I'd like to pick up this topic from another thread and I'd like to hear what you guys think about these different Starship Troopers "products" (btw did you know that there is also a Multiplayer FPS under way, by Empire Interactive?)

I honestly can't express how much that post appals me. The book Starship Troopers is Heinlein's greatest novel; an excellent critique on America, and one of, in my opinion, one of the greatest Utipian novels of the past century. To say that I have lived no small part of my life by an approximation of the beliefs espoused within would be no understatement. Well, I suppose I couldn't declare freedom without reading stuff like that... [/b][/quote]

I remember having this discussion a few years ago with an American (I'm German) who was also a big fan of Heinlein's and especially of his Starship Troopers novel, and he hated the movie. Whereas I LOVE the movie but didn't appreciate the book that much.

One point was that he claimed that the movie was crap because it is nothing like the book. True, it isn't. But I don't think this can be a criteria for judging the movie. You have to see the movie as a product of art in its own right. There are other movies based on books which are significantly different from original which are still great or even better than the book (e.g. "Clockwork Orange"). But maybe it's not easy or even wrong to compare books and movies anyway, as they are different mediums that work completely differently.

What I thought was interesting is that he also said that the novel was an excellent critique of America, but he failed to see the same critique in the movie. He claimed that they turned this great, inspiring book into a stupid action movie. I don't see that. I think the movie bursts with satire, irony and critique. The action is so ridiculous that I just can't take it seriously. And I think the very fact that Verhoeven turned the book into this Hollywood action movie kind of thing is an ingenious addition/continuation of the critique in the novel (taking into account that the novel is from 1959 and the movie from 1997; a direct translation of the novel content to the screen just can't be expected to work after 30 years...)

What I don't like about the book is what I don't like about most utopias: they are heavily detailled, tedious descriptions about societies that don't exist and have no or only alibi story lines.
I prefer novels which tell stories set in our society/world which I can relate to and from which I can draw insights or conclusions about the world I live in, and which not only make me think, but also make me understand, laugh or cry. The novel just fails to do that (for me).

Well, anyway, what do you think about the movie, the book, or the game?

First of all books and movies are two completely different mediums. If you are making a movie based on a book and follow the book detail by detail you will have one shitty movie, just look at the Harry Potter movies, absolute rubbish. So it's best the movie didn't follow the book.

Second of all I didn't even know there was a book and only saw this movie as a mediocre action movie flick, not bad, but not great.

And thirdly probably off topic but I must mention it, the second movie is utter crap, worst acting ever, even worse than Keanu Reeves, Keanu looks like a pro compared to the acting shown in this movie, plus they took the feamle ship's commander from the first who died from being crushed by the door, and have her as one of the cast, this is probably the worst part about it.

And I hope we are talking about the movie with the war against the bugs, because I don't see anything about it that has a Utopian feel to it.

Maybe you could call it dystopian if you want. But this whole thing with citizenship, having to serve in the army to get the right to vote etc... In the novel this is more thoroughly developed into a utopia/dystopia. In the movie it really only is a roughly sketched background for the storyline.

(PS I didn't even know there wa a second movie! But apparently I haven't missed much...)

The second movie was so bad it never made a release at the movies, I saw it in the video store a couple months ago as a new release but I never saw it at the movies either, so I hired it out and found out why it never made a release at the movies. And yes you haven't missed much, in fact it would benefit you more to not see it than to see it.

EDIT But about the book being in a Utopian setting. I suppose you can really only see it as the author's idea of Utopia, everyone's Utopia would be different, so it would only be Utopian to a certain degree. And I never even knew dystopia was a word, what does it mean, the oppposite of utopia?

the book is a fantastic read.

THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT THE FILM:

it was made as a pisstake of the hollywood action films, its meant to be bad. it was loosely based on the book, thats it.

the second film was aweful end of story. the first is humourous and a very good piss take of typical action films.

Now I've got to check out the book. Whose the author, Heinlein who?

I now have 8 books I have to read.

LOL

Out of all those, you'd have to pick Clockwork Orange? LOL
As good as a director Kubrick might have been, as lousy he was in "turning books into movies"

Just read "The Shorttimers" ("Höllenfeuer" in Germany) and say "Full Metal Jacket" was better than the book

Did you ever actually READ "A Clockwork Orange"? Then I wonder how you came to your conclusion.

You read "Barry Lindon"? Did you read Arthur Schnitzlers' "Traumnovelle" (which was turned into "Eyes wide shut")?

All great movies, but not even a slight comparision to the books.

Sorry for getting a little OT here ;) I'll get back to STT later on (because that's actually a topic worth discussing :) ).

The movie is very comical. The two guards let the children play with their guns and the main female character get stabbed through the arm and then is completely fine, no pain at all. LOL

LOL

Out of all those, you'd have to pick Clockwork Orange? LOL
As good as a director Kubrick might have been, as lousy he was in "turning books into movies"

Just read "The Shorttimers" ("Höllenfeuer" in Germany) and say "Full Metal Jacket" was better than the book

Did you ever actually READ "A Clockwork Orange"? Then I wonder how you came to your conclusion.

You read "Barry Lindon"? Did you read Arthur Schnitzlers' "Traumnovelle" (which was turned into "Eyes wide shut")?

All great movies, but not even a slight comparision to the books.

Sorry for getting a little OT here ;) I'll get back to STT later on (because that's actually a topic worth discussing :) ). [/b][/quote]
I've read the book and seen the film, I think both are very good and Kubrick did a brilliant job of making the book into the film, there are some things you can't do in the books such as giving the film a soundtrack, and that was one of the things that was so good about the film (the fight at the start with ballet music in perfect time with the fighting, for example).

Yes. I study English Lit and I wrote a 15 page term paper on it. Maybe I had to read too many times... :D
(I'm also a bit offended by your question, I must admit, cause if I hadn't read the novel I wouldn't have taken it as an example...)

Personal taste. Leaving out the final chapter was a very significant change to the plot which, at least, didn't make the movie crap.

Damn it. I DID have an odd feeling when I wrote Clockwork Orange, as it did occur to me that's not the best example, because the book is also pretty good. But I didn't think someone would read that part that closely. :whistle:

Yes, that was the example I thought about giving instead but I thought it was less known to people. The "Traumnovelle" is, as Schnitzler's complete work, horribly bad.
"Eyes Wide Shut" is pretty goog though.

Actually I think Kubrick was VERY good at turning novels into movies, or let's say: making movies based on or inspired by novels. And actually I think you can say this even if you haven't read a single novel. Because the movies are, in general, all excellent movies. They speak for themselves. It doesn't matter in the end how they relate to the books. And THAT is what makes them good novel adaptations.

Based on what criteria do you think he was lousy at it?