Unpopular Geek Media Opinions

[Erekose]

The only good Highlander is the first movie and the TV show.

Surprising amount of faces to recognize in it if you watched Trek, Stargate, Babylon 5, Continuum etc.

I can see why people like the Highlander TV series but it really wasn’t for me …

 

[Zardnaar]

I can see why people like the Highlander TV series but it really wasn’t for me …

Rewatched it 2010 an few years ago.

1st season bit rough, final season a bit trash.

If you can get past product of its time the rest is kinda fun. Ymmv of course.

 

[MGibster]

I know what you mean about Highlander 2 - I had such high hopes for how they were going to take the story forward now that Connor had the prize and there were no other immortals. And then they decided to take a decidedly ”unexpected” turn

Apparently Christopher Lambert and Sean Connery got along famously in the first movie. For the second, Lambert refused to participate without Connery. While that doesn't fully explain why it's so bad, having to shoehorn Connery was a problem.

 

[Mannahnin]

Well, I did say for various definitions of subtle. I will reiterate that when it was released, many people did not realize that the movie was a satire. Again, this may seem unbelievable, but ... yeah. Just like when it was released, a lot of people didn't get the satire of Robocop (and today, a lot of people miss it because many of the things it was satirizing have come to pass).

For certain values of "a lot of people", sure. I remember quite well.

But Verhoeven (visually) and the writer (Neumeier) did all of this quite deliberately- they were sending up the tropes and themes of the book. As Verhoeven said, "All the way through I wanted the audience to be asking, 'Are these people crazy?”

Oh, we're limiting Verhoeven's input to the visuals? Yes, it's probably best to reference the writer given Verhoeven's comments about not reading the book. Absolutely agreed about them countering the surface appeal of militarism. But most of that they were getting from other sources, like visually referencing Hugo Boss. Or the blue-eyed aryan protagonist they swapped in to replace the book's Filipino one. There are of course other fiction responses to Starship Troopers that make points more directly to and contrary to those in ST- Haldeman's The Forever War, especially. And to a lesser extent John Steakley's Armor. Both of which are wonderful.

I will reiterate that if you were a fan of the book, this probably wasn't what you wanted to see. But the appeal of militarism (and the F word) are real, and dangerous. That's the whole point; none of the characters understand that they are in a dystopian reality.

Anyway, if you don't see the parallels with this work and his other movies, it's fine.

Exactly and of course. None of the movie characters understand that they're in a dystopia. As I said, he was climbing on his own hobby horse and using mostly superficial elements of the book, and some totally changed elements (like all the suicidal and parodic fighting, mobs of disposable troops in minimal armor with rifles as opposed to disciplined and well-trained elite* power armored troops, Navy ships crashing into each other as opposed to expertly piloted by mostly-female Captains and crew, etc.), to make his fun anti-Fash points.

(*Johnny at the point of court-martial for disregarding training in a way which would have risked the life of one of his peers in actual combat)

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Oh, we're limiting Verhoeven's input to the visuals? Yes, it's probably best to reference the writer given Verhoeven's comments about not reading the book. Absolutely agreed about them countering the surface appeal of militarism. But most of that they were getting from other sources, like visually referencing Hugo Boss. Or the blue-eyed aryan protagonist they swapped in to replace the book's Filipino one. There are of course other fiction responses to Starship Troopers that make points more directly to and contrary to those in ST- Haldeman's The Forever War, especially. And to a lesser extent John Steakley's Armor. Both of which are wonderful.

No, we are not limiting the input to the visuals (and that's not what I said). Look, if you want to do a deep dive into the movie, that's fine. But you would need to understand a little more about it. For example, despite the oft-repeated line that he never read the book, that's not true. That's not even how things work. Instead, he read the original script by Neumeier. Neumeier (also the original writer of Robocop) was a fan of Heinlein's book, and the original script was more "on point" so to speak. Verhoeven then went to read the book, which he couldn't finish (only getting through "two or so chapters" according to an interview that took place more than 15 years later, but we all know Verhoeven is notoriously unreliable about his process) because he didn't like the right-wing militarism.

So he engaged in a collaborative process with the scriptwriter (who was intimately familiar with the source material) to change it to suit his vision.

Anyway, I don't find this conversation very productive- things that are completely obvious to some, aren't to others.* For that matter, the fact that the topics Verhoeven was covering become more relevant after the movie was made is more a testament to what it was doing right than anything it was doing wrong.

If you liked the source material, good for you. A movie is not the same as the book, and for many people (including me), the movie is a much better work than the book ever was. Once you peel away "oh, but it introduced power-armor" you are left with little more than a thinly-veiled polemic against the nascent anti-nuclear movement, tinged with the least-appealing aspects of Heinlein's ... we'll say unique political philosophy.


*At a certain point, I expect people to say, "C'mon, that thing is about people eating babies. How could anyone call it satire? Sheesh. Modest proposal, I don't think so!"

