Starship Troopers

[Beau]

Originally posted by: AsianriceX

Originally posted by: Beau

Originally posted by: AsianriceX

Originally posted by: NFS4
Loved it! I guess I'll buy it on DVD with my eBay Anything Points that I earned on my eBay Mastercard. Earned $24 last month

How could you bump this 2 month old thread? Booooooo

Either way, I own Starship Troopers, and I believe it's a fantastic movie. Quite possibly Doogie Howser's finest role, aside from his ass kicking wussy part in Undercover Brother.

:beer:

Jeezz... bash people for reposts, and bash them for searching, but bringing up old threads too?

Heh, after lurking on ATOT for long enough, I've learned that people will jump on you for just about anything. That's why I like to end my posts with a beer and a smile, because really, I'm not looking to pick fights over the internet. I just really like beer.

:beer:

 

[Epoman]

Originally posted by: MAME
Gonna go google for the red head's tits!

That just sounds bad!

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: yukichigai
My friend and I saw it in the theaters when it came out. We spent the entire time sitting in the back, laughing. It was good, but definitely satire. Just like the Heinlein story. It's very clear that it's poking fun at 50s war propaganda films and the "government knows best" mentality.

The whole thing is an allegorical refference to wars of the past, particularly WWII. The bit with the meteor attack is an obvious allegory of Pearl Harbor, the bugs represent the demonized versions of the enemy that the government portrayed any opposition to be. It's actually remarkably deep if you look at it closely, though with a certain amount of violence and boobies to keep our other interests piqued.

Damn. Now I want to go get the movie on DVD.

Hey, who mentioned Roughnecks? I heard from a friend that it was flippin' amazing.

I used to watch Roughnecks (CGI) every morning. The show itself was awesome. The CGI was pretty good.

 

[jst0ney]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Yes, it was a satire of war propaganda films and the glorification of facism. (That's why Verhoeven put Doogie Howser in a SS uniform.) I don't know whether he admitted it, but many people believe the casting of the terrible wooden actors also was intentional.

nod

 

[halik]

how can you not see the satyre??? Theres at least 5 segways in the plot that show all-out propaganda ("everyone does their part" "be a good citizen" etc). It's a great move that pokes fun at all the macho-macho war movies.

 

[JoeKing]

great movie, and what's wrong with using your mind, instead of turning it off, while watching a movie?

.... Total Recall rules!!

 

[MAME]

Originally posted by: Epoman

Originally posted by: MAME
Gonna go google for the red head's tits!

That just sounds bad!

Speaking of bad, her tits were crappy.

Oddly enough, my gf is sleeping no more than 2 inches away from me, snoring, while I google for tits. Woo!

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: yukichigai
My friend and I saw it in the theaters when it came out. We spent the entire time sitting in the back, laughing. It was good, but definitely satire. Just like the Heinlein story. It's very clear that it's poking fun at 50s war propaganda films and the "government knows best" mentality.

The whole thing is an allegorical refference to wars of the past, particularly WWII. The bit with the meteor attack is an obvious allegory of Pearl Harbor, the bugs represent the demonized versions of the enemy that the government portrayed any opposition to be. It's actually remarkably deep if you look at it closely, though with a certain amount of violence and boobies to keep our other interests piqued.

Damn. Now I want to go get the movie on DVD.

Hey, who mentioned Roughnecks? I heard from a friend that it was flippin' amazing.

dude, can you just watch a movie and either enjoy it or hate it?

dude, I'm willing to bet that you have absolutely horrible taste in everything. If you don't get the Fascist satire, then you don't understand the movie.

Jesus, I can't believe you actually have an Eagles' lyric in your sig.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: MAME

Originally posted by: Epoman

Originally posted by: MAME
Gonna go google for the red head's tits!

That just sounds bad!

Speaking of bad, her tits were crappy.

Oddly enough, my gf is sleeping no more than 2 inches away from me, snoring, while I google for tits. Woo!

