Sony rebooting Starship Troopers

[Tosk]

I love the original film, the sequels and book notsomuch. I'll watch the new one though, fer sure.

The third movie..marauders wasn't too bad.

It was definitely an improvement over the second, but it's not something I would watch again. As opposed to the first one, which I probably re-watch at least yearly.

 

[TheNatureRoy]

I think that it is a little different than that. It is just like the recent True Grit movie. That was not a remake of the 1969 version starring John Wayne. No the more recent movie was an adaptation of the source material...a novel.

So this Starship Troopers will not be a remake of the other movie but an adaptation of the source material...a novel.

The Amazing Spider-Man reboot isn't a remake of the previous Spider-Man movies either, but a new adaptation of the source material... comic books.

The recent True Grit was commonly referred to as a reboot as well. All that really means is a fresh take on an established property. Again, I'll say it's purely semantics.

I'm sure a distinction is being made on how closely the films are based on the source material, but unless I am mistaken, we really don't have any information on what is being planned for the new Starship Troopers movie.

Edit: Thinking more -- I'd argue 'reboot' is defintely the right word, because the previous Starship Troopers was a film franchise with a couple of sequels (albeit direct to video) and I'm thinking maybe even a cartoon (no?). By ignoring that continuity, Sony is definitely rebooting Starship Troopers as a film franchise, and you can be sure they will pursue sequels, etc. if this proves to be successful.

 

[xortex]

So more 'splosions and more sex. How can you go wrong? Insideous, like the bugs themselves.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^^ In the book, everyone is eligible to serve so one chooses to be disenfranchised by not serving.

And it is also established that the military has to take everyone who applies. No one, even the most obviously incompetent applicant, may ever be rejected - for any reason. Whoever applies, the military has to find a job for them. (And it doesn't have to be on the front lines, either; even a cook, accountant, file clerk, etc. would suffice. )

So if everyone can serve, and everyone who serves can vote, then by definition, everyone can vote.

 

[Tom Hendricks]

Why can't you love the Starship Troopers novel, the Verhoeven version of Starship Troopers and potentially this version of Starship Troopers.

I don't get the hate for remakes/reboots/re-imagines. What is great about them is you get to see others playing in the same sandbox. Different takes on the same source materials. Would anyone now argue against Batman Begins? Plenty of people on here did because for may of us, Batman 89 was one of the greatest superhero movie. Yet many of those naysayers tout the greatness of Batman Begins and without it, The Dark Knight. Can't I love Batman 89 and Batman Begins equally?

No one ever complains that there is another staging of Hamlet or revival of Big River on Broadway. Because people are interested in seeing a new interpretation of the source material. So every year there is on stage a new version of one of Shakespeare plays. Why are movie reduxs only vilified?

Stop being so myopic and embrace the remakes. Nothing is ever the definite version.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

^^ In the book, everyone is eligible to serve so one chooses to be disenfranchised by not serving.

It's been a while since I read the book and my memory is admittedly pretty fuzzy. But it's not plausible that "everyone" is eligible to serve. What about the physically handicapped? Or is there some sci-fi whatzit that magically makes them fit? (Or is this even addressed?)

No one, even the most obviously incompetent applicant, may ever be rejected - for any reason.

Really? Wow. Well then, I see no problem with this system in principle. (And there's no sci-fi whatzit that magically makes everyone fit for military service? That was very self-disciplined of Heinlein. )

 

[Mr. Adventure]

^^ In the book, everyone is eligible to serve so one chooses to be disenfranchised by not serving.

And it is also established that the military has to take everyone who applies. No one, even the most obviously incompetent applicant, may ever be rejected - for any reason. Whoever applies, the military has to find a job for them. (And it doesn't have to be on the front lines, either; even a cook, accountant, file clerk, etc. would suffice. )

So if everyone can serve, and everyone who serves can vote, then by definition, everyone can vote.

I can certainly see the opposite view but it's fun to discuss. I would've liked to have seen that in the movie because I think it'd have been better than the hamfisted satire (though I seem to be in the minority on that).

And in the US, when I turned 18 I had to sign up for Selective Service. Technically, the government has every right to call me up if they wanted and had I not signed up I could've been arrested and then lost my right to vote....

 

[Mr. Adventure]

^^ In the book, everyone is eligible to serve so one chooses to be disenfranchised by not serving.

It's been a while since I read the book and my memory is admittedly pretty fuzzy. But it's not plausible that "everyone" is eligible to serve. What about the physically handicapped? Or is there some sci-fi whatzit that magically makes them fit? (Or is this even addressed?)

No one, even the most obviously incompetent applicant, may ever be rejected - for any reason.

Really? Wow. Well then, I see no problem with this system in principle. (And there's no sci-fi whatzit that magically makes everyone fit for military service? That was very self-disciplined of Heinlein. )

It's not only military service, military service is only one of the ways one might be called to serve. Not everyone became a grunt.

 

[sonak]

the original movie was awful. I know it was satire, but it was just cartoonish and over-the-top, with awful acting and needlessly graphic. On the other hand, it had Dinah Meyer topless.


I hope the remake is good.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I don't get the hate for remakes/reboots/re-imagines.

Hey, don't get me wrong, if this new film is more faithful to the book (and is not a satire directed by someone who freely admitted that HE NEVER READ THROUGH THE WHOLE BOOK), I'm all for it!

