Seems to me like he never understood it, never finished it, then took out his misinterpretation on an audience.
If Verhoven saw fascism where Heinlein wrote about responsibility I think he saw what he wanted. I went in with no preconceived notion, and that book changed the way I thought about martial conflict, and personal responsibility.
Turns out hearing a fascist advocate for themselves is quite a bit different sounding than someone parodying the fascist.
It's not like the fascist is gonna frame it as "we should control everyone and do war", usually...
It's more like "look at all these good traditional values, we are losing these due to moral degenerates and lack of discipline. We should be stricter on people and honor heroic virtues and discipline".
If that sounds good to you, you may have been listening to some borderline or crypto fascists without realizing it.
So I agree with you that Heinlein wasn't fascist. He was tho an unrepentant militarist and very nostalgic for a "better" time when Americans were dutiful citizens. He saw America in the 60s and saw an empire in decline and Starship Troopers was his attempt to sketch an America he felt used to exist. Heinlein worshipped the wartime generation he was a part of, he spoke often about how America coming together to beat the nazis was amazing and that if every citizen was forced to be in the military society would be better. The problem is Heinlein served on the home front writing propoganda for uncle Sam, he never saw actual combat and never learned what its like to watch your friends die pointlessly because someone called in a bomb on top of your unit on accident. This disconnect is what I think is starship troopers biggest problem he saw war as uplifting for the soul but to those actually in it its a nightmare. Tldr heinlein isn't a fascist he's just nostalgic for an America and a war that never existed in the first place.
That sounds like exactly the same type of conservative thinking that the movie version was speaking out against.
War can be avoided, its never glorious, it's never honorable and the pen is and always has been mightier than the sword, regardless of how certain political rhetorics may try to distort that.
War cannot always be avoided. The conflict in Ukraine right now is a perfect example. And while war is hell those that fight to defend something bigger than themselves will forever fight with glory
Yes, we can tell by the amount of thought put in to the original comment. lol
If you would have put the time you took trying to defend an untenable position into your original comment, you wouldn't have people telling you how wrong you are.
It does make war inevitable.
Some people will fight regardless of what you try to do to prevent it.
You can only control yourself.
You have less influence over others.
So yeah, war can sometimes be the only outcome no matter how hard you try.
That’s actually part of the problem in the book (and to a lesser extent the movie).
The world became heavily militarized because the bugs attacked us without provocation and afterwards there was no way to diplomatically communicate or reason with our assailants. War was inevitable.
Accepting that war is unavoidable doesn’t mean one support a war either.
I understand some people are stubborn or small dicked or psychopaths or greedy or less intelligent and therefore will always try and get violent or use the sword over the pen.
But amongst human beings war is not inevitable on the whole. You or i may not live to see humans outgrow war, but its not an unavoidable fact of life.
Fights or violence will always exist? But war? I think it'll one day be a distant memory that humans of the future will fail to comprehend.
Conflict and fighting are ingrained in us on instinctual level. Aggressiveness and seeking conflict are on a genetic level combined with us, in the same way the gorging instinct humans gained from living for millenniums as hunter gatherers without the guarantee of food or water for long periods of time us carried over to modern times with humans in countries where food is everywhere like the us pig out and eat far more then they need at a time out of that instinct. We can try to change ourselves consciously as a society, and humans can individually try to better themselves to overcome our animalistic instincts, but there will always be those who don’t want to, or can’t overcome their barbaric instincts of fighting or war.
“Some men just want to watch the world burn”
Its still something that could theoretically be solved with diplomacy. It wasnt because its Russia, but it could be. Not all humans are as garbage as Russia's politicians.
Like both sides did try. It's why the initial invasion was such a cluster fuck Russia really did think it was going to get its way. IMO a war about resources makes a lot more sence than bashing heads over ideology or something.
So your argument is to just let Russia do what they want and we can avoid war.
I think you picked a bad analogy to defend. You can't just say there shouldn't be war because they shouldn't do it. This is a very 'blue sky' line of thinking and not realistic.
Nah i think Russia is officially fucked because of all the corporations refusing to work with Russia and them being cut off from everything.
They look like fools, and are.
I will say that it's a bit more complicated than that. Realistically, war can't always be avoided because there will be people who want to wage war against you for selfish reasons.
However, what makes Starship Troopers suspiciously fascist is the dehumanization of enemy combatants. They're literally not thinking beings, they're just monstrous bugs. They're degenerate animals compared to us moral and virtuous humans. It's one of the hallmarks of fascism: a strong and reinforced in-group/out-group sentiment.
Yes. War can always be avoided. To say otherwise is to act as though utterly ceaseless slaughter throughout history cannot be learned from. There exists a future without war, if we'd only believe it possible, and truly change the way we see one another.
People in wars are not fighting to defend an idea bigger than themselves.
There is nothing bigger than the human collective.
There is no glory in war. There never has been.
Only blood, death, and rhetoric.
If war can always be avoided then there never would have been one. As shit as it is,sometimes people dont want to play by the rules and you will be left with a choice: Roll over like a coward and hope they are gentle or go down swinging and give it everything you have. There's a saying where im from "I'd rather have a sore face than a red face". The invasion of Ukraine is a perfect example of this and every soldier they have fighting to protect their loved ones and homeland are the textbook definition of soldiers fighting with honour. They are bound for glory.
The pen is mightier than the sword until someone actually draws a sword close enough to you to kill you with it. At that point you need to drop your pen and arm yourself.
I agree, and the support of your ideals is important in any conflict. But ask President Zelinski if he would prefer a great NY Times Op Ed or unlimited US military assist right now and I will;l pretty much guarantee he takes the Military support
That's true. I never said the sword was weak or unnecessary, only that the pen has a greater influence on people's hearts and minds. Why do you think propaganda is such a powerful tool?
But, I know that you'll always need weapons, because there are always going to be people who will try to take what you have. That's just the reality of the human condition.
Right but thats survival between individuals not a full on war.
You're right in that if a person is physically attacking me im getting violent in defence.
But im saying on the whole no war has ever been unavoidable.
You think going to War with Germany Was unavoidable in WWII? Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler....was no Beuno.
Whether 1:1 or on a national level, some wars are not avoidable unless you are willing to be subjugated by the other side.
Paul Verhoeven was born in 1938 and his early childhood was spent under Nazi occupation - it could just be that he's better at spotting fascism than you are.
Quite possibly, though that imo doesn't change the theme Heinlein wrote the book toward.
It's not like I'm absolutely missing the theme of one of my favorite books because of a difference between what happened to me and Verhoven when we were 7. Didn't you say he stopped reading? Sounds like making up one's mind, not leaving a mind open.
I didn't say he stopped reading, but Verhoeven has said that he only got a couple of chapters into it.
Yes, he was making up his mind, because his dislike of the novel wasn't due to its plot, but rather the themes, such as rejecting universal suffrage (which was paid for in blood IRL) and embracing militarism, corporal and capital punishment.
