Starship troopers 3: Marauder

[Veho Nex]

Wow did any one see it coming?

I didnt like number 2 but number one was pretty good and the ad looks pretty good

IMBD link (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0844760/)

[Gregoshi]

I only saw the first one. It was barely passable scifi entertainment, but to call it "Starship Troopers" was a crime. I'm still waiting for the day when the make a real Starship Troopers movie.

[Decker]

Yup...heard about it looooooong time ago...at least it looks better than the second poop hole. Man that was horrible, I can't believe I watched it...I'll wait on the reviews...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I can enjoy the movie by reminding myself that it initially wasn't called Starship Troopers and that it is no reflection on Heinlein's work (which I really enjoy). But it takes effort. :(

Didn't see the second one. This trailer isn't very heartening though.

[Decker]

Well...one word of advice is...DO NOT SEE STARSHIP TROOPERS 2!!!!!! Horrible

[cmacq]

Back off,

all one needs is the proper attitude, which I of course have, to enjoy these master works. You all do know there is a very long and storied history about people complaining for one reason or another about SST in one form or another.

Besides, where can one find a series provoked by Mormon separatist. All instant classics.

Didn’t Verhoeven think he designed the first installment to be an anti-war flick? Of course Verhoeven has his own bloody axe to grind as being Dutch he apparently can’t tell a eidgenossenschaft from the Bund. Right he made a flicker show to undermine basic civic responsibilities and only succeeded in exposing his own latent ethno-historic tendencies.

[Dâriûsh]

Didn’t Verhoeven think he designed the first installment to be an anti-war flick? It was more of a spoof on the book.

[cmacq]

Actually Verhoeven has been an extreme critic of the narrative and besides its just his style; Basic Instinct, Total Recall, Robocop, and last but not least Showgirls. Right, there's also Hollow Man. If you have the DVD you can hear his opinion about the subject in his own words in the commentary. Then one may ask themselves why a person opposed to the concept of the original literary offering would bother to purchase the rights of said work and then render a cinematic display?

[Raz]

THERE'S MORE THAN ONE!
Wow! I didn't even know that. The first I enjoyed when I was younger but I'm not sure if it'd entertain me that much nowadays.

[LittleGrizzly]

Starship troopers one was an amazing film, i have heard the 2nd was crap though, the way they did those news broadcasts and the whole black and white situation of humans vs disgusting aliens.... made for a great film, hope the 3d one is as good...

[English assassin]

I only saw the first one. It was barely passable scifi entertainment,

They give you Denise Richards in uniform and you call it barely passable entertainment?

Tough audience...:laugh4:

[Martok]

They give you Denise Richards in uniform and you call it barely passable entertainment?

Tough audience...:laugh4:
Maybe if she'd been *out* of uniform, sure. ~;p


My quip aside, though, I did enjoy the first movie overall. It was a light, fluffy sci-fi flick that was still smart enough to be aware of what it was parodying.

I've not seen the second movie, however, nor do I intend to watch the third. The first one was enough.

[Veho Nex]

Third was pretty good. Considerably better than the second but just below the first. If it had the same production values of the first it would have been really good.

[cmacq]

In fact this is a very important subject, in terms of its greater implication, and I'm not sure why this aspect of the topic is not discussed in the academic setting...
…well maybe I actually do know why its not discussed in academia, and that goes to the very heart of it, the freedom of speech? Today, a topic not in vogue, at most US universities; that is unless it’s the correct speech.

Regardless, if one takes the time, by Verhoeven's own words this movie was not designed to be a parody or satire. It was indeed a failed attempt to use Social-Propaganda to discredit the basic premise of Heinlein’s book by draping it with a rather unsavory veneer. The claims that the movie was a parody or satire were generated by the very ill-informed in an attempt to mitigate the uproar after the flick's release by those critics, that picked-up on the Propaganda. Strangely, these critics, apparently fully indoctrinated and even further down the Shining Path than Verhoeven, saw the imagery and somehow thought that the director was promoting said S-Propaganda, rather than using it to discredit the well stated principles of civic responsibility and the role of representative government, provided in Heinlein’s work.