 

[Gojira]

I think that it is a little different than that. It is just like the recent True Grit movie. That was not a remake of the 1969 version starring John Wayne. No the more recent movie was an adaptation of the source material...a novel.

So this Starship Troopers will not be a remake of the other movie but an adaptation of the source material...a novel.

The Amazing Spider-Man reboot isn't a remake of the previous Spider-Man movies either, but a new adaptation of the source material... comic books.

The recent True Grit was commonly referred to as a reboot as well. All that really means is a fresh take on an established property. Again, I'll say it's purely semantics.

I'm sure a distinction is being made on how closely the films are based on the source material, but unless I am mistaken, we really don't have any information on what is being planned for the new Starship Troopers movie.

Edit: Thinking more -- I'd argue 'reboot' is defintely the right word, because the previous Starship Troopers was a film franchise with a couple of sequels (albeit direct to video) and I'm thinking maybe even a cartoon (no?). By ignoring that continuity, Sony is definitely rebooting Starship Troopers as a film franchise, and you can be sure they will pursue sequels, etc. if this proves to be successful.

I see what you're saying...and I agree. Reboot is the right word.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

You know, all politics and crap aside, I want to see some frickin' Powered Armor this time!

 

[xortex]

It's an uphill battle. The original was bizarrely original and surpisingly good so what is another bug hunt gonna do? This is like Trek in a way. Conception is very important in how a story is told but it still is very much the same story for the most part. Heck we're getting another Khan. I'm sure that will be great, but will I ever see it. Hell, no way ever.

 

[Kegg]

For the record, as a fan of the book ST, I just want to say to anyone that thinks Verhoeven's movie was accurate and true to Heinlein's book and vision - you are sorely mistaken. Verhoeven took a philosophy and piece of speculative literature and completely perverted it into a left-wing hippie gunfight sexfest. With bad dialogue.

I don't think many people DO think it's an accurate version of the book. It's better.

Absolutely correct. Whatever one thinks of the Verhoeven film, it is a pretty direct response to the novel. And as someone who spent some of his formative years in a Holland occupied by the Nazis, this kind of militaristic absurdism wasn't an abstract idea to Verhoeven.

 

[The Badger]

^^ In the book, everyone is eligible to serve so one chooses to be disenfranchised by not serving.

It's been a while since I read the book and my memory is admittedly pretty fuzzy. But it's not plausible that "everyone" is eligible to serve. What about the physically handicapped? Or is there some sci-fi whatzit that magically makes them fit? (Or is this even addressed?)

It's been a while since I read it too, but as I recall the military has a lot of postings where one could be physically handicapped yet still serve. Administrative posts, for example.

It's also stated in passing that the military is not the only way to serve. The terraforming of Venus is, I think, mentioned as a difficult, dangerous, but important job, that would count as a citizens service. Hence even a total pacifist could gain eligibility to vote.

 

[TheNatureRoy]

Whatever else -- this has the potential to be very cool from a visual standpoint. When I first watched Avatar I couldn't help but think how cool it would be if someone made a movie like Aliens only with today's special effects and concepts of what future weaponry could be like (not that Aliens doesn't stand the test of time... but there is room for a rethink).

Whether or not the movie stays true to the story of the novel, I hope they have a modern take on the technology presented (and it's hard to imagine that they won't).

 

[captcalhoun]

i hope it does at least 1 of the following 3 things.

1. features powered armour.

2. features ray guns and not frigging assault rifles out of the 21st century.

3. employs a decent military advisor to make sure that, for example, live-fire exercises are contained in walled perimeters or that the MI tactics are more sophisticated than 'shoot it full of lead whilst standing in a circle'. oh, and maybe have some combined arms shit going on, like air support and heavier weapons, even if they don't have powered armour...

and, it would be cool if they retained the newscasts idea. that was a pretty cool way to plot-dump.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

It's been a while since I read it too, but as I recall the military has a lot of postings where one could be physically handicapped yet still serve. Administrative posts, for example.

Yep. Remember the recruiting officer in the film ("Fresh meat for the grinder...") who was missing several key limbs? Of course he probably got that way from being in the infantry but the fact that he was *still* serving even after that, does say something. He could have still gotten that job even if he'd been in that condition when he applied.

Like I said...they have to take everyone. So by definition, no one is disenfranchised.

 

[Hound of UIster]

Except those who don't wish to serve.

 

[TheNatureRoy]

i hope it does at least 1 of the following 3 things.

1. features powered armour.

2. features ray guns and not frigging assault rifles out of the 21st century.

3. employs a decent military advisor to make sure that, for example, live-fire exercises are contained in walled perimeters or that the MI tactics are more sophisticated than 'shoot it full of lead whilst standing in a circle'. oh, and maybe have some combined arms shit going on, like air support and heavier weapons, even if they don't have powered armour...

and, it would be cool if they retained the newscasts idea. that was a pretty cool way to plot-dump.

1. I'm thinking it has to, right?

2 & 3. This ties into what I was saying before. I'd like things to be semi-plausible/semi-realistic (well, considering the concept) in terms of equipment and tactics. I'm not sure if that would mean directed energy weapons or not -- but I'd like for them to consider the time period and the overall technological level showcased and determine what type of weapons would make the most sense in that context.