f13.net

Movie's a couple years old, but I just caught it and all I can say is...
 :awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real:

It's everything that was ever stupid/hilarious about the first movie, dialed up to eleven. Not only are the humans still morons who can't figure out how to fight a giant swarm of bugs with anything besides small arms, but now they introduce their awesome new secret weapon: big stupid-ass MECHS. All of the "human Federation = Nazis" stuff is cranked up through the roof. It's a blatant bullshit B-movie parody of post-9/11 "mindlessly support the troops" America with some religious hilarity thrown in for good measure.

I mean, it's not what you could call a "good" movie by any stretch of the imagination and hasn't a scrap of subtlety, but it's worth the price of a rental if you enjoy schlock. I'll link the music video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIsv1YOFNys

Was this the one where almost the entire movie took place in a poorly constructed base with high cement walls, narrow corridors, and no roofs?

I think you're thinking of the altogether boring #2. This takes place in some human army base to start, then switches back and forth between military politics on Earth and dudes running around... uh... Silithus, basically.

Adding to Netflix queue.

Any more coed shower scenes? About the only thing that I would watch it for  :grin:

Basically. Same thing, only they're getting naked to be scanned for some reason that has to do with their mech suits.

That looks so Boll-level bad.

If nothing else, you'd enjoy the propaganda bits. The Bush years apparently inspired them to go way the fuck over the top with them. They've gone from "soldiers letting kids play with their guns" in the first movie to "Ann Coulter's fantasy version of America as presented by Goebbels" here.

It is worse than one, but better than two. But two was a joke of a movie, and three is nowhere near as good as one.

Oddly it took them three movies to return to the roots from whine the movies came from in the first place.

I could not get past the blinking flashlights that were supposed to be muzzle flashs. I turned it off after 2 minutes.

Nah, the "mechs" from the book were just suits of powered armor and made decent enough sense by sci-fi standards. They were fast, small enough to go inside buildings, but carried ludicrous firepower, up to and including tactical nukes. The mechs in this movie are just your typical large, slow, lumbering pieces of shit with the pilot contained entirely within the torso.


The first one was definitely a "better movie" with a larger budget and all that goes with it, but I could never really enjoy ST1 as anything but camp and parody anyway. Two areas that ST3 does pretty well in. I mean when they broke out the mechs I was just like "Fuck yeah!" because this isn't a real sci-fi action movie where I'd start bitching about how stupid they are, this is Starship Troopers, the sci-fi parody about military space fascists who are comically incompetent at fighting.

Courage! Duty! Honor!

"Starship Troopers 2" was more of a horror movie than an action movie, complete with a woman who's entire character motivation was 'get naked'. The ending was great though.

I'll take a look at "ST3" at some point.

I agree with you that 3 was a much needed return to the precedence of one, and was much more enjoyable than number two. But its still a far cry from the first one.

I actually own ST2 on DVD.  I bought it for a dollar at a drugstore somewhere.

And those employees are still laughing at you.

Bummer about the super-weapon. Tanks are so much better than mechs.

I wouldn't want anything else from a Starship Troopers movie. Anything not gobsmackingly stupid just wouldn't have sat right.

One of the better propaganda bits, spoilers obviously, and the audio is really low for some reason.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDmcgL9XLaM

"Peace Terrorist"  :awesome_for_real:

I've met an amazing number of people who think Starship Troopers was trying to promote a conservative warmongering message, NOT AS A JOKE.  I hate those people. 

Wasn't Heinlein actually serious when he wrote the book?

he was.

If Heinlein was serious or not is irrelevant though, because most people Tri talks about only saw the movies, and Verhoefen himself stated that the movie was a satire on Fascism and Militarism.

There's a libertarian utopian trend that sometimes rears its ugly head in American sci-fi that smells a bit of neocon proto-fascism, as seen in some Heinlein, some Orson Scot Card (although he reversed that 180 degrees with the final Ender books) and the Vatta's War series by Elizabeth Moon (which I jokingly call Reaganomics in Space!). I'm sure there are many others, but those are the most notable examples I can think of.

