Talk:Starship Troopers (film)/Archive 1

Complications Section

While this section does bring up some interesting points, there are some very serious problems with it:

• First, the reference to the Anglo-Russian Alliance and the space wars (Sentence that begins "Despite its dreary overtones..." in the second paragraph) appears to be a reference to events described in Heinlein's book, not Verhoeven's movie.

• Similarly, the sentence that describes Johnnie Rico as being of Filipino origin seems to be another reference to the book, not the movie. The movie never alludes to Johhnie as being linked to the Phillipines in any way, and in fact, both of his parents are obviously white.

• Third, and perhaps most importantly, the only article which is cited in this section has nothing to do with any of the statements made in the paragraphs. The article is a discussion of the merits and shortcomings of the military democracy described in Heinlein's book. The article does not reference the film at all except for the first sentence, which says that Verhoeven portrayed it as fascist.

So while this paragraph may have some interesting information (especially the parallel between the Federation government paying for college after a term of service and the identical recruitment tactic by the US military), more of the information in it is completely unrelated to the film and all of it is unsourced. In fact, between the "Criticisms" section and the "Politics" section, I doubt whether a "Complications" section is necessary at all. I think it should be deleted or rewritten, this time with sources.

169.229.110.204 17:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Spokmage

How can we be sure its the 23rd century?

It's never stated specifically what era the film is set in. I know they put it in that song, but it could well be old (especially as it says "23rd century dies". If you listen to the whole song, it also says "24th century dies"). It could well be set in the 2500s for all we know. We can't be exactly sure when it's set.

Yes I second this observation. Heinlein's novel does not specify any particular date, this device is very common in future fiction SF. Heinlein used it many times in his novels as did a great number of modern science fiction writers. Hollywood has a bee in its bonnet about setting specific dates in SF films , Blade Runner for example, and god-knows-why?! The audience really cares if there is a specific date? It does not subtract from any SF narrative to leave it indefinite. --aajacksoniv (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Poor Production

This movie is an insult to the classic book. Laser tag Capture-the-Flag as training? No powered armor or the implication of the ratio (1 human can kill 1000 bugs, but if the 1001st bug kills the human, the bugs win), and extremly over the top computer graphics. The ships weren't flying in formation, the exit which Carmen takes out of her ship, flying through the tunnels within the ship doesn't do much for the movie either. This is truly the worst attempt at making a teenage sex science fiction movie...

This is a "homage" to the book. It is not supposed to be a copy of the book. I have read the book and seen the film, and enjoyed them both immensly. I very much doubt there would be any ability to do a true to the book style movie on this. Macktheknifeau 17:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it bears more the appearance of a satire or sendup of the book than an homage... an homage implies a desire to honor the original work. Verhoeven appears to have had nothing but contempt for Heinlein's novel. Kasreyn 09:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If you listen to the DVD commentary, the movie was originally called 'Bug Hunt' until they acquired the rights to 'Starship Troopers'. So it was never really an adaption of the novel, it was a satire on US militarism which happens to share the same name and some of the same character names. Mark Grant 22:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that any book by Heinlein richly deserves to be insulted, so kudos to Verhoeven and his cheesy movie!--Pooneil (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

you all are reading way too much into this. The actual production notes provide all one needs to know. It was satire for satire's sack in the efforts of producing the movie, nothing more then that. Whippletheduck (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see director Paul Verhoeven and screen writer Edward Neumeier struggling with Heinlein's ideology in making Star Ship Troopers, but even if that had been jettisoned (well I guess we get a kind of daffy re-interpretation), it is beyond understanding why the basic action narrative was abandoned! Heinlein's 'war story' is much more sophisticated and engaging. Alas this seems the fate of almost all Hollywood adapted science fiction, it is an old story!--aajacksoniv (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Holland in WWII

--S Boersma 21:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)"Verhoeven's use of fascist emblems to imply criticism of the Federation may be related to his background. He and some of his crew come from the Netherlands, which suffered heavily in World War II, and Verhoeven himself witnessed Nazi atrocities as a child." Although Nazi occupation was not a walk in the park for anyone, "suffered heavily" suggests that the suffering of the Netherlands was extraordinarily harsh in some fashion, which it frankly was not. I suggest that the phrase be reworded as follows: "Verhoeven's use of fascist emblems to imply criticism of the Federation may be related to his background. He and some of his crew come from the Netherlands, which was occupied by Nazi Germany during World War II, and Verhoeven himself witnessed Nazi atrocities as a child."

Anti-American

This article is stating as fact "some interpret as broadly reminiscent of United States society, in that it is extremely militaristic and uncompromisingly warlike". It is basically saying that my country is a warlike nation and very millitaristic!!!! For people who say "what about the word "SOME", it is stating as fact that my country is extemely milltaristic and warlike, and some interpet it as like the US. --68.198.111.189 19:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's what WP terms "weasel words," and is against WP policy. It's been taken out. Virogtheconq 20:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm NO PLOT

Ok you guys can argue on how this movie talks about political theories, but there is NO mention of the plot.

Still no plot!!! Where is the storyline? -Krazy

Perhaps it's up to you to be bold and write it?

Atlant 15:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Could somebody who has watched the film please write a plot? Minglex 11:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait this movie has a plot?70.71.237.193 05:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If the people who made the film didn't write a plot, why should anyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noclevername (talk • contribs)

I saw the film, it was just one good shower scene for fan service surrounded by sometime around thirty minutes or a day of pain. I don't remember exactly, they say in moments of horror people lose their sense of time. I don't even remember the movie in lucid terms but as a series of snapshots of horror and the occasional breast shot, which was nice72.195.158.95 09:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Heinlein Liberation Front

Liberal politics?

I disagree that combining troops of different races and genders is an expression of liberal politics. Rather, it's a trait of former adversaries uniting to fight a common enemy (the bugs). Any comment? If not, I'm going to add this to the article.

--Happylobster 17:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Gimme a break - the film was a pantheon for feminizing the military and male sports. The female quarterback, female officers who command and pilot the key starship, others who beat up gonadless male actors, etc. Classic feminist agenda stuff - deny and eradicate any difference between genders, while promoting females as superior. Its BS and Verhoven riddled his film with it.
--rjp2005

The inclusion of female pilots was one of the only points that was faithfully carried over from the novel. Beyond that, I think you're reading too much into the movie. Kasreyn 05:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

HUH??? Anyone who thinks Verhoeven is a feminist should see Showgirls... No, I take that back. No one should ever see Showgirls. As for women in the military and sports, just because someone disagrees with your opinion doesn't make it BS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noclevername (talk • contribs)

New Videogame

There is a new videogame of Starship Troopers for PC. It's a shooter nor a strategic game like Star Craft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.129.212 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 23 January 2006 UTC

If you're referring to the one released in November by Strangelite Studios and Empire Interactive, it's mentioned on the page already.Virogtheconq 20:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

ST as cult film

I have no particular opinion on whether or not ST is considered a "cult" film, but I noted the following paragraph in Cult film: In rare cases, a film is both a huge, major studio release and a cult film, because a small, devoted following exists within the film’s larger audience (i.e. 2001: A Space Odyssey, Taxi Driver and the Star Wars franchise.) So perhaps it stands to reason that ST could be considered a cult SF film? Obviously some source would be needed citing the existence of a "small devoted" fan base. Virogtheconq 03:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Both points you make are good (major release is not a bar, and sources would be needed). Hu 08:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I know people for whom that movie does have cult status... not many. As for myself, I want to see verhoeven, the scriptwriter, and the producers impaled on bramblewood stakes, with the thorns still in for dealing such an insult to a literary masterwork, and RAH being too dead to protest. --Svartalf 12:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Technical aspects?

Anyone want to add a section about the technology of the special effects?

How about a simple synopsis, which is the core of an article on a movie, rather than politcal discussions

Satire of Facism

The article doesn't really go into it much, but the film does appear to be a satire of a future, facist government that controls its citizens lives. Some evidence:

• At the high school dance, the band is singing a "feel good" song with words like "everything's all right, 21st century's come." (I heard that this is a David Bowie song)
• The TV announcment, "Today a criminal was convicted, execution at 10."
• The political leaders are uniformed members of the armed forces

ca

Yeah, and the Science Corps and Psi Corps uniforms are weirdly reminiscent of SS garb... Satire of fascism, my foot, this is first degree EXALTATION of fascism. And I can't conceive of an argument that might convince me that this is indeed second degree and a satire. --Svartalf 13:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So, You see the ad where the mother encourages kids to squash bugs and take at the first degree? Gawd. You scare me.

