So many questions.
Are they going to call the movie “Helldivers 2”? because I haven’t seen Helldivers 1 yet.
Does this writer not know that there are already FIVE Starship Troopers movies, each worst than the last? News of a 6th film isn’t exactly stirring excitement in my loins.
Does Sony think claiming they’re “going back to the original book” is a good thing in this case? Heinlein’s novel has none of the political satire that Verhoeven injected into the story, and that audiences associate with the property. Starship Troopers played straight is… well, it would be the original Starship Troopers, but not nearly as interesting.
I viewed the movie as a play on the propaganda within the universe of the book (roughly the equivalent of films like “black hawk down”).
A movie playing it straight could be interesting. My only concern is how it will resonate with the current political situation. The original book was far more subtle in its view on fascism. It could easily turn into a fascist call to arms.
Verhoeven made the choice to make the movie a farce because he realized that making the movie serious would likely be interpreted as saying nice things about Nazis.
But they’re the same thing
I mean, as long as they put effort into it and cater to the fan base, it could do well. If it is just an attempt at using an established name to create a new, generic sci-fi universe, it probably won’t be a hit.
“Corporate needs you to find difference between this (motion) picture and this (motion) picture”
But Helldivers is based on Starship troopers the movie not the book but the new Starship troppers movie will be based not on the movie, so, the book?
The book and the movie are wildy different, the movie was made by someone that didn’t bother reading the full book so just winged the story and made his own kida thing.
That is leaving out the reason the movie isn’t cloessly following the book. It’s facistic. Like very much so.
The 1959 novel was wildly different but I think it perhaps won’t be well received.
Wasn’t the original novel just pro fascist, but the movie made it into a ‘pro fascist’ satire? Or am I remembering that wrong?
I was curious, cuz I wasn’t sure either. Wikipedia has a summary:
It won the Hugo Award for Best Novel in 1960,[3] and was praised by reviewers for its scenes of training and combat and its visualization of a future military.[11][12] It also became enormously controversial because of the political views it seemed to support. Reviewers were strongly critical of the book’s intentional glorification of the military,[13][14] an aspect described as propaganda and likened to recruitment.[15] The novel’s militarism, and the fact that government service – most often military service – was a prerequisite to the right to vote in the novel’s fictional society, led to it being frequently described as fascist.[14][16][17] Others disagree, arguing that Heinlein was only exploring the idea of limiting the right to vote to a certain group of people.
Lol And then for the 1997(!!) movie it says:
The film was directed by Paul Verhoeven (who found the book too boring to finish)
It had the stated intention of treating its material in an ironic or sarcastic manner, to undermine the political ideology of the novel.
You should read the novel yourself.
The first chapter is one of the best battle scenes I’ve ever read.
Also, the political system is democratic. The caveat is that in order to vote you have to demonstrated a willingness to put something ahead of your personal comfort. Anyone can do Service. It explicitly says in the book that “a blind man in a wheelchair” would be given tasks within his ability to perform in order to vote.
Thanks. Maybe i will read it.
Quick guide to Heinlein.
the name of the movie is “Predestination” It’s based on a story called “…All You Zombies.” Great time travel story.
“Tunnel In The Sky” In the future, interstellar teleportation allows mankind to colonize distant planets. A group of high school/college age students are sent to one undeveloped world for a three day survival test. When you read it you’ll see that it’s been ripped off a dozen times or more.
“The Man Who Sold The Moon” Written before Sputnik, thsi novel gets all the history and science wrong but it’s still a great read. A businessman decides to colonize the Moon, and uses bribery, ballyhoo, and bullshit to make it happen.
The man wrote both the ultimate hippie novel [Stanger In A Strange Land] and the ultimate Libertarian novel [The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress]
ok
I’m so excited. This could be as good as Madame web, or Even Kraven.
