Starship Troopers

[Pilot Ace]

Exactly. Therefore, the film plays the bugs as the good guys, the innocent victims who were only defending themselves.

I don't think it's that simplistic.

The FedNet narrator said that the colonists "disregarded Federal warning", but what this exactly was, is unclear. We don't know what the Feds warned them *about*. Could have been just something like "that's a dangerous area, don't go there".

Checking out a script online says the colonists knew it was within the bug quarantine zone and further along it does say the bugs were there before the colonists set up shop.

In any case, there had to have been something else the bugs could have done to warn the colonists away, other than wholesale slaughter... The 'brain bugs' are intelligent, why didn't they say something? "Hey you, this is our land, get out"?

I don't recall either side making much attempt to communicate with the other, which is why I don't paint either side as good or bad.

Either way, it's not a guarantee two intelligent species will be able to communicate with one another easily at all, especially given humans are mammals and the bugs are seemingly insectoid (with smaller hive minds, given the Brain Bugs?)--two entirely different ways of being and thinking.

The only "communication" that goes on that I recall is a pyschic impression of what the Brain Bug feels after being captured--fear or pain or something along those lines.

No, I don't think the war had started yet.

Again, reading the script online, it looks like the war was in effect at essentially the start of the film.

So, at this point Humans were at war with the bugs, having military invading bug planets, when the Mormon colonists landed. It's also stated right from the start about the meteors supposedly coming from them--again, I say supposedly only because we never see the bugs using any technology that would be capable of doing something like that...

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Checking out a script online says the colonists knew it was within the bug quarantine zone and further along it does say the bugs were there before the colonists set up shop.

Neither of those points made it into the actual film.

 

[Pilot Ace]

Checking out a script online says the colonists knew it was within the bug quarantine zone and further along it does say the bugs were there before the colonists set up shop.

Neither of those points made it into the actual film.

This is the dialogue from the script, as it is available on the internet. Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of the movie on hand to verify. Did you verify with a copy?

49 TRAVEL ADVISORY - INSECT TRAGEDY ON TANGO URILLA

A prefab township sits on the shores of a tranquil alien bay.
Then, a "You Are Here" map of the Known Universe.

OFFICIAL VOICE
Disregarding Federal warnings, Mormon
extremists established Port Joe Smith,
a settlement of 300 on Tango Urilla, a
system just inside the Arachnid
Quarantine Zone.

Archival pictures of a captive two meter ARACHNID WARRIOR,
multiple eyes, cutting mouthparts and claws. Wary SCIENTISTS
keep their distance as it eats a COW.

OFFICIAL VOICE
Too late they realized tha Tango Urilla had
already been chosen by other colonists
-- Arachnids !

Now body parts litter the ruined streets of Port Joe Smith.

OFFICIAL VOICE
The council asks future colonists to obey all
official Federal warnings.
Would you like to know more ?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ The film's version of that scene doesn't mention Tango Urilla, although actually I do think it says the settlement's inside the quarantine zone.

Still doesn't excuse what the bugs did, though. It's one thing to shoot back if they're being attacked, but massacring innocent civilians is another thing entirely.

Exactly. Therefore, the film plays the bugs as the good guys, the innocent victims who were only defending themselves.

I don't think it's that simplistic.

I do. Besides, it seems clear enough what the implication is, calling humanity the 'aggressors' and all that.

 

[DonIago]

(shrug) Makes about as much sense to me as if the Federation had tried to start a colony in the Gamma Quadrant after first contact with the Dominion. You know it ain't going to end well.

In any case, I saw the movie before I read the book, and ended up being rather disappointed that the book wasn't more like the movie.

 

[Pilot Ace]

^ The film's version of that scene doesn't mention Tango Urilla, although actually I do think it says the settlement's inside the quarantine zone.

Still doesn't excuse what the bugs did, though. It's one thing to shoot back if they're being attacked, but massacring innocent civilians is another thing entirely.