Hear, Hear. The over-the-top self-exaltation is what makes it a parody, just like Stephen Colbert isn't really praising Bush or O'Reilly, but rather ripping on them with their own words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noclevername (talk • contribs)

The film is a complete satire of American aggression towrads foreigners and deals with issues of xenophobia at the time the novel was written. This is characterised by a future Earth that is collectively the 'Federation', in other words, an Earth completly dominated by an American Fascist government, where everyone speaks English (or 'American') and the whole world is sucked into propaganda advocating fighting against a foreign species, of which they know nothing about. Citezenship is achieved through military service, child birth etc and this reflects an almost Nazi ideology. Great idea. ArdClose 14:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked, America is not mentioned once in the movie or the novel. The reason everyone speaks English is because it's an AMERICAN MOVIE. Most Americans, get this, speak English! Juan Rico, in the original novel, speaks Tagalog, which is spoken in the Philippines, where, *gasp* Juan Rico is from. The novel had nothing to do with America, and neither did the movie, and quite frankly, in case you haven't noticed, Mr. Expert on American Government, America is not a Fascist state, and unlike most of Europe and South America, has never been under and type of Fascist, Militant, or even Monarchical rule. Ever. And, to top it all off, American citizenship is achieved by being born in America, living there or not, or, being born elsewhere, filling out some paperwork and answering a short test about American History. Those Fascist! Ha! Morte42 (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

While you make some good points, Morte, you should assume good faith and note that ArdClose doesn't say the current U.S. government is fascist! (Although I think it is clearly showing disquieting tendencies towards Bonapartism (in the leftist sense of the term).) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that while many of the uniforms in the movie are strongly based upon the German Nazi era military's, the pilot/navy uniforms [[1]] are more closely based upon Italian military uniforms during Fascism [[2]] rather than those of the Soviet Union [[3]], as previously stated in the article - Corinth (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Bugs are Innocent

One of the best reviews I read of the film said that all its politics turned on one central fact: The bugs are innocent -- i.e. the attack on Buenos Aires was a Reichstag fire, done by the Federation itself to provoke an invasion. I think the section on the film's politics as it reads now is unnecessarily naive. ST's treatment of fascism isn't ambiguous or muddled by this future society's liberal attitudes toward sex or its racial mix. Both racial and sexual tolerance would make eminent good sense in some future uber-fascist society where "everybody fights, nobody quits." The real constant of any fascist state, past present or future, is a demonized scapegoat. A group made inhuman and vile, like bugs.EB

About the movie, or about the movie's motives?

I must say, this is the first time I read this article, and i'm left wondering if it's about the movie, or is it about Fascism? What is the purpose of the article? To talk about the movie's plot or to talk about the political agenda of the director? If it's the latter, then maybe a title change is in order.

Question - homosexuality

However, as is par with fascist socities, homosexuality, remains a forbidden liasion, as is shown a scene where a man is initially thought to sleep with a man

Which scene is this? I can't remember this happening. OAP boba 09:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I don't know what scene is being referred to here either, any explanation?--Hibernian 05:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed it. An officer walks in on two soldiers having sex [Rico and Flores] and looks surprised that two apparently male troopers are getting it on. To go from 'a guy is shocked because he thinks two guys are at it' to 'homosexuality is illegal' is a rather ridiculous leap in logic.

Also removed the 'traditional gender roles are absent' part. It is, again, a leap in logic to assume that because there are women in the military there are no traditional gender roles; Rico's mother certainly seems to be an average 'housewife' figure in the film. Hrimfaxi 07:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Another `traditional gender role' appears in the co-ed shower scene, when one of the female soldiers explains her reason for signing up: "I want to have babies... They say it's easier to get a license if you've served." Praxle1 05:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

??? In the movie, Flores was female. And as if they felt the need to add a few extra RPM's to Heinlein's corpse, they go overboard to demonstrate this with a scene gratuitously showing off Dina Meyer's fantastic breasts. I can remember no scenes with overt or implicit homosexual material in the entire film; of course, I might remember nothing simply due to my years of effort in blotting out all my memories of having been tricked into watching this abominable drink of bile. Kasreyn 23:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Rasczek walks in on Flores and Rico, with Flores hiding under the covers. When it becomes clear there's someone in Rico's bed, Rasczek scowls and says 'Who's that with you?' and realises it's Flores. I can only assume this is the scene being referred to, there's nothing else even remotely matching the description. Hrimfaxi 06:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

In that scene, I assumed Rasczak's disapproval was because he had just given Rico advice to not pass up a "good thing" (i.e. Flores's overtures), and he thought Rico had hooked up with someone else. Praxle1 05:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both of these. Rico's mother definitely seems to be a fairly traditional 'housewife' OAP boba 13:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Dina Meyer's breasts are fantastic, but the shower and sex scenes were definitely gratuitous, as is most of the (computer-)graphic violence in the film. The assumption that Rasczak's startled response to seeing Rico in the sack means that the entire society is anti-gay seems a very long stretch to me. As for Rico's mom, she has only a handful of lines; her character is so poorly defined that determining her social role requires a lot of speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noclevername (talk • contribs)

Wow, this movie is so bad and so diverges from Heilein's work. That not only does it make up scenes that were never in the book but it causes us to make up scenes that were never in the movie! Burn in Hell, Verhouven!72.195.158.95 09:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Heinlein Liberation Front

It never occured to me the Rezczak would think that a male soldier is under the blanket. It's a coed military. Why would he think? 81.182.236.155 (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Two points, the scene has nothing to do with homosexuality and Dina Meyer does not have fantastic breasts by any stretch of the definition.124.149.45.164 (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Budget Question

Somehow, I really doubt the budget for this film was one hundred million dollars. Maybe they meant one hundrend thousand, but that's a little low for a hollywood blockbuster. Subjectruin 05:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was. To put it into perspective: Black Hawk Down's budget was 90 million dollars, Titanic's 200 million dollars [more than the estimated 120-150 million dollars it would cost to re-build the actual ship], Stealth 130 million dollars, Pearl Harbour 135.25 million dollars.

Movies have big budgets these days. Hrimfaxi 07:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Subjectruin meant that the movie looks like it cost a hundred thousand to make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noclevername (talk • contribs)

Box Office Mojo lists the budget to be 105 million [4], this, even for 1997 may have been a bit of under budget, hence the absence of Heinlein's battle suits.--aajacksoniv (talk) 11:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Video Game section should be split into a seperate article.

Just mention their tiles and link to them on this article. Joncnunn 15:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the Bugs

This section is long and boring, and bring nothing to the point. Can it be removed?

This section of the article states that the Bugs in the movie seem to violate the laws of Physics because no Arthropod exoskeleton could possible support so much weight and that they could not live because they would consume vast amounts of Energy.

I believe that both of these assertions are wrong for several reasons, firstly these are Alien Organisms and Earth based reasoning about their Biology may not be applicable (i.e. they may have an entirely different Physiology to any Earth animal).

Secondly the writer of this has obviously never heard of the Giant Arachnids and other Arthropods, which once lived on Earth in the past (some of which were indeed the size of the Warrior Bugs).

And Finally the energy problem can probably be explained by the fact that the Atmosphere of Bug Planets may have significantly more Oxygen than Earth's. (that assumes that the Bugs even breath oxygen at all, they are Aliens after all).

--Hibernian 19:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• I believe that both of these assertions are wrong for several reasons, firstly these are Alien Organisms and Earth based reasoning about their Biology may not be applicable (i.e. they may have an entirely different Physiology to any Earth animal).

Doesn't matter, it's a question of scale and the materials they could potentially be made from; there's no way an insect the size of a Tanker or Plasma Bug could support its own weight. See here for a good essay on why you can't just arbitarily increase scale.

Let's take an ant which is 5mm long, and enlarge it to about 1.7 metres long, like an average human being. Since the ant becomes about 340 times longer, it must become about 40 million times heavier, since mass is proportional to volume. However, the cross-sectional area of its legs would only be roughly 115,000 times bigger, so it would be 115,000 times stronger and its legs would be subjected to roughly 340 times as much stress. Proportionally, it will be 340 times weaker than it was at its "correct" size.

Therefore, while an ant might lift 50 times its own weight, if you scaled him up to human size, it would only be able to lift 0.15 times its own weight. This is like a 150 pound human being who struggles to lift a 20 pound dumbbell with both arms! That's utterly feeble, and such a feeble creature would most likely not be able to stand on its own power.

So if a human-sized ant might not even be able to move about on its own power, what about those huge building-sized ants in the B-movies? Try making our human-sized ant 20 times bigger. Now, the ant that could should lift 50 times its own weight would be limited to 0.007 times its own weight. This would be like a 150 pound human being who struggles to lift one pound! That's not even enough to survive. An ant of such size would collapse, its exoskeleton shattering like cheap glass, its eyes collapsing of their own weight and its internal organs rupturing spontaneously and spilling their fluids onto the ground.

The biologists criticize the giant-ant movies by saying that their circulatory systems wouldn't work, but the structural engineers can beat them to the punch: the giant ants won't get a chance to asphyxiate because they'll collapse into a puddle of goo first.

• Secondly the writer of this has obviously never heard of the Giant Arachnids and other Arthropods, which once lived on Earth in the past (some of which were indeed the size of the Warrior Bugs).

No, the largest insects that ever existed were dragonflies with wingspans of 2 metres. Nothing's ever been as big as a Warrior bug, let alone as vast as the Plasma and Tanker Bugs.

• And Finally the energy problem can probably be explained by the fact that the Atmosphere of Bug Planets may have significantly more Oxygen than Earth's. (that assumes that the Bugs even breath oxygen at all, they are Aliens after all).

That only allows them to respire more easily through spiracles, their actual enemy when it comes to being big is gravity, which appears to be exactly the same on Bug planets [things fall over just as easily, Troopers throw things and they travel as they normally would, etc].Hrimfaxi 21:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Again all this still assumes that the Alien Bugs are physically similar to Earth Insects, which is a bold assumption to make.

We know nothing of their Anatomy, what their Exoskeletons are made from (just because an Earth insect's Exoskeleton can't endure the stress of a large size doesn't necessarily mean Alien bugs have the same problem), what their Muscles are made from, do they even have muscles in the sense we know?

They may move by some entirely different alien means, the fact is we just don't know. To pronounce that they could never exist is just an assumption made in reference to Earth life.