Yet again, Verhoeven's intended hit job (the movie) of the target (Heinlein’s book, of which Verhoeven remains a very big critic) was in fact a huge failure as many saw though the cynicism, S-Propaganda, and obvious anti-Americanism and embraced the underling themes of duty, responsibility, honour, and self-sacrifice for the common good. There are many quotes made by Verhoeven that support this view. Ironically, the whole thing seems to have backfired on Verhoeven, and the poor chap’s reputation, particularly in Europe, suffered greatly as he was subsequently branded (by those of his own ilk) as a practitioner of the ideology portrayed by the imagery he used in the movie. One may note that above I’ve strategically omitted any possible use of the 'F' the ‘N’ the ‘S’ the 'C' and the 'I' words, although I personally see no light between them at all.

mad rant over

cheers,


CmacQ

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere someone (possibly Verhoeven) saying that they hadn't even heard of the novel until halfway through filming, and they changed the name...

[cmacq]

Right,

sorry but thats wrong. Verhoeven purchased the rights to do the movie based on the book. Additionally, Verhoeven has long been a vocal critic of SST, the novel. That statement actually refers to some members of the staff that did the rewrite for the movie version. Verhoeven did once claim that he read several chapters then became bored and depressed, which may be true. However its very strange that he would be such a huge critic of a half finished book; one he would later return to in an attempt to salvage a career savaged by his infamous Showgirls.

Verhoeven quotes from SST:


1) "We tried to find [actors] that were resembling a proto-fxxxxst ideal."

2) "The movie is in fact stating that war makes faxxxsts of us all."

3) "There's clearly a disguised statement about propaganda films of the Third Rxxxh."

4) "It's certainly also talking about American politics now. And so it is really saying as we have perceived in the past twenty, thirty years that there is a tendency in American politics that if people disagree that we would use power and violence. [...] Power and violence is always used at a certain moment when things take too much time to solve in a democratic way."

5) "Biologically, fxsxxst elements are perhaps available in the human species."

6) "It's difficult perhaps to accept in a movie that the people that are your bosses, that are your government, that are supposed to be taking care of you, ultimately don't take care of you and care only about a war that might not have been necessary in the first place."

7) "Whenever you see something that you think is fxscxxt, you should know that the filmmakers agree with your opinion."

If you don't trust me then trust your own ears ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkOqiweYfwQ). Thus, supporting my view that Verhoeven's SST was an attempt to make an anti-war/anti-american propaganda film. I think he doesn’t really understand what a Republic is. After all, he is a citizen of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Plus Verhoeven mentioned in the commentary, that the humans were the aggressors and the bugs victims: when the bugs bombed Buenos Aires, they were not attacking humanity but reacting to colonists encroaching on their planets. These comments were all made before 2001. It would have been perfect had he said something like, Buenos Aires was an inside job.

-------------------------------------------------------

One may note I’ve redacted any possibly offending (or otherwise incorrect speech) letters from the above quotes, while trying to retain their content.

http://www.ghosts.org/verhoeven/starship/stlogo11.jpg


CmacQ

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ha, fair enough that he destroyed his career with that dreck of a movie.

Your career must be in a slump if you agree to do the third sequel to something like SST, especially considering the second movie.

CR

[cmacq]

Indeed I agree...

... and eaten by his own kind. But, his career wasn't entirely ruined, still many in Europe now think he's a fxxxxist, which he is not, well, kind of not? But really, nowadays who in Europe isn't?


Sorry, very bad joke.

[Conradus]

If you don't trust me then trust your own ears ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkOqiweYfwQ). Thus, supporting my view that Verhoeven's SST was an attempt to make an anti-war/anti-american propaganda film. I think he doesn’t really understand what a Republic is. After all, he is a citizen of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.


Not really fair eh, the Netherlands were already a republic whilst they were still witchburning in the USA.

And I can understand that this movie could be anti-war, but why does he/or you consider it to be anti-American? I've seen it numerous times and never have I thought that it was anti-American.