You're failing to factor in the huge difference of species/society. The bugs have no way to distinguish between human warrior and human civilian, they're essentially the same aside from a big, black hunk of metal and who is to say the civilians didn't have any weapons with them?

Given the bugs were being attacked by humans at the time in an all out war, it's safe to assume you're under attack when a colony of your enemy suddenly shows up.

Exactly. Therefore, the film plays the bugs as the good guys, the innocent victims who were only defending themselves.

I don't think it's that simplistic.

I do. Besides, it seems clear enough what the implication is, calling humanity the 'aggressors' and all that.

I just plainly disagree. The identifier "aggressor" doesn't mean bad guys. Just as "defender" doesn't mean good guy.

You can have revolutionaries being the aggressors in a conflict against a defending government, does that make the revolutionaries bad guys? No, it means they have different motivations and beliefs.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

and who is to say the civilians didn't have any weapons with them?

Well, the film did say they were Mormons. I doubt they were armed.

The identifier "aggressor" doesn't mean bad guys. Just as "defender" doesn't mean good guy.

Then what aren't the humans doing wrong in this film? If the 'aggressors' have reasons for doing what they did, then what ARE those reasons here?

 

[Pilot Ace]

Well, the film did say they were Mormons. I doubt they were armed.

Why? I'm not terribly familiar with the Mormon religion, but they aren't necessarily pacifists, are they?

They did seemingly know they were heading into quarantined territory or they were aware of the war going on. It would make more sense to take some weapons than none at all.

Then what aren't the humans doing wrong in this film? If the 'aggressors' have reasons for doing what they did, then what ARE those reasons here?

An imperialistic sense of "Manifest Destiny," I think.

It's obvious the bugs do pose a possible threat to humanity, they're able to harm our military depending on the circumstances (possibly able to aim meteors at Earth as well, though I doubt it). So, it's not like the humans are rounding up defenseless beings and stomping on them, but as presented in the film I'm not so sure it's a righteous act of "fighting for the survival of humanity!" either.

 

[Trent Roman]

First, the asteroid thing has always puzzled me, too. We saw orbital rings with large gun emplacements, so you'd think that Fleet could do something about an asteroid attack. Here's my theory: the bugs use these asteroids to colonize other worlds, which makes them the closest they have to spaceships. That also means there has to be living bugs inside most of these; and from there I don't think it's altogether a stretch to speculate that the bugs in the asteroid can control its direction, particularly when you consider the challenge of hitting a planet (Earth, or a colony target) with a rock when your bullseye is a comparitive spec across interstellar distances. I think the bugs played dead after dropping out of whatever FTL-method, pretending to be just another one of the hunks of rock that fly by the planet every so often, then suddenly adjusted their heading to hit.

Or, it just occurs to me now, since the asteroids have to be traveling at FTL speeds, perhaps Fleet just didn't have any way to detect and defend against something traveling that fast (although it must have obviously decelerated before hitting the planet, otherwise there would be nothing left of the planet). This might also explain why, after one such asteroid attack already, the bugs were nonetheless able to wipe out Zaguma Beach or whatever that resort world was; it's a tactic hard to detect/defend against.

Secondly, I really don't think the film supports the idea that there was a war on before the attack on Buenos Aires. It seemed that the Fed that basically designated a no-go zone, policing its boundaries to keep asteroids out, and little else suggest an active state of warfare; particularly not after witnessing the mobilization that occurs after Buenos Aires, and I'm pretty sure there's an actual mention of a declaration of war at this point. Which doesn't mean that there weren't low-intensity conflicts and skirmishes along the QZ border, but nothing the Fed considered worth full conflict--and in a militaristic culture like that, it says something.

