Geek Confessional Thread 2024

[Ruin Explorer]

I gotta disagree. If folks are not sure if an action flick is supposed to be satire or not, is a pretty clever execution.Especially, if folks dont get/care about the commentary and love the movie anyways.

I guess I don't see "clever" as purely a positive thing. I've seen movies which were a lot more "clever" than either Troopers or Robocop, where you had to think about them carefully/analyse them to understand what the actual message was or the like, whereas this is pretty direct and in-your-face satire for the most part, which to me isn't "clever", though it might be genius, in another sense!

I have no idea why the inclusion of power armor would preclude it from being fascist?

That's just a clumsy sentence on my part - those are the two reasons it's remembered, there's no connection between the two.

 

[payn]

I guess I don't see "clever" as purely a positive thing. I've seen movies which were a lot more "clever" than either Troopers or Robocop, where you had to think about them carefully/analyse them to understand what the actual message was or the like, whereas this is pretty direct and in-your-face satire for the most part, which to me isn't "clever", though it might be genius, in another sense!

Right, is it clever satire? No. Is it clever putting blunt satire in a violent action movie where the audience doesn't expect it? Yes!

That's just a clumsy sentence on my part - those are the two reasons it's remembered, there's no connection between the two.

Gotcha. Yeah I know some fans of the book that say its "patriotic" not fascist, but I dont think they understand that fascism is often cloaked in patriotism.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeap, the book is pretty awful, which is why Verhoeven wanted to satire it. I have no idea why the inclusion of power armor would preclude it from being fascist?

Its not. He's conflating the fact that the argument as to whether its fascistic is not as clearcut as those who think it is want to claim, so they'd really, really like to claim people who disagree are giving it a pass because of other reasons.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Gotcha. Yeah I know some fans of the book that say its "patriotic" not fascist, but I dont think they understand that fascism is often cloaked in patriotism.

Yeah it's bizarre to call it patriotic, because that's not even a philosophy, but the book clearly has an aggressively-presented philosophy (despite incoherence/inconsistency). If we look at Umberto Eco's fairly easy list-based test for fascism, the philosophy touted in the book hits 13 out of 14 tests absolutely directly head-on (and the other is just a case of "lack of evidence" either way).

I strongly suspect Verhoeven was inspired by Eco here, because he really amplifies quite a few of these in the movie.

Its not. He's conflating the fact that the argument as to whether its fascistic is not as clearcut as those who think it is want to claim, so they'd really, really like to claim people who disagree are giving it a pass because of other reasons.

Sorry, I'm not that clever, I just mangled the sentence somewhat, because I deviated from my standard practice of doing everything as numbered lists or bullet points! Two are two separate reasons it's still remembered/discussed.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah it's bizarre to call it patriotic, because that's not even a philosophy, but the book clearly has an aggressively-presented philosophy (despite incoherence/inconsistency). If we look at Umberto Eco's fairly easy list-based test for fascism, the philosophy touted in the book hits 13 out of 14 tests absolutely directly head-on (and the other is just a case of "lack of evidence" either way).

This vastly overstates it. The book does hit some of Eco's flags, but the claims on a number of others are extremely convoluted at best and disingenuous at worst. His 12th and 13th elements fail out pretty thoroughly (13th absolutely and 12th unless you absolutely have to have political power for it to count) as examples,

Its easy to claim its militarist and elitist, and whether it actually glorifies violence (it absolutely claims its a functional way of dealing with Gordian Knots) is in the eye of the beholder, but some of the other claims only work by a very selective reading of the book and ignoring the parts that actively contradict them.

This does not require people to like it. Its distinctly right wing in its sentiments, and some elements are easy to find distasteful (the focus on corporal punishment in some parts for example), but the degree of overstatement that gets presented in criticism of it is tiresome.

