• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

Film Starship Troopers

rate this movie

  • [img]http://i.bluelight.ru/g//543/1star.gif[/img]

    Votes: 2 5.1%

  • [img]http://i.bluelight.ru/g//543/2stars.gif[/img]

    Votes: 4 10.3%

  • [img]http://i.bluelight.ru/g//543/3stars.gif[/img]

    Votes: 14 35.9%

  • [img]http://i.bluelight.ru/g//543/4stars.gif[/img]

    Votes: 19 48.7%
  • Total voters
    39
If you dismissed it because it was cheesy, then I think you missed the point. It was supposed to be completely over the top.

I haven't read the book, but I have to say that it kind of annoys me when people compare a novel and a film so literally.


the book actually advocates quite a different political point of view to the film itself, iirc, so perhaps this is why michael et al are not fans of its adaptation?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i agree with your point though, and have actually formulated a theory on this film. it is undoubtedly supposed to be cheesy (mainly, one would presume, because of the fact that it's making fun and also cashing-in on the previous cheesiness of the b-grade sci-fi genre), but i think verhoevan's motives go a little further.

actually, i think he purposefully hired shitty actors, made the dialogue crappy, and the sets shoddy and plastic-looking not just for the above reason, nor budget constraints. i think there's something allegorical (i'm not quite sure if that's the word i want to use here, but i can think of none better at the moment) going on between the shitness of the film and political systems that he/it is deconstructing.

obviously verhoevan isn't particularly fond of fascism or capitalism (not that many people are, with the former, obviously), and i think in this film he is exploring a metaphorical relationship between the false hope, and general crappiness of these two systems and the similar crappiness of his film.

it's a concept which i'm sure many will disagree entirely with, but as alasdair is fond of saying, this is the great thing about art; the potential for a variety of different people to read a variety of different things into it.

perhaps i'm going a little too far, but i think that there is at least a little surface credibility to my argument :)
 
^^I think your right.

However I don’t think that yet, enough people can draw existing links between fascism and capitalism???

Therefore, this becomes a problem... because if you don’t get it entirely but your laughing at it cos it seems so absurdly cheesy that you just gotta laugh, aren't you then unconsciously supporting the very system that the film is criticising?

I don’t know, just a thought that I had at the time.

I felt that the film was missing that certain...(spice?) then simultaneously as I came to the ^^^ realisation it got me quite pissed.
 
onetwothreefour said:
the book actually advocates quite a different political point of view to the film itself, iirc, so perhaps this is why michael et al are not fans of its adaptation?
Click to expand...

in a word, bingo.

from the heinlein faq:

"Starship Troopers" (1997)
Filmed by Tri-Star Pictures with a budget said to be in the neighborhood of $90 million, and directed by Paul Verhoeven. It manages to faintly resemble the action elements of the novel while missing almost the entire point. What elements of the political and social issues make it into the film are so distorted (a clearly fascist government, Sergeant Zim as a sadistic bully) as to make fans of the novel cry in their popcorn. A wretched mess, best summarized as "Bughunt 90210."
 
I enjoyed it in many ways. I thought it was fairly unique among most sci fi movies and had a style all its own, which is nice to see.

I meant to read the book a while back but never got aroung to it. Maybe I will in the near future, it sounds interesting.
 
ANybody watched this ? i found its a good movie with a good potential but it couldve been better. Like why the fuck do they fight bugs with automatic rifles when they have the technology for spaceshipss? especially after seeing the first of the three movies, the second is complete shit, and in the third one they DO have developped new weapons but they STILL fight with automatics. I meansome imagination would be welcome, they could have some high etech electricty guns or something....and the thing that comes to my mind also i just why not nuke all the bug population lol would be alot simpler. but a movies a movie i guess. What your opinions ?
 
I love the first one.

It, like RoboCop (same director), I have watched and rewatched many times.

You are right, though... It is a movie. It wouldn't have been a movie if they just bunker buster nuked entire planets, though. On the side of ground assault however, we could say that they wanted to salvage what they could. Maybe the bugs could teach them things. Maybe provide medicine or insights other ways? And maybe they (the humans) wanted those planets for themselves or had already had some investment in them.

