Pondering Starship Troopers.

[vailr]

Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" has never been cinematized, which seems odd.

 

[ringtail]

Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" has never been cinematized, which seems odd.

But remember, Charles Manson cited Stranger in a Strange Land as his basis for his insane murdering shit, having horribly killed many good people, and some painfully, cutting off their genitals and SEWEING them into other peoples mouths, oh joy.

Frothing-at-the-mouth insane mad dog should've been put down by piranha or a hungry komodo dragon, or tossed into the grizzly bear exhibit in LA Zoo as a snack, whatever way of getting ripped apart hurts more. Now lately we see press pleading sympathy for him...

Therefore the press and the critics step back, afraid of connotations.

YES, I'm with you, IMHO Robert Heinlein is the BEST. The phenomenal richness of the IDEAS he packed into his books, and in a readily accessible way, is unique, VASTLY superior to most other writers of his era like his biggest rival in the popular media, Asimov (Robert Heinlein absolutely was W-A-Y better at imagination, visualizing, explaining than Asimov, who himself was no slouch).

Go read Job, A Divine Comedy (or whatever similar title you find it by these days. It's all about jumping between alternative LEVELS of REALITY.

Instead of just jetting from plant to planet, it's about shifting ones' being between everyday/higher (more subtle) LEVELS of creation, and all is given some context relating to the Bible, etc. in order to help the masses relate to his rich rich imaginative ideas. Brilliance!!!! ABSOLUTE BRILLIANCE!!!!)

Robert Heinlein is underappreciated today--what RICH imagination!!!

 

[-Slacker-]

I take it neither one of you read the book.

I read about 2 dozen pages before I couldn't take it anymore what with Riko's comically cheesy, "warrior poet" internal monologue. Books that are written in this style aren't often good, and while I'm not saying every book should adhere to the "show, don't tell" philosophy, when it comes to epic space operas with interplanetary conflicts, I'd prefer that they are conveyed in something other than someone character's internal drivel for 6 hours. No wonder they couldn't do a faithful adaptation.

Also, it's fascist literature, while the movie makes fun of it, so

movie: 1, book: 0

 

[FoBoT]

i believe my political tendencies/philosophy has been influenced by my reading of Heinlein in my teenage years

 

[Slammy1]

you gotta read the book
if you are thinking this much about the story, by all means, read the book
and then read more Heinlein
he is the best sci-fi author , evar

Arthur C Clark would like to have a few words with you, but Heinlein is entertaining albeit dated (we never did find life on Mars, for example). I really remember Number of the Beast for some reason, my fav and I've read all the books by Heinlein mentioned and a few others (a lot of short story weirdness that works).

 

[gorobei]

the book is a great book but a horrible movie. there are 3 different arcs(

Spoiler

rico becoming MI/ rico becoming an officer/ the overall human-bug war/ not to mention the father relationship b-plot

)scrambled into multiple flashbacks that make for a long and boring path if viewed linearly. if you try to add in all the expository stuff about the powered suits, civics lessons, navy sorority, skinnies, and boot camp the movie becomes a bloated pig.

you could do it as a Band of Brothers type miniseries with suits even, but not as a feature movie.

sadly the japanese are taking another shot at the twitching horse corpse and compounding it by using the move bugs.
http://kotaku.com/5913740/the-new-starship-troopers-anime-gets-a-trailer-for-you-to-watch

using assault rifles to fight something the size of an elephant with an armored shell is like using a bb gun to kill a blue whale. but you should keep on firing rambo cuz bullet 7648 is sure to be the one that does the trick.

 

[Turbonium]

the book is a great book but a horrible movie. there are 3 different arcs(

Spoiler

rico becoming MI/ rico becoming an officer/ the overall human-bug war/ not to mention the father relationship b-plot

)scrambled into multiple flashbacks that make for a long and boring path if viewed linearly. if you try to add in all the expository stuff about the powered suits, civics lessons, navy sorority, skinnies, and boot camp the movie becomes a bloated pig.

