> On Sat, 6 Mar 1999, John M. Atkinson wrote:
People get the book and the movie confused. The book has lots of politics,
very little of the movie's 'satire', and some very interesting action scenes.
I don't agree with much of the politics, and they take up a lot of the book,
but the whole thing is a pretty good book. The Powered Armour is very cool.
The movie has silly satire pretending to be politics, military tactics at the
'drooling moron' level of sophistication, and so many inconsistencies as to be
laughable. They also didn't use PA...
I'm willing to grant that the spaceship scenes are very good looking. If
you overlook the moron-level tactics shown there as well. Purely as
drama, the ground combat scenes (esp. the fort scenes) are decent; as any sort
of
half-sensible combat squence, they're rubbish. Overall, I stand by my
earlier comment about feeding Paul Verhoven (the director) and the
scriptwriters to Bugs.
I think the movie tried to cross "Aliens" with "Star Wars"; it failed
miserably, getting only the worst elements of both movies. Aliens is a better
combat SF movie; Star Wars is better space opera; SST the movie is the worst
of both worlds.
Try reading Heinlein's book some time. You'll be surprised at how much
Verhoven got wrong. True story: Verhoven has never even read
the book, and was only interested in the fairly-well-known name to front
his own version of the story, which contains what he claims are the 'essential
elements' of the book's story. This is from "The Making of SST"
which has an interview w/ Verhoven.
This is very OT, and YMMV,
> At 18.01 06/03/99 -0800, you wrote:
Probably true.
I don't agree with much of the politics, and they take up a lot of
> the book, but the whole thing is a pretty good book.
Now, there our opinions differ quite sharply!:)
> I'm willing to grant that the spaceship scenes are very good looking.
If
> you overlook the moron-level tactics shown there as well. Purely as
Yes, yes, yes and, referring to the last note, could we make it a popular
demand? Should I sign somewhere?
> Try reading Heinlein's book some time. You'll be surprised at how much
IMO, you are dead right. I even heard that the original script wasn't tied
to SST and the idea to buy the rights and graft the "well-known title"
to the film only came in later stages. Wouldn't know if it makes sense from a
practical point of view. Now, I think Voerhoven had a nice idea in using his
tried and true (from Robocop) "news spots" to show the "large view": hinting
to the background is always a difficult thing in film productions (hence, the
superior popularity of TV series).
> This is very OT, and YMMV,
What?
Bye
In message
<Pine.OSF.4.02A.9903061744300.18042-100000@ccins.camosun.bc.ca> Brian
> Burger writes:
> The movie has silly satire pretending to be politics, military tactics
[...]
I often wonder that people don't more often connect the first clause in this
sentence, with the second.
The tactics are at a "drooling moron" level... do you think the
(*ex-marine*) director was trying to make a point or two? This is
a satirical film, after all.
> Try reading Heinlein's book some time.
My advice would be, if you're over fifteen, don't bother. It's not really a
book for adults. So many people make so much fuss over the book because it's
such a childhood favourite. Much of the book consists of ranting polemic, of
which the rest of the book exists only to validate. There is no plot worth the
name.
> You'll be surprised at how much
Not true. Verhoeven states that he read part of the book. You don't, so to
speak, have to eat the whole apple to know that it's rotten. One presumes that
he read numerous treatments and scripts.
The point Verhoeven made time and time again in interviews is that
he made the film because he was interested in how this crypto-
fascist society of Heinlein's would be very successful at repelling an
external threat. The film's political message is wonderfully ambiguous.
It was the producers who jumped on SST as a vehicle for a giant
insect sci-fi film.
> This is from "The Making of SST" which has an interview w/ Verhoven.
A *very* funny book. The producers claim that they are only interested in
maing a faithful version of the book. They then get to explain why almost all
of it gets thrown out. Verhoeven at least rescues the politics, IIRC he stuck
in one or two of the
diatribes almost word-for-word from the book.
> This is very OT, and YMMV,
Likewise.
Does anyone know if Verhoeven is back to working on his Hitler biopic?
> On Sun, 7 Mar 1999, David Brewer wrote:
> In message
Good point, actually. Still, given that the book isn't satirical, the
movie was a _major_ departure from the book. Most people were expecting
something closer to the book; that's why we dislike the movie so much.
> > Try reading Heinlein's book some time.
That goes a bit far, I think. It's not the best book Heinlein ever wrote; the
political parts & talking take up too much of the whole, and some of the
politics are damned strange, but there is an actual plot in between the rants.
It's also got an interesting part where the Powered Armour they
use is discussed. (AFAIK, this is the book that _invented_ PA.)
> > You'll be surprised at how much
If you're going to be making a movie based on a fairly well known novel, you'd
think that taking the time to read the book and at least try and understand
the author would be considered important. All Mr.Verhoven wanted was a vehicle
for his own views; SST happened to provide a
well-known title for him, and enabled him to plagarize character names
and such.
> One presumes that he read numerous treatments and scripts.
Which means that it's not just Verhoven who screwed up the movie, but a whole
crop of idiots. Wonderful.
> The point Verhoeven made time and time again in interviews is that
Ambiguous? How about overblown, excessively corny, and badly done?
