For those involved in the "Starship Troopers" debate yesterday:

[Pale Blue Dot]

There was a poll in yesterday's Lounge about the worst right-wing movies, and one of the choices was "Starship Troopers". A lively debate ensued over whether the film really was right-wing or rather a satire on the right-wing. (I am firmly in the latter camp).

Anyway, while browsing my favorite bad movie sites came across this excellent review of ST that explains the intended satire:

http://www.scifilm.org/reviews2/starshiptroopers.html

A sample:

In fact the satirical nature of the movie leads to all kinds of other problems that become hangups for people. One of the major complaints that I've heard is that it "isn't scientifically accurate," with the usual example being the asteroid that destroys Buenos Aires. The movie states that the asteroid originated in the bug cluster near Klendathu, which is on the opposite side of the galaxy from Earth. The usual argument is that there is no way the bugs could have used an asteroid as a weapon against Earth, because it would have had to have been sent at a thousand times the speed of light to reach our solar system in the time frame given. But if you look at STARSHIP TROOPERS as a satire instead of a serious science fiction film, this becomes a non-issue. Take a look at the scene again, the bit that describes the asteroid attack on Earth is at the very beginning of the film is part of a propaganda film. In other words, it doesn't matter whether the asteroid was sent by the bugs or not (it could have just been a rogue asteroid from our own solar system), what does matter is that the people believe the asteroid was an attack by the bugs. It gives the Federation a reason to go to war—one that they were desperately looking for ever since they found out that there were more bugs in the galaxy than there were humans and that they would be competing for the same space.

[MaverickX]

1. exactly

Starship Troopers is meant to poke fun at jingoism and xenophobia.

[DrBB]

2. How to satirize Heinlein? Easy

...just take him at his word.

I 've always considered Troopers to be a satire, but a satire in typical borderline Verhoeven style. Like "Showgirls"--is it kitsch, or is Verhoeven laughing at anyone who takes it seriously? In this case, all he had to was to take Heinlein's quasi-fascist ultra-libertarian political philosophy as given, not exaggerating it at all, just presenting it pretty much at face value. With just a few little tweaks, small but unmistakeable--the nazi-style uniforms: Dougie Howser as Joseph Goebbels--to make sure you could get the joke if you wanted to. I think Verhoeven is a much more interesting director than he's usually given credit for.

[Kellanved]

3. IMHO satire; but not for everyone

I know one guy who withdrew his KDV (request to perform civil service instead of military service (we have a draft)) after watching the movie.

[w13rd0]

4. Clearly the kind of guy...

...that would get slated for infantry...

This film was so obviously satire, how anyone could think otherwise is baffling... I mean, come on, the commercials? The propaganda, the uniforms, the whole diatribe about the ineffectual nature of democracy. It mocks right wing ideaology...

[Kellanved]

5. exactly

And the Nazi-uniforms are a giveaway . Those make it dangerous at the same time IMHO.