 

[payn]

This vastly overstates it. The book does hit some of Eco's flags, but the claims on a number of others are extremely convoluted at best and disingenuous at worst. His 12th and 13th elements fail out pretty thoroughly (13th absolutely and 12th unless you absolutely have to have political power for it to count) as examples,

Its easy to claim its militarist and elitist, and whether it actually glorifies violence (it absolutely claims its a functional way of dealing with Gordian Knots) is in the eye of the beholder, but some of the other claims only work by a very selective reading of the book and ignoring the parts that actively contradict them.

This does not require people to like it. Its distinctly right wing in its sentiments, and some elements are easy to find distasteful (the focus on corporal punishment in some parts for example), but the degree of overstatement that gets presented in criticism of it is tiresome.

Overtime, Ive seen a lot of repeat themes in Heinlen's work. Folks have argued he is more of a libertarian, but ive often found little daylight between the philosophies.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Overtime, Ive seen a lot of repeat themes in Heinlen's work. Folks have argued he is more of a libertarian, but ive often found little daylight between the philosophies.

Well, he contradicts himself not just in fiction (where it can be simply viewed as explorational) but in some of his non-fictional discussion, so that doesn't help. Its hard to argue he's not right wing (at least by the time most of his well known works land) but its pretty easy to argue he's very much of two (or more) minds when it comes to a number of features within it. Sometimes he comes across as being a bit too much into the authoritarian, sometimes he's very strongly anti-authoritarian.

My own suspicion is that he thought some authoritarian approaches were the only practical ones for some problems while simultaneously not being at all happy with where he knew that seemed to always end up. So he'd try to tell himself you could have your cake and eat it too, leading to some obviously incoherent positions.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Its not. He's conflating the fact that the argument as to whether its fascistic is not as clearcut as those who think it is want to claim, so they'd really, really like to claim people who disagree are giving it a pass because of other reasons.

Another thing to keep in mind is Veorhoven chucked the book after the first thirty pages or something (can't remember exact page count he mentioned), because he was so disgusted with it. So he isn't taking a point by point critique to the book itself. However he is working off a script that was based on a reading of the book (and from interviews I have seen I sometimes get the impression that he and Veorhoven had two very different visions). Though obviously it changes what something like mobile infantry actually means (I aways assumed this was a budget consideration but no idea). What makes Starship Troopers the movie work is Veorhovens vision, his use of the 90210 foundation for his satire of militarism and fascism. I find it to be one of those movies I can keep going back to. Like Robocop in that respect. I think Robocop is the better of the two but both are exceptional films.

I won't tell anyone what they should think of either. I like both. But I would say don't rely on my opinions or the opinions and synopsis of posters. Watch and read for yourself and make your own determination. I know I was surprised when I read the book. There are definitely sentiments in the book I disagree with. I tend to be more on the side of the film. But I was not expecting to like the book as much as I did and be as entertained by and engaged with the arguments he was making.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is from 1966. Friday is from 1982 and while it has a couple of spots of ick, is mostly a great story about what it means to be human and a near-future not-quite cyberpunk society. I would opine that he was partly up his butt the whole time, but it gradually got worse particularly starting in the 70s.

Oh, I think there are great things in Moon, Stranger in a Strange Land (although it was wildly over-hyped by the hippies) and even Starship Troopers. But in all three, you can see his politics and "old men should be having sex with lots of young women" thing getting more and more intense, presumably as his fame was growing.

By the time the 1970s and early 1980s rolled around, he was still doing good stuff -- Friday, which has an ick factor but is still pretty good, and Job, in particular -- but you also have indulgent stuff about Lazarus Long getting laid and various hard body women popping through time and space in service (in every sense) of old dudes.

He's less gross than Lieber was at the end, but he was going down the same path.

Ironically, I think the best Heinlein books are by John Varley, who gets 99% of the ick out and puts out mostly pure goodness as a result. (Mammoth is pretty weak, but his Eight Worlds novels are fantastic.)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

someone was just telling me that Body Thief was the low point and Memnoch was actually good.

Cut that person out of your life.

To refresh your memory/tear open old wounds, in Memnoch, Lestat travels through time and drinks Jesus' blood as he's carrying the cross to his crucifiction.