That's a very interesting Essay there, however it still assumes that Alien Bugs use the same kind of mechanisms to move and Materials to support themselves as Earth bugs do. Which is not an established fact in this case.

As to Giant Insects, well I never said Insects, I said Arachnids and other Arthropods, they were indeed very large look at these Anomalocarid, Arthropleura, Brontoscorpio anglicus, Mesothelae, now these are not as big as the Warrior bugs, but they are on their way. I think it is quite possible that an Alien Arthropod-like species could grow to the size of the Warrior bugs.

Of-course I wasn't talking about the Giant Plasma bugs, I was talking about the much smaller Warriors, nothing on earth has ever been as big as the Plasma bugs in the film and nothing probably every could be.

My point is, what applies to Earth life my not necessarily apply to Alien life.

--Hibernian 00:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Again all this still assumes that the Alien Bugs are physically similar to Earth Insects, which is a bold assumption to make.

But they are physically similar to Earth insects. We can tell that just by looking at them.

• We know nothing of their Anatomy, what their Exoskeletons are made from (just because an Earth insect's Exoskeleton can't endure the stress of a large size doesn't necessarily mean Alien bugs have the same problem), what their Muscles are made from, do they even have muscles in the sense we know?

That they are classified as 'arachnids' in the film indicates they are so close to Earth insects in form that they are actually categorised in the same class as Earth insects, indicating very close physiological similarity. More to the point, we saw a Tanker Bug explode; it had a soft inside surrounded by a hard outer carapace. To scale, it would have to be made of something with similar properties to structural steel, meaning Rico's gun would have been unable to penetrate its exoskeleton. This was not the case; Rico easy blew a hole in it's exoskeleton with a short burst of fire. We also saw a type of Bug being rather violently dismantled in a biology lesson, and all the organs were familiar; in that instance, the carapace was easily cracked with a hand-tool.

The fact that bug exoskeletons are easily penetrated by infantry small-arms fire indicates they are not made of some magical substance that's hundreds of times stronger than real-life insect exoskeletons.

• My point is, what applies to Earth life my not necessarily apply to Alien life.

Well it does, really. The same physical laws apply to species on other planets and the same materials are available to them. Bugs appear to be carbon-based air-breathing lifeforms; we only ever see them on worlds where the troopers don't require any breathing apparatus, they eat humans several times indicating similar metabolism, and they're categorised as part of a class of Earth invertebrate. With this evidence, assuming they are not similar in construction to Earth insects is something of a push.Hrimfaxi 00:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, both this section and the section on MI tactics don't cite sources and could potentially fall foul of Wikipedia:No_original_research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The MI tactics section is particularly poor, since it assumes, without reason, that the Federation sees the Bugs as a serious threat and is fighting them with all it has, rather than using them as a 1984-style enemy to expend resources against to justify its continued militarism. Indeed, it's entirely plausible that the poor training, poor equipment and neglect of the Federation's vast superiority in air and space forces is deliberate given this explaination; the Federation doesn't want to defeat the Bugs at all since if they did they'd need to find a new enemy.

The MI tactics section strikes me as just being someone playing armchair General; the criticism of the bugs is relatively valid, but it's hardly a criticism unique to Starship Troopers and therefore it's not clear quite why it needs to be here.Hrimfaxi 03:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The Structural issues are indeed relevant to the Massive Plasma and Tanker Bugs (which by the way I am not defending, I know they could probably never live), but much less relevant to the Warrior Bugs, which I believe could indeed live.

As I've show with reference to Ancient Earth Arthropods, such creatures nearly as large as Warrior bugs have already existed on Earth, it's not impossible for them to exist on an Alien World. You don't seem to have noticed what I said there, do you still maintain that the Warriors are too big to live?

You mentioned that you think the Bugs exoskeleton must be only as strong as Earth Insects because they were easily Breached by M.I Weapons, but I don't think that is necessarily accurate. I mean the Destructive power of those Bullets is obviously substantial, they may even be using Explosive rounds or something, it is possible the bugs armour is as tough as metal and still be easily destroyed by those weapons. If I remember correctly (though I haven't watched the movie in about a year) there are a few scenes were you can seem large bullet holes in pieces of Metal (at the outpost station I think), so I think their weapons are capable of blowing holes in steel and the like.

The Biology lab dissection of a bug with hand held implements, doesn't mean that the Warrior Bug's Exoskeleton is that weak, that was a very small bug and I think they cut open it's underbelly (which would presumably be the weakest area), the Warrior Bugs armour my be much tougher.

As for Bugs eating Humans, I don't think we can say for certain they were ever eating people, they seemed to simply be ripping them apart, sometimes long after they were dead, but the Bugs may not have the intelligence to know their victim is dead.

For instance remember the news article about "foolish Colonists" who got killed by bugs?, well in the footage shown the human bodies were not eaten, they were just ripped to pieces and left there. Presumably if the Bugs were like Ants (which seems to be the analogy), they would have eaten the "food" there or taken it back to their Hive.

The Warrior Bugs seem to be more of the "Army" of the Bugs rather than a food collecting caste. (it may well be that the bugs do not see Humans as food at all, but as Enemies, meaning their physiology is too different to ours for them to eat us).

The only time we know of when Bugs "eat" humans was when the Brain bug (and possibly other bugs), sucked out several Humans' Brains. Though this seemed to be explained in the movie that the Bugs were trying to somehow learn the Humans secrets by doing this (though how eating a Brain would give them any useful information I don't know).

As for their Categorization as Arachnids, I can only assume this is done for simplicity, as obviously no Alien life form could be placed into any Earth animal classification, the idea is pretty preposterous to say the least. I think the term arachnid is used as a mildly scientific term to make people understand what they are most similar to in Earth terms. (A real Classification of the Bugs would of-course have to be something totally different from any Earth life, simply because they evolved in total isolation from one another and are not actually related). (i.e. Convergent Evolution).

--Hibernian 04:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

---- The criticism of the Bugs is pointless. Time-traveling-and-flying DeLoreans are not realistic neither and stops nobody of seeing Return to the Future. This fiction, guys. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arkham6 (talk • contribs) .

See my comment at the bottom of this page. There is a difference between science fiction - which has a certain realism requirement - and space opera, which has none. The novel was written by a man called the Grand Master of science fiction. The movie is clearly space opera. This difference can only be attributed to either misunderstanding or satire. Kasreyn 22:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think the section on the Criticism of the M.I's Tactics is fine, but I do indeed agree with you 100% about the Federation using the Bugs as a 1984 style enemy.

One thing that should be mentioned is that it is never proven that the Bugs actually sent the Asteroid that destroyed Buenos Aires, indeed how could they have sent it from across the Galaxy? (surly it would have taken thousands of years for an asteroid to travel such an immense distance, unless the Bugs have some kind of Hyperspace travel, which is not suggested).

I think the Asteroid impact was caused by the Government's incompetence so they blamed it on the Bugs in order to avoid themselves being blamed (and get rid of a pesky species at the same time). It is very similar to the Scapegoating of Jews in Nazi Germany, in that the government is telling people that a sneaky enemy is trying to destroy their society and they must be eliminated. (this is especially evident in the Propaganda movies where Children are stamping on insects and then a mans said "The Only Good Bug is a Dead Bug!" etc.)

But those are all reasons I love this movie on many levels.

--Hibernian 04:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• The Structural issues are indeed relevant to the Massive Plasma and Tanker Bugs (which by the way I am not defending, I know they could probably never live), but much less relevant to the Warrior Bugs, which I believe could indeed live.

As large in terms of a single dimension, perhaps, but nothing like as large in terms of volume; the warrior bugs are vastly more massive than any arthropod that has ever lived; remember the only similar creature of that size in your links was Mesothelae, the size of 'a human head'; the rest were either aquatic, benefiting from buoyancy to support their weight, or much smaller in overall size. The Warriors stand about 3m tall and in their normal stance are somewhat wider; this is significantly different from a slightly-built 2m dragonfly or a milipede 3m long but only a few inches thick.

And since the massive bugs like Tankers and Plasma Bugs are also in the film, the criticism certainly applies to them; if we had only seen Warriors and the existence of much larger bugs was only implied, your point about Warriors might be valid, but we saw them right there, and an insect as gargantuan as the Plasma Bugs simply could not exist.

• You mentioned that you think the Bugs exoskeleton must be only as strong as Earth Insects because they were easily Breached by M.I Weapons, but I don't think that is necessarily accurate. I mean the Destructive power of those Bullets is obviously substantial, they may even be using Explosive rounds or something, it is possible the bugs armour is as tough as metal and still be easily destroyed by those weapons. If I remember correctly (though I haven't watched the movie in about a year) there are a few scenes were you can seem large bullet holes in pieces of Metal (at the outpost station I think)

Yes, in very thin metal like in the walls of the prefabricated structures at the outpost; we saw bullet holes in the thin, light metal walls of the mess hall, but IIRC the walls of the outpost itself were only dented, not penetrated. When Rico shoots a hole in the Tanker we see a layer of black armour that's a good couple of inches thick above the orange flesh; this would mean if the Tanker was made of something as tough as metal it would present a target like the primary surfaces of a modern main battle tank to a rifle round.

MI rounds appear to be a mixture of solid armour-piercing rounds and tracers; we never see an explosion when a round hits a hard surface, and there's only a splat of blood when Rico shoots Rasczek after he gets his legs torn off; there are also no visible explosions when Carl shoots a caged Warrior at close range during the newsreel clip, nor is he wearing any protection in case of flying shrapnel from explosive rounds.