 

[payn]

No, we are not limiting the input to the visuals (and that's not what I said). Look, if you want to do a deep dive into the movie, that's fine. But you would need to understand a little more about it. For example, despite the oft-repeated line that he never read the book, that's not true. That's not even how things work. Instead, he read the original script by Neumeier. Neumeier (also the original writer of Robocop) was a fan of Heinlein's book, and the original script was more "on point" so to speak. Verhoeven then went to read the book, which he couldn't finish (only getting through "two or so chapters" according to an interview that took place more than 15 years later, but we all know Verhoeven is notoriously unreliable about his process) because he didn't like the right-wing militarism.

So he engaged in a collaborative process with the scriptwriter (who was intimately familiar with the source material) to change it to suit his vision.

Anyway, I don't find this conversation very productive- things that are completely obvious to some, aren't to others.* For that matter, the fact that the topics Verhoeven was covering become more relevant after the movie was made is more a testament to what it was doing right than anything it was doing wrong.

If you liked the source material, good for you. A movie is not the same as the book, and for many people (including me), the movie is a much better work than the book ever was. Once you peel away "oh, but it introduced power-armor" you are left with little more than a thinly-veiled polemic against the nascent anti-nuclear movement, tinged with the least-appealing aspects of Heinlein's ... we'll say unique political philosophy.


*At a certain point, I expect people to say, "C'mon, that thing is about people eating babies. How could anyone call it satire? Sheesh. Modest proposal, I don't think so!"

In coming, "Im a writer of speculative fiction, so I get an automatic C on everything I do" quote from Heinlein.

 

[Staffan]

If you liked the source material, good for you. A movie is not the same as the book, and for many people (including me), the movie is a much better work than the book ever was. Once you peel away "oh, but it introduced power-armor" you are left with little more than a thinly-veiled polemic against the nascent anti-nuclear movement, tinged with the least-appealing aspects of Heinlein's ... we'll say unique political philosophy.

I think there are two different questions to ask, and they would probably have different answers:

1. Is the movie Starship Troopers a good movie?
2. Is the movie Starship Troopers a good adaption of Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers?

I have not read the book, but my understanding is that the movie takes quite a few liberties with the source material and attempts to send a very different message. And while any good adaption of a book or other source material into a movie requires some changes to account for the different medium, changing the book's message goes quite far beyond that.

In other words: it is quite possible that the movie Starship Troopers is a better work than the book Starship Troopers is, but it can still be a bad adaption of the book.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think there are two different questions to ask, and they would probably have different answers:

1. Is the movie Starship Troopers a good movie?
2. Is the movie Starship Troopers a good adaption of Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers?

I have not read the book, but my understanding is that the movie takes quite a few liberties with the source material and attempts to send a very different message. And while any good adaption of a book or other source material into a movie requires some changes to account for the different medium, changing the book's message goes quite far beyond that.

In other words: it is quite possible that the movie Starship Troopers is a better work than the book Starship Troopers is, but it can still be a bad adaption of the book.

Post #546-

I think that speaks to a general divide. To me, there is always a difference when we're talking about different media. I don't view a movie as successful only to the extent that it slavishly follows the original book (or other source).

For example, I think that the HBO miniseries Watchmen is far superior to the movie Watchmen, even though the movie undoubtedly follows the comic book. Or take the Cronenberg movie, Naked Lunch. By not slavishly attempting to adapt the book (to the extent that it is possible), he made a great movie.

It's the same here. Starship Troopers is a great movie. It's one of Verhoeven's best (if not the best), and admirably skewers the dangers of propaganda and militarism. Much like Robocop, it can be misinterpreted, but the message is still clear. It is an absolute stunner of a movie. It would have been much worse if it had attempted to follow the book; just another forgettable Wing Commander.

Maybe some day, a person will make a faithful adaptation of the book into a prestige miniseries. But I would bet good money that if they do, it won't be as good a piece of art as the Verhoeven film.


I think that's generally accurate. Whether or not something is a faithful adaptation is, generally, orthogonal to whether or not something is good. But no, the movie is certainly not trying to be a faithful adaptation of the book (even though there are scenes and dialogue that are lifted from the book, although always to opposite purposes).

 

[Ryujin]

I think there are two different questions to ask, and they would probably have different answers:

1. Is the movie Starship Troopers a good movie?
2. Is the movie Starship Troopers a good adaption of Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers?

I have not read the book, but my understanding is that the movie takes quite a few liberties with the source material and attempts to send a very different message. And while any good adaption of a book or other source material into a movie requires some changes to account for the different medium, changing the book's message goes quite far beyond that.

In other words: it is quite possible that the movie Starship Troopers is a better work than the book Starship Troopers is, but it can still be a bad adaption of the book.

Maybe this will explain it. The movie "Starship Troopers" is to the book, as the movie "Starsky and Hutch" is to the TV show.

 

[payn]

Maybe this will explain it. The movie "Starship Troopers" is to the book, as the movie "Starsky and Hutch" is to the TV show.

A proper treatment?