Unpopular Geek Media Opinions

[Ruin Explorer]

Chibnall was just smashing a toy because he could, it felt like.

That's exactly what he was doing, based on what he'd said previously about the Time Lords (he wasn't a fan) and yes, as you say, it was 100% unnecessary. The whole Timeless Child thing is such a crummy recontextualization.

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.

Honestly at this point I'd much rather the Master was also dead if we're going to have all Time Lords dead. It is boring particularly dull to have just them around.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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.

Nope.

While Verhoeven was bemused that people couldn't get the obvious satire, he was never intending that the movie's premise was that all war was necessarily bad. He not only had first-hand experience with how some war is required, he was very cognizant of it.

Instead, the mocking was because he was pointing out that, "Hey, if you see something, and you think that thing is fascist, then you can probably safely assume that it is being satirized." Because ... duh.

But (and this is way too basic and banal to even try and point out at this point) - the point of the movie isn't that all combat necessarily led to fascism. Instead, it was a satire of politics and media and how unthinking reverence of militarism leads to fascism. There's a big difference. It's not a critique of WAR, it's a critique of media and politics. And, for that matter, a critique of the source.

It's not war; the reason that this adaptation is particularly uncomfortable for some people is because it necessarily implicates the exact reverence for the military that exists within the source material.


ETA- again, you'd have to know absolutely nothing about Verhoeven to think that he was against all war, or that was the "point" of the movie.

 

[trappedslider]

 

[MGibster]

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.

Unlike the movie, the series isn't an adaptation of the comic book it's a sequel. It's like all those authors who have written sequels to Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island.

 

[payn]

Unlike the movie, the series isn't an adaptation of the comic book it's a sequel. It's like all those authors who have written sequels to Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island.

Oh this reminds me that Black Sails is an awesome series.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Unlike the movie, the series isn't an adaptation of the comic book it's a sequel. It's like all those authors who have written sequels to Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island.

Yeah, I know. It's one of multiple examples I used.

You can have something appropriate the name, but just be "in the same universe." Like The Watchmen.
You can have something be an adaptation, but not be an adaptation. Like Naked Lunch.
You can have something be an adaptation that faithfully adapts parts of the source, yet has a decidedly different message. Like American Psycho.
You can have something that tries its best to remain faithful to the source material, but changes things due to the requirements of the new medium. Like Peter Jackson's LoTR.

And so on. The issue with adaptation is similar to any issue with translation (see, e.g., Le Ton Beau de Marot). The question becomes- are you simply translating something from one media to another, or are you creating something in the new media, and how do you judge that?

As I have already written, I think that the measure of success when looking at adaptations should never be, "This is just like the source." YMMV.

 

[Mannahnin]

Instead, the mocking was because he was pointing out that, "Hey, if you see something, and you think that thing is fascist, then you can probably safely assume that it is being satirized." Because ... duh.

Yes, this is exactly my point. That's what he was mocking Schickel for.

But (and this is way too basic and banal to even try and point out at this point) - the point of the movie isn't that all combat necessarily led to fascism. Instead, it was a satire of politics and media and how unthinking reverence of militarism leads to fascism. There's a big difference. It's not a critique of WAR, it's a critique of media and politics. And, for that matter, a critique of the source.

It's not war; the reason that this adaptation is particularly uncomfortable for some people is because it necessarily implicates the exact reverence for the military that exists within the source material.


ETA- again, you'd have to know absolutely nothing about Verhoeven to think that he was against all war, or that was the "point" of the movie.

I don't take "war makes fascists of us all" in this context to literally mean there is never any justification for war. Of course not. And as you say, one would have to be pretty ignorant of Verhoeven's work and background to think that. ("Duh.")

But rather that even during a Just War, people have a bad tendency to slide into regressive militarism, nationalism, jingoism, hatred, and excessive deference to authority. Verhoeven went on at some length that this wasn't just about the Nazis but was a criticism of America. Here's another quote from that review you linked:

"Another good quote from Verhoeven, discussing where the movie is trying to locate fascism: “You could of course say that these kind of statements [the film makes about fascism] are not so much going back to the Third Reich, I would say. They are much more statements about American politics. I mean, the whole movie is about the United States. All statements are about the United States.”