The movie isn't perfect, but I think it's great for what it is, especially when one considers the hidden messages and satire within it. Then again, I haven't read the book, so perhaps I just don't know any better, but I think as far as movies go these days, it was rather good.

using assault rifles to fight something the size of an elephant with an armored shell is like using a bb gun to kill a blue whale. but you should keep on firing rambo cuz bullet 7648 is sure to be the one that does the trick.

I don't agree here. I'm no ballistics expert, but somehow, I feel that nothing replaces a good ol' solid body of mass, moving at hypersonic speeds no less, shaped to penetrate and wound. Basic kinetics at work.

Particularly, I feel traditional ammunition would work better than energy-based weapons in large-scale scenarios, not only due to cost and scalability issues, but as mentioned, due to simple kinetics. It's easier to deal damage reliably by just throwing an appreciable bit of mass at a lot of speed at something, then it is to have to worry about generating enough energy consistently (i.e. with a power source) to do the same thing at similar ranges. Again, I'm making a lot of assumptions here, but wouldn't we need some insane battery technology, along with say laser technology, to have a weapon comparable to an all-out, space-age assault rifle?

In other words, I just can't picture actual "space marines" of any kind having "laser guns". Bullets would do.

If you don't agree, please let me know. This is kinda interesting, in a nerdy sort of way.

 

[Linflas]

I read about 2 dozen pages before I couldn't take it anymore what with Riko's comically cheesy, "warrior poet" internal monologue. Books that are written in this style aren't often good, and while I'm not saying every book should adhere to the "show, don't tell" philosophy, when it comes to epic space operas with interplanetary conflicts, I'd prefer that they are conveyed in something other than someone character's internal drivel for 6 hours. No wonder they couldn't do a faithful adaptation.

Also, it's fascist literature, while the movie makes fun of it, so

movie: 1, book: 0

I love how you toss off this little opinion given that you read, according to your own words, about 2 dozen pages of a 264 page novel. Robert A Heinlein was about as far from a fascist as you can get. I would say more but a gentleman named Jim Hull did it much more eloquently than I ever could so I will just link what he wrote regarding Starship Troopers, fascism, and the relationship between the movie version and the book.

HEINLEIN, VERHOEVEN, AND THE FASCISTS

 

[FallenHero]

The movie isn't perfect, but I think it's great for what it is, especially when one considers the hidden messages and satire within it. Then again, I haven't read the book, so perhaps I just don't know any better, but I think as far as movies go these days, it was rather good.


I don't agree here. I'm no ballistics expert, but somehow, I feel that nothing replaces a good ol' solid body of mass, moving at hypersonic speeds no less, shaped to penetrate and wound. Basic kinetics at work.

Particularly, I feel traditional ammunition would work better than energy-based weapons in large-scale scenarios, not only due to cost and scalability issues, but as mentioned, due to simple kinetics. It's easier to deal damage reliably by just throwing an appreciable bit of mass at a lot of speed at something, then it is to have to worry about generating enough energy consistently (i.e. with a power source) to do the same thing at similar ranges. Again, I'm making a lot of assumptions here, but wouldn't we need some insane battery technology, along with say laser technology, to have a weapon comparable to an all-out, space-age assault rifle?

In other words, I just can't picture actual "space marines" of any kind having "laser guns". Bullets would do.

If you don't agree, please let me know. This is kinda interesting, in a nerdy sort of way.

You are going on the assumption that our current understanding of energy remains constant and that little progress is made in terms of energy storage. Perhaps new elements are discovered that have massive potential energy storage capability as well the ability to produce huge amounts of energy. If that is the case, supply lines no longer need vast amounts of ammunition to be brought to the front. Would you rather have to lug 10000 rounds to each soldier on the front line or 2-3 batteries? Which one is cheaper and more efficient? There are multiple reasons to want advanced energy weapons instead of chemical reaction based ones.