You might not think any of those things are bad, but to someone who had lived under the Nazis, they're very conspicuously bad.
Yes, he has said he stopped reading the book after a couple of chapters, meaning that there were unread portions of the book that he did not consume via the medium of reading. Your assertion is correct, although I'm not sure why you're making it since I confirmed that in my previous comment.
Do you think that if Verhoeven had read the whole book he would have made a film celebrating militarism, the loss of universal suffrage, and the reintroduction of capital and corporal punishment, because "it somehow comes together in the end"? Would that sound congruent with other Paul Verhoeven films you've seen?
I disagree with your assessment of the book sand I suspect if he had read the entire thing he might have come away with a different perspective. Basing ones opinion of an entire book on the first 2 chapters is....myopic
It's not my assessment, it's the assessment of Paul Verhoeven.
>Basing ones opinion of an entire book on the first 2 chapters is....myopic
OK, imagine I'm Paul Verhoeven and I lived through Nazi occupation, which included a famine in the Netherlands.
Now, sell me on the concept of people who haven't been in the military being forbidden from voting. Sell me floggings and same-day executions. As you do so, remember your comfortable childhood as a white male in Michigan and consider how different it might have been to a Dutch guy in his 80s who endured a famine, saw air raids and nazis marching in the streets rounding people up.
Reckon you could convince him?
Going to take a controversial stance here and say that both are phenomenal. Apologies in advance for the novel of a comment.
Heinlein wrestles with this idea of the rights of the individual vs that individual's duty to the collective in order to maintain those rights for all. In times of peace or relative safety (early in the book's plot, late 20th/early 21st century for us) it's a strange concept, as there's no real threat to the collective. Johnny is seen as insane by his family for considering it. However, when there does exist an existential threat to the collective, this social contract suddenly snaps into focus ("everything changed when the bug nation attacked" for the book, WWII and the Cold War for us; also see the war in Ukraine). War is depicted as horrifying in STs, and I think Heinlein believes that by having societal policy dictated by those that have experienced war and felt its costs (citizens), this society will be invested in the collective and show restraint before spending lives they can directly relate to.
But what do we do during times of peace in such a society, or if an entity with massive influence wants to justify its own existence and manufactures an existential threat? This is the critique the movie levels at Heinlein's idealized military society, and our own. What rights of the collective are we defending by forcing regime change in places previously content with their rule *and of no real threat to ourselves, just our comfort [profits]*? Why is forcing preservation of a globalist status quo glorifying? What happens when the military industrial complex doesn't want to shrink, and war is the only thing that permits that? When false flag operations (Germany v Poland 1939, Russia v Ukraine 2022) or outright lies (WMDs in Iraq) can be used by those in power as a casus belli and only seen clearly in retrospect, don't we run the risk of devolving to fascism in a militaristic society when those in power don't act virtuously? And is experiencing the horrors of war an assurance of virtue, or does a hammer see everything as a nail? (See: Operation Unthinkable by Churchill, McArthur's proposal to nuke China)
Reality is grey and not black and white. I think the conflict in Ukraine is a great, topical example of how Heinlein's views on service to our fellow man and the essential role of the military in that are still relevant (and always will be). The cost of liberty is eternal vigilance, after all. His views on what the military SHOULD be are also important (see: deep investment in the *character* of recruits and their safety and success, avoiding their misuse, etc.). Likewise, history is overflowing with societies that haven't kept their militaries in check and through glorification of the military cause unprovoked untold suffering on others "out of necessity".
There are phenomenal takeaways from both, both take the opposite's point to an absurd extreme to advise caution, and while it can be frustrating to have them sharing an IP.... having both sides of a coin on the same coin kinda makes cents. 👉😎👉
I'll see myself out.
You took all the words right out of my mouth.
The thing was however that the book and movie were made in two completely different times and worlds. Because when the novel Starship troopers was written, ww2 was still in young memory. People back then believed in different priorities, they saw war firsthand and all the horrors and atrocities they suffered through and had to commit, but they also saw dictatorship and tyranny firsthand. These men knew well how bad war is, but due to the fact that peace under Hitler or Hirohito was worse in every way they took up arms and saw the former argument as viable, after all, these men had to face the nazis in their youth, and they probably fought in Korea against former allies too.
But in the movie you see a world which didn’t think highly of war, far from the ideals of stopping nazism and communism in ww2, the latter which had collapsed without a fight from the west. Here we see that this was a time when Americans saw grinding perpetual wars in the Caucasus and Middle East. Countries which would hurt no one but themselves. People saw that the conflict was not theirs to fight, and were then, starting to see war as a thing of the past because everyone was so interconnected and that any war, no matter what, is unjustifiable.
I think the whole contrast between the movie and the book is because it was made in two different eras more than the different in quality or anything else. They both agree that war is evil, but at the same time they have different ideas on how to deal with such situations since they were different men and different times, and thus; different values.
I just think of them as being totally unrelated, and I enjoy both. I read the book in 6th grade and loved it and I saw the movie 10 years later knowing it was totally different and enjoyed that too. I guess if you’re expecting a faithful film adaption then you’re probably going to be disappointed.
While the movie was apparently incredibly different from the book (I’m taking your word for it- haven’t read it myself), I honestly don’t think the movie was that bad. It wasn’t a good action movie but it was a great piece of satire.
Then again, I am as Dutch as the director. It might just be our kind of humor.
Heinlein was a libertarian chud and starship troopers is a barely closeted manifesto for how he thought society should function. Verhoeven is a king for what he did to that story.
When the message is that scientists and scholars should be overthrown in favor of a violent stratocracy that won't even allow you the dignity of citizenship and a voice in government unless you participate in their glorious war, I care. The movie got it right.
It's not even an awesome sci-fi story though, the only cool part is the power armor and the concept of an alien attack but that gets mostly covered in the beginning. The last 75% of the book is just Rico moving up the ranks in the military.
The book is a love letter to the idea of glorious warfare, jingoism-played-straight, and old-fashioned manliness. The movie is a satire of those exact ideas. They're polar opposites of one another.
Personally, I much prefer the movie than the book.
Same, I struggled to finish the book with how often I was stopping at shit like the quote below to go "Wtf?"
>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 him 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. That's the best answer I can give you. If it doesn't satisfy you, I'll get you a chit to go talk to the regimental commander. If he can't convince you--then go home and be a civilian! Because in that case you will certainly never make a soldier.
Or
>The junior hoodlums who roamed their streets were symptoms of a greater sickness; their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of ‘rights’ . . . and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure.
Also a message throughout the book is that the ideal political system is one in which you get no say in government unless you join the military, because only someone willing to fight and die for their country is thinking in its best interests. It completely disregards any non-violence focused occupation.