• For instance remember the news article about "foolish Colonists" who got killed by bugs?, well in the footage shown the human bodies were not eaten, they were just ripped to pieces and left there.

Unless that footage was taken by a drone camera [which we have no visual evidence of the existence of; MI advanced recon seems to be with infantry judging by the incident at the outpost] it would have to have been taken after the MI had re-taken the planet from the bugs. Since we don't know how many colonists there were in Fort Joe Smith, we can't really say if any were eaten or not; as we saw several troops torn apart and rather messily devoured during the attack on Klendathu, we can only really assume the bugs can eat humans; we certainly never saw them eat anything else.

Assuming the bugs aren't vaguely similar to Earth insects requires a huge number of unjustified assumptions to be made regarding their physiology, eating habits and so on; we know they're air-breathing organisms, are conspiciously not as bulletproof as we would expect them to be if they were made of material as hard as steel, and are visually similar to earth insects. They can thus be criticised on the grounds that Giant Insects Are Silly, though, as said, unless this can be sourced it probably counts as original research and since ST is hardly the only giant insect movie it's not exactly clear why we need it here specifically; ST never pretends to be a documentary.

• Personally I think the section on the Criticism of the M.I's Tactics is fine

Except that it doesn't cite sources and assumes the MI's poor tactics are the result of error by the filmmakers rather than a deliberate decision to show a military designed to be as wasteful as possible. This assumption is unjustified without a source to back it up.

• surly it would have taken thousands of years for an asteroid to travel such an immense distance, unless the Bugs have some kind of Hyperspace travel, which is not suggested)

There's a suggestion in the movie that something is done to that particular asteroid, but it's never clear precisely what; the scene where the vast asteriod that destroys BA suddenly appears in front of the Roger Young never explains what's going on or why the ship didn't detect such an enormous rock until it was literally right on top of it; they mention a 'gravity well' and then suddenly there's a bloody great asteroid in front of them.Hrimfaxi 05:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The criticism of the bugs has no place in the article. It's been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Personal Robot (talk • contribs) 19:48, 2 May 2006 UTC

Damnit put criticism of the bugs back. We need every section that we can that puts Noumier and Verhouver to shame! Quickly, someone put up a section that says personal attacks made against Verhouver and Noumier for this move.72.195.158.95 09:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Heinlein Liberation Front

Do they ever show X-rays of the Bugs proving that they have no endoskeleton or other internal support structures, and no lungs? No (The disected insects in the biology class were not the same species, they were identified in the film as "tarkelian sand beetles"). Therefore to assume that the Bugs' internal anatomy is identical to Earth insects just because they look like them is speculation and Original Research. Noclevername 15:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The Bugs are not actually bugs. Just because in the story they are described as 'The Bugs' does not mean that they are infact ginormous manifestations of earth-like arachnids. The term 'Bugs' is more-than-likely to have been coined by the Earth population, as seeings in the story they know next to nothing about the species what so ever. The arguments over whether giants bugs could support their own weight or stick to walls or whatever is entirely void if this concept is even considered. ArdClose 14:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is currently not about the movie

Let's see...Plot? No. Characters? No. Box office information? No. All we have here is a big essay on politics and a lot of unsourced fan criticism. I'll have a crack at a re-write of it later after re-watching the movie, tags added until then. Hrimfaxi 07:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the majority of the unsourced criticism has been removed, as has the 'parallels to the Vietnam War' section on the basis you can compare a fictional war movie to most wars and find something similar [For example, the massed infantry charges and use of Tanker Bugs as battering rams at the outpost is very reminiscent of medieval siege warfare] and it's pointless to include it unless the comparison is noteworthy, which it isn't.

It's worth looking at the Lord of the Rings movie articles for a good example of how to handle a popular movie [Starship Troopers has a freshness rating 60% on Rottentomatos] that's criticised by fans; each of those have a 'deviations from the source material' section to describe differences between the books and the movies, not half the article taken up with long-winded 'criticism of the...' sections. Hrimfaxi 03:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Good advice, but of dubious usefulness. After all, Peter Jackson actually read all of the book he was adapting, and deliberately aimed to adapt it. "Raving LotR Geek" would not be an inappropriate description for Jackson, who is open about his fanatical devotion to the book. By comparison, Verhoeven started with a fixed idea (mindless bug-hunt schlock), read a couple chapters of a book, completely misinterpreted it, and decided they were the same thing. At no point did he apparently consider changing his movie concept to something more highbrow. I'd say that your idea would be useful for handling issues of criticism in general, but this article has a far worse problem with that than the article on the LotR films does. That difference being, there actually *are* some LotR fans who liked the movie - unlike Starship Troopers. The only people who'd read Starship Troopers who liked the movie, are the people who hated it and called it fascistic. They loved the movie, since it mirrored all their criticisms so well. Kasreyn 14:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That's completely untrue. I for one loved both the book and the movie. And I know several other people of that opinion. The movie is just such an obvious satire of fascism I can't understand why people call it fascist. It's like The dictator with charlie chaplin. But I see the book and movie as two separate stories albeit with a lot of similarities. --Dalen 21:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• By comparison, Verhoeven started with a fixed idea (mindless bug-hunt schlock), read a couple chapters of a book, completely misinterpreted it, and decided they were the same thing. At no point did he apparently consider changing his movie concept to something more highbrow.

Can you source that? Verhoeven claims that he was attempting to parody the militaristic culture of the book and many see Starship Troopers as an intelligent film about a dystopian society that's hiding behind the disguise of being a big stupid action movie. The 'Doogie Himmler' citation from badmovies.org actually says this specifically; "Starship Troopers is actually a good movie masquerading as a really bad one; it was also wasted on ninety percent of its target audience, making it the most irritatingly misunderstood film I've ever seen. "

• That difference being, there actually *are* some LotR fans who liked the movie - unlike Starship Troopers. The only people who'd read Starship Troopers who liked the movie, are the people who hated it and called it fascistic.

Again, can you source this, or is just an opinion you yourself have? I've read the book [though too long ago to remember it well, admittedly] and still enjoyed the movie, because I sat down to watch a Big Stupid Action Movie, not Starship Troopers: The Movie of the Book. 60% freshness on Rottentomatos shows a film with a lot of people enjoying it, and the film's box-office success shows people loved it. Criticism belongs in its own section, but read the article and seriously tell me you'd be able to figure out this film was popular or well-received by the general public. Hrimfaxi 15:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll put all my replies here, for readability. My source on Verhoeven is his own admission that he only read the first couple of chapters. That's no way to go about honestly making a satire of a book. That's called "finding a property that resembles your intentions well enough (you think) in order to increase sales". I have a hard time thinking anyone thought it was some sort of misunderstood high satire that was so well-disguised people just "didn't get it". That sort of argument is the last rallying cry of the deluded. If it was a satire, it was a hamfisted and crude attempt if that.

My only source re: your second point is that I've never met a person who liked the book who didn't loathe the movie. I suppose I misspoke myself; I meant to say in effect "people who liked the book hated the movie", and that this was as good a reason as any to consider it, at best, a complete failure of translation, or what this article already says it is: a mean-spirited slap in the face to Heinlein. I can find no other way of interpreting the vast differences in tone between the two works. I also have a hard time seeing rottentomatoes.com as a source, either.

And in case you were wondering, the reason why so many people are pissed off about the movie, is that they didn't sit down to see "Big Stupid Action Movie". They sat down to see Starship Troopers: The Movie of the Book, as you put it, because that is how it was billed. The best you can say about the movie is that it was falsely advertised. Maybe you saw Starship Troopers later, when its complete dearth of cerebral material was widely known. If so, good for you - you knew what you were getting into. Those of us who are Heinlein fans who wasted good money on opening day, did not. Kasreyn 21:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

To me 'complete dearth of cerebral material' is a pretty odd comment, because I see the movie as the most intelligent (not to mention hilarious) satire of American militarism in years... and even more important today than when it was released. I'm just amazed that Verhoeven managed to get $40,000,000 from Hollywood to make something that blatant (though I guess Hollywood is full of lefties). Mark Grant 23:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Who knows? If Verhoeven had been honest about what sort of movie he was making, maybe I'd feel differently. Kasreyn 01:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it was a mistake for him to use the book title for the movie. After all, anyone who liked the book enough to go see the movie probably wasn't going to like the movie much, so I can't see too much of a marketing benefit there. Mark Grant 01:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, for anyone who hadn't heard of the book prior to the movie's release, the title is perfect for describing a movie with lots of shooting, gore, sex, and no resemblance of plot. Virogtheconq 03:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

72.195.158.95 09:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)== Some viewpoints not often seen ==

Robert Roten's thoughts on the differences between novel and movie. Selected quote: "...fascism has nothing to do with Heinlein's book."

Christopher Weuve's essay is also very thought-provoking on the differences between the book and the film, which he describes as a total loss brought about by failure to understand Heinlein's work. ("One can lead a child to knowledge but one cannot make him think.")

