#1 2010-06-13 19:32:31
"...to my mind the most subversive major studio film in recent (or distant) memory—I now wonder if Verhoeven and his screenwriter, Ed Neumeier, had access to a time machine. Because even though it was produced in 1997—and based on a Robert Heinlein novel from 1959—[it] is such a clean, strong, almost direct post-9/11 allegory that Verhoeven and Neumeier had to have seen what was coming."
Offline
#2 2010-06-13 19:51:03
I started reading Heinlein's juveniles when I was a juvenile. I would like to see [while knowing it will never happen] a good film version of Glory Road or The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.
Offline
#3 2010-06-13 20:09:14
Sorry George, Starship Troopers mutilated what was a fantastic book and turned it into a pile of shit. If it wasn't called Starship Troopers it would have probably gotten more respect from myself.
Offline
#4 2010-06-13 20:25:52
1997, I was a freshman in college, and there's a naked co-ed shower scene. Everything else in such a movie is padding and filler.
It's tough to consider sentiments of political import while in your refractory period.
Last edited by ah297900 (2010-06-13 20:26:34)
Offline
#5 2010-06-13 20:31:19
ah297900 wrote:
1997, I was a freshman in college, and there's a naked co-ed shower scene.
No porn for you in '97?
Offline
#6 2010-06-13 22:02:00
ah297900 wrote:
It's tough to consider sentiments of political import while in your refractory period.
Give it another look now that you're a grown-up. Come to that, give Robocop another whirl. I bet you'll be surprised.
Offline
#7 2010-06-14 00:14:06
George Orr wrote:
ah297900 wrote:
It's tough to consider sentiments of political import while in your refractory period.
Give it another look now that you're a grown-up. Come to that, give Robocop another whirl. I bet you'll be surprised.
I did Friday. I spent the whole movie telling all the 20-somethings that this is what everybody thought the future would be like back in the 80s. They weren't even alive when crack came to town.
Offline
#8 2010-06-14 08:27:14
Hell, I just want to see Stranger in a Strange Land made into a movie. Or maybe that would be the worst thing in the world.
Offline
#9 2010-06-14 22:59:08
GooberMcNutly wrote:
Hell, I just want to see Stranger in a Strange Land made into a movie. Or maybe that would be the worst thing in the world.
Noooo! Look at what they did to Bradbury's "Sound of Thunder". I watched "The Illustrated Man" last month, and I was amazed at how well they wrote sci-fi to the screen in the late 60s through the 80s, and how badly they do it lately. Advanced visual techniques are great, but don't make up for a story line.
That said, I would love to see Peter Jackson to produce a "Ringworld" franchise. He actually pulled the LOTR movies off, and that's quite an accomplishment.
George, "Starship Troopers" is as pulpy as Heinlein ever got, and the movie reflected the book well.
Offline
#10 2010-06-15 01:41:58
opsec wrote:
GooberMcNutly wrote:
Hell, I just want to see Stranger in a Strange Land made into a movie. Or maybe that would be the worst thing in the world.
Noooo! Look at what they did to Bradbury's "Sound of Thunder". I watched "The Illustrated Man" last month, and I was amazed at how well they wrote sci-fi to the screen in the late 60s through the 80s, and how badly they do it lately. Advanced visual techniques are great, but don't make up for a story line.
That said, I would love to see Peter Jackson to produce a "Ringworld" franchise. He actually pulled the LOTR movies off, and that's quite an accomplishment.
George, "Starship Troopers" is as pulpy as Heinlein ever got, and the movie reflected the book well.
Exactly, which is why the movie rocked.
Offline
#11 2010-06-15 10:00:26
George Orr wrote:
"...it is such a clean, strong, almost direct post-9/11 allegory[/b][/url] that Verhoeven and Neumeier had to have seen what was coming."
Oh, Fudge. Heinlein and everyone else who's told such stories have the history of every empire and petty satrapie that's been recorded from which to draw the raw materials of his work. The demonization of external enemies, the hero worship of the legions, the devaluation of all forms of creative endeavor, the mocking of kindness and the elevation of state-sanctioned violence, the fascist marriage of state and business, the constant framing of ideation into strictly censored channels of conventional dialogue, the bread-and-circus of sports and gladiators, the prudish middle class desperately clinging to their pride of perceived place... I loved the book, and the movie was OK, sort of... but Heinlein didn't need any crystal ball. We are not so unique as all that... we are looking more and more like just another empire, and at the rate we are going may not turn out to be a very long-lasting one either, though we may well manage to do more of both good and evil than most during our brief turn at the wheel. But there is nothing especially unique about the path we are walking. Read some history. Heinlein obviously did, and extrapolated a thrilling story from it.
Offline
