Unpopular Geek Media Opinions

[Mannahnin]

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.

Agreed. I've agreed on most of the things you wrote, including some of the things you repeated in this post.

And indeed Verhoeven worked with the screenwriter to change the things that happen in the book to better suit his vision, his "war makes fascists of us all" satire.

As I disengage I'll ask the audience's indulgence to quote a quick comparison of a scene in the book vs the movie, and folks can judge the degree to which Verhoeven's movie engages with and responds to the text.

--------
"Zim and the recruits are practicing with throwing knives, when one of the recruits asks "what possible use" is learning how to use throwing knives when "one professor type can do so much more just by pushing a button?" In the book, Zim responds (in part):

"If you wanted to teach a baby a lesson, would you cut its head off? Of course not. You'd paddle it. There can be circumstances when it's just as foolish to hit an enemy city with an H-bomb as it would be to spank a baby with an axe. War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him...but to make him do what you want to do. Not killing...but controlled and purposeful violence. But it's not your business or mine to decide the purpose of the control. It's never a soldier's business to decide when or where or how -- or why -- he fights; that belongs to the statesmen and the generals. The statesmen decide why and how much; the generals take it from there and tell us where and when and how. We supply the violence; other people -- 'older and wiser heads,' as they say -- supply the control. Which is as it should be." [Heinlein 1959:63, emphasis and ellipses in original]

Notice the salient points of Zim's response: While surprised that the recruit doesn't know the answer at this stage in his training, he does not discourage the recruit from asking questions or thinking -- he treats it as a serious and reasonable question, which deserves a comprehensive, thoughtful, and respectful response about the role of civilian control of the military, and the necessity for the military to train for something less than all-out high-tech warfare.

In Paul Verhoeven's Starship Troopers, on the other hand, Zim tells the recruit to put his hand flat against a nearby vertical surface, and with a deft throw of the knife pins the recruit's hand in place. While the recruit is screaming with pain, the knife sticking out of the back of his hand, Zim laughs and says something to the effect of "because that professor type can't push that button if there is a knife sticking out of it!"

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Agreed. I've agreed on most of the things you wrote, including some of the things you repeated in this post.

And indeed Verhoeven worked with the screenwriter to change the things that happen in the book to better suit his vision, his "war makes fascists of us all" satire.

....that's not the point of the movie, any more than "Unjust policies make cannibals of us all," was the point of A Modest Proposal.

 

[Mannahnin]

Agreed. I've agreed on most of the things you wrote, including some of the things you repeated in this post.

And indeed Verhoeven worked with the screenwriter to change the things that happen in the book to better suit his vision, his "war makes fascists of us all" satire.

....that's not the point of the movie, any more than "Unjust policies make cannibals of us all," was the point of A Modest Proposal.

My recollection is that it was first said of the movie by critic Time magazine film critic Richard Schickel, and quoted in agreement by Verhoeven and Neumeier on the DVD commentary as getting their thesis exactly correct.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

My recollection is that it was first said of the movie by critic Time magazine film critic Richard Schickel, and quoted in agreement by Verhoeven and Neumeier on the DVD commentary as getting their thesis exactly correct.

Responding to Schickel in the DVD commentary for Starship Troopers, a bemused Paul Verhoeven asserts, failing to mask the condescension in his voice, “I can tell you in fact that the film is stating that war makes fascists of us all … Of course it’s saying that the fascist propaganda in the movie should be read as something that is not good. So you should know that if you see something you think is fascist in the movie, that the filmmakers agree with you that it is not good.”

I think you misunderstood that.

