Starship Troopers 4 gets the go ahead
just for reference here are a couple threads on Starship Troopers 3
Starship Troopers 3: Marauder
Starship Troopers 3 impressions
Starship Troopers 4 commissioned as fully CGI animated
- Thread starter jefferiestubes8
- Start date
just for reference here are a couple threads on Starship Troopers 3
Starship Troopers 3: Marauder
Starship Troopers 3 impressions
Okay, so I'll be the first to ask---any co-ed shower scenes?
Yes, my interest in this project will be largely contingent on its rating.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
The CGI animated series was awesome. I enjoyed the first movie for it's attempt at political satire. I've not seen the other movies but might check this out when it comes out.
As long as they highlight Heinlein's psuedo-fascist tendencies, it'll be fine.
Giving full citizenship only to those who have been in some sort of government service is an interesting idea, not one I support, but it is interesting. Unfortunately Heinlein and his ideas get called fascist more often than not so that nips any more nuanced arguments in the bud.
Neither of the sequels to the first film were particularly good (though the third was an improvement over the abysmal second film), so I can't say I'm particularly excited for a fourth, animated or not.
I'm more interested in the first film as a satire that upends Heinlein's politics, than I am in it as the start of a franchise, anyway.
I'm more interested in the first film as a satire that upends Heinlein's politics, than I am in it as the start of a franchise, anyway.
I would classify giving political rights only to a certain class, veterans, at the exclusion of everyone else be to bordering on fascistic.
Looking at it, he may have been one of the originator of the antipathy towards democracy we see in so much written science fiction.
Most of the "antipathy" toward democracy in SF is of the leftist, not rightist, variety.
^ Federal service, in ST, can qualify as *any* military-related job. Even a cook or a file clerk. You don't have to be on the front lines. And the military is not allowed to turn away applicants - they must accept anyone who signs up, without question. So no one is disenfranchised; everyone has the opportunity to earn the right to vote. Also, soldiers can't vote *while* they're in the military - they have to leave federal service first.
And even those who don't serve, are not lacking in rights. Look at Johnny Rico's family, for one thing. They are obviously very well off. You don't have to serve to get rights, just to *vote*. Citizens and civilians alike share in the full protection of the law.
Besides, he makes a good point. Why should just anyone be allowed to vote? It's clear that in our present day society, a lot of people vote who really don't know what they're doing, or simply don't care. Why not make them work a bit at it first? Ensure that those who vote have done their homework, so to speak. What's fascist about that?
And even those who don't serve, are not lacking in rights. Look at Johnny Rico's family, for one thing. They are obviously very well off. You don't have to serve to get rights, just to *vote*. Citizens and civilians alike share in the full protection of the law.
Besides, he makes a good point. Why should just anyone be allowed to vote? It's clear that in our present day society, a lot of people vote who really don't know what they're doing, or simply don't care. Why not make them work a bit at it first? Ensure that those who vote have done their homework, so to speak. What's fascist about that?
Also, people who say he's a fascist for advocating that you should serve in the military to get the right to vote forget a very important point....
It's just a novel. He never actually advocated that society be run that way. Like all good sci fi he took an idea and ran it out to its extreme to examine the ramifications of it.
Whether you think it is a good idea or not the idea was to think about the concepts. Not to say that is the way it should be.
You know, Heinlein also wrote The Rolling Stones and Revolt in 2100. I don't see anyone accusing him of being in favor of lasaiz faire corporatism (as advocated by the main characters of The Rolling Stones, gotta love Castor and Pollux) or of being in favor of a religious dictatorship (as in Revolt).
Jeez, I feel like William Shatner. "It's just a TV show!"
It's just a novel. He never actually advocated that society be run that way. Like all good sci fi he took an idea and ran it out to its extreme to examine the ramifications of it.
Whether you think it is a good idea or not the idea was to think about the concepts. Not to say that is the way it should be.
You know, Heinlein also wrote The Rolling Stones and Revolt in 2100. I don't see anyone accusing him of being in favor of lasaiz faire corporatism (as advocated by the main characters of The Rolling Stones, gotta love Castor and Pollux) or of being in favor of a religious dictatorship (as in Revolt).
Jeez, I feel like William Shatner. "It's just a TV show!"
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
I'm more than willing to debate the merits of compulsory national service, but the human right to vote is inviolable, except maybe for convicted criminals.
Technically it's only inviolable if you accept the document.
I tend that way myself, but that doesn't mean it is an absolute truth.
Even the school teachers in the story didn't claim that their system was the best possible, just that they kept it because it worked.
Unfortunately democracy tends to be a fragile system. Only recently in history has it had a large scale presence in the world. All previous versions of democratic systems have been plowed under by history. Unless the citizens of a democracy are willing to work to keep it healthy it will die.
That was the point of the story. By making a person work to get the right to vote and have a say in how society functions they would then be willing to put forth the effort to maintain that society.
Its an interesting concept to explore and debate.
Exactly. It ensures a smarter voter, and therefore a healthier democracy.
And everyone will still have the right to vote, because everyone would have the right to serve.
It is called the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights".
The Declaration makes no provision of such a requirement, and rightfully so, considering the necessity for principled refusal to take part in a military service. Regardless, you contradict yourself:
Restrictions on active duty servicepeople making political statements is all well and good, but they still have the right to vote.
Bullshit. It's simply a restriction on the right to vote. It ensures nothing except that the folks in power get another tool to regulate and restrict access to the franchise.
Heinlein was a lot of things but he was not a subtle thinker. Verhooven, who saw first-hand far more of the legacy of war and militarization on a society than Heinlein ever did, saw through Starship Troopers' bullshit and made it a satire that was also far from subtle - in fact a bit too in-your-face for American audiences.