ROTF! :thumbsup:

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: halik
how can you not see the satyre??? Theres at least 5 segways in the plot that show all-out propaganda ("everyone does their part" "be a good citizen" etc). It's a great move that pokes fun at all the macho-macho war movies.

After watching the film, I would say that 'satirical' gives the director/writer etc too much credit.

Satire done well, such as "Dr. Strangelove [...]" can be quite compelling and even somewhat enlightening regardless of its plausibility.

With 'Starship Troopers,' I found that the director attempted to portray satire by defaulting to its most ineffective, and frankly, simplistic form: the bombastic. The intentional incorporation of the ridiculous can definitely produce respectable works; however, without a sense of irony or without depth that overshadows the surface flaccidity, even a film?s underlying message will not be taken seriously.

Satire has the potential to expose the audience, via the unreasonable, to ridiculous norms by which humanity allows itself to live, while still making a creditable argument. In my opinion 'Starship Troopers' approached satire in its crudest form.

 

[Atomicus]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: halik
how can you not see the satyre??? Theres at least 5 segways in the plot that show all-out propaganda ("everyone does their part" "be a good citizen" etc). It's a great move that pokes fun at all the macho-macho war movies.

After watching the film, I would say that 'satirical' gives the director/writer etc too much credit.

Satire done well, such as "Dr. Strangelove [...]" can be quite compelling and even somewhat enlightening regardless of its plausibility.

With 'Starship Troopers,' I found that the director attempted to portray satire by defaulting to its most ineffective, and frankly, simplistic form: the bombastic. The intentional incorporation of the ridiculous can definitely produce respectable works; however, without a sense of irony or without depth that overshadows the surface flaccidity, even a film?s underlying message will not be taken seriously.

Satire has the potential to expose the audience, via the unreasonable, to ridiculous norms by which humanity allows itself to live, while still making a creditable argument. In my opinion 'Starship Troopers' approached satire in its crudest form.

I don't think the directors of SST wanted to target the deep philosopher within us, rather the inner child who delights in carnage and the adult who can pick up the theme regardless of his/her lack of wisdom?

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Atomicus

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: halik
how can you not see the satyre??? Theres at least 5 segways in the plot that show all-out propaganda ("everyone does their part" "be a good citizen" etc). It's a great move that pokes fun at all the macho-macho war movies.

After watching the film, I would say that 'satirical' gives the director/writer etc too much credit.

Satire done well, such as "Dr. Strangelove [...]" can be quite compelling and even somewhat enlightening regardless of its plausibility.

With 'Starship Troopers,' I found that the director attempted to portray satire by defaulting to its most ineffective, and frankly, simplistic form: the bombastic. The intentional incorporation of the ridiculous can definitely produce respectable works; however, without a sense of irony or without depth that overshadows the surface flaccidity, even a film?s underlying message will not be taken seriously.

Satire has the potential to expose the audience, via the unreasonable, to ridiculous norms by which humanity allows itself to live, while still making a creditable argument. In my opinion 'Starship Troopers' approached satire in its crudest form.

I don't think the directors of SST wanted to target the deep philosopher within us, rather the inner child who delights in carnage and the adult who can pick up the theme regardless of his/her lack of wisdom?

That was my point. Satire by definition can be quite broad in what it entails, but that does not allow for misclassification within the realm of the satire. The general consensus is that the director attempted to satirize the sometimes ridiculous nature of our reality, which I agree with. I agree that it attempts to show the ridiculous nature of propaganda. However, I found that the satire presented was in fact, the film as a whole. To ellaborate, I found that the film as a whole mirrored a "propaganda" theme, but did not in any way attempt to satirize the genre. It only mirrored the propaganda; it did not, however, allude to any realization on the part of the audience.

Simply put, I believe that great satire that models via the ridiculous has potential, but only if it serves to allude to an argument.

Think of it as an ore. It might be part Gold, but thorougly unprocessed and crude gold if that at all.


And yes, I thought it was AWEZZOME when that asshole got his brains sucked out.

