Starship troopers 3: Marauder

**cmacq** · 07-17-2008, 02:46

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. 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.

CmacQ

**Crazed Rabbit** · 07-17-2008, 06:50

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** · 07-17-2008, 07:05

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.

**Geoffrey S** · 07-17-2008, 09:32

Originally Posted by English assassin

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

Tough audience...

Meh, who needs that when there's Wild Things?

Originally Posted by 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

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** · 07-17-2008, 16:07

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

**Conradus** · 07-17-2008, 07:25

Originally Posted by cmacq

If you don't trust me then trust your own ears. 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** · 07-17-2008, 08:09

Originally Posted by Conradus

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

**Kralizec** · 07-17-2008, 17:53

Originally Posted by cmacq

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

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** · 07-17-2008, 19:25

Originally Posted by Fenring

More like 190 years, actually

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** · 07-18-2008, 18:15

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. If you can watch the film version and not laugh repeatedly, there's something wrong with your funnybone.