 

[gorobei]

In general once you have the technology and know how to travel to another planet, if you are not manipulating quantum phenomena as part of your basest tools then you would not be in deep space. Energy weapons come pretty cheap at that point.

But assuming you dont have startrek replicators, the logistics of chemical reaction driven projectiles is unsupportable and silly.

Since you havent read the book, we'll stick to the movie premise:
-interstellar capable enemy
-mass number of enemy units in the billions
-underground hives and tunnel burrowing
-very hard to kill due to exo skeleton
-lethal to be around at close range

Lets start with terminal ballistics. It takes several hundreds of rounds from a single shooter or combined fire from multiple shooters to have an effect on the warrior bugs in the movie(ignoring weak spot in maw since if they are that close it is already verging on too late). That means a single trooper has to carry upwards of 2000 to 3000 rounds just to survive a moderate battle that lasts say 20 min. That is a crap ton of weight even assuming you go with caseless ammo, probably in the 50 to 100 pounds of extra mass(not including your other equipment) to drag around just for a single skirmish. At that weight your mobility is non-existent.

It also means your supply lines need to be able to supply your army with (3000 rounds) X (number of troopers) every hour of fighting during the mission. Given the number of extras shown in the movie, you would be dropping literal tons of ammo from orbit every hour.

Assuming FTL is the fastest means of travel and given that it takes the ships at least a month or 2 to reach a planet in enemy teritory, you would need several hundred cargo ships running a round trip chain just to supply ammo much less food, water, or medicine.

Logistically, the need for metals for bullets, chemical for propellant, manufacturing for primers would deplete an earth type planet in short order. Given that you have to fight multiple planets worth(billions) of bugs, the other associated costs for ships and other supplies would bankrupt any government.

While exotic coating hyper-velocity hyper-penetrator rounds do exist (tungsten tipped/ depleted uranium/ mercury splash rounds) and could cut down the number of rounds required to take down a single bug, that isnt what the movie shows.

In reality you would use an anti-materiel rifle in the 20-25mm cannon round chambering, or belt fed grenade launcher, or rpg because each bug is the equivalent of a tank or lav. Nobody fights tanks with small arms. You certainly would not be standing in close interval with your fellow troopers hosing a tank with overlapping fire for several seconds.

A railgun the size of a javelin or barret .50 cal semi auto with a 10 round mag fired at 100yds from 30m intervals would be more in line with the movie's implied tech, but for theatricality everyone went shoulder to shoulder rambo.

The fundamental advantage of energy weapons is that the total overall mass/weight is a fraction of KE weapons. You dont need to manufacture fiddley little bullets and primers. You dont need to worry about barrels melting from constant fire. If you are at a fusion level tech, you can just mine asteroid ice in some star system for hydrogen or helium3, or extract it from local water, and the fuel source for the weapons are satisfied without shipping it from home.

If you are hunting one elephant, a single shot large bore howdah is fine. If 5000 elephants are bull rushing you, then you need to be in a tank firing a 120mm smoothbore.
Bringing a mini14 rifle in a plastic bullpup shell to fight a bug the size of a UPS van running at thoroughbred horse speeds is stupidity.

 

[FallenHero]

In general once you have the technology and know how to travel to another planet, if you are not manipulating quantum phenomena as part of your basest tools then you would not be in deep space. Energy weapons come pretty cheap at that point.

But assuming you dont have startrek replicators, the logistics of chemical reaction driven projectiles is unsupportable and silly.

Since you havent read the book, we'll stick to the movie premise:
-interstellar capable enemy
-mass number of enemy units in the billions
-underground hives and tunnel burrowing
-very hard to kill due to exo skeleton
-lethal to be around at close range

Lets start with terminal ballistics. It takes several hundreds of rounds from a single shooter or combined fire from multiple shooters to have an effect on the warrior bugs in the movie(ignoring weak spot in maw since if they are that close it is already verging on too late). That means a single trooper has to carry upwards of 2000 to 3000 rounds just to survive a moderate battle that lasts say 20 min. That is a crap ton of weight even assuming you go with caseless ammo, probably in the 50 to 100 pounds of extra mass(not including your other equipment) to drag around just for a single skirmish. At that weight your mobility is non-existent.

