"Starship Troopers remake is coming, would you like ..." Topic

…to know more?.

"The reports that a new take on the Robert A Heinlein novel, previously adapted with fantastic satirical spirit and flying body parts by the great Paul Verhoeven, is coming from Columbia Pictures.

The writers behind this new version are Mark Swift and Damian Shannon, who wrote the upcoming Baywatch movie starring Dwayne Johnson and Zac Efron, as well as working on Freddy Vs Jason and the 2009 Friday 13th reboot.

At this point there's no word on what tone the film will have, and that is one of our primary concerns. The novel is famously rather right wing, which Verhoeven and his team used as an opportunity for some wonderful satire; cribbing shots from Triumph Of The Will, blasting constant propaganda, and putting Doogie Howser in a SS uniform, without sacrificing the insane violence and gore). We're naturally a little worried that we'll get a Starship Troopers film that takes the book at face value, and we don't want that.

The original film was released in 1997 and starred Casper Van Dien, Denise Richards, Dina Meyer, Neil Patrick Harris, Jake Busey, Michael Ironside and Clancy Brown. There were straight-to-DVD sequels of varying quality that we have seen but are currently struggling to remember…"
From here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Article author shows his bias.

Poppycock on the, "that's not what we want," spin.

Who's "we?" The author and the mouse in his pocket?

Hide in your safe space if you cannot take a movie true to a "famously right wing" book. The public gets spoon fed movies and TV series championing "left wing" without end… the audience will decide what they want to watch or not, thank you very much.

I LOVED the satire of ST. I would not mind seeing a more "serious" take, it would not ruin anything – hell, if it is too serious, maybe it is a lesson in itself where not to go.

On a somewhat related note, I see Tarantino is "retiring", which is a blessing to humanity and the movie business.

Guess he might as well since many/most of his movies performed poorly at the box office.

I agree with Mardaddy. The state described in ST would be interesting to examine, even as one not to emulate. Some real Mobile Infantry troopers would be even more interesting. Bouncing with Y racks, what's not to like.

If I cant get Mobile Infantry in jump armor and bugs with lasers, forget it.

The story is only considered 'right wing' because it is in a military setting and talks about the responsibilities of citizenship. In the novel, EVERYONE enjoys liberal civil rights, but only persons who have done a short period of national service (mostly NOT military) are eligible to vote. Soldiers can't vote; they haven't finished their service.

Heinlein was often concerned about voter turnout and responsibility. He felt that if voters had to earn the right, it would mean more to them, and they would turn out more often.

Really, if you read more of Heinlein's stuff, you find that he is no sort of right wing 'superpatriot', but a flaming liberal regarding economics, social mores, government interference in one's personal life, and other issues. Violence is a collective and sometimes rebellious response to an outside threat, in his works.

Heinlein did indulge in occasional satire, but wasn't vicious about it. I know he didn't like Bierce (pretty much the poster boy for vicious satire).

The book is not "right wing." In fact, the system of government is entirely speculative (imagine that, in "speculative fiction," as was the preferred term). It does postulate a system that restricts franchise to those who have experience serving the public good ( in any capacity, not just military), but not to those currently serving or to those who do not serve, the argument being that the willingness to serve implies some sense of social responsibility, and the experience of having served implies understanding of what actions are viable for a government to pursue (or what actions are not), while the restriction against franchise for those serving (supposedly) prevents self-interested voting and potential corruption. The book doesn't actually advocate for this system, and even exposes its flaws, but simply uses it as a basis for Heinlein's actual call for individual responsibility and his exploration of the meaning of duty and self sacrifice. (Anyone actually familiar with Heinlein's philosophy knows he would have far more preferred his libertarian Lunar government from THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS to the government presented in STARSHIP TROOPERS.)

As for the Verhoeven monstrosity, it's an insult to the book and what Heinlein was trying to say, and should not be remade by anyone in the same vein. We don't need that thing again. It would be far better to instead have the book treated with respect. And if it turns out to be a better, more appealing film, well, maybe that says something.

I read the novel many times as a youngster and still like it. Grew up to be a social democrat. Don't see it as being terribly right wing.

I rather like his idea of service in any form having value to the community.

It is a classic work of science fiction and deserves to be brought to film essentially as written without added spin by writers in any direction.

I enjoyed the book and (to my surprise) I quite enjoyed the (first) film.

But the book needs – deserves – to be done properly and (as others have said) with a degree of respect and not just pretty but largely vacuous actors.

John T

We can haz more shower scene pleez?

I still want "Bill the Galactic Hero".

Bill the Galactic Hero or "Gruntz" by Mary Gentle

First Avalon Hill Bookcase Game I ever owned…still have it…

And still have the battle reports logs from June 1978 in that box.