Out of a sincere belief that a well-educated wikipedian is a more NPOV wikipedian, I hope some of my fellow editors will take the time to read up on these underrepresented points of view. I also am hoping to include them as external links in the form of criticism. If no one objects, I'll add them in a few days. Kasreyn 15:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not for representing what we feel are 'underrepresented points of view.' Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Unless you can demonstrate these views are in some way notable, they don't belong here. Hrimfaxi 13:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not asking that these be entered into the article. I'm merely saying that I feel reading these links may help editors understand the novel and the movie better. If it's important to you to keep the talk page clear of such things, you can go ahead and remove them. Kasreyn 19:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

About Wikipedia not being a soapbox. Now I've got to warn you I'm about to invoke Godwin's law. One can hate Hitler, Stalin, PolPot, etc. but just because your thinking is biased against these people doesn't mean they each didn't murder millions of people. In that same sense, I hated this movie and as a result the people responsible for it, but just because I'm biased against them doesn't negate their war crimes.72.195.158.95 09:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Heinlein Liberation Front

I was totally put out by the way the bugs were depicted in the movie vs. the way the book presented them. In the book; no tankers bugs, no plasma bugs, there WERE however workers who were non-violent and resembled warriors, and warriors who USED WEAPONS - guns! NOT ferocious beaks, forelimbs and other assorted 'natural' weapons. In the movie, a brain bug was HUGE, and sucked brains - in the book; no brain sucking, and When Rico went underground to rescue his platoon Sergeant, Zim, Zim was HOLDING UP THE BRAIN BUG USING IT AS A SHIELD when he was found. Kinda hard to do that with something as big as what was depicted in the movie. polarbear_mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.136.33.253 (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense

"The movie is loosely based on the novel Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein. While it uses many of Heinlein's characters and settings, there are notable differences of plot and presentation. Some dialogue is straight out of the book, or some variation of it, while many of the characters and themes are not from Heinlein's story. Additionally, some of the characters have been significantly altered; one character who was male in the book is female in the movie in order to add a love interest sub-plot, while another character who dies halfway through the novel survives to the end of the movie, and so on."

What?

Fixing. Kasreyn 00:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like it stayed the same, which is fine by me. "Loosely" is the operative word here. I'm not sure that there is really any other way to describe the movie. It is, in fact, based on the novel by Heinlein. Yes, he changed characters and some plot. Battlestar Galactica did the same thing with the reboot, and if I remember correctly, it says "Based on..." during the intro? Either way, you have to credit the original piece of work. I'm sure if you watch the movie's credits, you'd see almost the same verbiage used at the end of the credits as we use here. Or possible "Adapted from..." --Wolf530 01:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, from what I can see, the discrepancy indicated by the anon is still gone. Kasreyn 22:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes the movie is just like the book in the same sense that if I were to make a movie loosely based on the Revolutionary War about vikings fighting centaurs. Also about this movie actually being a satire, need I remind you that Reefer Madness is watched as a satire now but was intended to be an anti-pot PSA. Except in this case you can't take enough drugs to fix this movie.72.195.158.95 10:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)HLF

There is a reason it's called Science Fiction

It always pisses me off when people try to apply real science to science fiction. Seriously, people who take movies like this too seriously need to chill out! So what if bugs really can't get that big? Would it make a good story if they were fighting a horde of palm sized insects? These are the same group of people who over analyze Star Trek and Star Wars and forget the entire point. Fiction is meant to entertain and I feel sorry for people who can't learn to suspend their disbelief and truly enjoy a film, no matter how cheesy, for what it is worth. Paul Verhoeven is on record stating that the fact that the movie breaks from the book so much and that the movie is so cheesy is completely deliberate. Verhoeven states that he hated the book and was thus parodying it. Also, there is no exaltation of fascism in the movie at all. The fact that certain people in the film wear uniforms reminiscent of the SS is part of that parody. Otherwise it could be said that the film is parodying any form of government, the uniforms simply reinforce their intent.

Yep... it's called thaty way because it's based on SCIENCE. It may use futuristic stuff and rely on tech that is yet undiscovered at the time of writing, but genre conventions demand a modicum of believability... if suspension of disbelief is stressed too far, as well write fantasy. And sorry... maybe verhoeven did not mind making cheesy stuff, but I'll take more than a hastily thrown on "second degree" excuse before I stop thinking he's actually glorifying the totalitarian and militaristic aspects of Nazi Germany, instead of parodying them. --Svartalf 17:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on! Are you out of your mind? Surely you don't believe that the Movie is actually in favour of Fascism do you? If so then all I can say is, you have a very poor understanding of Satire.

As for everyone taking it too seriously, well maybe, it's always fun to talk about the possibilities of a movie though.

I don't think most people really care whether Giant Bugs are really possible, it's just fun to see them anyway, I certainly don't care, there is always a certain amount of Fantasy in any Sci-Fi, that's what makes it watchable, you've just got to accept that.

--Hibernian 23:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• It always pisses me off when people try to apply real science to science fiction. Seriously, people who take movies like this too seriously need to be shot! So what if bugs really can't get that big? Would it make a good story if they were fighting a horde of palm sized insects?

Would you be able to take a film seriously if it involved a squad of marines fighting giant intelligent dishwashers? Carnivorous cocktail sausages? No, of course not. There always has to be a certain amount of believability to SciFi or the result is just laughable, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes style.

While it's certainly true that it's possible to suspend disbelief through Starship Troopers, it's also true no insect can ever reach that size, and therefore some people will find it a little difficult to swallow on that basis. I'd watch out from claiming anyone who disagrees with you 'should be shot,' though, and go read WP:NPA.

And yes, anyone who thinks this movie is glorifying totalitarian states isn't watching it very carefully for the parts where the Federation, say, doesn't give a damn about casualties, deliberately sends a force of troopers to a planet crawling with bugs without telling them [Planet P and the outpost], has a legal procedure that goes from capture to execution in less than a day, and so on. Hrimfaxi 06:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Try looking up the difference between science fiction and space opera sometime. You might be surprised to learn that the latter is a better term for what you're describing. Kasreyn 12:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I looked it up and it said that Space Opera is a form of Science Fiction. If the fact that the aliens happen to look like giant bugs ruins your enjoyment of a film, don't watch the film.

Noclevername 13:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Reading this section makes me think few who write here actually read or have read modern prose science fiction.* The rise of popularity of modern SF after John Campbell took editorship of Astounding in 1938 was his insistence not only good story telling but that science or 'super science' have a basis in real science. It had to be backed up to 'feel' real , have a 'lived in look' and in general not stray into pure fantasy. There was a good reason for this, SF had been derided for many years because it was called that 'silly Buck Rodgers stuff', alas it took about 25 plus years of hard work by many good SF writers to dispel the 'literary racial slurs' against prose SF. Now days it is even taught as serious literature in university. One of the posters here might pursue the article Hard science fiction.

• This 'its only a movie' canard I have seen so many times, especially in regards to SF films, I am almost dead sure this kind of remark comes from an individual who does not read!--aajacksoniv (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

satire on the book?

"and what they saw as the book's endorsement of militarism." - this may be my view of the film and interpritation of the facts surrounding the film, but I would imagine, since not much of the book was read by the director that any satire is nto directed at the book but at the world at large (be it US specific or not). If there is evidence of (non raving novel fans) people considering this a satire book please correct me, but from everything I can gather the book is almost ireelevant to any issues raised by the film. Also the phrase "(even if unevenly subtile or effective as such) " I would consider unnecersary. Most people assume that they can form their own opinions about films and if the quality of satire is a siginifcant issue then perhaps it deserves its own section detailing the debate about it.

Also in the previous paragraph it states that veiws were polarised while only giving one of those views. it also opens ststing a polarisation of views occured and closes saying that views were divergent, I would consider one of these statements redundant.

The mention of censorship in germany I would consider better placed outside the section on the politics of starship troopers and would better fit under its own title or under 'controversies surrounding the film' or similar, also personally I would consider that many of reasons are alleged sa, clearly from the rest of the article and the discussion pages not everyone agrees that the film is xenophobic etc. Also it is unclear what the censorship entails as the description simply seems to describe what would be (in the UK) and 18 rated film, if this is the case then it is not censorship, if nto then this needs to be made clearer.

I could make some fo this changes, but I am new to wikipedia editing and, especially nto knowing the history of the article felt it better to place my comments here for others to consider.

62.49.1.131 02:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your post. All too often, new users err on the side of action rather than caution. I'm impressed. I think you'll do great here.

The thing about the "satire", is that I've mostly heard it from those who despise the novel. My opinion is that the movie is either a sophomoric misunderstanding or a hateful mock. Calling it a "satire" is a way to avoid both those charges and sneer at the novel at the same time. You are right that the book and the film have almost nothing in common thematically, and only share a few surface details. This is why most fans of the novel have a hard time accepting it as a "satire" - to be an effective satire, you must at least have something in common with the original, in order to have a jumping-off point to begin your satire. I can't show you a video of Bozo the Clown and then call it a satire of President Bush. He'd have to at least be wearing a Bush mask - there has to be an identification with the original work.

As to the xenophobia, the film could either be blindly xenophobic or could be making a statement against xenophobia. It's hard to tell. I agree that the censorship in germany issue is of little importance.

Regarding "(even if unevenly subtile or effective as such)": agreed. It's opinion and should be removed. Cheers, Kasreyn 08:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally I've found that it's mostly Americans who claim it's a bad adaption of the novel: most Europeans I know seem to immediately recognise it as a satire of American militarism, and the novel is irrelevant to them. It's also worth noting that the entire movie is framed as a propaganda recruitment film for the Federal military (I think Verhoeven mentions that on the commentary), so we could hardly expect it to be anything but 'gung ho' melodrama. Mark Grant 23:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

How can the novel be irrelevant, when Verhoeven used plot and theme elements from it? How can the novel be irrelevant when Verhoeven then took his work in an entirely different direction and put it to an entirely different use than the paying audience was led to believe ("satire" rather than the expected adaptation)? It's patently dishonest. You either make a satire or you make an adaptation. You don't dress a satire up as an adaptation; that sort of deception is precisely why Americans hated his movie.