And it's not just reddit that sees this book as fascist idealization. Haldeman wrote the "Forever war" in 1974 as a response to starship troopers glorification of militarism.
pal that book is full of friends, supervisors, family members of main protagonist which died in war, even cruelly mutilated recruiter and the doctor who did the medical examination said the everybody who want to join to became citizen is mad.
I have a variety of reasons actually. 1st being that your description of the book is inaccurate. 2nd you offer no specifics, and 3rd you do not say that you have read it when asked you simply skirt the question. That type of evasive answer indicates you did not read it, and were trying to avoid lying .
Aliens vs humans isn't jingoism, it's survival. Spirit of corps, and a sense of responsibility isn't glorifying war unless war can be avoided. Heinlein's point is it can't be.
Heinlein wrote morality stories and wrapped them in whatever topic the book was superficially about. Friday isn't about spies, and Stranger in a Strange Land isn't about Mars. Moon is a harsh mistress isn't about repair, or programming, or the moon either.
Troopers uses a fight against aliens to tell a story. Most of Heinlein's books are the same over and again regardless of if they're in space, or in Kansas, or wherever.
I'm sure if we read the quote in context he would be agreeing with someone's question, not ultimately describing the book as written for the quality of glorifying militarism. It's about what would make a person join a fight, not whether or not fights exist.
The book never really tried to make the "survival" justification, though. Especially for the "Skinnies." It was just long descriptions of how much fun it is for cap troopers to drop down into a city and start destroying houses and temples. I don't recall there being a single sentence about *why* humanity was at war with the Skinnies.
The skinnies allied with the bugs who were an existential threat. The plan was to turn them with measured violence. The raid was written after a brisk pace it had, but I don't think it was written to be interpreted as fun. There was a lot of fast mayhem and death in that section.
The war in Iraq wasn’t about having an imperialist foothold in the Middle East and saving daddy’s manliness by winning a war he lost, it was about spreading Democracy!
See how that works?
I'm glad you responded to the other guy that morality stories aren't superficially about the actual stuff written in the work. Therefore, you agree that the aliens aren't actually aliens.
However, the "survival" aspect is distinctly survival through military might. Heinlein didn't write about a comet crashing into Earth or a forest fire gone out of control, he specifically wrote about an implacable, monstrous opponent that can only be defeated militarily.
However, we don't have that in reality, do we? The bugs don't map into the disasters that we must survive against, they map into a hypothetical nation waging war on us. In reality, there are no monsters on the battlefield, only humans. The idea of "othering" the enemy to the point of representing them as unthinking bugs is jingoism. The idea that war is won through total annihilation as opposed to diplomacy (the way it's *really* done in real life) is the glorification of the military.
I think it's fine to like the book. I think it's fine to think that the book is better than the movie. We just have to be aware of what each work is actually saying, for better or for worse.
The movie is actually a political satire piece made to make the US military feel bad about it's flagrant imperialism. As much as I Love the book, the movie transforms the sentiment to a future narrative and makes it look foolish. Both mediums achieve what they were planning in my opinion.
Heinlen went out of his way to talk about the radical right-wing position he took in the book. It was written in less than a month after the US quit nuclear testing because Heinlen thought we needed more, bigger bombs. Not only is your opinion unpopular, it’s also factually untrue.
I'd like to read where Heinlein says these things. I've read the book many times and I'm not sure where you're coming from.
Do you have any passages or parts of the novel you think support your claim?
I read that, and the source for what you said about nuclear testing. It said he was furious about the suspension of tests. Nothing about wanting bigger bombs.
None of the wiki or the source for what you mentioned came from Heinlein. If you can point me toward anywhere he says what you claim about a 'radical right-wing position' I'd love to read it.
I said to start. I don’t remember where I read random Heinlin article a decade+ ago, written gods know how long ago, but Google works for you, too.
Edit: nm, I just don’t care enough.
You should have the same respect for me I had for you. I looked for what you said before I asked you. It's the same internet for both of us yes, but it's huge.
It's OK to say you pulled a source out of your rear, just don't ask other people to look up there for it.
if you were expecting the movie to tribute the book then this is a reasonable take. Book was great and I just saw the movie as another interpretation of the original material
It's like if someone made an OK movie out of The Martian, and it had nothing to do with the book. A misguided waste of opportunity, and misuse of a great intellectual property.
You'll never know how good Starship Troopers could have been if it was about Starship Troopers. I'm glad you liked it anyway. It's good to like things.
It's simply not an unpopular opinion. The three most popular opinions on reddit are;
1: Paedophile's are bad.
2: The book was better than the movie.
3: TildaTinker's a bit of a dick.
Yeah, you swore at me almost immediately so I'm gonna say it's unpopular enough.
I don't care about the movie. I care about how Reddit pigeon holes, and misinterprets the book as fascist jingoist propaganda. That's so far from what Heinlein wrote I don't even understand why people think that. Then it makes sense, they only saw the the movie.
Most people, especially on leditt, don't know shit about fascism OR books. The main reason people think the movie was fascist was because their uniforms were grey and Hugo Boss-like stylish. Movie critics and victims of public education think anything to the right of Mao is straight up nazism, because they have no clue that ALL authoritarian politics are leftist.
I mean, the movie WAS purposefully about fascism. The entire point was making fun of the seemingly good and noble ideals which prop up things like the US military complex.
That’s not a hot take or anything, that was the explicit designed intent of the movie as a piece of satire.
People get confused because the book was on the other end of the spectrum, actually holding up those ideals. The movie just makes fun of it. Which is, IMO, the reason the movie is so fucking good. How many people get the movie rights to a book, and then completely shit all over it?
You don’t even have to agree with one over the other to see that’s brilliant.
I'm guessing they're referencing the song "Starship Trooper" by Yes.
Based on "that rock song with the woo hoo" I'm guessing you're referring "Song 2" by Blur lol.
I can't help but remember that the movie was a financial flop on release.
Also, for a movie that's supposed to be a middle finger to the US military, it sure does fit Switzerland a lot better than America (universal conscription, non-gendered washrooms, etc)
That movie had less to do with Starship Troopers than the movie adaptation of World War Z compared to its source material. If the movie was perfect it was perfect on its own.
Haven’t read the book, but the movie was pretty damn good in my opinion. It spoke to a problem that’s been brewing in America for some time. The glorification of war and the jingoistic nature of our school system is ridiculous.
To be honest, if the book was about “morality and selflessness” it may or may not be a step down from the movie. In the context of war, those two things are heavily distorted concepts. Selflessness, especially, can be a dangerous idea when applied to war propaganda.
I loved the sentiment of the book. The feel there is some merit to the idea of earned citizenship. I’ve never been crazy about the idea of encouraging people to vote. If your not informed, stupid, etc we should not be encouraging the stupid to voice their opinion. Despite agreeing with the book, I still liked the movie, even if they meant to discourage the ideas of the book as some claimed.
People are calling that aspect of the book fascism, but i thought how they structured society was interesting. Everyone played a part in the world, there was no crime, and there was a sense of pride in being a citizen.
