
How we made Starship Troopers - uptown
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/jan/22/how-we-made-starship-troopers-paul-verhoeven-nazis-leni-riefenstahl
======
curtis
> _Robert Heinlein’s original 1959 science-fiction novel was militaristic, if
> not fascistic._

The novel was certainly militaristic, because the protagonist _is in the
military_ , and also _in the middle of a war_. The society described in the
book does not in any way appear to be fascist, however. I think it is
completely reasonable to ask whether such a system really could exist without
being fascist, but the fact is, as described, it's not.

In the novel, the human government requires 2 years of service before adults
get the right to vote. One important aspect of the system is that if someone
wants to serve, then the government _has to take them_. Even if you were
blind, if you wanted to serve, the government would have to find something for
you to do for two years. And afterwards, you'd have the right to vote.

In the book, most Earth adults have not served and consequently can't vote.
But on some other planets, almost all adults have served and have the right to
vote.

Lots of movies have done a disservice to their source material, but in the
case of Starship Troopers it has always seemed particularly unfair to me. I
know that lots of people (not all) who have read the book feel the same way.

~~~
CobrastanJorji
That's not why it's militaristic. It's militaristic because the military is
shown as a cure-all. Joining the military leads to having a fulfilled life.
Joining the military means one care about one's country, as opposed to being a
selfish coward, which is why only proven "patriots" are allowed the vote. The
career military men are portrayed as extremely honorable. The non-military
characters, such as the protagonist's dad, are depicted as rich but deeply
unhappy folks, and the only fix is embracing the military. The book glorifies
the military to such a degree that a good case could be made for it being a
parody.

------
WorldMaker
I think Starship Troopers is outright the best of all of Robocop's sequels.

Yes, it is fascinating how divorced the book and movie are in what they think
they have to say. I've always felt that Robert Heinlein was more of a
_provocateur_ than often given credit for, and while a strange adaptation, I
think the movie still has an interesting conversation with the book. I'd like
to imagine Mr. Heinlein would also have found it an interesting conversation.

In a way, that's very strongly one of "old guard" Sci-Fi's best qualities
where (mostly short) stories flew back and forth on similar topics in
conversation with one another. The movie manages to touch on many of the same
topics and poke and prod at them and say "I think it would turn out this other
way", and that's very much an interesting Sci-Fi conversation, whether you
more appreciate the book or the movie they are still saying interesting things
to one another (and both strongly in ways specific to their medium, which is
also fascinating).

------
dozzie
Step one: take a good book and castrate it from all the important (read:
difficult) parts, replacing them with shooting bad guys^Wbugs left and right.

Step two: make a minor female character the busty main prize for the hero.

------
jaysonelliot
Step one: Don't read the book

Step two: Take a completely different story, already written, and paste the
name Starship Troopers on top of it

Step three: Whitewash the Latino main character

Step four: ?????

