Robert Heinlein: Starship Troopers

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Originally Posted by Connavar of Rigante

They say things like Rico didnt grew during the book, nothing changed for him.

There are enough real flaws with this book that it is ridiculous to pick on that point. I found Rico matured or at least changed, dramatically throughout the entire book, especially throughout the course of his training. I agree the "Bug Hunt" had little to do with the story Heinlein was trying to tell.

[Connavar]

Yeah there are flaws but i liked that he had an idea and he told it well.

Sure sometimes it felt too preachy but most of the time i enjoyed the things they were talking about. Sure the story wasnt as much focus i expected.

Instead of talking about what flaws his ideas and his world had, i almost laugh when the criticts of the book simplify everything by saying it was too militristic and glorifying the military.


The suit i really liked other than that i didnt care much for the bug war.

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Originally Posted by pyan

His native language is Tagalog, and he thinks there should be a dropship named Ramon Magsaysay - mentioned in the very last couple of pages of the book.
Fairly conclusive, I would have thought.

Tagalog English Dictionary | Philippines

Ramon Magsaysay

Those were the points I was referring to...I wasn't paying attention to his ethnicity last time I reread...does Heinlein actually say that Tagalog is Rico's native language or was it more veiled? The only thing that added some debate for me was this future "global" community and ethnicity in general...good example would be myself and my children. I've got 1 part English, 2 part Welsh, and 1 part German in me, just going back to my grandparents. My wife is 3 parts Scottish, and one part French going back to hers. What ethnicity does this make my kids, other than mutts? How about my sister and her Samoan husband? What ethnicity are their kids?

[pyan]

Originally Posted by TTBRAHWTMG

...does Heinlein actually say that Tagalog is Rico's native language or was it more veiled?

(Juan) "I'm sure of it." I added something to myself and Bennie said "What did you say?"
(Juan) "Sorry, Bernado. Just an old saying in my own language. I suppose you could translate it, more or less as: 'Home is where the heart is.'"
(Bernado) "But what language was it?"
(Juan) "Tagalog. My native language"

Not exactly veiled.

And further on, Bernado says:

.....My folk chatter in Español the same way (as Juan's use Tagalog)

wich would emphatically rule Juan out of being Hispanic.

[Connavar]

Hehe thats the problem when the main character isnt really the focus of the story. I mean i was thinking about the last class where they talk about why thier current state system work and the other in thier history didnt work.

To even be interested in what Tagalog might be.

[Shell_Kracker]

I enjoyed the movie far more than the book - it was perhaps the most genius satire of extremism ive ever seen on film.

[Connavar]

I dont see why people see the movie as satire.


I saw it almost a decade before i read the book and even knew who RAH was.


To me it looked like a very stupid and bad movie. No parody at all. Thats even more clear
when i read the book.


They took the simple, sexier things about the book and like the flogging,the military stuff,the bugs and made an empty movie out of it.

I see why some people like space military thing but not why some see it as a satire. Like hollywood ever cares about a book that much to make a satire.....

[Shell_Kracker]

Originally Posted by Connavar of Rigante

I dont see why people see the movie as satire.

I saw it almost a decade before i read the book and even knew who RAH was.

To me it looked like a very stupid and bad movie. No parody at all. Thats even more clear when i read the book.

They took the simple, sexier things about the book and like the flogging,the military stuff,the bugs and made an empty movie out of it.

I see why some people like space military thing but not why some see it as a satire. Like hollywood ever cares about a book that much to make a satire.....

I thought the parody of jingoism was blatantly obious to be honest. Im not sure how you missed it.

It sounds like you have mis-interpreted what people mean by 'satire' - the film isnt a satire of Robert Heinlein's book - it is a general political satire, not unlike 'Dr Strangelove'.

It is a witty dystopian commentary on extremist 'us vs them' tribal behavior, complete with the standard mass hysteria threat to our 'way of life' (bugs = communists, niggers, jews, terrorists, witches, etc).

They nailed everything, right down to the 'infotainment' broadcasts, with their ludacris one-sided parody of modern 'political commentators'.

Im not sure what your political beliefs are, if any, but perhaps the reason you see no satire in the film is because those beliefs are what are being subject to parody?