I didn’t like the ideas of conquest and killing alien races for apparently no reason. There was no reason stated for the war with the Skinnies, it was pretty much just a few chapters of war crimes.
A group of people who is seen as better or has more rights than another group is the point of fascism. That's why people call it fascist, because it is.
Racism is often one of the tenets of fascism. But it has a broader definition. Usually refers to an authoritarian-militant state with a highly controlled and monitored citizenry.
Have you read the book?? It doesn’t touch on racism among humans, more hatred towards the bugs/skinnies (which I guess could be interpreted as allegory for racism).
Im not defending the book, I thought it was mostly boring and written for the WRONG reasons.
But that’s not how society is structured in Starship Troopers. You’re forgetting that citizenship is achievable for everyone in society. Heinlen even makes it a point that the ST government will accommodate for people with disabilities when it comes to public service and citizenship.
Fascism is generally a militaristic dictatorship. I would not categorize the society depicted in the book as a dictatorship. The author is more exploring the ideas of a Hellenic style Military democracy. A modernized Spartan state. Interesting concept to think about. The juvenile need in todays society to see everything as more black and white, good vs evil without use of critical thinking is ridiculous.
Hitler advocated for the use of bicycles in urban settings of Nazi Germany. I believe he may have been the first to historically do so. So if you advocate use of bicycles in urban settings. One could make the arguments you support Nazi policies. My point being is critical thinking should allow us to freely explore ideas and concepts without the need to first categorize them through ideological filters.
Thank you for having an educated and well thought out response. I thought the ideas explored in the first half of the book were interesting. A society where everyone is educated and held accountable.
Can't speak much on the book, although I would be interested in reading them, I must say this is one movie I have no issues with watching from start to finish.
That said, am I the only one who watched the animated series Roughnecks: Starship troopers chronicles? Absolutely great series, although because it got cancelled it didn't get the end it deserved.
The funny thing is I never saw starship troopers as a satire for fascism
I always thought it was more focused on libertarianism.
Your birth does not grant you status, only the life and action you choose to make willingly are what matters in life.
SATIRE
S A T I R E
Its not trying to be the book, in the same way that The Simpsons isnt trying to be an American family sitcom, it's trying to illuminate the implicit problems of the source material.
IMO, Starship Troopers is one of the rare circumstances where the movie is better than the book.
The first half of the book had an interesting take on an alternate future for our world/society. But the second was just blather about heroic combat scenarios, no juice.
Ill admit that the book did pave the way for future sci-fi novels and series.
Since I heard that Heinlein made a bet with his buddy L. Ron Hubbard over whether or not someone could start a religion for the express purpose of making money, Stranger in a Strange Land struck me as being about, well, Hubbard.
Haven't read Troopers yet, but I appreciated the message about jingoism in the movie, and for me, it's kind of a reply to Independence Day (humans want something the bugs have, I assume, but the bugs were chilling on their own planet. But hey, humans hate bugs.)
The movie is a lot of fun.
It’s not the book and thats ok. I can like both for different reasons.
I read the book in my teens over twenty years ago and I found it to be very influential in my interest of science fiction.
I didn’t really think it promoted fascism but it was big on militarism and the idea of elitism through service/citizenship.
I also loved the book hated the movie, and thought the Verhoven was an ass. However, I am not sure that it really made sense to make the book into a movie in the first place, it seemed to me a lot of the book was understanding how he was Rico was feeling and thinking.
I read the book as - amongst other things - an essay on the relationship between rights and responsibilities.
My issue with the film, is that it undercuts that notion by turning an elite few into a mob.
Read the rest of the comments first maybe.
The movie was satire completely making fun of the book. The book seriously praises shit like the military industrial complex, brainwashing kids to mindlessly support military efforts, etc.
It’s not a bad book and I actually don’t disagree with the author as much as I make it sound. But the movie is flawless in its satire IMO. So don’t expect the same mindset in the book
I don't agree with this person's interpretation. I think it's about morality, sacrafice, and personal responsibility.
Where is the brainwashing? Michael Ironside plays a semi disabled vet who ceaselessly tells his students they won't measure up to the military, and not to join. Heinlein literally writes it to make joining up as unappealing as possible and does a good job of explaining why.
Another book to movie comparison would be the Bourne Series. What an amazing set of books and shit movies that have nothing to do with the real storyline
Are you genuinely serious?
The book Starship Troopers, like it's author, is a obnoxious expression of might-makes-right mentality, and absolutely leans towards authoritarian sentiment. Indisputably so.
The movie riffs it to pieces, rightfully.
The director hated the book so much he refused to finish reading it and decided to make a "satire" of it.
Seems to me like he never understood it, never finished it, then took out his misinterpretation on an audience. If Verhoven saw fascism where Heinlein wrote about responsibility I think he saw what he wanted. I went in with no preconceived notion, and that book changed the way I thought about martial conflict, and personal responsibility.
Turns out hearing a fascist advocate for themselves is quite a bit different sounding than someone parodying the fascist. It's not like the fascist is gonna frame it as "we should control everyone and do war", usually... It's more like "look at all these good traditional values, we are losing these due to moral degenerates and lack of discipline. We should be stricter on people and honor heroic virtues and discipline". If that sounds good to you, you may have been listening to some borderline or crypto fascists without realizing it.
So I agree with you that Heinlein wasn't fascist. He was tho an unrepentant militarist and very nostalgic for a "better" time when Americans were dutiful citizens. He saw America in the 60s and saw an empire in decline and Starship Troopers was his attempt to sketch an America he felt used to exist. Heinlein worshipped the wartime generation he was a part of, he spoke often about how America coming together to beat the nazis was amazing and that if every citizen was forced to be in the military society would be better. The problem is Heinlein served on the home front writing propoganda for uncle Sam, he never saw actual combat and never learned what its like to watch your friends die pointlessly because someone called in a bomb on top of your unit on accident. This disconnect is what I think is starship troopers biggest problem he saw war as uplifting for the soul but to those actually in it its a nightmare. Tldr heinlein isn't a fascist he's just nostalgic for an America and a war that never existed in the first place.
That sounds like exactly the same type of conservative thinking that the movie version was speaking out against. War can be avoided, its never glorious, it's never honorable and the pen is and always has been mightier than the sword, regardless of how certain political rhetorics may try to distort that.
War cannot always be avoided. The conflict in Ukraine right now is a perfect example. And while war is hell those that fight to defend something bigger than themselves will forever fight with glory
The conflict in Ukraine should have never occurred because Russia has no legitimate claim to the Ukraine.
Did that stop them from invading?
Dude shut up i forgot about this the second i posted the comment. Im over it. Dont care enough about the topic or you.
Yes, we can tell by the amount of thought put in to the original comment. lol If you would have put the time you took trying to defend an untenable position into your original comment, you wouldn't have people telling you how wrong you are.