You know what occurs to me? If Verhoeven had made an honest satire - if he had used no plot elements from Starship Troopers (such being, as you say, "irrelevant"), and if he had named his flick "Spaceship Warriors" starring Ronnie Jico, he wouldn't have been able to draw in Heinlein fans. Hell, if he had done it that way, I'd probably have gone to the theater and loved the film. But apparently he wanted the extra dollars that could be earned by tricking people into thinking they were going to actually be seeing "Starship Troopers" on the screen. Kasreyn 00:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Notice it was in the sentence starting with "Others regarded it as... ". It was expression of opinion of some people, not the author. Done anyway. I'm disgusted about this article. The talk section is longer than the article. It belong more in the forum section of the IMDB than on the Wikipedia. Goodbye guys. Arkham6

Rewrite, 7-7-06

Hey all. I added a cast list, and plot summary. The summary might be a little long, but I tried to focus on the fact that the movie follows Rico and catch all of the 'high points.' Feel free to update with correct information, as I was working with some loose plot summaries and my own memory.

Also, I re-arranged the sections just slightly, by moving the spin-offs into one sub-section called "Spin-off media." I thought this was a more organized layout.

Hope this helps. --Wolf530 01:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Long story, trivia and speculations taking over the rest

The text is way too long (especially the spoiler part is painfully detailed) and contains lots of practically irrelevant speculations who intended what.

If these speculations are really so important then perhaps they could make it into leaf article of its own like Interpretations of film Starship Troopers so the main article could be kept clean and to the point. This is similar to dealing with massive "popular culture references" sections (see Gorilla for example).

What the section on football is doing here is beyond me.

I removed reference to an article [5] that talks about everything but sexual morale (added [6]). Pavel Vozenilek 03:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In the triviva section it mentions various other shows the suits have been in but ommits Crusader, is this because it's just a few examples of other shows that the suits have been in or simply an oversight?

Politics of Starship Troopers Section

I remember seeing an interview with Verhoeven when the film came out where he said something to the effect that the goal of the project was to make a film about "young people fighting giant insects in space". Most of the arguments about politics by the one reference given (Robert Peterson) are extremely weak--a democracy where only a subset of the population can vote is a dictatorship, yeah ok. I assume that's the most "notable" source out there. I really don't think the annals of history would miss all this analysis. Really the most notable thing about this film was the shower scene. Typical Verhoeven. And I actually liked the movie way more than the book, which I hated.

The section looks like a combination of original research, weasel words, and fringe views. 64.163.4.225 03:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That section may not be perfect, but we've got to have some kind of political analysis about the movie. In my opinion, it would be crazy not to. I mean I myself have written lengthily analyses on the political meanings of this film, though I'm sure none of that would be acceptable here, as it would probably be considered original research (which I suppose it is). --Hibernian 08:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In the issue of Empire with Spiderman 3 on the cover, there's a lengthy and decent interview with Verhoeven on all kinds of things. Unfortunately I've lost my copy, but I'm sure someone can dredge one up from somewhere. It's bound to have useful information; at least enough to make the analysis based on something other than OR. Seegoon 14:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There definitely has to be a significant section of the article devoted to the politics of the movie. Just for the record - this is the first time I've stopped by Starship Troopers here on Wikipedia - interesting to see that this movie is attracting a disproportionate amount of editing attention many years after its release - that says something about the movie, at the very least. I remember seeing the movie, the first time (And I, like MOST who saw the movie NEVER read the book), and it immediately hit me as a great satire upon rampant militarism/fascism, ie the Nazis in the past, and the dangers society could head in that direction again in the future - most obviously represented by the USA in the future. I thought it was such a great satire that I went and bought the DVD immediately it came out. Anyone who can't see it is satire must struggle on your average IQ Test. Its amazing how life imitates art imitating life isn't it. I mean, coming up with spurious reasons to attack some (DANGEROUS!) Bugs on some far off world - does it sound familiar? Does to me. jkm 09:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

While I think it would be good to document the reaction to the politics of the movie, everything must be verified. As it is, the section is almost pure Original Research. Ashmoo 06:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Speculation or info from the book?

In the section called "Complications", there's the line "A devastating war between the Anglo-Russian Alliance and China has left humanity weary of internal wars. Also devastating Space Wars has left millions of humans dead" which, from what I remember, is not mentioned in the movie. Is this some background information from the book, or is it just speculative? I read the novel a very long time ago and don't remember it too well; even if the "Anglo-Russion alliance" etc. was from the book, it doesn't really have a place in this article.Pooneil 06:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is questionable whether it need be mentioned in the movie article, however, the Russo-Anglo-American war against the Chinese Hegemony is discussed in several places as it is the war that triggers "The Collapse" out of which arises the "Federation". However, here is one passage:

We were reviewing events after the war between the Russo-Anglo-American Alliance and the Chinese Hegemony, 1987 and following...

As for the "Space war", there is mention of Space warfare in the book, but it mentions nothing about "millions of humans" dead that I remember

The historians can't seem to settle whether to call this one "The Third Space War" (or the "Fourth"), or whether "The First Interstellar War" fits it better. We just call it "The Bug War" if we call it anything, which we usually don't...

This seems to imply that there have been several "Space wars", presumably within the Solar system as the first bug is the first such war to be interstellar.

-- Vedexent (talk) - 13:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

The Criticism section is not big enough and too apologetic. It should take up at least 1/4 to 3/4 of the article. I'd prefer the criticism section constist of 9/10 of the article but I'm willing to compromise. Also, it should have alot more scathing criticisms, and with quotes. Who removed the quoting of disappointed Heinlein fans who called it "Head of the Class goes to War." If my demands are not met within 24 hours I will give them the $1 with which to produce "Starship Troopers 4: The Legend of Rico's Gold" using the same decade-old cgi from the first movie and hire the usual cast of shitty actors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.195.158.95 (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

So just to recap 3/4 of the article should consist of the criticism section filled with instances of people just pissing all over the movie for every reason or I'll let them waste more of the world's resources with a fourth movie.72.195.158.95 09:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Heinlein Liberation Front

Theatres

It was never released in theatres, right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.86.151.79 (talk • contribs).

I think you're talking about Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Studio Accountants in Search of More Money.

Atlant 11:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Discuss Criticism

Because this is the discussion page I thought we could have an open discussion in which we just **** on this war crime of a movie.68.14.159.216 13:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Heinlein Liberation Front

This isn't for discussion about the movie, it is for discussion about how to make the article an accurate, sourced, NPOV article worthy of being in an encyclopedia. You will need to take your desire for a dicsussion about 'how bad the movie is' to a forum outside of Wikipedia.

A discussion of the film's "betrayal" of Heinlein's awful, gassbagging novel is no more germane to this article than a discussion of the chess club geeks who read it. DB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.144.46.116 (talk) 05:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://caspervandien.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=248&highlight=starship+troopers
  • In Starship Troopers (film) on 2007-06-03 14:33:56, 404 Not Found
  • In Starship Troopers (film) on 2007-06-10 16:51:31, 404 Not Found

--Stwalkerbot 16:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Notes on the Politics

There are more than one dvd release of starship troopers, not all of them contain the same commentary. Here is the imdb link to the one I believe has the "making of" documentary:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120201/

At least one release contains only a commentary track, however both it and the link above reference Verhoeven's quote.

Verhoeven states in the documentary that he wanted to depict a model of a "successful" fascist society. I don't have quotes now - the doc is on an older release, I'll find it - but the gist was that Verhoeven wanted to concentrate on the effect of militarism on a healthy society, isolating its effect from all other common problems such as racism, sexism and poverty. Instead of referring to Nazis or similar fascists of the past he created fascists who aren't bigoted in any visible way, so his film would be purely about military rule and the effect of war in creating it.

It is worth mentioning somehow that this film's mixed reaction at it's release is not necessarily evidence that its message is mixed or obscure. Some reviewers actually thought it was pro-fascist, even though it was so over-the-top and tongue-in-cheek in its patriotic themes. Many other viewers "got" the movie immediately, as Verhoeven intended. It could be argued that the film reached its intended audience and thus was completely successful.

Finally this film served as an eerie parallel to the actual events of september 2001, and the reaction of the United States and its army. Substitute the U.S. and Europe for the Federation, the World Trade Center for Buenos Aires, and Middle Eastern Muslims for the bugs, and Starship Troopers looks almost like a prophecy.

71.34.241.202 04:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Artorius

Clothing

"The symbols of the Federation and some of the clothing styles are greatly modeled on the Nazis' clothing styles..."

I very much agree that this is a film about fascism, but aren't the uniforms used much more based on those of the Wehrmacht rather than the Nazi party? BTLizard (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Racist and pointless POV

Verhoeven's use of fascist emblems to imply criticism of the Federation may be related to his background.[citation needed] He and some of his crew come from the Netherlands, which endured occupation in World War II. Verhoeven himself witnessed dead bodies of fellow countrymen killed by bombs, as his home was close to the German rocket base and was frequently bombed by Allied air forces, hence the pervasive feel of moral equivalence between a victim and a culprit in not only this, but all of his movies.