Take this example - at one point in the film, schoolchildren are encouraged in cheesy 'Triumph of the Will'/'Birth of the Nation' style propaganda, to collect bugs and stomp on them - these bugs dont even have anything to do with the alien threat, they are an Earth species - this is a satire of mindless victimisation of minorities being encouraged during wartime - i.e. American concentration camps for Japanese Americans who had nothing to do with their war, portrayal of Japanese people as subhumans in comics of the period, etc.

[Connavar]

Oh that kind satire.


I thought you meant parody of the book.


Yeah even though its been long time, i rememer some of things you mention. Yeah some of the things was very clear. Other things arent easy to remember cause it wasnt a memorable movie. Except the huge bugs hehe.

Thats the problem when other people say satire in some of the other forums i have seen. They dont explain so its easy to misunderstand.

Also its clear some people dont remember anything but the bug killing things they liked.

[Shell_Kracker]

The people who only watched the movie as an 'action movie', and didnt notace the political commentary tend to not like the movie (afterall, they have missed the point of the film entirely) - on the other hand, those who did see the commentary tend to think it was one of the best political send-ups ever, and a very potent anti-war movie.

I think you might like it more today, now that you are older (I get the impression you watched it when you were young, from what you are saying). Its like watching 'Team America: World Police' - I bet some young people actually thought the movie was seriously advocating obnoxious militarism, and missed the entire blatently obious point of the film, i.e. taking the piss out of jingoism.

There is one bit in the movie that is a hilarious satire of selective journalism and political commentators who spend more time spinning news than actually reporting anything (like Bill O'Reily lol). The human treatment of the bugs is a clear send-up of human prejudice. Viewed after 9/11 the film becomes even more powerfull, because it managed to predict the course of the 'War on Terror'.

[Connavar]

Yeah i was alittle too young then and i was disgusted by the bad acting of Casper Van something.

I got some of the things like the tv stuff.

Most time of time i saw only a horrible action movie.

Would be interesting to watch it now not only i will get more of the satire but also i know the story they make the movie of.

Funny enough i love the book and i get annoyed when i read criticts and readers dissing it cause it was glorifiying military. I think then did you read the same book?

Sure he had love for military but you have to see his ideas instead of complaining of the most obvious thing.

I almost laughed out hard at how current the book was. How little things have changed since he wrote the book.

Specially about the thing about the juvinile criminals. Here i always felt we are too easy on them. Then you see experts on tv complaining about they turned out to be dangerous criminals. Only one of the many things i liked about his ideas in the book.

[Shell_Kracker]

His book advocated many things that I would consider fascist and wrong.

Militarism and Utopia in Starship Troopers

[Connavar]

Trust me i have read everything people have said about ST.

I dont see why people react that hard. You either think he told his ideas in a good way or not. Only cause the military view is alot more real than the usual "lets conquer Mars story" that people react to book alot, in a good or a bad way.

The most important thing people have something to say about it.


Me i didnt agree on most of his views but i like that he told them in intellegent way.

I was alittle suprised how well liked he is by the military. How ST is a required read in Military schools. Its although very understandable Astronauts adore the book though.


Even though it scares me, this idea makes some sense. I like the fact that the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military is a civilian, but all the corruption in our government, gets me thinking, "Hmmm ... maybe I would trust my president more if he had risked his life for our country to earn his right to hold office."


From your link.

I thought thats one of the questions that made the book a very interesting read.

[Urien]

I enjoyed the movie on two levels. It's an excellent special effects battle movie, the bugs were fabulous. The clear fascist overtones complete with gestapo, symbols and glorification of homeland were very well done.

I felt sorry for the bugs, they clearly didn't stand a chance. Had nobody in that particular future heard of tanks?

In the book (which I read a long time ago), the bugs are more equiv to us, an intelligent species using technology that happened to evolve from bugs.

Similiar in mood is a great book by Glen Cook called a "Passage at Arms" (I think). Think The Forever War meets Das Boot.

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by andrew.v.spencer

In the book (which I read a long time ago), the bugs are more equiv to us, an intelligent species using technology that happened to evolve from bugs.

Its that a bad thing?


I liked that they were an intelligent enemy, not some dumb beast that must be killed.