> It was the producers who jumped on SST as a vehicle for a giant
Yes, and they failed there too. SST: the movie is a lousy film on a number of
levels: It's a terrible adaptation of Heinlien's book; AND it's a lousy movie
just as a movie. '90210 in Space', a friend called it, and he was right.
If the movie had been a decent movie while still being a lousy version of
Heinlein's novel, that wouldn't have been so bad. Ditto if it'd been the other
way around. It failed at both levels, however.
> > This is from "The Making of SST" which has an interview w/ Verhoven.
> A *very* funny book. The producers claim that they are only
Someone actually has the gall to claim they were making a faithful version of
the book? Merde...
Verhoven butchers the politics. Look, I don't agree with most of the politics
Heinlein uses in SST (or most of the rest of his politics), but it was
presented seriously. Verhoven can't be bothered. He's only interested in the
satirical aspects. (I'm not sure the politics of the
book _could_ have been presented seriously in a film. They're kind of
odd, and fairly involved, and Hollywierd isn't good at involved, odd,
politics...)
Heinlien seems to have believed most of the politics he put into the book.
They're damned strange politics, and not consistent or perhaps workable, but
he was taking them seriously at the time AFAIK. The book would probably have
been more interesting and readable if he'd left the strange politics out and
concentrated more on the story, but he didn't, so any adaptation needs to deal
with the politics seriously, or actually show that they wouldn't work.
Verhoven does neither...
> Does anyone know if Verhoeven is back to working on his Hitler
Verhoven is doing a Hitler biopic? Cringe...
Enough on this. I've gone on too much, it's now way way OT. I don't think
Verhoven did a good job; you might think he did, but never the twain shall
meet...
To paraphrase Paula Poundstone: remember that no matter how bad a movie is,
they had MEETINGS about it...
> The movie has silly satire pretending to be politics, military tactics
Like most of the rest of the list, I thought ST the movie was a total bomb (in
the American sense of the word:). Now, with that said I don't *think* the
tactics that the MI (those guys... *mobile* infantry? Yeah right...) used in
the movie were *that*
bad- considering the enemy.
The bugs, with the exception of the tanker and the plasma bugs, were all close
combat bugs! No ranged weapons. I would even argue that the tanker bug wasn't
much of a
ranged weapon too... However, those critter were *very* well armored- to
the point to where it took quite a few rounds from the MI assault rifles to
take down just a single
warrior. When you combine that (well armored/protected close combat
fighters) with the bugs total lack of ranged weapons, and throw in the fact
that there were Zillions of them and they had a 'Dorito' attitude (kill those
and we will hatch some more), you have a situation where bunching up *isn't*
such a bad idea! Yeah, if the bugs had a few machine guns they would really
give the MIs a bad day... but they didn't! The bugs have to get in REAL close
to attack... and the MIs *HAVE* to put as many shooters on target as they can
just to take a bug down.
The Avalon Hill SST the Movie game makes this point painfully clear to
both sides- the
bugs *have* to sneak up on the MIs (using terrain and numbers), while the MIs
*have* to keep close in mutually supporting groups (or a single mass group,
depending on the scenario). To spread out in 'realistic' fire team tactics
means to spread out your firepower... giving the bugs holes in your line in
which they can infiltrate your formation and shread it.
Now my question is where are the MI's heavy weapons (mortars, light machine
guns), AFVs, and artillery? If the fleet is suppost to provide the arty...
then they really dropped the ball...
And by the way, the book also used massed starship formations. Remember,
during Bug House one of the worst diasters was when two transports rammed each
other in orbit... kinda hard to do in space unless both ships were *real*
close:)
Let the flames begin:) But off list please, this is getting off topic
: )
Scott
> Brian Burger wrote:
Yes, they were great. But why didn't they USE any of those big gun turrets we
say???? The fleet is being massacred during hte drop scenes, but we don't see
one SHOT fired at the planet!
How could SST be anything BUT a bust when it leaves out all the philosophy of
the book (very little substance after all w/o it) and leaves out the
Power Armor of the Mobile Infantry. Way too much butchery doesn't do any good
for tainted meat, does it.
> David Brewer wrote:
> My advice would be, if you're over fifteen, don't bother. It's not
Well you know what they say, opinioins are like assholes and everyone's got
one.
Rather than pull off an old scab and attempt to discuss the plusses and minues
of SST on this list AGAIN, just go here:
http://www.kentaurus.com/troopers.htm
> On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Jonathan Jarrard wrote:
> Brian Burger wrote:
The only semi-coherent explaination I can think of is that the
scriptwriters/producers/etc were working on the Russian model: lots and
lots of mediocre infantry, and ignore casualties.
They left out the rest of the Russian Equation, though: lots and lots of
artillery and armour...Given the rest of the movie's tactical sillyness
-
napalm-armed tac fighters coming out to play ONCE; no AFVs, no fire
support, etc etc, I think we can just file SST under "Horrible Movies That
Shouldn't Have Been Made". It's got a lot of company in that category...
> Brian Burger wrote:
No, it's much simpler than that. The powers that be looked at their census
figures and realized they were getting to have to many voters (Remember:
Service Guarantees Citizenship).