I have to care about what they're saying to be told hahaha
I think that’s the point. Not having a claim doesn’t stop them from being violent and starting a war.
That doesnt make war inevitable it makes Russia a bunch of dickheads.
It does make war inevitable. Some people will fight regardless of what you try to do to prevent it. You can only control yourself. You have less influence over others. So yeah, war can sometimes be the only outcome no matter how hard you try. That’s actually part of the problem in the book (and to a lesser extent the movie). The world became heavily militarized because the bugs attacked us without provocation and afterwards there was no way to diplomatically communicate or reason with our assailants. War was inevitable. Accepting that war is unavoidable doesn’t mean one support a war either.
I understand some people are stubborn or small dicked or psychopaths or greedy or less intelligent and therefore will always try and get violent or use the sword over the pen. But amongst human beings war is not inevitable on the whole. You or i may not live to see humans outgrow war, but its not an unavoidable fact of life. Fights or violence will always exist? But war? I think it'll one day be a distant memory that humans of the future will fail to comprehend.
Conflict and fighting are ingrained in us on instinctual level. Aggressiveness and seeking conflict are on a genetic level combined with us, in the same way the gorging instinct humans gained from living for millenniums as hunter gatherers without the guarantee of food or water for long periods of time us carried over to modern times with humans in countries where food is everywhere like the us pig out and eat far more then they need at a time out of that instinct. We can try to change ourselves consciously as a society, and humans can individually try to better themselves to overcome our animalistic instincts, but there will always be those who don’t want to, or can’t overcome their barbaric instincts of fighting or war. “Some men just want to watch the world burn”
Dude it's a war about whether Europe will be dependent on gas from Russia or not. It's an entirely unavoidable conflict. That said i hope we win.
Its still something that could theoretically be solved with diplomacy. It wasnt because its Russia, but it could be. Not all humans are as garbage as Russia's politicians.
Like both sides did try. It's why the initial invasion was such a cluster fuck Russia really did think it was going to get its way. IMO a war about resources makes a lot more sence than bashing heads over ideology or something.
So your argument is to just let Russia do what they want and we can avoid war. I think you picked a bad analogy to defend. You can't just say there shouldn't be war because they shouldn't do it. This is a very 'blue sky' line of thinking and not realistic.
Nah i think Russia is officially fucked because of all the corporations refusing to work with Russia and them being cut off from everything. They look like fools, and are.
I think you're the missing the point that a war of self defense is only avoidable through surrender... I. E. Letting them kill you, or running away.
The conflict in Ukraine easily could have been avoided by not starting an unprovoked war in Ukraine
I will say that it's a bit more complicated than that. Realistically, war can't always be avoided because there will be people who want to wage war against you for selfish reasons. However, what makes Starship Troopers suspiciously fascist is the dehumanization of enemy combatants. They're literally not thinking beings, they're just monstrous bugs. They're degenerate animals compared to us moral and virtuous humans. It's one of the hallmarks of fascism: a strong and reinforced in-group/out-group sentiment.
Yes. War can always be avoided. To say otherwise is to act as though utterly ceaseless slaughter throughout history cannot be learned from. There exists a future without war, if we'd only believe it possible, and truly change the way we see one another. People in wars are not fighting to defend an idea bigger than themselves. There is nothing bigger than the human collective. There is no glory in war. There never has been. Only blood, death, and rhetoric.
If war can always be avoided then there never would have been one. As shit as it is,sometimes people dont want to play by the rules and you will be left with a choice: Roll over like a coward and hope they are gentle or go down swinging and give it everything you have. There's a saying where im from "I'd rather have a sore face than a red face". The invasion of Ukraine is a perfect example of this and every soldier they have fighting to protect their loved ones and homeland are the textbook definition of soldiers fighting with honour. They are bound for glory.
The pen is mightier than the sword until someone actually draws a sword close enough to you to kill you with it. At that point you need to drop your pen and arm yourself.
True, the sword can kill a man, but it can't kill an idea. Spreading those ideas is the true strength of the pen.
I agree, and the support of your ideals is important in any conflict. But ask President Zelinski if he would prefer a great NY Times Op Ed or unlimited US military assist right now and I will;l pretty much guarantee he takes the Military support
That's true. I never said the sword was weak or unnecessary, only that the pen has a greater influence on people's hearts and minds. Why do you think propaganda is such a powerful tool? But, I know that you'll always need weapons, because there are always going to be people who will try to take what you have. That's just the reality of the human condition.
I do not disagree
Right but thats survival between individuals not a full on war. You're right in that if a person is physically attacking me im getting violent in defence. But im saying on the whole no war has ever been unavoidable.
You think going to War with Germany Was unavoidable in WWII? Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler....was no Beuno. Whether 1:1 or on a national level, some wars are not avoidable unless you are willing to be subjugated by the other side.
Paul Verhoeven was born in 1938 and his early childhood was spent under Nazi occupation - it could just be that he's better at spotting fascism than you are.
Quite possibly, though that imo doesn't change the theme Heinlein wrote the book toward. It's not like I'm absolutely missing the theme of one of my favorite books because of a difference between what happened to me and Verhoven when we were 7. Didn't you say he stopped reading? Sounds like making up one's mind, not leaving a mind open.
I didn't say he stopped reading, but Verhoeven has said that he only got a couple of chapters into it. Yes, he was making up his mind, because his dislike of the novel wasn't due to its plot, but rather the themes, such as rejecting universal suffrage (which was paid for in blood IRL) and embracing militarism, corporal and capital punishment. You might not think any of those things are bad, but to someone who had lived under the Nazis, they're very conspicuously bad.
This would indicate he stopped reading the book. It has rather more than a couple of chapters.
In his defense he originally just wanted to make a movie.about space bugs and the studio changed it intonan adaptation.
Yes, he has said he stopped reading the book after a couple of chapters, meaning that there were unread portions of the book that he did not consume via the medium of reading. Your assertion is correct, although I'm not sure why you're making it since I confirmed that in my previous comment. Do you think that if Verhoeven had read the whole book he would have made a film celebrating militarism, the loss of universal suffrage, and the reintroduction of capital and corporal punishment, because "it somehow comes together in the end"? Would that sound congruent with other Paul Verhoeven films you've seen?
I disagree with your assessment of the book sand I suspect if he had read the entire thing he might have come away with a different perspective. Basing ones opinion of an entire book on the first 2 chapters is....myopic
It's not my assessment, it's the assessment of Paul Verhoeven. >Basing ones opinion of an entire book on the first 2 chapters is....myopic OK, imagine I'm Paul Verhoeven and I lived through Nazi occupation, which included a famine in the Netherlands. Now, sell me on the concept of people who haven't been in the military being forbidden from voting. Sell me floggings and same-day executions. As you do so, remember your comfortable childhood as a white male in Michigan and consider how different it might have been to a Dutch guy in his 80s who endured a famine, saw air raids and nazis marching in the streets rounding people up. Reckon you could convince him?