It's worth remember that both humanity and the bugs are, in this film, portrayed as expansionary species; both, through different means, constantly look to expand their territory. Their respective 'civilizations' simply grew to the point that they abutted on each other, and the bugs, trapped by the QZ, decided that only by bloodying humanity could their expansion continue. It's a mistake to try and find 'good guys' in this film; there really aren't any.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Pilot Ace]

I think all this discussion means I have to watch this soon, it's been far too long anyway.

 

[ST-One]

Mediocre book. Great film. (if you 'get it')

This.

 

[ST-One]

No, I don't think that's it at all. The problem with Starship Troopers is not that it went to far in the violence or sex department, but that it tried to make satire out of a serious and interesting novel. Its a fun film, sure, but compared to the book its pale and watery and very unsatisfying.

The world depicted in that book is something which can only be made fun of.

I appreciate Verhoven's style - the Robocop was entertaining, Total Recall was great... but I think Starship Troopers needed to be done by someone with a little more respect for the source material. It is, in fact, Verhoven who didn't "get it".

That book does not deserve respect in any way.
And Verhoven did, in fact, 'get it'; he exposes that book's society for what is really is so very perfectly in his satire.

 

[Rii]

Ignoring what's written on the page in favour of a caricature adopted, as a general rule, by those who've never actually read the book != "getting it".

 

[ST-One]

I've read it. The book is awful.

Anyway, I just ordered this masterpiece on Blu Ray.

 

[Rocketman]

Heinlein nearly always took his own ideas too seriously, which made his books prime candidates for parody. The fact that Starship Troopers was a beloved book of many, and even required reading at military academies, made it an even more ideal choice for taking a dump on.

Sure, Verhoeven could've picked a novel nobody knew or care about, but that wouldn't have offended anyone.

 

[ST-One]

Heinlein nearly always took his own ideas too seriously, which made his books prime candidates for parody. The fact that Starship Troopers was a beloved book of many, and even required reading at military academies, made it an even more ideal choice for taking a dump on.

Sure, Verhoeven could've picked a novel nobody knew or care about, but that wouldn't have offended anyone.

Do you honestly think it's offensive to make fun of and expose the wrongs of the society that was portrayed in that book?

 

[Demiurge]

Do you honestly think it's offensive to make fun of and expose the wrongs of the society that was portrayed in that book?

I'd have no problem living in that society - as matter of fact, I'd prefer it to the one we have now in many ways.

And of course it didn't make fun of that society - it made fun of the society Verhoeven had extrapolated in his own head. Why? Because he never read the book. He could hardly have much insight into it then, could he?

It's a significant work in military science fiction - maybe THE significant work. It also has quite a bit to say about society and our expectations. Moral philosophy is a very interesting POV, and has some interesting ramifications. What you saw in the movie was 3rd Reich Fascism across the board. It was unrecognizable from the society painted in the book.

Oh, and of course it wasn't the sum total of Heinlein's philosophy - Glory Road was a very strident anti-war peace, and Stranger in a Strange Land was one of the seminal counterculture works done in scifi.

But then I'll take a wild guess and say you didn't read Starship Troopers either - you just know you don't like what it says.

So yes, I find ignorance offensive. Verhoeven mocked a work he admitted to having complete ignorance over. In his interviews he said explicitly that he modeled it after what he remembered of Nazi occupation in the Netherlands during his youth.

Needless to say, considering that the book was picked up as a principle by science fiction fans that fought in that war, and that it's lessons as to what the responsibility of soldiers are in war were emulated by the service academies, Voerhoven was talking out his ass.

Oh, and the model for Terran Federation? Switzerland, at least according to Poul Andersen, a peer of Heinlein's who said that was what the author told him when they discussed the book. Of course, Switzerland has mandatory military service. Heinlein felt that Switzerland's compulsory military service was too harsh though.

 

[ST-One]

Do you honestly think it's offensive to make fun of and expose the wrongs of the society that was portrayed in that book?

I'd have no problem living in that society - as matter of fact, I'd prefer it to the one we have now.

