Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Starship Troopers, best war movie of all time?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Geek44
    replied
    Awful, formulaic, stupid movie. Great book.

    Leave a comment:


  • Redwolf
    replied
    Originally posted by Aries View Post
    Starship Troopers did the impossible, it wrecked a classic novel worse than the Dune movie wrecked the book Dune.

    The word "best" should not be applied to Starship Troopers unless immediately followed by "example of garbage scifi film ever".
    Uh.

    It has Denise Richards, so there...

    Leave a comment:


  • BarcelonaBlom
    replied
    Originally posted by MountainMan View Post


    BTW - Starship Poopers is a terrible movie, and the sequel was worse. Had ST been made by someone like Spielberg who understood the underlying philosophy and message, it might have been a classic.
    Instead, we got an intergalactic stinker.
    Roger that!

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by freightshaker View Post
    Garbage in, garbage out.....



    Please don't send me to room 223.....


    BTW - Starship Poopers is a terrible movie, and the sequel was worse. Had ST been made by someone like Spielberg who understood the underlying philosophy and message, it might have been a classic.
    Instead, we got an intergalactic stinker.

    Leave a comment:


  • Freightshaker
    replied
    Originally posted by MountainMan View Post
    I keep a copy of your autobiography in a special room with a porcelain fixture so that I can peruse it during those moments of deep contemplation...just before I reach for the handle.
    Garbage in, garbage out.....



    Please don't send me to room 223.....

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Doctor Sinister View Post
    I agree with that - along with my autobiography.

    Dr. S.
    I keep a copy of your autobiography in a special room with a porcelain fixture so that I can peruse it during those moments of deep contemplation...just before I reach for the handle.

    Leave a comment:


  • Overseer
    replied
    Duncan, you might be confusing my suggestion that all should read it with an endorsement of its ideas.

    Leave a comment:


  • Duncan
    replied
    Originally posted by tsar View Post
    I don’t think anyone was saying that we were simply saying that the book is infinitely better then the movie.
    Excellent book.
    Silly, but fun movie.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tsar
    replied
    Originally posted by Duncan View Post
    Which is another example of why Heinlien's work of utopian fiction is not an appropriate framework for our current society and should not be used as a model for democracy in the real world.
    I don’t think anyone was saying that we were simply saying that the book is infinitely better then the movie.
    Last edited by Tsar; 18 Feb 07, 02:30.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tsar
    replied
    Tell me how does it feel to go through life always looking at the glass as half empty? It must be very depressing to look at everything with the expectation that it is going to be bad.

    Leave a comment:


  • Duncan
    replied
    Originally posted by tsar View Post
    Probably because at the time he wrote the book chronic welfare didn’t exist (at least not on the scale it does today). In the late 40’s early 50’s there wasn’t a sense that everyone deserved a middle class lifestyle regardless of weather or not they were willing to work for it. I would say that it is unlikely that this particular problem occurred to him.
    Which is another example of why Heinlien's work of utopian fiction is not an appropriate framework for our current society and should not be used as a model for democracy in the real world. It was written by a man living in a different culture than ours with different information about the world. It is based on a set of created information in a fictional world in which Hienlein has absolute control over the conflicts and outcomes. The book was published in 1959. It cannot tell us about the world in 2007. What it can tell us about is Heinlien's view of the world during the time in which he wrote it.

    Sometimes we can pull an idea from a work of fiction and say, "How would this work in our world?" But we cannot say, "This is a good idea because it worked in a fictional book." If we're gonna do that I choose Conan as my world view!

    If folks want to argue that military service should be mandatory in order to vote, fine. But don't use a work of utopian fiction written 50 years ago as proof that it's a good and workable idea. Perhaps as an illustrative example, maybe... with some strong correlations to contemporary society proven, and proof that the author used forward looking analysis rather than creative writing, maybe... and with information and analysis from real life as proof... maybe... still pretty flimsy... a very thin illustrative example... almost... not really... better be a lot more than that in the essay...

