship Troopers.

It sucked.  Period.

As a stand-alone film, it sucked.  As a film version of the book, it sucked even more.  Huge plots holes, bad acting, too many Busey teeth, the list oges on.

Kirk

[AndyC]

What I don't understand is why they would even bother to call the movie Starship Troopers. The name is only going to mean something to fans of the book, and it's such a loose adaptation that most fans of the book aren't going to like it.

It's not just the lack of power armour, although that is a big part of it. The image of troops being shot out of a launcher and entering the atmosphere individually, then roaming around blasting things with mini nukes and other neat weapons has to be the single coolest thing in the book. I don't understand how anyone could make Starship Troopers without it, and expect me not to notice.

It's also the way almost any interesting hard SF, intelligent speculation, and most of the grittiness has been removed from this tale of a boy's transformation into a hardened soldier, and replaced with teen movie crap - pointless love story, stupid rivalries and lots of pretty young faces. With the exception of Clancy Brown and Michael Ironside, Earth's forces were a bunch of annoying pussies.

Huge liberties were taken with the plot, and the priorities of the story are changed drastically.

The political discussion - really the focus of the book - is reduced to a few funny bits spoofing Nazi propaganda films. And those came off looking like a poor attempt to make it look like Robocop - a much better Verhoeven film, if you ask me.

As someone who enjoyed Heinlein's book, I hated the movie. As a fan of sci-fi action movies, it was nice to see some shootouts and giant warships on the big screen. Unfortunately, my tolerance for teen movie crap is too low to really enjoy it, even as a stand-alone movie.

I would have liked it better if the characters were a bit more like the space marines in Aliens, who were obviously inspired by the same source material.



Post Edited (12-01-03 18:57)

[raj]

Well put.
If they had titled the movie "Earth vs. the Bugs" I could've enjoyed it on that level.

But if you are going to adapt a Heinlein book to the big screen, don't junk the politics in the book, the sci-fi is just the milieu for RAH to discuss his politics.

[FearlessFreep]

Agreed, the pod-drop parts of the book were really cool.  Also a lot of the protagonists internal running dialog dealing with citizen responsibility to the state, etc..and some of the training camp stuff was really good.

The only thing in common with the book was the name and like he said Anyone who knows the name is going to hate the movie did to it, so that wasn't very smart.

The only good part of the movie was watching the huge CG spacships fly around

[GreatWasabi]

Yeah, the part where the starships are attacked by Plasma Bugs was one of the movies redeeming qualities.  I was so p**sed when I saw that the Powered Suits and the pod ships had been completely removed.  The Powered Suits were what gave the Terrans the advantage over  he Arachnids.  i also noticed that the "skinnies" from the novel were also absent from the film.  I also hated how they changed Rico's life in the military.  The teenage love story mush was a lot of B.S.

[GreatWasabi]

I'm not defending the movie anymore.  Just the novel.  I hate people who watch the movie, and think the novel is also bad.

[Eirik]

Everyone seems to have a problem with Jake Busey's teeth.  Personally, for me, it was his ass in that shower scene I could have done without seeing.  I assumed the facist stuff was just an ill conceived joke... and I hope to God I'm right.

My principle problem with the movie was that the monsters weren't the slightest bit frightening.  Good grief, people, our military TODAY (given the means for interstellar travel to get to the fight) could have kicked the crap out of those things.

Step one:  ARMOR - no, not some cheesey sci-fi novel body armor, I mean tanks and IFVs.  These things would have been helpless against it in any battle taking place in the open (i.e. almost all of them).  Massed infantry assaults?  This is what you get for making Doogie Howser the general.

Step two:  Dum-dums.  Change the bullets, morons.  Obviously the reason you have to pump 5,000 rounds into each bug is because your rounds are whistling right through them without killing them.  That's swell for enemies with centralized vital organs, endoskeletons, and closed circulatory systems.  But for a giant grasshopper you need more stopping power.

Step three:  Air support.  Mankind figured this out in the 1930s.  The only aircraft in the movie were those Vietnam-style Huey knockoffs.  One daisey cutter outside that little fort where they were over run and the MI has nothing left to do but dodge falling goop.

Sending in infantry with no support whatsoever to dance and prance around these things while they empty six clips into each one?  And then I have to listen to lines like "MI doesn't produce stupid troopers."  No, they produce FUNCTIONALLY RETARDED troopers.  Sorry, but it was unwatchable.

[dean]

if they just stuck to the killing of the bugs and less on the 'teen movie crap' that has been already mentioned, then i would have liked it better: i like the film, haven't read the book but understand the dissapointment that wouldve occured in the transfer, but overall i think it wasn't too bad a film, just headed in a wrong direction.

action action action!!! that would've been cool.  even if the marines are functionally retarded troopers, a full on battle would've been pretty fun to watch.

[devil clown]

if youo read the book then u were expexting the movie to follow it.
but with most convertions the film is only based on the book this doesnt mean that it has to follow the storyline of the book.
any way enough of that i thought that the film was good it had goor, guns, explotions and a ok plot ok it could of been better but waht did you expect?

[Velvet Brotha]

Geez... and you guys claim to be B-flick afficianados. Ok, So what, SST wasn't all that but I still liked it. "It had some pretty cool effects."  Although, the female character annoyed the s**t outta me with her constant smiling during the battle sequences.

So in other words... we all agree to disagree.  ; )

[Kory]

not many.

[Eirik]

Velvet Brotha - You overlook something when you say "you guys call yourselves B-movie afficianados..."  Starship Troopers is not a B-movie.  The budget is huge, the marketing effort was strong, the production values were high, and it has too many "mainstream" stars (granted they all turned out to be flavors of the month who can't get work a whole six years later).  The only thing "B" about this movie is Michael Ironside.

SST isn't a B-movie, it is a BAD A-movie.  Believe me, if the effects had been cheesey, the dialogue funnier, the actors less polished-looking, and if the distant LA skyline had accidentally turned up in just one of those desert planet vistas, I'd be praising this movie up and down.

[FearlessFreep]

LOL - When I read Velvet Brotha's post my first thought was "Starship Toopers wasn't a B Movie, it was a very bad A Movie", but Elrik beat me too it.

[Velvet Brotha]

You guys are right.... It was a high budget flick by "B-movie" standards. However, I was going by what they had said on David Letterman. About the movie being made for a paultry $4M... Low budget by Hollywood Standards. "Don't you just hate those snobby, materialistic schmucks?"

That being said... I really enjoy this forum because we always seem to have interesting conversations. I only wish that there was a local convention that we could all get together at. That would be fun... : )


"You have just struck the mighty Hercules."- Ahhhhnald Swartzenagar

-Hercules goes to New York?-

[daveblackeye15]

Eirik:  

Got point Eirik. I really like the book and even though I am able to seperate the book and the movie, I still say the movie is crap. Not quite craptastic just crap. If it was cheesier I would have like I'm sure.