Starship Troopers Effective Satire Discourse - Comment #6,264,827

The movie's director disagreed, and took the ideas presented in the book to extremes. The ideal, militaristic society Robert A. Heinlein depicted was criticized with the propaganda shown in the movie, which not a focus in the book. Only veterans can vote? You have to serve to have a family? People are grooming kids to fight? That's not very good at all, is it?

The movie is very clever as to HOW it takes issue with this. The coming of age story is very much the same… but it's directed in such a way that you can see the flaws of this society without spelling them out. People shouldn't NEED it to be spelled out that this society isn't the ideal one the people in the movie think it is. We are aware of that already.

If you have to explain your message in no unclear terms, you're missing the point of art, and ABSOLUTELY missing the point of parody.

It's ironic, what the people saying the movie should have been more blunt with its message about militarism and propaganda seem to be unaware that what they want the end product to be is actual propaganda. Not a work of media where the viewer is left to think for themselves.

Yeah as someone who did the read the book(or atleast a good chunk of it) and some of other Heinlein works(i.e short stories) yeah the society is very militaristic and half the time it is Heinlein giving his thought on what the military should be. Again if you know that era of sci Fi literature (golden age to new age aka later 1930s to 1970s/1980s) that alot of it taking about philosophy with a story. Basically plato's republic but in the future.

Have you read The Forever War? I feel like that does a much better job at deconstructing Starship Troopers than its film adaptation did. It shows how such a militaristic society could fall apart due to constant warfare in addition to showing the negative psychological effects it has on the soldiers (all this was based on the author's experience in the Vietnam War).

I dunno, I suppose I just think it would be neat to see that book get a film adaptation (not to say there's no merit in satirizing Heinlein's book).
The film might have some changes to the book so it doesn't age too poorly (the homosexuality portrayed in the book will need some careful nuance in a film adaptation), but still, I see some potential.

The weird thing about Heinlein is that trying to peg his views by his writing is going to end up a political compass meme. Dude never met a thought experiment he doesn't take to the farthest possible direction.

This one he made a setting where that kind of fascism works had to take some really really weird turns. And then he made two politically opposed groups of monsters fight each other with a third group caught in the crossfire. It's one of those "you see what's in the mirror" situations.

Yeah Heinlein was a weird guy. An interesting guy, but still weird. Well then again that happen your in-between the golden age and new wave era

>"Have you read The Forever War? I feel like that does a much better job at deconstructing Starship Troopers than its film adaptation did."

The word that jumps out at me there (and not in a "you're wrong" way) is "deconstruction." Satire and deconstruction are related but different -- satire is based around exaggeration and ridicule in order to mock the society around it ("this silly version of you is still based on you") while deconstruction is more focused on the consequences ("this is what would actually happen if this thing from movies was caried out").

Again, they're related, and you're not wrong to compare them. But the different focus determines different priorities: the ST movie uses news media and military recruitment as the framing device to connect to the broader human society (exaggerating the news as a propaganda machine and boot camp as a reckless frat house), while Forever War sounds like it's deconstructing what the soldiers actually experience and how it takes its toll on them with the propaganda stripped away

The book has nothing about serving being a requirement to start a family. Rico's family is very well off and his parents oppose him signing up (admittedly, the military itself tries to dissuade people it's legally obligated to find a task for), complaining about their tax dollars going to that class taught by a veteran.

I have not! But it sounds up my alley. Starship Troopers is a weird case where the film adaption turned into a deconstruction of it due to circumstance.

Film adaptations are a monkey's paw. You THINK you want them but it's rare for them to manage it. IMO, new media altogether is better and can explore the topic from fresh angles.

As much shit as people would give me for saying this, I do honestly think recent video games have been doing a good job de-glorifying war/military service and making their own statements, I'm sure a few games or moments from games come to mind when I say this.

Starship Troopers is an odd case where the movie kinda was new media in a way, which is probably what made it stick out more than other book to film adaptions like it.

I was referring to the shower scene from the movie where the infantry members were asking each other why they joined, not any part of the book.

The book is very much PRO militaristic society, and did not have these moments. Rico's decision to join the mobile infantry was to show that he wasn't doing it for himself, since it was far from an enviable position, especially given that he could have landed a far cozier position for the same benefits. Him being well off was one of the points driving home that message.

In the movie, the PSAs and casual propaganda used as transitions expand upon the military based society. Kids being encouraged to squash normal bugs, letting children hold guns (lots of kids in these PSAs), or little breadcrumbs like learning you need to be a citizen for what we take for granted make you stop and think "This is fucked", without the movie having to explain it.

Yeah… that sounds about right. With the range of ideas and topics he's written about, from brutal theocracy to "kid keeps alien pet", I get the feeling trying to look for his politics in his works is a fools errand.

My current theory: He wrote what he thought sounded cool. He was a sci-fi nerd first, a political commentator second. And TO BE FAIR… he did succeed in that. The ideas are out there .

Didn't the book also make a case that unless you served your country by the joining the military, you shouldn't have the right to vote?

I had to check this. In the book you are required to serve the government in some way to earn the right to vote. However, military service is not the only way. The example given to me was: the government owns all the mining operations, so if you serve two years in he mines you get your right to vote just fine.
There's apparently even a scene where the Space Merchant Marines are petitioning for their right to vote (a reference to the real life Merchant Marines petitioning for veteran benefits on the basis they operate in warzones; benefits were finally granted in 1987)