 

[ShowdOWN]

the first movie was tight. the second one was lame as hell. it was obviously a low budget movie shot at one location in the dark.

 

[Brian48]

Haven't seen the second movie, but I definitely loved the first. It was obviously a satire and no one should have taken it literally.

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this before, but this movie is essentially a version of "Archie goes to War" for those of you who familiar with the old characters from Archie comics and the cartoons. If you think about it, there is literally a one to one correlation between every major character in the comic to the ones in this movie. Now that's originality.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Brian48
Haven't seen the second movie, but I definitely loved the first. It was obviously a satire and no one should have taken it literally.

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this before, but this movie is essentially a version of "Archie goes to War" for those of you who familiar with the old characters from Archie comics and the cartoons. If you think about it, there is literally a one to one correlation between every major character in the comic to the ones in this movie. Now that's originality.

exactly

 

[Apathetic]

There's lots of satire in the movie. My favorite scene is where they give all the little kids handfulls of bullets.

Dave

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: Brian48
Haven't seen the second movie, but I definitely loved the first. It was obviously a satire and no one should have taken it literally.

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this before, but this movie is essentially a version of "Archie goes to War" for those of you who familiar with the old characters from Archie comics and the cartoons. If you think about it, there is literally a one to one correlation between every major character in the comic to the ones in this movie. Now that's originality.

exactly

its based on a book, isnt it?
which also seems to be very closely linked to "All Quiet on the Western Front"
which in itself is important for the sort of humanity it shows in the "enemy" in this part of the world.
regardless, it is a very interesting movie which probably didnt get half the respect it deserves because of the people in it, the giant killer bugs and the general goofiness of how it appears on the outside.

 

[trevinom]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: Atomicus

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: halik
how can you not see the satyre??? Theres at least 5 segways in the plot that show all-out propaganda ("everyone does their part" "be a good citizen" etc). It's a great move that pokes fun at all the macho-macho war movies.

After watching the film, I would say that 'satirical' gives the director/writer etc too much credit.

Satire done well, such as "Dr. Strangelove [...]" can be quite compelling and even somewhat enlightening regardless of its plausibility.

With 'Starship Troopers,' I found that the director attempted to portray satire by defaulting to its most ineffective, and frankly, simplistic form: the bombastic. The intentional incorporation of the ridiculous can definitely produce respectable works; however, without a sense of irony or without depth that overshadows the surface flaccidity, even a film?s underlying message will not be taken seriously.

Satire has the potential to expose the audience, via the unreasonable, to ridiculous norms by which humanity allows itself to live, while still making a creditable argument. In my opinion 'Starship Troopers' approached satire in its crudest form.

I don't think the directors of SST wanted to target the deep philosopher within us, rather the inner child who delights in carnage and the adult who can pick up the theme regardless of his/her lack of wisdom?

That was my point. Satire by definition can be quite broad in what it entails, but that does not allow for misclassification within the realm of the satire. The general consensus is that the director attempted to satirize the sometimes ridiculous nature of our reality, which I agree with. I agree that it attempts to show the ridiculous nature of propaganda. However, I found that the satire presented was in fact, the film as a whole. To ellaborate, I found that the film as a whole mirrored a "propaganda" theme, but did not in any way attempt to satirize the genre. It only mirrored the propaganda; it did not, however, allude to any realization on the part of the audience.

Simply put, I believe that great satire that models via the ridiculous has potential, but only if it serves to allude to an argument.

Think of it as an ore. It might be part Gold, but thorougly unprocessed and crude gold if that at all.


And yes, I thought it was AWEZZOME when that asshole got his brains sucked out.

That must be some of the good stuff your having. I'd like a hit of it too.....
"Satire by definition can be quite broad in what it entails" isn't that redundant? Water by it's consitency can be quite wet...

"The general consensus is that the director attempted to satirize the sometimes ridiculous nature of our reality" What, in the name of all that's holy, did you have to go and make generalizations as part of logical reasoning? It's one of the infamous fallacies in logic.