First off, what does this mean, and second, why is it here? It suggests that Verhoeven's directorial style was influenced by his ethnicity, without any support, and then goes on to weave this into a "pervasive" quality of his movies, again without support. This is editorializing at its most nonsensical.72.78.172.138 (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Emil Steinberger?

Who came up with the idea that Emil Steinberger was in this movie, or even that there was a character named Ludwig van Drussen? I've found no reference to either the actor or the character on IMDB, Steinberger's website, the German and French versions of Steinberger's wikipedia article, the original screenplay, not to mention the movie itself. Is this just some kind of joke? It should be corrected soon if nobody can come up with proof that Steinberger was in the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.238.182 (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this a Comedy?

I personally saw this film as a comedy... The battle scenes were probably the lamest and most unepic battle scenes that I have ever seen... And overall the entire film was freaking hilarious (the short cut scenes where it was like "Would You Like to Know More?"); and overall the story was so plotless and unconvincing that I would personally deem it a massive budget comedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.160.139 (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Rico's First Name in the Film

Article currently says his first name was Juan in the film, as in the novel. I'm pretty sure that the voice-over announcer in the final scene calls him "John Rico." I'll check sometime--or does someone know for sure right now? Sir Rhosis (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Filming location

I added a sentence regarding the filming location.Wilson44691 (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Militarism vs. Satire on Militarism: rubbish!

I think this paragraph demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of the book, perhaps even confusing the book and the film. Some of the claims made about the book are IMHO plain wrong, or at least controversial. For example:

1. "Heinlein's original novel depicted a strong, orderly, nationalistic traditionalist Earth in which conservative family values are touted as nearly universal, crime is rare and punished harshly, and serving a term of civil service is a prerequisite for full citizenship rights. Heinlein paints his version of the Earth government as a 'Father Knows Best' state (benevolent dictatorship), which punishes/restricts its "children" harshly when deemed necessary"

The state is not a dictatorship. It is a democracy with a limited franchise. I do not recall any such explicitly(!) paternalistic/law+order/family values overtones in Heinlein's description of the state (though there may be implicit ones). I'm fairly certain the phrases within quotation marks are not from the book, and the link to benevolent dictatorship should be deleted.

2. "The arachnids are presented as the prototypical monsters, mindlessly violent and hideous creatures inspiring nothing but fear and loathing in humans." "no effort is made to attempt to humanize the bugs or even detail their appearances beyond fragmentary descriptions"

Heinlein actually presents the arachnids as members of a highly developed (for example, they have guns and spaceships) interplanetary 'hive' society; a portrayal which I believe was intended to illustrate the clash between extreme collectivism, and individualism (as represented by the Terrans).

3. "It is deliberately not stated whether the bugs or the humans initiated the war"

I'm not sure about this. The film certainly made it deliberately ambiguous, perhaps even hinting that the humans were aggressors (so as to further damn the Terran's 'fascist' society). From what I can remember, the book does not dwell on this, only mentioning it insofar as it mentions that a clash for 'real-estate' is inevitable between two civilizations of the same galaxy. This would imply that there is no-one to 'blame', whereas the statement in this article implies that whoever 'started it' is perhaps morally blameworthy. Or perhaps I'm reading too much into it. Either way, I think it is 'fuzzy' and should be deleted.

I'm not trying to get into a political discussion, or make a value judgment on Heinlein's book. However, I think it is fair to say that this section inaccurately summarises or paraphrases the text and needs to be rewritten (whatever your opinions on starship troopers' politics). If this paragraph is intended to describe the film, then this is certainly made unclear in the next paragraph, which begins "The film, by contrast...". Furthermore, the title is fairly nonsensical.

213.2.206.90 (talk) 10:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you. The whole thing needs to be canned, according to WP:OR. I'd welcome a sensible dissection from journals/ books/ even respected reviews, but it is most likely that it would belong in the article on the book, not this. But I'm just tooting my horn, because there's no way I'm going to commit to an undertaking like that! Seegoon (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

In regards to point one, it is a bit too kind. Heinlein had fascist leanings and intended the society of Starship Troopers to be his view of a perfect world. The speeches by Rasczak are a known writers convention and can be considered Heinlein himself putting his own views to the reader. Verhoeven went even further and stated that his film depicts the society that America is becoming in the real world and as such the militarianism is not actually satire as critics often state. A democracy can be a benevolent dictatorship. For example Prime Minister Howard once publicly stated the exact same term as being more accurate for Australia's government than it's more common description as a constitutional democracy. Wayne (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I corresponded with Heinlein once, and his response made it quite clear that he was disgusted with (and/or disappointed by) anyone who simply assumed that any of his characters were necessarily parroting his own views (which were complex and contained internal contradictions, like most folks'). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Verisimilitude

Paul Verhoeven had already shown in Robo Cop and Total Recall that he did not have an eye for overall future science fiction 'look', compare his SF films with Kubrick's 2001, Ridley Scott's Blade Runner or George Lucas's Star Wars. Verhoeven has a kind of half way attempt to create a future 'lived in look' but with no depth of texture. Alas he is not the only director of SF films to do this.--aajacksoniv (talk) 11:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Newsreel narrator

Hi.

Sorry if I missed it, but who is the narrator for the FedNet newsreels in the movie? --Nerroth (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

IMDB lists a John Cunningham as the "Fed Net announcer". Seegoon (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Impact on other movies

It seems to me that every time I read the write up of a new SF movie on IMDB it says that the uniforms or something about the set was reused from Starship Troopers; for example Imposter (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0160399/trivia) and Planet of the Apes (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133152/trivia) to name just two. Kegon (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that is a detail to mention here. At the articles Imposter and Planet of the Apes, it could be mentioned, but not the other way around. In addition, I would not cite IMDb's trivia pages; they are notoriously unreliable. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 20:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It's quite easy to see for yourself as the helmets used in Troopers are quite distinctive. I think it's worth a mention here because the look of Troopers has influenced the look of so many other movies. Kegon (talk) 09:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It would help to cite a reliable source for readers to verify the impact. Let me know if you need help finding a source! Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Distancing and Sanitizing

I can appreciate the urge to disassociate this movie from the novel, but "with some names and details taken from Starship Troopers, a novel by Robert A. Heinlein," just takes things too far. Even if the movie started out as an unlisenced project that was meerly derivative of the novel, the final product is unquestionably a realization of Heinlein's "Starship Troopers." A quality realization? I wouldn't say so. But the story is plainly Heinlein's. No greater distortions were imposed on the plot of the original than is typical of the adaptation of a novel for the screen. It's roughly as faithful as the contemporaneous "Contact."--158.111.5.33 (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds a bit odd. What about using "..that is roughly based on.." instead? --Conti|✉ 22:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"Based on" would mean that the book was there from the beginning. "Retrofitted to" might work, but would confuse a lot of readers. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"...incorporates elements of..."? Doniago (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This abomination is absolutely nothing like the novel. It should have said "we borrowed some names and the title from a book by Robert A. Heinlein." Verhoeven should be ashamed -- he actually thought the book was about a war. Srilm (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Verhoeven understood perfectly well what the book was about, and hated both Heinlein and the book. In fact, the film is clearly directed against the book. 85.65.139.67 (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but without reliable sourcing you're talking about original research that's inappropriate for inclusion in the article. Doniago (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Comparison with the novel

I added a little less than 100 words to this section to flesh out exactly what the primary deviations were. Looking at the end result it appears to satisfy WP:UNDUE nicely. Please discuss changes before making them. Rapier (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a related discussion that may be worth review. The way I see it a problem is that you're claiming that the differences you list are primary, but really it should be third-party sources establishing what differences are considered primary. Doniago (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair comment, and I completely agree. I was at work when I wrote that and I'll be happy to remove that edit until I can find the sources that gave that analysis. I'll also look at that discussion. Thanks! Rapier (talk) 04:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

As per that discussion, would you agree that a simple examination of primary sources would allow any reasonable person to see that two "differences" (NOT the "primary", I agree, that wording needs to be changed) would be what I listed? The section itself is titled "Comparison with the novel", and other than saying "there are many differences" it really doesn't say anything. I feel that trying to summarize every single change (even the major ones) between the film and novel would create a serious WP:UNDUE issue, but at least by listing the two I mentioned a person can get a feel for how the book and novel differ. While I also will agree that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no reason to edit articles in a particular way, I don't feel that the Starship Troopers article is weakened by mentioning the differences between the novel and film without a secondary source. Thoughts? Rapier (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd still be concerned that if we start mentioning specific differences without sourcing to back up their significance that we're implying they're more significant than other differences between the two works. I'm not saying I'd undo your addition or anything...it could depend on how it's written... I suppose a statement like, "Some differences include x, y and z," might be okay. Also, I'm writing this fairly late at night for me, and as evidenced by the number of corrections I just made to my own comment this should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt. I'll also be the first to acknowledge I can be a bit pedantic about this. That being said, I very much appreciate your level-headedness while we discuss this! Doniago (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's getting a little late for me too. I'll try a better sentence tomorrow. Isn't it sad when a level-headed discussion is the exception as opposed to the rule? Have a good evening and happy editing! Rapier (talk) 05:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC) EDIT: AT THIS POINT I'M REMOVING THE NICKNAME FROM MY POSTINGS. SeanNovack (talk) 05:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think a depressingly large number of editors get amazingly overwrought when anything is done to their edits, regardless of reasoning...and they normally don't bother to ask what the reasoning was before becoming overwrought. I would guess finding movie reviews mentioning the (lack of) powered armor wouldn't be too difficult; finding comments from the film crew regarding its exclusion would probably be trickier. Anyway, thanks again for your eminently reasonable tone during the discussion, and I hope we can find a good compromise! Doniago (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Draft of new paragraph edit: "There are many differences between the original book and film, some of these include:

• The novel features an all-male Mobile Infantry and very little actual combat is shown, while the film focuses on heavy action scenes and the love triangle with Jonnie, Dizzy and Carmen.
• The novel is told exclusively from Jonnie's point of view describing his hero's journey from indifferent high school student (Appreciation of Television is listed on his transcript) to elite "cap trooper", and details the maturation process that entails.
• The film changes point-of-view focus between Jonnie and Carmen (who in the novel never had any relationship beyond friendship).
• The absence in the film of the "power armor" that was a central plot device in the novel, and had an entire chapter devoted to its description and use."