It also means your supply lines need to be able to supply your army with (3000 rounds) X (number of troopers) every hour of fighting during the mission. Given the number of extras shown in the movie, you would be dropping literal tons of ammo from orbit every hour.

Assuming FTL is the fastest means of travel and given that it takes the ships at least a month or 2 to reach a planet in enemy teritory, you would need several hundred cargo ships running a round trip chain just to supply ammo much less food, water, or medicine.

Logistically, the need for metals for bullets, chemical for propellant, manufacturing for primers would deplete an earth type planet in short order. Given that you have to fight multiple planets worth(billions) of bugs, the other associated costs for ships and other supplies would bankrupt any government.

While exotic coating hyper-velocity hyper-penetrator rounds do exist (tungsten tipped/ depleted uranium/ mercury splash rounds) and could cut down the number of rounds required to take down a single bug, that isnt what the movie shows.

In reality you would use an anti-materiel rifle in the 20-25mm cannon round chambering, or belt fed grenade launcher, or rpg because each bug is the equivalent of a tank or lav. Nobody fights tanks with small arms. You certainly would not be standing in close interval with your fellow troopers hosing a tank with overlapping fire for several seconds.

A railgun the size of a javelin or barret .50 cal semi auto with a 10 round mag fired at 100yds from 30m intervals would be more in line with the movie's implied tech, but for theatricality everyone went shoulder to shoulder rambo.

The fundamental advantage of energy weapons is that the total overall mass/weight is a fraction of KE weapons. You dont need to manufacture fiddley little bullets and primers. You dont need to worry about barrels melting from constant fire. If you are at a fusion level tech, you can just mine asteroid ice in some star system for hydrogen or helium3, or extract it from local water, and the fuel source for the weapons are satisfied without shipping it from home.

If you are hunting one elephant, a single shot large bore howdah is fine. If 5000 elephants are bull rushing you, then you need to be in a tank firing a 120mm smoothbore.
Bringing a mini14 rifle in a plastic bullpup shell to fight a bug the size of a UPS van running at thoroughbred horse speeds is stupidity.

Last line is awesome. And you said it better then I ever could.

 

[JTsyo]

To be fair, I didn't actually think the movie sucked. If I hadn't read the book and had expectations going in, I would have liked it for what it was. I was dissapointed some of my favorite themes from the book were left out or replaced.

I kinda wish someone would redo it in a more true-to-the-book fashion. Verhoeven's work would still stand alone as a good movie. Similar to how Dark Night and Tim Burton's Batman are both good movies about the same thing, told through very different moviemaking styles. It's ok to like both versions of Batman.

There was the animated series, Roughnecks, that had the exo-suits.

 

[gorobei]

There was the animated series, Roughnecks, that had the exo-suits.

that show had air tight versions of bodyarmor and an exoframe power loader from aliens with some gatlings glued on, neither of which bare any resemblance to heinlein's powered armor or the tactics he outlined.

 

[Pia]

I haven't read that book but yes that was the worst movie ever. It's literally 2 hours of watching Harrison Ford drink himself to death. The story never goes anywhere.

You say that as if it's a bad thing. Harrison Ford is The Man when you got a character who needs to drink themselves to death. Go down this road and soon you'll be criticizing a movie with "this is just two hours of Jon Voight being an asshole" or "this is just two hours of Scarlett Johansson looking hot". These are examples of criticism that is just invalid at a fundamental level.

 

[blankslate]

Some might say this would make for a short movie but the film could be about the journey there, how the decision is made, the building of the ships, who gets chosen, etc... Think a militaristic retributional version of Contact. Then again that doesn't fit the 15yo boy model for a summer blockbuster.

