Unpopular opinions go here

[payn]

If you didn't like the movie, you didn't like it. I did think it was great though. But something critics might find interesting. I remember listening to the DVD commentary back in the early 2000s (I don't recall if this was the original DVD commentary or a re-issue) and it became very clear to me because the commentary was Voerhoven and the screenwriter, that they both did think they were making different movies. I got the sense that the screenwriter was earnest in his attempts to portray the conflict in the book (he mentions at one point how the bugs are a good stand in for something as evil as the Third Reich for example: wording might have been different, but that sort of sentiment was expressed). And it was clear Voehoven felt the complete opposite. This is one of the reasons why I think I like the film (I think that split worked). However it would also be something that might go to your point here. I should say I listened to this commentary once in like 2002, so do take my synopsis with a grain of salt, it is possible I am misremembering details). And I haven't followed the screenwriter, so no idea if he later clarified or reframed his opinion.

It's true, the satire rings because there is a hint of earnestness in the film. Folks say it failed as satire, but did it really? I mean, 25 years later they are still complaining about it.

 

[Reynard]

Learning a new RPG isn't that hard and people do themselves and their fellow players a disservice by just "sticking with what they know." And yes, I am mostly talking about people that play D&D and refuse to learn another game, thereby basically forcing a group to stay with D&D.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

If you didn't like the movie, you didn't like it. I did think it was great though. But something critics might find interesting. I remember listening to the DVD commentary back in the early 2000s (I don't recall if this was the original DVD commentary or a re-issue) and it became very clear to me because the commentary was Voerhoven and the screenwriter, that they both did think they were making different movies. I got the sense that the screenwriter was earnest in his attempts to portray the conflict in the book (he mentions at one point how the bugs are a good stand in for something as evil as the Third Reich for example: wording might have been different, but that sort of sentiment was expressed). And it was clear Voehoven felt the complete opposite. This is one of the reasons why I think I like the film (I think that split worked). However it would also be something that might go to your point here. I should say I listened to this commentary once in like 2002, so do take my synopsis with a grain of salt, it is possible I am misremembering details). And I haven't followed the screenwriter, so no idea if he later clarified or reframed his opinion.

Again, the whole point of great satire is that not only will some people not get it, it should actively anger some portion of the audience.

The reason that Starship Troopers works so well for some people is because it is such a brilliant satire of the appeal of the fascist militarist state. The actors chosen were chosen not because of their great acting abilities, but because they embodied that classic look that you would find in, inter alia, a Reifenstahl propaganda piece. Bugs are, of course, the ultimate example of "othering," such that even the existence of a "smart bug," is nothing more than a pressure point on the enemy,

That's why it works on so many levels. Much like Common Sense, one person can easily point to certain parts and think that it is so over-the-top that of course it is so obvious that the meaning cannot possibly be missed (NPH and his uniform, for example). On the other hand, Verhoeven's earnest use of the tropes of action movies and the audience's desire to sympathize with, and engage with, the protagonists of the story can both confuse the audience's expected expectations (can this really be a satire) while at the same time providing the most effective critique of the appeal of its target- the easy seduction of militarism and fascist tropes.

So with that in mind, by taking the ideas in Heinlein's book and extending them to their conclusions, he offers the most effective take on them possible. The problem with those ideas is not that people will necessarily recognize them as bad; it's that that they won't, and instead be seduced by the easy images and appeals to the emotion. For people who found Heinlein's book to be something good, of course this take on the source material- which is necessarily and fundamentally a critique of the ideas within it, to be distressing and unpleasant.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So with that in mind, by taking the ideas in Heinlein's book and extending them to their conclusions, he offers the most effective take on them possible. The problem with those ideas is not that people will necessarily recognize them as bad; it's that that they won't, and instead be seduced by the easy images and appeals to the emotion. For people who found Heinlein's book to be something good, of course this take on the source material- which is necessarily and fundamentally a critique of the ideas within it, to be distressing and unpleasant.

I agree. I liked both the book and the movie, but I didn't agree with Heinlein's perspective (I did think he made an interesting and compelling case in the story though). And Starship Troopers I thought was effective for the above reason and that reason you point to with the actors (it may not be obvious all these years later but having an actor like Neil Patrick Harris in that role (who was only really known as Doogie Howser to that point) was quite effective in charting the transformation of the characters from high school to full blown fascists).

 

[MGibster]

The reason that Starship Troopers works so well for some people is because it is such a brilliant satire of the appeal of the fascist militarist state.

Starship Troopers is the Bard of movies.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I think a simpler 5e isn't found by deleting content but by killing the heavy exception based design, and by eliminating obtuse mechanics that segregate the rules action from the fictional action. (To-Hit rules are the shining example of that)

In other words, a simpler 5e is a 5e that eliminates how many times it has to tell a player no.

RPGs that say 'no' a lot are the best.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's true, the satire rings because there is a hint of earnestness in the film. Folks say it failed as satire, but did it really? I mean, 25 years later they are still complaining about it.

Well, part of the issue is that if you're going to satirize something, you don't name the satire after the thing you're satirizing. Then it just comes across as misrepresentation. I'm not the Heinlein fan I was when it came out, but there is one scene in particular that takes a particular character and deliberately twists the scene to change him from a hard but fair person to a vicious SOB. I'm just hard pressed to find that in any way appropriate.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Starship Troopers is the Bard of movies.

More 'Hawk the Slayer' of movies.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Well, part of the issue is that if you're going to satirize something, you don't name the satire after the thing you're satirizing. Then it just comes across as misrepresentation. I'm not the Heinlein fan I was when it came out, but there is one scene in particular that takes a particular character and deliberately twists the scene to change him from a hard but fair person to a vicious SOB. I'm just hard pressed to find that in any way appropriate.

The idea that something in a different media must be a faithful reproduction of the original is an idea that I hope dies a quick and painful death. There is nothing so smothering as a mother's fan's love.

If you read the book, and you liked the book, enjoy that for what it was. The movie is not the book. Any movie will not be the book. It is always the wrong question to ask, "Did the movie succeed as a successful representation of the book?"

The question should always be, "Did the movie succeed as a movie?"

Did I like the books Naked Lunch and Tristram Shandy? Yes and yes.

Did I like the movies Naked Lunch and A Cock and Bull Story? Yes and yes.

Were the two movies faithful adaptations of the books? Not even close.

 

[MGibster]

More 'Hawk the Slayer' of movies.

Be careful with that reference, it's an antique.