By "us all" in that phrase he means specifically the US and those other nations which were "the good guys" in WW2. Which was part of the point of him referencing US war propaganda like the "why we fight" reels.

Which was already a topical point post Desert Shield/Storm, the Gulf War, given the strong effort in the media and contemporary society to laud our military as heroes during that (itself a reaction to how they were viewed during and after Vietnam), but became even more relevant a few years later with the GWoT.

 

[Mannahnin]

Yeah, I know. It's one of multiple examples I used.

You can have something appropriate the name, but just be "in the same universe." Like The Watchmen.
You can have something be an adaptation, but not be an adaptation. Like Naked Lunch.
You can have something be an adaptation that faithfully adapts parts of the source, yet has a decidedly different message. Like American Psycho.
You can have something that tries its best to remain faithful to the source material, but changes things due to the requirements of the new medium. Like Peter Jackson's LoTR.

And so on. The issue with adaptation is similar to any issue with translation (see, e.g., Le Ton Beau de Marot). The question becomes- are you simply translating something from one media to another, or are you creating something in the new media, and how do you judge that?

As I have already written, I think that the measure of success when looking at adaptations should never be, "This is just like the source." YMMV.

Absolutely.

Though I can certainly see how fans of a given book get excited in hopes of a "Type 4" adaptation, and disappointed if they don't get it. I found parts of LotR disappointing (especially story and character alterations which weren't necessitated by the medium), but overall loved them as adaptations.

Great selections for the other three, too.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yes, this is exactly my point. That's what he was mocking Schickel for.



I don't take "war makes fascists of us all" in this context to literally mean there is never any justification for war. Of course not. And as you say, one would have to be pretty ignorant of Verhoeven's work and background to think that. ("Duh.")

But rather that even during a "Just War", people have a bad tendency to slide into regressive militarism, nationalism, jingoism, hatred, and excessive deference to authority. Verhoeven went on at some length that this wasn't just about the Nazis but was a criticism of America. Here's another quote from that review you linked:

"Another good quote from Verhoeven, discussing where the movie is trying to locate fascism: “You could of course say that these kind of statements [the film makes about fascism] are not so much going back to the Third Reich, I would say. They are much more statements about American politics. I mean, the whole movie is about the United States. All statements are about the United States.”

By "us all" in that phrase he means specifically the US and those other nations which were "the good guys" in WW2. Which was part of the point of him referencing US war propaganda like the "why we fight" reels.

Which was already a topical point post Desert Shield/Storm, the Gulf War, given the strong effort in the media and contemporary society to laud our military as heroes during that (itself a reaction to how they were viewed during and after Vietnam), but became even more relevant a few years later with the GWoT.

But again, you have to remember when the movie came out.

1997. At that particular time, we were at "The End of History" (Frances Fukuyama). The Gulf War was in the rear-view mirror. People weren't worried about fascism in the context of war.

Instead, it was a time of peace. Well, relatively. But Verhoeven was concerned about the way that media and politics plays into fascism; that he saw the seeds of this happening around him at the time. The message was about politics and media in the US in 1997, not about WW2.

Of course, that's why a lot of people missed it (or caught parts of it, but missed the bigger picture) when it was released. And it's also why a lot of it seemed too obvious just a few years later. Because it's not about war making fascism; it's about the politics and media- about the way that people end up accepting and eventually becoming the thing that they thought they weren't.

In that very real way, it's not about war at all; it's about attitudes, the same attitudes that make people uncritically enjoy the source material (and the same reason that he did not like it). Which is why, on balance, it's particularly anathema to fans of the book (IMO). It's uncomfortable. Purposefully.

 

[Erekose]

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.

I heard that too - however, I think Connery only worked for about a week on Highlander so it must’ve been either a quick friendship or they bonded afterwards?