You answered your own implied question imo.

Summer Blockbuster = brain turned off...

Look at ID4... major hit despite the impossible plot device and the rather non-subtle message concerning who dies and who lives.

 

[Skel]

The only thing I really remember about this movie was in San Degio Comiccon I believe it was ’94 or ‘95. I had gone to the costume masquerade (a contest where people in costumes would compete for prizes, for those that don’t know, or pretend to not know), which turned quickly into a audience yelling out insults to anyone that made the mistake of showing up and walking out on the stage.. it was really brutal. I mean really brutal. At one point the shut the show down and screened movie trailers for stuff coming out, really rough cut material. Starship troopers came on the screen and was greeted with the same amount of hatred, until the magic moment when Neil Patrick Harris showed up. Then the crowd chanted “Doogie Doogie Doogie” for the rest of the break. The show continued with the crowd being the crowd, only by this point they had rallied behind a prop that was supposed to be a cloud but looked like a rock. For the next couple of years the crowd would chant “Rock Rock Rock” at every contestant.

 

[DigDog]

I read about 2 dozen pages before I couldn't take it anymore what with Riko's comically cheesy, "warrior poet" internal monologue. Books that are written in this style aren't often good, and while I'm not saying every book should adhere to the "show, don't tell" philosophy, when it comes to epic space operas with interplanetary conflicts, I'd prefer that they are conveyed in something other than someone character's internal drivel for 6 hours. No wonder they couldn't do a faithful adaptation.

Also, it's fascist literature, while the movie makes fun of it, so

movie: 1, book: 0

yeah.. hmm .. well .. nothing escapes you, does it now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

 

[-Slacker-]

Aww. Well if it's not fascist literature - and every opinion I encountered on the book is that it ... is - then there's still the matter of it sucking gonads because of the way the story is conveyed.

 

[SagaLore]

you gotta read the book
if you are thinking this much about the story, by all means, read the book
and then read more Heinlein
he is the best sci-fi author , evar

No, no he's not.

Asimov is by far the best sci-fi author, ever.

 

[Triumph]

To the OP, because fleet does the flyin', mobile infantry does the dyin'!

And HG Wells was the greatest SCI FI author of all time.

 

[Druidx]

I read about 2 dozen pages before I couldn't take it anymore what with Riko's comically cheesy, "warrior poet" internal monologue. Books that are written in this style aren't often good, and while I'm not saying every book should adhere to the "show, don't tell" philosophy, when it comes to epic space operas with interplanetary conflicts, I'd prefer that they are conveyed in something other than someone character's internal drivel for 6 hours. No wonder they couldn't do a faithful adaptation.

Also, it's fascist literature, while the movie makes fun of it, so

movie: 1, book: 0

It you consider Starship Troopers to be fascist literature, that only proves you didn't actaully read the book or simply didn't understand it. I would love to hear an explanation on what parts of the book you found to be fascist.

BTW, the guy who directed the movie never even read the book.

 

[FoBoT]

HEINLEIN, VERHOEVEN, AND THE FASCISTS

this is what i would say about it if i was eloquent

 

[ichy]

Also, it's fascist literature, while the movie makes fun of it, so

Claiming that Heinlein was a fascist is one of the most painfully stupid things I've heard in a while.

 

[preslove]

I love how you toss off this little opinion given that you read, according to your own words, about 2 dozen pages of a 264 page novel. Robert A Heinlein was about as far from a fascist as you can get. I would say more but a gentleman named Jim Hull did it much more eloquently than I ever could so I will just link what he wrote regarding Starship Troopers, fascism, and the relationship between the movie version and the book.

HEINLEIN, VERHOEVEN, AND THE FASCISTS

I've read the book twice. It's terrible, fascistic drivel. The movie's satire of the material makes it superior to the book.

 

[ichy]

I've read the book twice. It's terrible, fascistic drivel.

Only a simpleton who didn't understand what he was reading would think that.