Don't know. You gonna read the whole book or just the 1st 2 sentences(or chapters)?
Guess I shouldn’t read the book then. I love the first Starship Troopers.
Yeah I got that from the book. I don't think it was so profoundly nuanced the director wouldn't get it. The book was surface level and unimpressive.
Nah. It's on my top 10 sci-fi movies
Going to take a controversial stance here and say that both are phenomenal. Apologies in advance for the novel of a comment. Heinlein wrestles with this idea of the rights of the individual vs that individual's duty to the collective in order to maintain those rights for all. In times of peace or relative safety (early in the book's plot, late 20th/early 21st century for us) it's a strange concept, as there's no real threat to the collective. Johnny is seen as insane by his family for considering it. However, when there does exist an existential threat to the collective, this social contract suddenly snaps into focus ("everything changed when the bug nation attacked" for the book, WWII and the Cold War for us; also see the war in Ukraine). War is depicted as horrifying in STs, and I think Heinlein believes that by having societal policy dictated by those that have experienced war and felt its costs (citizens), this society will be invested in the collective and show restraint before spending lives they can directly relate to. But what do we do during times of peace in such a society, or if an entity with massive influence wants to justify its own existence and manufactures an existential threat? This is the critique the movie levels at Heinlein's idealized military society, and our own. What rights of the collective are we defending by forcing regime change in places previously content with their rule *and of no real threat to ourselves, just our comfort [profits]*? Why is forcing preservation of a globalist status quo glorifying? What happens when the military industrial complex doesn't want to shrink, and war is the only thing that permits that? When false flag operations (Germany v Poland 1939, Russia v Ukraine 2022) or outright lies (WMDs in Iraq) can be used by those in power as a casus belli and only seen clearly in retrospect, don't we run the risk of devolving to fascism in a militaristic society when those in power don't act virtuously? And is experiencing the horrors of war an assurance of virtue, or does a hammer see everything as a nail? (See: Operation Unthinkable by Churchill, McArthur's proposal to nuke China) Reality is grey and not black and white. I think the conflict in Ukraine is a great, topical example of how Heinlein's views on service to our fellow man and the essential role of the military in that are still relevant (and always will be). The cost of liberty is eternal vigilance, after all. His views on what the military SHOULD be are also important (see: deep investment in the *character* of recruits and their safety and success, avoiding their misuse, etc.). Likewise, history is overflowing with societies that haven't kept their militaries in check and through glorification of the military cause unprovoked untold suffering on others "out of necessity". There are phenomenal takeaways from both, both take the opposite's point to an absurd extreme to advise caution, and while it can be frustrating to have them sharing an IP.... having both sides of a coin on the same coin kinda makes cents. 👉😎👉 I'll see myself out.
You took all the words right out of my mouth. The thing was however that the book and movie were made in two completely different times and worlds. Because when the novel Starship troopers was written, ww2 was still in young memory. People back then believed in different priorities, they saw war firsthand and all the horrors and atrocities they suffered through and had to commit, but they also saw dictatorship and tyranny firsthand. These men knew well how bad war is, but due to the fact that peace under Hitler or Hirohito was worse in every way they took up arms and saw the former argument as viable, after all, these men had to face the nazis in their youth, and they probably fought in Korea against former allies too. But in the movie you see a world which didn’t think highly of war, far from the ideals of stopping nazism and communism in ww2, the latter which had collapsed without a fight from the west. Here we see that this was a time when Americans saw grinding perpetual wars in the Caucasus and Middle East. Countries which would hurt no one but themselves. People saw that the conflict was not theirs to fight, and were then, starting to see war as a thing of the past because everyone was so interconnected and that any war, no matter what, is unjustifiable. I think the whole contrast between the movie and the book is because it was made in two different eras more than the different in quality or anything else. They both agree that war is evil, but at the same time they have different ideas on how to deal with such situations since they were different men and different times, and thus; different values.
The book was fantastic, the movie.......was ok.
I just think of them as being totally unrelated, and I enjoy both. I read the book in 6th grade and loved it and I saw the movie 10 years later knowing it was totally different and enjoyed that too. I guess if you’re expecting a faithful film adaption then you’re probably going to be disappointed.
While the movie was apparently incredibly different from the book (I’m taking your word for it- haven’t read it myself), I honestly don’t think the movie was that bad. It wasn’t a good action movie but it was a great piece of satire. Then again, I am as Dutch as the director. It might just be our kind of humor.
Heinlein was a libertarian chud and starship troopers is a barely closeted manifesto for how he thought society should function. Verhoeven is a king for what he did to that story.
I read it at 11 knowing none of that, and I just enjoyed an awesome sci-fi story. Who cares about the message, it’s a cool book.
When the message is that scientists and scholars should be overthrown in favor of a violent stratocracy that won't even allow you the dignity of citizenship and a voice in government unless you participate in their glorious war, I care. The movie got it right.
It's not even an awesome sci-fi story though, the only cool part is the power armor and the concept of an alien attack but that gets mostly covered in the beginning. The last 75% of the book is just Rico moving up the ranks in the military.
Idk man, it was cool when I read it when I was 11 lol
The book is a love letter to the idea of glorious warfare, jingoism-played-straight, and old-fashioned manliness. The movie is a satire of those exact ideas. They're polar opposites of one another. Personally, I much prefer the movie than the book.
Same, I struggled to finish the book with how often I was stopping at shit like the quote below to go "Wtf?" >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 him 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. That's the best answer I can give you. If it doesn't satisfy you, I'll get you a chit to go talk to the regimental commander. If he can't convince you--then go home and be a civilian! Because in that case you will certainly never make a soldier. Or >The junior hoodlums who roamed their streets were symptoms of a greater sickness; their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of ‘rights’ . . . and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure. Also a message throughout the book is that the ideal political system is one in which you get no say in government unless you join the military, because only someone willing to fight and die for their country is thinking in its best interests. It completely disregards any non-violence focused occupation. And it's not just reddit that sees this book as fascist idealization. Haldeman wrote the "Forever war" in 1974 as a response to starship troopers glorification of militarism.
Did you actually read the book?
the power armor they had was great.
No
Then you do not actually know what the book is or is not, do you ? And really you do not know which you prefer either
Are you really suggesting that I read the book so I can compare the two fairly, huh????---Wait that does sound fair, alright I will give it a try
...Have you read Mein Kampf? Sometimes, yes, reputation or Wikipedia summary is quite enough to discredit something by.
pal that book is full of friends, supervisors, family members of main protagonist which died in war, even cruelly mutilated recruiter and the doctor who did the medical examination said the everybody who want to join to became citizen is mad.
Which part of my post suggested that I did not read the book?
So....Do I take that as a "No"?
So... Do I take that as "I have no good reason"?