As for energy weapons... Perhaps it is more economical to fire solid rounds. And maybe at the beginning they hadn't figured out to make it occur in a small repeater like a firearm (energy weapons)... But it was easier to make single fire ones based on "energy", like grenades, or larger (repeater) weapons such as what can be found on the starships (which obviously have more extensive power supply systems than would be allowed in a small firearm). Maybe energy-based weapons heat up a lot.

Maybe the bugs held secrets in their chemistry, for such weaponry. I don't know.

No offense to the production of the second and third movies, but neither were that memorable. I may rewatch, though.
 
Last edited:
What 23 said:
I love the first one.

It, like RoboCop (same director), I have watched and rewatched many times.

You are right, though... It is a movie. It wouldn't have been a movie if they just bunker buster nuked entire planets, though. On the side of ground assault however, we could say that they wanted to salvage what they could. Maybe the bugs could teach them things. Maybe provide medicine or insights other ways? And maybe they (the humans) wanted those planets for themselves or had already had some investment in them.

As for energy weapons... Perhaps it is more economical to fire solid rounds. And maybe at the beginning they hadn't figured out to make it occur in a small repeater like a firearm (energy weapons)... But it was easier to make single fire ones based on "energy", like grenades, or larger (repeater) weapons such as what can be found on the starships (which obviously have more extensive power supply systems than would be allowed in a small firearm). Maybe energy-based weapons heat up a lot.

Maybe the bugs held secrets in their chemistry, for such weaponry. I don't know.

No offense to the production of the second and third movies, but neither were that memorable. I may rewatch, though.
Click to expand...

Haha yes your theorys do make sense ! Well atleast if you have watched the third they do have new weapons and use a bomb that destroys the whole planet, so there is some advancement made lol. Personaly i agree the first oen is the best...the third would be second and the seconde one was very disapointing. Like the idea isnt bad but the whole movie is spent in a bunker and there is not alot of action ....I saw they made a starship troopers ivasion movie 2012 but it is anime and i dont dig anime maybe wil watch it when im bored lol
 
Did you ever play the mod/mode in StarCraft? Those were pretty fun, back in the day. With buddies, in a compound, waves and waves of bugs.
 
Starship Troopers is classic cheese, so there's not much point in arguing over things not making sense. It's pure entertainment!
 
i fixed the typo in the subject which was driving me crazy...

i love this film. it's got shlock-horror value and a lot of silly action but it also explores some excellent themes.

"would you like to know more?"

:)

alasdair
 
alasdairm said:
i fixed the typo in the subject which was driving me crazy...

i love this film. it's got shlock-horror value and a lot of silly action but it also explores some excellent themes.

"would you like to know more?"

:)

alasdair
Click to expand...



That interactive media thing was one of my favorite parts of the movie.

The sequels were terrible, though, even the one where they brought Rico back. I just didn't have the same feeling that I was involved in the world like the first movie gave me. The whole thing was almost like watching on a computer's newsfeed to my younger mind and it totally sucked me in.

This was probably one of my favorite movies growing up... I'll still watch it every now and then on TV but it really doesn't do much for me anymore. I actually thought their weapons were pretty badass. Not super sophisticated or anything, but an assault rifle/shotgun/grenade launcher (at least, I think it could do grenades as well) combo is a pretty bad-ass idea. I just hated how they never showed any different kinds of ammo for the convertable assault rifles, but that truly is nitpicking.
 
loved it since seeing it in the cinemas. hilarious film. amazing juxtaposition for a blockbuster at the time.

i think it's currently streaming for free on crackle.

p.s. this is the ONLY good thing denise richards ever did. it was like she was literally made for that part.
 
L2R said:
p.s. this is the ONLY good thing denise richards ever did. it was like she was literally made for that part.
Click to expand...

She was literally made for my parts!

6a00e393366a1a8834017c3189dd97970b-500wi




*cough*...sorry.
 
yeah i get the whole obsession most blokes go for, but to me she really looks like mongoloid barbie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top