So, they called up the Bugs, offered them some trade concessions, haggled over
which Bug planet to trade for Buenos Aires, and the Bugs cooked up some
warriors to order...
> On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Brian Burger wrote:
> The only semi-coherent explaination I can think of is that the
So kill all you want, we'll just breed and train more, hmmmmm?
> They left out the rest of the Russian Equation, though: lots and lots
That's would have cost more. They blew the movie's budget on the
stars' dermatologists bill and prom dresses. ;-)
And now a typical day on the set of SST:
<Verhoven> "Vo needs read ze book! All ve need is ze photogenic
teen actors and the co-ed shower zene and ve have ze Blockbuster.
Besides... I have to warn ze world about ze Nazis! ZE NAZIS ARE
EVERYWHERE!!!!"</Verhoven>
Later,
> The only semi-coherent explaination I can think of is that the
How 'bout another explanation: He was joking. Like the scene when the platoon
of MI are rounding up bug warriors with their guns and shooting them IN A
CIRCLE. Ricochets and misses would have done damage to the humans *for sure*
if there was one dose of reality in what they were
doing... The entire combat methodology of the MI was supposed to be a
joke - part of the satire. You're looking for logic and common sense
where it wasn't supposed to be...
Personally, I don't think Verhoven was very *successful* with what he was
trying to do, 'cause there was too much happening trying to be an action
adventure sci-fi kill-the-bugs movie (ah-la Aliens). That would be the
influence of the Producer$ and $tudio, I guess. Don't get me wrong, I'm
not trying to justify the film - I agree with what you said before: it
failed as BOTH an action-adventure-sci-fi-shoot-em-up and as political
satire. Satire for the brain dead maybe.
But don't judge it on it's military merits - it wasn't meant to be a
sound military flick. There was a *lot* of military improbability in Aliens
too (APC's with no ground clearance, Starships for a single squad, etc etc)
but it was a GREAT film.
> On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Jonathan Jarrard wrote:
> No, it's much simpler than that. The powers that be looked at their
You know, this is actually sounds like somthing Paul "The Oliver Stone of Sci
Fi" Verhoven would cook up.
Later,
> On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Jonathan Jarrard wrote:
> Brian Burger wrote:
I love it...it's the best explanation of the stupidity of the movie I've seen
yet.
If you haven't gone to that SST webpage that ws posted yesterday, do so.
Great page - everything I've being saying is said better
there...<http://www.kentaurus.com/troopers.htm>
Mark Siefert wrote: (on why no support weapons/AFVs/etc)
> That's would have cost more. They blew the movie's budget on the
Probably...
> And now a typical day on the set of SST:
<lol> How did you sneak onto the set during filming?!
In fairness to Verhoven, the man did grow up in Holland during the Nazi
occupation, so if he has a bug up his ass about nazism, it's understandable.
Still, he shouldn't have butchered the book like he
did...
Granted, the tactics might have been some pathetic attempt at satire. Still, a
really lousy job of 'interpreting' the book, and a lousy
movie...Satire for the brain-dead indeed, to quote another post on this
thread.
> In a message dated 3/8/99 2:12:17 PM EST, ajohnson@idirect.com writes:
<< The only semi-coherent explaination I can think of is that the
> scriptwriters/producers/etc were working on the Russian model: lots
How 'bout another explanation: He was joking. Like the scene when the platoon
of MI are rounding up bug warriors with their guns and shooting them IN A
CIRCLE. Ricochets and misses would have done damage to the humans *for sure*
if there was one dose of reality in what they were
doing... The entire combat methodology of the MI was supposed to be a
joke - part of the satire. You're looking for logic and common sense
where it wasn't supposed to be...
Personally, I don't think Verhoven was very *successful* with what he was
trying to do, 'cause there was too much happening trying to be an action
adventure sci-fi kill-the-bugs movie (ah-la Aliens). That would be the
influence of the Producer$ and $tudio, I guess. Don't get me wrong, I'm
not trying to justify the film - I agree with what you said before: it
failed as BOTH an action-adventure-sci-fi-shoot-em-up and as political
satire. Satire for the brain dead maybe.
But don't judge it on it's military merits - it wasn't meant to be a
sound military flick. There was a *lot* of military improbability in Aliens
too (APC's with no ground clearance, Starships for a single squad, etc etc)
but it was a GREAT film.
> [quoted text omitted]
Yeah, but this one wasn't. I think your concept of the satirical nature of
scene was way over Verhoven's head too. Did he mean to do that, I doubt it;
because it would never have occured to him. (It was pretty much a stretch for
you or me, wasn't it)?
> ScottSaylo@aol.com wrote:
My favourite quote on the subject was "Starship Troopers without the Powered
Armour is like Moby Dick without the Whale."
I liked the movie BTW. Just watch it, and forget that it bears resemblance to
the book only in a) The title b) Some of the character names.
As regards the philosophy behind the book, please e-mail me, as this
list isn't the place to hold an extended conversaition. The only reason I
mention it is irritation at RAH being labelled a Fascist.
> Alan E & Carmel J Brain wrote: