But WHY would they not wish to serve? Even the most ardent pacifist must be accepted, and so there could be a job even for them.
Sony rebooting Starship Troopers
- Thread starter TheNatureRoy
- Start date
But WHY would they not wish to serve? Even the most ardent pacifist must be accepted, and so there could be a job even for them.
Just like those who don't wish to pay a poll tax or undergo a literacy test even though they could afford it or could read.
It is not at all clear that a pacifist would be accepted in Heinlein's Federal Service. That involves obedience to orders, not an independent conscience.
So far as nonmilitary service counting as earning the franchise, the novel also as I recall specifies that many services were contracted out a la Rumsfeld, which raises the question of what these people were supposed to be doing to earn their franchise.
The notion that people don't have rights but must earn a franchise is a dubious one. The repeated assertion in the book that making the franchise a merited privilege instead of a natural right means that the electorate takes its responsibilities seriously and therefore leads to a more stable government is simply false. The ancient Greek democracies and even the early Roman republic linked electoral franchise to military service. In Athens, the extension of the franchise to oarsmen (poor men,) rather than the well to do men who could afford to buy armor was then and later blamed for causing the very oppositie, political instability.
It is very likely that Heinlein knew this. The few lines about everyone can apply and no one can be turned down were likely put in to save face for advocating a reactionary system, in which only people who had been indoctrinated by military service were acceptable citizens. Certainly, he specifically included a brief aside about how a handicapped citizen might be assigned a "task" like counting the hairs on a caterpillar. A way of making him or her feel like they sacrificed, or an impossible task designed to break the spirit and drive them out? I think the first choice would be foolish.
In Starship Troopers, Heinlein also advocates whipping as punishment. He offers a faux-populist justification on the grounds that both rich and poor would suffer horrible pain, while doctors would ensure that the weak were not permanently injured. The truth of course is that in his society is that the rich would likely not be charged, much less convicted and would likely enough be "medically" excused.
Or for another example of the flagrantly dishonest arguments he attempted to impose on children (yes, Starship Troopers was intended as a juvenile for Scribner's, and more power to them for not publishing it as one!) was the assertion that it made no sense to speak of human rights to someone drowning in the Pacific Ocean. Indeed not. The point of course is that there are far more men, women and children facing the modern day Heinleins manning death squads or piloting killer drones than ever somehow flail helplessly in the sea. It most certainly means something to say human beings have rights.
Starship Troopers was apparently a milestone in Heinlein's degeneration as a human being. It is terrible that so many people actually take the man seriously as a thinker.
In other words, there are serious moral objections to actually trying to put Heinlein's novel as is on the screen. There are also extremely powerful esthetic objections as there is damn little story. There are fetishistic descriptions of power armor, and there are disingenuous political preaching. But story? The Boy Who Learns Better, with a Boy who is an idiot. Meh.
So far as nonmilitary service counting as earning the franchise, the novel also as I recall specifies that many services were contracted out a la Rumsfeld, which raises the question of what these people were supposed to be doing to earn their franchise.
The notion that people don't have rights but must earn a franchise is a dubious one. The repeated assertion in the book that making the franchise a merited privilege instead of a natural right means that the electorate takes its responsibilities seriously and therefore leads to a more stable government is simply false. The ancient Greek democracies and even the early Roman republic linked electoral franchise to military service. In Athens, the extension of the franchise to oarsmen (poor men,) rather than the well to do men who could afford to buy armor was then and later blamed for causing the very oppositie, political instability.
It is very likely that Heinlein knew this. The few lines about everyone can apply and no one can be turned down were likely put in to save face for advocating a reactionary system, in which only people who had been indoctrinated by military service were acceptable citizens. Certainly, he specifically included a brief aside about how a handicapped citizen might be assigned a "task" like counting the hairs on a caterpillar. A way of making him or her feel like they sacrificed, or an impossible task designed to break the spirit and drive them out? I think the first choice would be foolish.
In Starship Troopers, Heinlein also advocates whipping as punishment. He offers a faux-populist justification on the grounds that both rich and poor would suffer horrible pain, while doctors would ensure that the weak were not permanently injured. The truth of course is that in his society is that the rich would likely not be charged, much less convicted and would likely enough be "medically" excused.
