Once again: Bill the Galactic Hero was a satire of Starship Troopers. Bored of the Rings was a satire of The Lord of the Rings. Note that in these actual satires, the satirists had the intellectual honesty to at least give their derivative work a different name and did not try to pass their parodies off as the original. No such case with the Starship Troopers movie. It wasn't a satire. It was an insult.
And even if your point were actually true, it still begs my original question: Why is it that when hollywood makes a movie based on a work of a libertarian like R.A. Heinlein, they allow a hacky scriptwriter to butcher it, but when they base a movie off a work of a socialist like H.G. Wells, nothing is so important as "staying true to the book"?
I understnad how RAH fans would take it as an insult. I read the novel but took the movie for what it was. A send up of the fascistic elements inherent in all action movies. Your last question is a good one. I really couldn't tell you.
Why is it that when hollywood makes a movie based on a work of a libertarian like R.A. Heinlein, they allow a hacky scriptwriter to butcher it, but when they base a movie off a work of a socialist like H.G. Wells, nothing is so important as "staying true to the book"?
Ed Neumeier wrote the screenplay. He worked with the director on Robocop, so you can assume that the director brought him in.
What comes off well in books often doesn't come off well on the screen. Heinlein would be a laughing stock if translated straight from book to screen. He was very much of a particular era, i.e. Farnham's Freehold.