I say make a faithful adaptation of the book while at the same time make a equally faithful adaptation of 'Stranger in a strange land' the book that got Heinlein branded a socialist/liberal making sure people know he wrote both.

Mix em, "Stranger in a Strange Land of Mobile Infantry".

Would not be surprised if that was already someones fan fiction.

I think today people get confused between "right wing" and having a traditional, conservative outlook. Verhoeven's novel ties citizenship to military service and that's certainly not perceived as liberal or "left wing" values.

As for ST, I enjoyed the tongue-in-cheek satire and ultraviolence of the original movie by Paul Verhoeven even if it deviated from Heinlein's novel.

If Hollywood tries to make a more serious and faithful version, I'll definitely see it even if it tanks at the box office. Some of my favorite movies are commercial duds.

I really enjoyed the year I spent working on the models for Starship Troopers. It was a great experience.

It is a classic work of science fiction and deserves to be brought to film essentially as written without added spin by writers in any direction.

Not if it's going to flop at the box office. The studios have to release films that people will pay to see. It's all about the profit. That's capitalism baby. Ironic, isn't it?

I enjoyed the cartoon series more than the movie they were based on. The movie was pretty bad, the book great.

If they wanted to ditch the whole 'service=citizenship' issue, they could still make a pretty good movie if the subplot is Rico just trying to get out from under his father's influence and being his own person.

I don't think it's necessary, but it would sidestep the issue.

But in any case, I viewed the bigger theme as being accountable for one's own actions and taking responsibility.

I can see where some segments of the population would have an issue even with THAT message.

A tough, gritty, "realistic", Sci-Fi movie for adults would be nice for a change.

Would love to see drop troops actually dropping in from orbit, bouncing to defeat foes with their superior mobility, and using Y-racks on the enemy, etc., etc..

No teddy bears in space, if you please.

As a stupid movie about killing bugs it was OK. The problem is that it spit all over the book.

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Great author, great books, Horrywood version totally divorced from the book (aren't they all) I take the movies as a totally different experience, sometimes good (Blade Runner) mostly meh (Dune) and some Whhhat? (Total Recall) 1st bad, 2nd ok-i sh. So it'd be nice for a hardcore interpretation of the book (using unknown actors would be nice) let's see if the industry is capable.

Aside from Bill, I'd rather see Gordon Dickson's Dorsai.

Or maybe Peter F. Hamilton's Fallen Dragon.

Any of the above,instead of yet another remake.

There is a version of Bill the Galactic Hero done a couple of years back by Alex Cox (Repo Man) funded via kickstarter but pretty much a glorified student film project.

link

Funded the kickstarter, got my DVD, has its moments, but really needed a much bigger budget.

Dorsai would be good, but they'd screw that up badly as well, I imagine.

Given the way the film industry treats books, there's no way that Dorsai could be made and stay true to its concept. Exactly as happened with Troopers, all the good stuff left out in order to have more bangs, booms and blood. Heck, Verhoeven stated that he'd never read the book! And as for the casting… I mean, did Casper look Fillipino to you?

The only film that could possibly stay true to a book is Hammers Slammers given the way that Drake wrote the original story. But then Hollywood would doubtless mash bits of 3 or 4 stories together and give us something dire.

Nope. I hold no faith in ever seeing a true representation of a book turned into a film

Having read most of Heinlein's books I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Heinlein was a far-right far-left libertarian authoritarian who believed in many things at some point and wrote about many more in his career.

As far as SST specifically? No, remakes are dumb.
If we're going to do a book-adaptation, Forever War is way overdue, failing that maybe create an original idea?

Honor Harrington wouldn't be bad either.
It'd keep the "THE LIBRULS ARE RUINING MAH SCIFI" people content and it's a good story with well developed characters and a solid scifi under-pinning.
Plus, strong lady lead which will keep the hippies happy and get ladies into the theater.

NO.

Probably interesting to see it done 'properly' without Verhoeven's bombast and with powered armour. Though the CVs the writers in harness does not provoke any hope on that score….

One of the glaring omissions of the Verhoeven's mess was the "coming of age" of Johnnie Rico from unformed/uninformed youth to uniformed adult/responsible future citizen. I suppose "responsibility" and "duty" are easy targets for sideline kibbitzers, and not "sexy" enough for a Hollywood film.

There's also the fundamental problem that the book really isn't about WAR in itself, as much as it's about being a soldier.

The battle scenes are pretty short and not much of a focus point.

THat's a lot harder to sell to people in a scifi film, since most people will probably prefer to just watch something like the original Jarheads for that.

Heinlien world view had to summarize with a single lable.

Enlightened Libertarian? Current right wing in US would have appalled him.

Would go to see remake esp for powered armor (not done in film).

Peter Hamliton's stuff would make a great film esp Pandora's Planet.

TomT