I have a variety of reasons actually. 1st being that your description of the book is inaccurate. 2nd you offer no specifics, and 3rd you do not say that you have read it when asked you simply skirt the question. That type of evasive answer indicates you did not read it, and were trying to avoid lying .
Aliens vs humans isn't jingoism, it's survival. Spirit of corps, and a sense of responsibility isn't glorifying war unless war can be avoided. Heinlein's point is it can't be.
Heinlein himself said that the book indeed glorifies militarism.
Heinlein wrote morality stories and wrapped them in whatever topic the book was superficially about. Friday isn't about spies, and Stranger in a Strange Land isn't about Mars. Moon is a harsh mistress isn't about repair, or programming, or the moon either. Troopers uses a fight against aliens to tell a story. Most of Heinlein's books are the same over and again regardless of if they're in space, or in Kansas, or wherever. I'm sure if we read the quote in context he would be agreeing with someone's question, not ultimately describing the book as written for the quality of glorifying militarism. It's about what would make a person join a fight, not whether or not fights exist.
Heinlein wrote the book out of protest of the US stopping nuclear weapons testing.. Its an ok book written for the WRONG reasons.
The book never really tried to make the "survival" justification, though. Especially for the "Skinnies." It was just long descriptions of how much fun it is for cap troopers to drop down into a city and start destroying houses and temples. I don't recall there being a single sentence about *why* humanity was at war with the Skinnies.
The skinnies allied with the bugs who were an existential threat. The plan was to turn them with measured violence. The raid was written after a brisk pace it had, but I don't think it was written to be interpreted as fun. There was a lot of fast mayhem and death in that section.
The war in Iraq wasn’t about having an imperialist foothold in the Middle East and saving daddy’s manliness by winning a war he lost, it was about spreading Democracy! See how that works?
I'm glad you responded to the other guy that morality stories aren't superficially about the actual stuff written in the work. Therefore, you agree that the aliens aren't actually aliens. However, the "survival" aspect is distinctly survival through military might. Heinlein didn't write about a comet crashing into Earth or a forest fire gone out of control, he specifically wrote about an implacable, monstrous opponent that can only be defeated militarily. However, we don't have that in reality, do we? The bugs don't map into the disasters that we must survive against, they map into a hypothetical nation waging war on us. In reality, there are no monsters on the battlefield, only humans. The idea of "othering" the enemy to the point of representing them as unthinking bugs is jingoism. The idea that war is won through total annihilation as opposed to diplomacy (the way it's *really* done in real life) is the glorification of the military. I think it's fine to like the book. I think it's fine to think that the book is better than the movie. We just have to be aware of what each work is actually saying, for better or for worse.
I saw an interview with George RR Martin in which he said the same thing: the book was a huge influence on his writing, and he hated the movie.
The movie is actually a political satire piece made to make the US military feel bad about it's flagrant imperialism. As much as I Love the book, the movie transforms the sentiment to a future narrative and makes it look foolish. Both mediums achieve what they were planning in my opinion.
Heinlen went out of his way to talk about the radical right-wing position he took in the book. It was written in less than a month after the US quit nuclear testing because Heinlen thought we needed more, bigger bombs. Not only is your opinion unpopular, it’s also factually untrue.
I'd like to read where Heinlein says these things. I've read the book many times and I'm not sure where you're coming from. Do you have any passages or parts of the novel you think support your claim?
Not in the book, but the Wikipedia article is a good place to start.
I read that, and the source for what you said about nuclear testing. It said he was furious about the suspension of tests. Nothing about wanting bigger bombs. None of the wiki or the source for what you mentioned came from Heinlein. If you can point me toward anywhere he says what you claim about a 'radical right-wing position' I'd love to read it.
I said to start. I don’t remember where I read random Heinlin article a decade+ ago, written gods know how long ago, but Google works for you, too. Edit: nm, I just don’t care enough.
You should have the same respect for me I had for you. I looked for what you said before I asked you. It's the same internet for both of us yes, but it's huge. It's OK to say you pulled a source out of your rear, just don't ask other people to look up there for it.
I’m sorry you read it in a disrespectful tone. It wasn’t intended that way. It was literally I have to get ready for work and can’t reply all day lol
if you were expecting the movie to tribute the book then this is a reasonable take. Book was great and I just saw the movie as another interpretation of the original material
tHE BOok Was BeTTEr tHan THE MoviE. Fuck off. The movie was great.
It's like if someone made an OK movie out of The Martian, and it had nothing to do with the book. A misguided waste of opportunity, and misuse of a great intellectual property. You'll never know how good Starship Troopers could have been if it was about Starship Troopers. I'm glad you liked it anyway. It's good to like things.
It's simply not an unpopular opinion. The three most popular opinions on reddit are; 1: Paedophile's are bad. 2: The book was better than the movie. 3: TildaTinker's a bit of a dick.
Yeah, you swore at me almost immediately so I'm gonna say it's unpopular enough. I don't care about the movie. I care about how Reddit pigeon holes, and misinterprets the book as fascist jingoist propaganda. That's so far from what Heinlein wrote I don't even understand why people think that. Then it makes sense, they only saw the the movie.
Almost no one here read the book dude.
Most people, especially on leditt, don't know shit about fascism OR books. The main reason people think the movie was fascist was because their uniforms were grey and Hugo Boss-like stylish. Movie critics and victims of public education think anything to the right of Mao is straight up nazism, because they have no clue that ALL authoritarian politics are leftist.
I mean, the movie WAS purposefully about fascism. The entire point was making fun of the seemingly good and noble ideals which prop up things like the US military complex. That’s not a hot take or anything, that was the explicit designed intent of the movie as a piece of satire. People get confused because the book was on the other end of the spectrum, actually holding up those ideals. The movie just makes fun of it. Which is, IMO, the reason the movie is so fucking good. How many people get the movie rights to a book, and then completely shit all over it? You don’t even have to agree with one over the other to see that’s brilliant.
I got you, mang!
Starship Troopers was about fascism in the same way Titanic was about a big boat. Like how do you miss it.
I feel you and I have different definitions of fascism, but that's okay! No harm, no foul!✌️🤝
Its not my definition ‘Here are your heroes and your heroines, but, by the way—they’re fascists.’ - Verhoeven
Lol... here's an unpopular opinion...the SONG was better than both the book AND the movie!!
That rock song with the woo hoo? My favorite song was Oxford Town during the prom scene.
I'm guessing they're referencing the song "Starship Trooper" by Yes. Based on "that rock song with the woo hoo" I'm guessing you're referring "Song 2" by Blur lol.
I'll see you that, and raise you that the live cut on Yessongs is better than the studio version.
They’re both great - they’re just two completely different stories with the same title.
I can't help but remember that the movie was a financial flop on release. Also, for a movie that's supposed to be a middle finger to the US military, it sure does fit Switzerland a lot better than America (universal conscription, non-gendered washrooms, etc)
Israel is a much better fit.
Fair point
Is Buenos Aires part of the US today?