Or for another example of the flagrantly dishonest arguments he attempted to impose on children (yes, Starship Troopers was intended as a juvenile for Scribner's, and more power to them for not publishing it as one!) was the assertion that it made no sense to speak of human rights to someone drowning in the Pacific Ocean. Indeed not. The point of course is that there are far more men, women and children facing the modern day Heinleins manning death squads or piloting killer drones than ever somehow flail helplessly in the sea. It most certainly means something to say human beings have rights.
Starship Troopers was apparently a milestone in Heinlein's degeneration as a human being. It is terrible that so many people actually take the man seriously as a thinker.
In other words, there are serious moral objections to actually trying to put Heinlein's novel as is on the screen. There are also extremely powerful esthetic objections as there is damn little story. There are fetishistic descriptions of power armor, and there are disingenuous political preaching. But story? The Boy Who Learns Better, with a Boy who is an idiot. Meh.
Considering that Johnny Rico was Filipino in the novel, I wonder if the new director will actually have the balls to cast a Filipino actor in the role. Or will the director punt and cast "against type"?
I don't hate all reboots or remakes. I hate bad remakes of good films.
I agree but this site is replete with hatred for remakes from the first mention of them. So most remakes aren't even given a chance.
Welcome to the internet. In order to love something, you must hate it first (ex. ST).
I can't get excited about this. I really enjoyed Starship Troopers, and I guarantee you that any remake intended to make money will bastardize Heinlein in worse ways than the original movie did - but, since they probably won't openly mock his looney ideas in the process, the folks with a mad-on for Verhoeven will declare a moral victory anyway.
Who cares? Without a point of view it's just a lot of shooting - without a decent script, those fetishistic combat suits don't really matter much.
Last edited:
If I don't believe in what I see on the screen I can't accept it. I think it failed right from round 1. I think it's called "suspension of disbelief".
RAMA
A
Amaris
Guest
This should be interesting. I love Verhoeven's movie, so seeing something more beholden to the novel should be exciting.
As I recall, the recruiting officer had lost his limbs in action. He was deliberately given a highly visible position as a way of weeding out those who might not be fully committed to the service, "Welcome to the infantry! It made me the man I am today!" (close up of leg stumps). Likewise Mr DuBois, Rico's teacher in the book (they combined his role with Lt. Raznak in the film) is missing an arm, a visual reminder that military service costs.
Both men also have state of the art cybernetic limbs, allowing them to function normally in at least civilian society. So it's certainly possible that the means to compensate for a physical handicap would be available.
Given current political trends, we might get the worst of both worlds, namely, a version that really is interested in Heinlein's "ideas" but is badly made. An abortion like the recent Atlas Shrugged movie. (Or so I hear. This nuttiness is in my Netflix queue, for the same kinds of reasons that led me to read The Turner Diaries.)
Last edited:
I think the novel is certainly the science fiction equivalent of Atlas Shrugged batshit philosophy and all, but a lot shorter.
Except, if it's Veterans only, but, not those still servng, everyone is disenfranchised until they complete their service.
I've seen posts by many who've read the book and are fans of it, that think it was the perfect blend of "Spirit" of the book and Hollywood Summer Block Buster "Sexing up". Anyone who doesn't expect a Summer Blockbuster to be "Sexed Up" is being naive, IMHO
I haven't read the book, but, I think Starship Trooopers the Movie was an awesome satire and I am happy to own it.
Last edited:
true story, when i was in college in my 2nd year, my tutor asked me for a sci-fi movie to show the 1st years for the sci-fi genre class and pre-empted me saying Star Wars by telling me not to say that. i said Starship Troopers. Lent him the video and afterwards, he gives it back and tells me it was total rubbish, i then had to tell him it was a satire and it was supposed to have cheesy soap opera relationships and cornball dialogue in it. the kind of response tutors normally give students when a student disses some classic movie.
Um, it skirted the line of satire. I didn't take it that way at all. I took it seriously and it worked just as well if not better. Heck Rico dies twice in that movie and nobody seemed to mind. So I don't know what it was. It's the only movie that made me cry beside Scrooge. so it had everything and worked on many levels that may be harder to appreciate by some. You can't stereotype it any more than you can stereotype Mahler.