I could go on, but the bs in this is quite ripe.




:beer:

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: trevinom

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: Atomicus

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: halik
how can you not see the satyre??? Theres at least 5 segways in the plot that show all-out propaganda ("everyone does their part" "be a good citizen" etc). It's a great move that pokes fun at all the macho-macho war movies.

After watching the film, I would say that 'satirical' gives the director/writer etc too much credit.

Satire done well, such as "Dr. Strangelove [...]" can be quite compelling and even somewhat enlightening regardless of its plausibility.

With 'Starship Troopers,' I found that the director attempted to portray satire by defaulting to its most ineffective, and frankly, simplistic form: the bombastic. The intentional incorporation of the ridiculous can definitely produce respectable works; however, without a sense of irony or without depth that overshadows the surface flaccidity, even a film?s underlying message will not be taken seriously.

Satire has the potential to expose the audience, via the unreasonable, to ridiculous norms by which humanity allows itself to live, while still making a creditable argument. In my opinion 'Starship Troopers' approached satire in its crudest form.

I don't think the directors of SST wanted to target the deep philosopher within us, rather the inner child who delights in carnage and the adult who can pick up the theme regardless of his/her lack of wisdom?

That was my point. Satire by definition can be quite broad in what it entails, but that does not allow for misclassification within the realm of the satire. The general consensus is that the director attempted to satirize the sometimes ridiculous nature of our reality, which I agree with. I agree that it attempts to show the ridiculous nature of propaganda. However, I found that the satire presented was in fact, the film as a whole. To ellaborate, I found that the film as a whole mirrored a "propaganda" theme, but did not in any way attempt to satirize the genre. It only mirrored the propaganda; it did not, however, allude to any realization on the part of the audience.

Simply put, I believe that great satire that models via the ridiculous has potential, but only if it serves to allude to an argument.

Think of it as an ore. It might be part Gold, but thorougly unprocessed and crude gold if that at all.


And yes, I thought it was AWEZZOME when that asshole got his brains sucked out.

That must be some of the good stuff your having. I'd like a hit of it too.....
"Satire by definition can be quite broad in what it entails" isn't that redundant? Water by it's consitency can be quite wet...

"The general consensus is that the director attempted to satirize the sometimes ridiculous nature of our reality" What, in the name of all that's holy, did you have to go and make generalizations as part of logical reasoning? It's one of the infamous fallacies in logic.

I could go on, but the bs in this is quite ripe.




:beer:

Keen eye you have there

You saw right through it:beer:

 

[jdini76]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Lizardman
did you see Starship troopers 2. now thats a piece of work!

I cannot even find any info on the net about a Starship Troopers 2....any idea when it was released?

it was released very recently, i want to say May or June of this year. havn't seen it, don;t know if i want to.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: MAME

Originally posted by: Epoman

Originally posted by: MAME
Gonna go google for the red head's tits!

That just sounds bad!

Speaking of bad, her tits were crappy.

Oddly enough, my gf is sleeping no more than 2 inches away from me, snoring, while I google for tits. Woo!

ROTF! :thumbsup:

I concur

- M4H

 

[PowerMacG5]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: trevinom
The boobs on the redhead chick are AWESOME. They were so good, I had to cover my 13-year old's eyes when it got to that part. I didn't want to scar him psychologically by letting him think boobs could look that perfect in real life.

the 2nd one sucked donkey stuff. It had bad acting and no plot...wasn't even scary even though it was supposed to be a horror flick. The actors were totally different and the slim plot had nothing in common with the original. I don't even know why they called it SS 2.


but back to the boobs, they were awesome, I think I already said that though...

Action was really good too(in the tent especially).

I'm sorry, but that red-head has small, saggy boobs (Don't believe me, do a search for Dina Meyer on Google Images with safe-search off and see for yourself)

small boobs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> big boobs. Gone saggy isn't that great, but oh well, as long as they're small.

Kristin

I agree wholeheartedly.