As Ursula k. LeGuin put it at a recent conference,"Science Fiction writers these days enjoy a shared reality with much of the populace"

I wouldn't say the book was promoting militarism/facism though.  He was indeed serious when he wrote it, but he was basically just stressing a system of only letting people who give a shit about the country the ability to vote and run in it.  To get that, you had to do national service (IE make a sacrifice for the country).  Even a blind quadriplegic could join if he asked, and they'd have to find a job for him.  All that mattered is that you gave time over to serve in the government, with the military just being one part of that.

I mean, I don't think that would ever really fly in real life, but it's hardly fascist/militarist concept (and frankly echo's what a lot of people on this board say in the politics forum, about not letting dumb ass's vote :p).

I recall reading an essay by Heinlein where he talked about this, batting around ideas for how to limit voting to people who give a shit and have two braincells to rub together. He mentioned Starship Troopers, then floated stuff like quizzes on the issues or math tests, poking holes in each as he went along and then ending with sort of a shrug. Starship Troopers reflected certain ideas he had, but he wasn't exactly committed to that system.

Heinlein knew how to tap into the typical Randian impulses of idealistic Americans, is all. The guy was great and all, but let's face it, his PhD was in T&A.

That's what i got from the book as well.

No.  You keep using terms for political belief systems incorrectly.

Libertarianism actually spans a huge array of political belief systems from anarcho-capitalism and more utopian style anarchism to what is essentially classical liberalism (in the US) to left-libertarians (for fiction, Banks is often cited as a left-libertarian) which aren't that different from some flavors of Marxism/communism.

Libertarian, most generally, just means an emphasis on personal freedoms with the real sticking point being how they rank on a scale of economic freedoms.  Which makes equating it with any flavor of fascism really misguided, since fascism usually revolves around an elite directing society/culture in an authoritarian system and abrogating personal freedoms for the good of the state.

Objectivism is just one branch of ideology that gets shoved into Libertarianism, and many of her social beliefs are pretty in-line with the modern American left (legalised abortion, opposition to conscription and organized religion, protection of civil rights and freedom of speech).  Pulling out the "Randian" derogatory term is essentially the same as equating all Communist/Marxist philosophies with the regime of Josef Stalin.

Neoconservatives are an outgrowth of the American liberal movement, and really aren't that (modern American) Conservative...  or at least Reagan era Conservative.  Which is part of the reason why there is the current gap between the various Tea Party/Libertarian-influenced/old "fiscal Conservative" sections of the Republican party, the religious elements (social conservatives), and the neocons.

Yeah, they call the equivalents neo-liberals over on this side of the pond.

Except they aren't.  Neoliberal is just a rhetorical catch-all term used as a pejorative for "people whose policies we don't like" (everyone from Blair and Clinton to Bush II has been labeled a neoliberal). 

Originally, it was more used for neoclassical economists and the "Washington Consensus"....  which the neoconservatives aren't. 

Whoa, way to over-analyze! First of all, my use of the term "Randian" wasn't derogatory. Sure, I think it is a simplistic reduction of other philosophies which studied the matter at hand more thoroughly (Aristotle, for starters), but I don't think its a gateway drug to goose stepping.

And surely, you can see the trend in Heinlein to emphasize individual freedoms and personal responsibility to the point of Nietzschian visions. This in turn gives birth to the fascistic societies of Starship Troopers because, hey, its no fun being an Ubermench all on your own! Gotta have buddies that are 'better' than the hoi-poloi! Starting to sound a bit like "an elite directing society/culture" to me! YMMV.

Randian isn't derogatory - it just means "the political philosophy of the self-delusional, messianaically batshit insane."

These days pretty much any title anyone gives to any political philosophy of another person is considered derogatory.