 

[Deset Gled]

Okay, an even more unpopular opinion on the subject: Starship Troopers 2 wasn't amazing and showed a lack of budget, but was still pretty entertaining. The main thing is that it shifts from a satiric war movie to camp/b horror/sci-fi movie. It reminds me a lot of Screamers. Add it to the list of movies-whose-sequel-is-actually-a-different-genre, like Alien/Aliens. Evil Dead/Army of Darkness, etc. Definitely worth a watch.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Apparently unpopular opinion based on what someone told me about online reviews-

Leave the World Behind was a good movie and yes, that was the perfect ending.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

My current unpopular opinion is that Doctor Who worked better when the the Time Lords/Gallifrey were actually around and causing trouble, and when the Doctor was a rebel against an amoral, aloof and stagnant society who disapproved of him and wanted him to stop, rather than a "lonely god" as he has been in nuWho. Moffat rather uncharacteristically slowly and carefully unpicked RTD's total destruction of the Time Lords (allegedly with RTD's approval), so that a future showrunner could use them if they wanted, but Chibnall, being at heart a vandal and only interested in what he personally thought was cool, decided to completely destroy Time Lords again and to really try hard to not let any future showrunner be able to use them.

EDIT - I'd also add that change in context means the Doctor seems far less brave and moral. As a rebel Time Lord, the Doctor was a person rejecting a bad society and choosing to help people, no matter the cost and risk. As the Timeless Child, he's just a superior magic space god, who was never genuinely a Time Lord, who was always literally "better" than them, just a victim who got tricked and used, and the Doctor's bravery and moral stand seem far less impressive. It's a far more simplistic conception that has far less relevance and relatability, which sucks.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

My current unpopular opinion is that Doctor Who worked better when the the Time Lords/Gallifrey were actually around and causing trouble, and when the Doctor was a rebel against an amoral, aloof and stagnant society who disapproved of him and wanted him to stop, rather than a "lonely god" as he has been in nuWho. Moffat rather uncharacteristically slowly and carefully unpicked RTD's total destruction of the Time Lords (allegedly with RTD's approval), so that a future showrunner could use them if they wanted, but Chibnall, being at heart a vandal and only interested in what he personally thought was cool, decided to completely destroy Time Lords again and to really try hard to not let any future showrunner be able to use them.

The Chibnall trashing was so weird, because it didn't seem to have a point in the way that the RTD/Moffat stuff did. They were telling a story, Chibnall was just smashing a toy because he could, it felt like. Any of his stories could have worked with the Time Lords still around.

And honestly, only having the Doctor and Master around at this point is boring. NuWho would be much better off with folks like the Rani running around.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Very unpopular opinion: WotC updating a setting without "respecting" (read: "including") all of the previous lore makes me more likely to pick it up, not less. I have no desire to feel beholden to decades-old lore that means nothing to me. I will take the good bits and run off my own direction anyway.

(That said, I'm still more likely to pick up Skycrawl and run it using 5E Spelljammer monsters than I am to pick up and run 5E Spelljammer in total. I really don't want to hear about "yes, but what about" referencing games and settings I've never used in the past.)

 

[Mannahnin]

Responding to Schickel in the DVD commentary for Starship Troopers, a bemused Paul Verhoeven asserts, failing to mask the condescension in his voice, “I can tell you in fact that the film is stating that war makes fascists of us all … Of course it’s saying that the fascist propaganda in the movie should be read as something that is not good. So you should know that if you see something you think is fascist in the movie, that the filmmakers agree with you that it is not good.”

I think you misunderstood that.

No, you've taken that secondhand quote out of context and you've got it backwards.

Schickel didn't really "get" the movie, and only tacked on that guess at the thesis toward the end of his review.

"Pretty funny. But not always very funny. For Starship Troopers contains an unexplored premise. There are two classes in this futureworld: civilians, who have sacrificed voting privileges for material ease, and warriors, who earn the right to rule by their willingness to die for the state. In short, we're looking at a happily fascist world. Maybe that's the movie's final, deadpan joke. Maybe it's saying that war inevitably makes fascists of us all. Or--best guess--maybe the filmmakers are so lost in their slambang visual effects that they don't give a hoot about the movie's scariest implications."

Verhoeven was condescending about the review and bemusingly confirms that yes, despite missing the point for most of it, Schickel came close at the end and did guess correctly with that aside. Verhoeven was laughing about how overall Schickel didn't pick up the obvious satire and finally settled on the absurd conclusion that Verhoeven and Neumeier were ignorant of rather than directly aiming for those scary implications.