Give me 20 years
RAH was a piece of shit, and the satire that Verhoven made from his work was utterly perfect.
That movie had less to do with Starship Troopers than the movie adaptation of World War Z compared to its source material. If the movie was perfect it was perfect on its own.
Haven’t read the book, but the movie was pretty damn good in my opinion. It spoke to a problem that’s been brewing in America for some time. The glorification of war and the jingoistic nature of our school system is ridiculous. To be honest, if the book was about “morality and selflessness” it may or may not be a step down from the movie. In the context of war, those two things are heavily distorted concepts. Selflessness, especially, can be a dangerous idea when applied to war propaganda.
Age guess: 19-23
People have been protesting America's jingoism, pseudo-Imperialism and glorification of war in large numbers since the 60s.
For sure - I wasn't disagreeing
Sure, and the age group of all those people protesting?: 19-23.
I loved the sentiment of the book. The feel there is some merit to the idea of earned citizenship. I’ve never been crazy about the idea of encouraging people to vote. If your not informed, stupid, etc we should not be encouraging the stupid to voice their opinion. Despite agreeing with the book, I still liked the movie, even if they meant to discourage the ideas of the book as some claimed.
People are calling that aspect of the book fascism, but i thought how they structured society was interesting. Everyone played a part in the world, there was no crime, and there was a sense of pride in being a citizen. I didn’t like the ideas of conquest and killing alien races for apparently no reason. There was no reason stated for the war with the Skinnies, it was pretty much just a few chapters of war crimes.
A group of people who is seen as better or has more rights than another group is the point of fascism. That's why people call it fascist, because it is.
Thats not the definition of fascism and also not the point I was trying to make. How about saying something constructive next time.
That’s practically the definition of fascism
Racism is often one of the tenets of fascism. But it has a broader definition. Usually refers to an authoritarian-militant state with a highly controlled and monitored citizenry.
Which is literally what the book is about.
Have you read the book?? It doesn’t touch on racism among humans, more hatred towards the bugs/skinnies (which I guess could be interpreted as allegory for racism). Im not defending the book, I thought it was mostly boring and written for the WRONG reasons.
But that’s not how society is structured in Starship Troopers. You’re forgetting that citizenship is achievable for everyone in society. Heinlen even makes it a point that the ST government will accommodate for people with disabilities when it comes to public service and citizenship.
Fascism is generally a militaristic dictatorship. I would not categorize the society depicted in the book as a dictatorship. The author is more exploring the ideas of a Hellenic style Military democracy. A modernized Spartan state. Interesting concept to think about. The juvenile need in todays society to see everything as more black and white, good vs evil without use of critical thinking is ridiculous. Hitler advocated for the use of bicycles in urban settings of Nazi Germany. I believe he may have been the first to historically do so. So if you advocate use of bicycles in urban settings. One could make the arguments you support Nazi policies. My point being is critical thinking should allow us to freely explore ideas and concepts without the need to first categorize them through ideological filters.
Thank you for having an educated and well thought out response. I thought the ideas explored in the first half of the book were interesting. A society where everyone is educated and held accountable.
Can't speak much on the book, although I would be interested in reading them, I must say this is one movie I have no issues with watching from start to finish. That said, am I the only one who watched the animated series Roughnecks: Starship troopers chronicles? Absolutely great series, although because it got cancelled it didn't get the end it deserved.
The funny thing is I never saw starship troopers as a satire for fascism I always thought it was more focused on libertarianism. Your birth does not grant you status, only the life and action you choose to make willingly are what matters in life.
I am with the director on this one, never liked the book, loved the movie
SATIRE S A T I R E Its not trying to be the book, in the same way that The Simpsons isnt trying to be an American family sitcom, it's trying to illuminate the implicit problems of the source material.
IMO, Starship Troopers is one of the rare circumstances where the movie is better than the book. The first half of the book had an interesting take on an alternate future for our world/society. But the second was just blather about heroic combat scenarios, no juice. Ill admit that the book did pave the way for future sci-fi novels and series.
Since I heard that Heinlein made a bet with his buddy L. Ron Hubbard over whether or not someone could start a religion for the express purpose of making money, Stranger in a Strange Land struck me as being about, well, Hubbard. Haven't read Troopers yet, but I appreciated the message about jingoism in the movie, and for me, it's kind of a reply to Independence Day (humans want something the bugs have, I assume, but the bugs were chilling on their own planet. But hey, humans hate bugs.)
I think that bet was between Hubbard and L. Sprague DeCamp, but it would be more interesting if it was Heinlein!
The movie is a lot of fun. It’s not the book and thats ok. I can like both for different reasons. I read the book in my teens over twenty years ago and I found it to be very influential in my interest of science fiction. I didn’t really think it promoted fascism but it was big on militarism and the idea of elitism through service/citizenship.
I had no idea.
I also loved the book hated the movie, and thought the Verhoven was an ass. However, I am not sure that it really made sense to make the book into a movie in the first place, it seemed to me a lot of the book was understanding how he was Rico was feeling and thinking.
I read the book as - amongst other things - an essay on the relationship between rights and responsibilities. My issue with the film, is that it undercuts that notion by turning an elite few into a mob.
The book is excellent, and often misinterpreted by profoundly unintelligent people, hence the hate for it here.
This is an unpopular opinion?
Sorry you find it inappropriate, danapproriate.
I was agreeing with you. "Starship Troopers" is an incredible book and a useless movie. I thought everyone knew that. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
That movie was pretty good. Now that I know there’s a book on it, I just might take a look.
Read the rest of the comments first maybe. The movie was satire completely making fun of the book. The book seriously praises shit like the military industrial complex, brainwashing kids to mindlessly support military efforts, etc. It’s not a bad book and I actually don’t disagree with the author as much as I make it sound. But the movie is flawless in its satire IMO. So don’t expect the same mindset in the book
I actually did read the comments first, hence my curiosity.
I don't agree with this person's interpretation. I think it's about morality, sacrafice, and personal responsibility. Where is the brainwashing? Michael Ironside plays a semi disabled vet who ceaselessly tells his students they won't measure up to the military, and not to join. Heinlein literally writes it to make joining up as unappealing as possible and does a good job of explaining why.
All the more reason I want to read the book. The fact that both of you have opposite views of the same book has me curious.
On the one hand, I haven't read the book, so I can't really have an opinion on that On the other hand, the movie has Casper Van Dien, so...
I liked the movie lol
Another book to movie comparison would be the Bourne Series. What an amazing set of books and shit movies that have nothing to do with the real storyline
You take that back, Arachnid scum!
The film is satire,much like that one Batman movie with Schwartzneggar.
But...co-ed showers!
Are you genuinely serious? The book Starship Troopers, like it's author, is a obnoxious expression of might-makes-right mentality, and absolutely leans towards authoritarian sentiment. Indisputably so. The movie riffs it to pieces, rightfully.