    Now, I'm going to say that group marriages and group sex work out great with no complications, that it's ok to have sex with your mother, and that we should eat our freinds when they die... 'cause it worked in Hienlein's books.
    Last edited by Duncan; 18 Feb 07, 00:58.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tsar
    replied
    Originally posted by Duncan View Post

    Next time you walk downtown and see a homeless person begging for money in order to buy alchohol or drugs ask yourself if you would serve next to them or have the fate of your country in their hands? According to Heinlien they could not be denied unless a psychiatrist decided they could not understand the oath. Also, Heinlien's utopia does not eliminate these people. Service is voluntary. I don't think Heinlien tells us anything about how he thinks the requirement of federal service to earn a franchise would effect chronic welfare recipients. I don't think he addresses chronic welfare recipients at all in the book.
    Probably because at the time he wrote the book chronic welfare didn’t exist (at least not on the scale it does today). In the late 40’s early 50’s there wasn’t a sense that everyone deserved a middle class lifestyle regardless of weather or not they were willing to work for it. I would say that it is unlikely that this particular problem occurred to him.

    Leave a comment:


  • Duncan
    replied
    Originally posted by tsar View Post
    Well for one thing we wouldn’t have the government running because it is controlled by people that have never had to sacrifice anything to get what they want. It would be controlled by those that understand what they are asking the troops to do, and what those troops are capable of.
    There is something of a debate here. First, this is utopian fiction, not anthropology. Second, Heinlien stated in Expanded Universe (2003) that he intended in the book that only 5% of service was military. The other 95% of voters were "what we call today former members of federal civil service." Even though Heinlien said this there is a big debate that the book doesn't support what he said. However, if you think of what the enlistment sergeant said about service being stylish, there being too many volunteers, and the difficulty of finding work that is more than glorified KP; also the inability to refuse service, it's not unreasonable to think that a large number of the volunteers would not be destined for military service and therefore would not understand the sacrifice, duty, or purpose of a military career. The purpose of enlistment in the book is not to serve the nation, but to gain a franchise and be stylish.

    And how is that any different than paying for the bloated “welfare” budget for the millions “that cannot find work for all the unqualified, but constitutionally guaranteed membership” whose only qualification for membership is the ability to breath.
    Next time you walk downtown and see a homeless person begging for money in order to buy alchohol or drugs ask yourself if you would serve next to them or have the fate of your country in their hands? According to Heinlien they could not be denied unless a psychiatrist decided they could not understand the oath. Also, Heinlien's utopia does not eliminate these people. Service is voluntary. I don't think Heinlien tells us anything about how he thinks the requirement of federal service to earn a franchise would effect chronic welfare recipients. I don't think he addresses chronic welfare recipients at all in the book.
    Last edited by Duncan; 17 Feb 07, 22:56.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tsar
    replied
    Originally posted by Duncan View Post
    You remember kind of military, which the book argues in chapter two, this would produces? A service full of people who cannot be denied entry for any reason other than psychiatric. Everyone forgets that bit. And what happens when the military controls the government? Which is a defacto state of affairs when only those with service are allowed to vote.
    Well for one thing we wouldn’t have the government running because it is controlled by people that have never had to sacrifice anything to get what they want. It would be controlled by those that understand what they are asking the troops to do, and what those troops are capable of.

    Originally posted by Duncan View Post
    And what about others who have made great contributions to their county? Industrialists, scientists, doctors... hasn't their service and sacrifice earned them the right to vote? Doesn't the hard working dedicated entrepreneur, who contributes hundreds of thousands in taxes, get a say in how his money is spent? Without him who would pay for the bloated military that cannot find work for all the unqualified, but constitutionally guaranteed membership, which it has become stylish to serve in?
    And how is that any different than paying for the bloated “welfare” budget for the millions “that cannot find work for all the unqualified, but constitutionally guaranteed membership” whose only qualification for membership is the ability to breath.

    Leave a comment:


  • Duncan
    replied
    Originally posted by Overseer View Post
    Everyone on these boards should be required to read Heinlein's Starship Troopers if for nothing else than the exploration of citizenship and military.
    You remember kind of military, which the book argues in chapter two, this would produces? A service full of people who cannot be denied entry for any reason other than inability to understand the oath. Everyone forgets that bit. You must also consider what happens when the military controls the government? Which is a defacto state of affairs when only those with service are allowed to vote. And what about others who have made great contributions to their county? Industrialists, scientists, doctors... hasn't their service and sacrifice earned them the right to vote? Doesn't the hard working dedicated entrepreneur, who contributes hundreds of thousands in taxes, get a say in how his money is spent? Without him who would pay for the bloated military that cannot find work for all the unqualified, but constitutionally guaranteed membership. Also, membership in the military is cheapened when it is open to everyone regardless of ability, aptitude, dedication, disability, etc... Like the recruiting sergeant points out, membership in the military is stylish rather than purposeful or meaningful.
    Last edited by Duncan; 17 Feb 07, 22:15.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X