And of course it didn't make fun of that society - it made fun of the society Verhoeven had extrapolated in his own head. Why? Because he never read the book. He could hardly have much insight into it then, could he?

It's a significant work in military science fiction - maybe THE significant work. It also has quite a bit to say about society and our expectations. Moral philosophy is a very interesting POV, and has some interesting ramifications. What you saw in the movie was 3rd Reich Fascism across the board. It was unrecognizable from the society painted in the book.

Oh, and of course it wasn't the sum total of Heinlein's philosophy - Glory Road was a very strident anti-war peace, and Stranger in a Strange Land was one of the seminal counterculture works done in scifi.

But then I'll take a wild guess and say you didn't read Starship Troopers either - you just know you don't like what it says.

So yes, I find ignorance offensive. Verhoeven mocked a work he admitted to having complete ignorance over. In his interviews he said explicitly that he modeled it after what he remembered of Nazi occupation in the Netherlands during his youth.

Needless to say, considering that the book was picked up as a principle by science fiction fans that fought in that war, and that it's lessons as to what the responsibility of soldiers are in war were emulated by the service academies, Voerhoven was talking out his ass.

Not three posts ago, I said that I read that book and that I found it awful, by its premiss (your voice is only worth to be heard and recognized when you earned that worth through means which we seem appropriate) and its writing style (boring).

Maybe you can point out the differences between the film's and the book's societies, because I can't see them.

 

[lennier1]

Do you honestly think it's offensive to make fun of and expose the wrongs of the society that was portrayed in that book?

I'd have no problem living in that society - as matter of fact, I'd prefer it to the one we have now.

And of course it didn't make fun of that society - it made fun of the society Verhoeven had extrapolated in his own head. Why? Because he never read the book. He could hardly have much insight into it then, could he?

It's a significant work in military science fiction - maybe THE significant work. It also has quite a bit to say about society and our expectations. Moral philosophy is a very interesting POV, and has some interesting ramifications. What you saw in the movie was 3rd Reich Fascism across the board. It was unrecognizable from the society painted in the book.

Oh, and of course it wasn't the sum total of Heinlein's philosophy - Glory Road was a very strident anti-war peace, and Stranger in a Strange Land was one of the seminal counterculture works done in scifi.

But then I'll take a wild guess and say you didn't read Starship Troopers either - you just know you don't like what it says.

So yes, I find ignorance offensive. Verhoeven mocked a work he admitted to having complete ignorance over. In his interviews he said explicitly that he modeled it after what he remembered of Nazi occupation in the Netherlands during his youth.

Needless to say, considering that the book was picked up as a principle by science fiction fans that fought in that war, and that it's lessons as to what the responsibility of soldiers are in war were emulated by the service academies, Voerhoven was talking out his ass.

Not three posts ago, I said that I read that book and that I found it awful, by its premiss (your voice is only worth to be heard and recognized when you earned that worth through means which we seem appropriate) and its writing style (boring).

Maybe you can point out the differences between the film's and the book's societies, because I can't see them.

The gender separation (female flight crew, male cannon fodder) in the book, for once?

 

[Rocketman]

Heinlein nearly always took his own ideas too seriously, which made his books prime candidates for parody. The fact that Starship Troopers was a beloved book of many, and even required reading at military academies, made it an even more ideal choice for taking a dump on.

Sure, Verhoeven could've picked a novel nobody knew or care about, but that wouldn't have offended anyone.

Do you honestly think it's offensive to make fun of and expose the wrongs of the society that was portrayed in that book?

I think it's hilarious. But it's hilarious exactly because it offends people.

And yes, Verhoeven read the book. He just didn't finish it. Of course the society depicted in the movie differs from the society envisioned by Heinlein in interpretation. That's because Heinlein tended to depict 'perfect' future societies with very little regard for the darker side of the principles he espoused, not just in Troopers, but in The Moon and Coventry (just off the top of my head) as well. Again, one of the reasons why his novels are such attractive subjects for ridicule.