All of these differences are plain simply by looking at the primary sources, there is no judgement as to whether or not is is a "good" or "bad" change, and no POV judgement that these are the most important differences. In a section titled "Comparison with the novel", there really does need to be more than just "there are many differences" Thoughts? SeanNovack (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from other editors, but this strikes me as "acceptable", though I'd feel much better about it if there were sources to elevate the significance of the differences being mentioned and ideally explain why the changes were made, rather than just a list which other editors might in turn add to inappropriately. I won't oppose the addition, but I'm ambivalent about it. Doniago (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Basically, ditto Doniago. The language is nice and neutral, the list is short and covers just some major points (in terms of being really noticeable changes). But I fear that the addition of any such list without sourcing to at last reference that such changes exist (and ideally to expand a little bit as Doniago said) will quickly become a cruft list as other editors try to add every little change. I seem to recall several reviews at the time of the film's release noting some of this stuff. I wonder if we could use that to at least source the validity of the the statements (that said items ARE different). Anyone up to some review mining? Millahnna (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I've made the change, but I'll keep an eye on the article to make sure the section doesn't explode. Thank you for your valuable input! SeanNovack (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Harry Potter analogy doesn't work. As the American Cinematographer article referenced pointed out, the movie was retrofitted to sorta-kinda pretend to be a film based on one of the most famous military SF novels in history by one of the field's Grand Old Men, yet completely failed in representing anything meaningful from the book (regardless of one's opinion of the ideology or ideologies which the book may or may not represent). An article about the movie which glossed over this fact ignores the most notable aspects of this widely-hated film. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that RT gives the movie a 61%, I'd be curious to hear some substantiation for the "widely-hated" assertion. In any case, if we are to discuss the specific departures from the book than they should be backed up by real-world context, with any available explanation as to why the changes are made. Otherwise we're applying undue weight to the differences that we do discuss. WP articles should not include random lists of in-universe differences with no context provided, and it would be perilously close to original research for us to claim that the changes we list are the "important" ones without third-party sourcing. Doniago (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify: widely-hated by people who have actually read the book. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, but I'd still be curious as to your source for that claim. I read the book, and I must admit I preferred the film, but that's not a comment on the quality of either. Anyway, I think we can both agree this isn't really pertinent to the topic? Doniago (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

When a film that costs 105 million dollars in 1997 (a huge figure), loses money domestically, and only nets 16 million worldwide it isn't exactly a success. This information explains part of the reason why it was rejected by the fan community and lost out at the box office. A prime example of this kind of controversy can be read at [7], and dozens of other places if one searches. This isn't "cruft", it was a relevent issue with the film when it was released (much like the 1985 film adaptation of "Dune") and a direct influence on public reception. SeanNovack (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Without third-party sourcing, it would seem that the only arbiters of what specifically is or is not cruft when it comes to listing specific differences between the film and the novel are Wikipedia editors, and clearly there may be some disagreement there. I fully support a discussion of how the film's divergence from the novel may have contributed to its poor box office, but I don't think we should be citing differences without sourcing that establishes that the difference was considered significant. As far as I know this is the criterion used for every other film article with a "differences from the novel" section. Charlie St. Cloud, Harry Potter, Twilight, etc. Even extending this beyond film articles, my understanding is that Wikipedia articles should not contain lists of allegedly-significant items unless there is sourcing to verify that significance....in other words, if nobody made note of it in a reliable source, how significant can it really be? Doniago (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, this film was released 14 years ago, so finding timely secondary sources on the 'Net can be seriously problematic. I did provide you with a source that is more recent in my last argument that shows many of the significant problems people had with the film and it's comparison with the novel, there are many more that can be found from people that prefer the film or the novel more, and that argument alone shows that it was and is "significant". It was established by consensus months ago that this paragraph was acceptable, and now you are attempting to remove that consensus without putting forth an argument that brings up a new policy argument. Simply stating that you feel it is "cruft" is not sufficient to overturn that conseneus. SeanNovack (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that Wikipedia's policies are all about verifiability, if we can't find secondary sources, that's our problem, and not an excuse to include unreferenced material in the article. I haven't reviewed your source, but if it lists specific examples of differences, then by all means put them in the article with a citation; I don't have an issue with that. A paragraph being considered "acceptable" is hardly a ringing endorsement, and reservations were expressed by other editors at the time. While I won't disagree that my removal of material in this case was contrary to my earlier statements, consensus can change...that editors weakly supported the inclusion of the material previously does not mean they would do so now. In any case, there doesn't seem to be any harm in reconsidering the topic several months later; I know my views on this type of issue have evolved and (obviously) I would no longer support its inclusion given the precedents I am aware of. FWIW, in any case I'd forgotten that we'd discussed this previously (and I'm not sure that the text removed was identical to what we agreed upon at the time), so my apologies for my lapse of memory. Doniago (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I've requested additional opinions from the WP:FILM folks. Request is here. Also, FWIW I looked at your source and it appears to be a blog that would not meet the reliable source criteria, IMO. Doniago (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Doniago, you're a solid editor, but your bias is showing. Why didn't you ask for comments from the people at the Novels Wikiproject or the Science Fiction Wikiproject? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I brought it up at WP:FILM because the article is about a film. If you'd like to solicit feedback at other projects you are quite welcome to do so. Doniago (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

As per the RFC

I would say this is primarily a WP:SYNTHESIS issue, in that you are advancing observations based on two separate sources. Using the works as primary sources for plot summaries is one thing, but by using the two to present a combined basic analysis is OR because neither primary source provides a comparitive analysis. You definitely need a secondary source that documents the differences—at the very least—and to make it a good encylopedic inclusion preferably one that presents a rationale for the changes or some kind of analysis of them. Betty Logan (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm honestly not trying to be difficult here, but I want to be clear on what we are trying to source and what would be considered "Reliable". Are we sourcing the fact that there are differences between the novel and the film (as the original edit months ago called for)? Are we sourcing the fact that the differences were controversial? Are we sourcing the fact that the differences caused the film to fail at the box office? The goalposts keep moving here. Also, I'd like to see any Wikipedia POLICY that states that this content does not belong. This is a film that is directly taken from a novel using the same title, the setting, the names of the characters, and the primary struggle. The fact that the novel was extremely successful (required reading at all US Military Academies) and the film (which differed greatly from the novel because the director of the film found the book "boring and depressing") didn't even make it's production costs domestically is a notable fact that is readily apparent. You don't need to source the fact that the sky is blue, and it isn't original researsh to state that it is. This is the point that is trying to be made here. Please clarify the concerns so we are all working toward moving the issue forward rather than simply Wikilawyering.

What we are trying to source will dictate what kind of sources we require. Would we need to find a reliable secondary source to state the Superman is from Krypton? How about spelling out the differences between the Marvel and Mobius Silver Surfers? Think you can find a Washington Post article on that? Call me an inclusionist, but when primary sources are obviously different there is no "interpretation" involved. The differences are plain with primary sources, the response to these differences are plain, but by definition can only be found by going to places that state opinion. If opinions are found of people that make a living by reviewing novels and films then these become "review articles" and therefore are considered reliable secondary sources. If a wikipolicy can be quoted to state that these facts cannot stand on their own then we can go down that road then.

All that was originaly being stated is that there were differences. If this content is not allowed please point out that policy. If reasons must be given as to why this information should be in the article (other than the fact that it is fact) then we can go that route. If reliable sources are going to be asked for every word in every article in Wikipedia, then the Project is going to get a whole lot smaller. Let us know what you are looking for, and why you need it, and we'll work on that basis. SeanNovack (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:Due weight states Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. If no-one has covered the differences between the works in published writing then it shouldn't be included, because there is nothing out there to give weight to. If you take a typical book and a typical film adaptation then the number of differences you could list could be almost as long as the book itself; anyone can make a list of differences, but deciding which are the key differences is a viewpoint. Look at it this way, you want to list a difference because you think it is important, and Donagio is asking you to validate its selection as a key difference: has anyone else deemed this particular difference you want to document to be important enough to cover in a published work? If not then its just your opinion that it's important. If it's just your opinion we don't cover it; if it's an opinion in published writing then Due weight compels us to give it proportional coverage i.e. the policy on article content states we represent published viewpoints, not viewpoints of editors. Betty Logan (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and I agree completely. Now we have clarified exactly what we are talking about, and we can move forward. SeanNovack (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Starship Troopers: Invasion

Well the official Sony Films site now has a page up for this film. I dont feel comfortable with adding this due to my still disbelief this is true.

http://www.starshiptroopersinvasion-movie.com/

If someone could make sure this is correct I would appreciate it.--75.111.134.10 (talk) 04:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)RandomGuyWithNoAccount