Starship Troopers: One of the Most Misunderstood Movies Ever

The Atlantic ^ | November 7, 2013 | Calum Marsh

[EveningStar]

When Paul Verhoeven’s Starship Troopers hit theaters 16 years ago today, most American critics slammed it. In the New York Times, Janet Maslin panned the “crazed, lurid spectacle,” as featuring “raunchiness tailor-made for teen-age boys.” Jeff Vice, in the Deseret News, called it “a nonstop splatterfest so devoid of taste and logic that it makes even the most brainless summer blockbuster look intelligent.” Roger Ebert, who had praised the “pointed social satire” of Verhoeven’s Robocop, found the film “one-dimensional,” a trivial nothing “pitched at 11-year-old science-fiction fans.”

But those critics had missed the point. Starship Troopers is satire, a ruthlessly funny and keenly self-aware sendup of right-wing militarism. The fact that it was and continues to be taken at face value speaks to the very vapidity the movie skewers.

[Viennacon]

I always found the women soldiers on the front line an odd concept. Then again, we do that now.

[Valpal1]

The movie was a satire of the book. The director did not like Heinlein’s book so he satirized it.

[demshateGod]

All those review pretty much sum it up. The movie was crap.

[SES1066]

In contrast and comparison to the botched "Starship Troopers", there was a surprisingly good SF Space Military series on Fox in the 1995-96 season, "Space:Above and Beyond" well worth watching for RAH fans and others. I have a DVD box set and in regards to this coming Christmas season, I'd particularly commend the 12th episode, "River of Stars" with an explicit Christmas theme AND an audio inclusion of the Apollo 8 Genesis piece.

Unfortunately, this series dies a too-early death! However it did show that Hollywood could do good SF and even good military SF! Just not often and not lately [frown]!

[strider44]

That movie was an abortion. Tainted the greatest Sci-Fi book of all time. RAH had to be rolling over in his grave.

[wiggen]

First and foremost is context and the book was written in i believe 1959. And yes the book is far better than the movie but in this day and age movies are largely not made to espouse politics but to put seats in chairs. If someone wanted to make a movie making a political point i could probably go through my sci fi library and find an easy dozen, Kim Stanley Robinson’s Mars trilogy for instance.
Secondly it’s been some time since i read the book but i don’t remember anything about Heinlein assigning blame to one side or another as to who started the war although that point is rather central in the article and i really don’t believe the point is discussed in the movie at all. Since it’s the movie being critiqued i’m not sure why the writer even went there.

[wiggen]

She was spectacular in the shower.

[DoodleDawg]

The only resemblance between the book and the movie was the title.

[AD from SpringBay]

The book is much better... the ideas of which didn’t, somehow, make it into the film.

[montag813]

Not that I didn’t appreciate Dina Meyer’s boobs

She still looks fabulous at 44...

[Hootowl]

Not always. The movie “Jaws” was better than the book. For example, it cut out the extraneous crap like the fling between the sheriff’s wife and the ichthyologist, which added nothing to the story.

[Yardstick]

Exactly. The movie was basically Verhoeven’s way of pissing on Heinlein and the book.

[brewer1516]

One of many, but one sticks out in my mind. One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest pretty good movie; amazing book. Chief narrates the book but is something of a secondary character in the movie.

[dfwgator]

The Yes song was better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5iBnZ63uh4

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Heinlein must have been amused by the imbecility. After he wrote Starship Troopers, he was cursed as a right wing fanatic. Then, when he wrote Stranger in a Strange Land, he was cursed for being a radical leftist.

It cracked me up when somebody actually blamed the 1960s Hippie movement on Heinlein’s book.

[JoeFromSidney]

The only resemblance between the book and the movie was the title.

I agree. Hollywood jacked up the title and slid a whole new story under it. An much poorer story, too.

[lyby]

I found the movie tasteless and disgusting. (Did not read the book. Bought into the advertising hype... - SHAME on me.)

[JoeFromSidney]

I bought the book when it came out. If I remember correctly, I got it through the Science Fiction Book Club. I attended the WorldCon that year. I knew it had been nominated for a Hugo, so I took my copy with me. By coincidence, I had just sold my first story to John Campbell, editor of ANALOG. I introduced myself to him and he invited me to sit with his party at the Hugo awards. To my delight, Heinlein was also in the party. When the announcement was made that STARSHIP TROOPERS was a Hugo winner, I ran up to my room, grabbed my copy, and got Heinlein's autograph on it right then. It's one of my treasures. That started a personal friendship with Heinlein that ended only with his death.

[Tailback]

I’ve always wanted to read this book. But, I never have the time.

It's a very short book. Devote a half hour a night for two weeks. Absolutely worth the time.

The movie is an Obamanation. (yes, I meant that)

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Back when the movie was released I decided to read the book STARSHIP TROOPERS.

The movie was jingoistic and awful, with excellent special effects.

The book was better and in the very last paragraph we get a shock! The hero was not(censored)!

About the same time GUNS AND AMMO MAGAZINE (remember the controversy now?) had an editorial in which the author told how it should be in the USA today. His ideas came right out of the Starship Troopers book.