Unpopular opinions go here

[Thomas Shey]

But that would also be misleading because the name tells you where they are getting the idea from. And if they are calling it by that name, they probably want you to have the source material in mind when you watch it

Joe Haldeman didn't feel a need to do that with Forever War.

 

[payn]

Snarf mentioned that if everyone got it, it wouldn't be a good satire. That might be part of it, but I think also a lot of people saw it when they were 11 on TBS and missed the satire because of that. I agree, it's pretty blatant. At the same time, it is earnest and there's no actual comedy. So it is satire in the way that Animal Farm is -- one where there isn't any abject humor, you just proverbially point to the thing and say, 'ah, that's a stand-in for ______, neat.' I guess that's pretty on-brand for satire, but what we see a lot more of in movies are parodies. So perhaps it is simply that people weren't expecting a non-parody satire in a movie, whereas they would in a book.

Pretty much this. I think folks didn't expect Starship Troopers movie to satire its themes, even though the movie is faithful to the events, just not in spirit.

 

[Reynard]

Not a fan of the Victorian style then?

No. I have a English lit degree and have read a lot of old books, and Frankenstein is one of the worst. Also, it is a Romantic novel, not a Victorian one. Queen Victoria won't be born EDIT: crowned for 20 years.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Pretty much this. I think folks didn't expect Starship Troopers movie to satire its themes, even though the movie is faithful to the events, just not in spirit.

Well, faithful to the events in a sort of broad-strokes way. There were things that the necessity of skipping the power armor forced out of the picture, and there was a tendency to focus on parts of the story that could be easily turned to the the director's purposes (such as the massive cluster that was the space battle).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Joe Haldeman didn't feel a need to do that with Forever War.

Sure, but he wasn't adapting Starship Troopers, he was inspired by it. I think there is a difference between writers in the same medium taking inspiration and having effectively a conversation with one another through their works, than someone adapting a story to film (there is a long tradition of films being radically different from the books they are based on, often with the book just serving as a barebones set of guide posts or even just the kernel of an idea). Personally I like movies being that way. I think it is fine if directors want to make a movie faithful to the book, but for me usually the more entertaining and interesting movies don't do that.

I will say, the Forever War is a great novel IMO. I actually came to it a bit late (think I first read it a little over ten years ago) but it was one of the more impressive science fiction novels I have read. And it was exactly the kind of thing I had in mind when I was talking about Starship Troopers the book earlier and how science fiction from that era could reflect a wider range of viewpoints. And looking up what he said about it now (I knew there was a connection but wasn't aware of his full statement until your post prompted me to look it up: I agree 100% with his take on the book:

Haldeman said that he disagreed with Starship Troopers because it "glorifies war" but added that "it's a very well-crafted novel and I believe Heinlein was honest with it"

I think he is spot on there and I think that is a great attitude to take when you are engaging with literature

 

[Bedrockgames]

Again, adaptation drift is one thing; calling a deliberate parody of the source material by its name is another. I've seen movies I didn't love some of the adaptation choices, or where they were more interested in pursuing elements of the source said source didn't focus on, but the sort of thing that happened with ST is not a normal adaptation in any sense.

I mean, even most deconstructions of specific sources are usually less perverse in how they go about it than this.

I think on ST the movie we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[Bedrockgames]

In other words, there are those who think the Shining was an amazing film. And there are those, including King, who continue to complain that the movie totally doesn't get the book. Which is true- the movie is a completely separate, excellent, work.

I would pick anything by Kubrick over anything by King personally but tastes vary (nothing against King, I know a lot of people love him, but I have had this lifelong difficulty getting into his books). I agree though, the Shining as a film is excellent and works. It is notable that there was a similar reaction to A Clockwork Orange (which I think is even better than the Shining). The book is actually quite similar but there are notable changes and some disagreement about the final chapter from the author. Both are worth experiencing though. And Kubrick couldn't have done what he did without the foundation of the book to work on.

 

[Guest 7042500]

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.

I don't complain because it tried to satirize the book, I complain because it was a farking stupid movie.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't complain because it tried to satirize the book, I complain because it was a farking stupid movie.

I loved it, but I can see, especially given its tone, having that reaction to it. Voerhoven is always walking a very fine line in his movies. One one side is Robocop, the other Showgirls

 

[payn]

I don't complain because it tried to satirize the book, I complain because it was a farking stupid movie.

We need a Farkle movie. They made one about Clue and Battleship so why not?