It's a shame of Heinlein's novel, certainly, but the movie was decent enough in its own right as a decent sf-film.

[cmacq]

Not really fair eh, the Netherlands were already a republic whilst they were still witchburning in the USA.

And I can understand that this movie could be anti-war, but why does he/or you consider it to be anti-American? I've seen it numerous times and never have I thought that it was anti-American.

It's a shame of Heinlein's novel, certainly, but the movie was decent enough in its own right as a decent sf-film.

I'm sorry, thats the point.

Verhoeven thought he was making an anti-war/anti-american flick, that would discredit the precept of the novel, yet in fact he failed in the worst way, as it is neither anti-war, anti-american, nor did it do harm to the book's standing. And Verhoeven, the guy that made the movie still dosen't get it. On top of this critics that think the same as he, grossly misinterpreted the intent of the Imagery used in the movie, branded him with the f word, and consequently help hurt his career (in part due to the tenets of correct speech). Now, that’s what I bloody well call satirical.


Right,
by the way the USA’s republic is only eight years older than the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The glory days of the Dutch Republic are long gone. Besides the Dutch of that era had their own witches to burn (Roermond Netherlands 1613). Of course, as Verhoeven tosses that f word around so much, he may mistake the symbolic nature of the device/artifact and its relationship to a Republic, say the Roman Republic for example. All subtle, but very important points.


With all this said, I very much agree with Conrad about the novel and at least the first movie.

Still, I view Team America as a parody, while SST, a failed hit job that actually made good.

CmacQ

[Geoffrey S]

They give you Denise Richards in uniform and you call it barely passable entertainment?

Tough audience...:laugh4:
Meh, who needs that when there's Wild Things?

Ha, fair enough that he destroyed his career with that dreck of a movie.

Your career must be in a slump if you agree to do the third sequel to something like SST, especially considering the second movie.

CR
As a side note, Verhoeven has nothing to do with 3 as far as I can tell. Only got the original lead in it.

[cmacq]

So then what about Team America vs SST, who wins? I liked the Team America sound track more.

[Kralizec]

I'm sorry, thats the point.

Verhoeven thought he was making an anti-war/anti-american flick, that would discredit the precept of the novel, yet in fact he failed in the worst way, as it is neither anti-war, anti-american, nor did it do harm to the book's standing. And Verhoeven, the guy that made the movie still dosen't get it. On top of this critics that think the same as he, grossly misinterpreted the intent of the Imagery used in the movie, branded him with the f word, and consequently help hurt his career (in part due to the tenets of correct speech). Now, that’s what I bloody well call satirical.


Right,
by the way the USA’s republic is only eight years older than the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The glory days of the Dutch Republic are long gone. Besides the Dutch of that era had their own witches to burn (Roermond Netherlands 1613). Of course, as Verhoeven tosses that f word around so much, he may mistake the symbolic nature of the device/artifact and its relationship to a Republic, say the Roman Republic for example. All subtle, but very important points.


With all this said, I very much agree with Conrad about the novel and at least the first movie.

Still, I view Team America as a parody, while SST, a failed hit job that actually made good.

CmacQ

More like 190 years, actually :inquisitive:
Of course by the time that the Americans declared independence, our state had degenerated into a de facto monarchy.

I never cared much for Verhoeven's style. It works for some movies and doesn't for some others.
Never read any of Heinlein's work.

[cmacq]

More like 190 years, actually :inquisitive:
Of course by the time that the Americans declared independence, our state had degenerated into a de facto monarchy.

Thanks, I stand corrected. I do know a little about Dutch history, but wasn’t entirely clear on that particular point.


CmacQ

[Lemur]

I'm sorry, but I'm a fan of both the novel and the movie. The novel is the definitive work of military SF, the granddady of the entire genre. The movie, on the other hand, is entirely silly, and in a good way. It's probably the only comedy in history that incorporates a film-long love letter to Leni Riefenstahl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leni_Riefenstahl). If you can watch the film version and not laugh repeatedly, there's something wrong with your funnybone.

[cmacq]

I think both are great as well, for some of the same reasons.


CmacQ