posted
BTW, I still call Bowser, "King Koopa". It has a bit more of a pizzaz to it. I grew up with those generation of games so it still seems rather odd to call Princess Toadstool, "Peach. Besides, its not like they really changed the names, they just call them differently. Peach's name is "Princess Peach Toadstool", while Bowser is the king of the koopas, or "King Koopa".
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Bowser came in for either Super Mario 3 or Mario World.
Wrong. I own the original Super Mario Bros for NES and have the instructions. His name is Bowser. However, as AoD points out, he was King of the Koopas (which I think was actually described as a tribe, so he should be chieftan, but whatever). So referring to him as Koopa is still accurate in a sense.
Oh, and mad props for knowing the name of Mario's girlfriend back when he was a construction worker instead of a plumber.
quote:I loved Starship Troopers! I thought it was one of the few movie adaptations that really caught the tone of the book well.
You know, if you said you liked it, I could just agree to disagree. But caught the tone of the book well?!?! There's about a minute on why you have to have been in the military to vote, and that's it. Aside from that, it's freaking 90210 in space, with no attention to the political philosophy that was the underpinning of the entire novel.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I liked Starship Troopers, but also think it was a terrible adaptation of the book. Why did I like it? There were these giant freaking bugs and they were all like "SWAAAAARM!" and ripped people up and got shot with machineguns and that was sweet. The short war-news clips were funny, too.
posted
I have to make a correction. Peach was Daisy at one point. At least in the Original Gameboy Super Mario Brothers she was Daisy.
As far at the original thread. Why has no one mentioned "Wizard of EarthSea"? Biggest disapointment ever! In fact I remember it getting a good grilling here when it came out.
Posts: 1294 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really know what the book is about, but I have to suspect that most who think Starship Troopers is anywhere close to being "the worst adaptation ever" either have somewhat missed the point of it or are placing way too much weight on how accurate a movie adaptation follows the book. It's a satire, and it mocks itself (and the sci-fi movie genre in general) in a way few movies can effectively achieve. You could watch it as a straight cheesy soap opera, but then you'd be missing out I think - so it is better to judge it on its satirical merits. To do otherwise would be a bit like complaining that The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy isn't realistic enough - it would kinda miss the point.
* * *
In defense of another adaptation, "It" (the TV miniseries) is fantastic, for a horror miniseries. I'd definitely rank it up there with the best miniseries I've seen. The concept is a bit cheesy, but it pretty much had to be, given the story they are working with from the book.
* * *
While I'm at it "I, Robot" was excellent. It didn't follow the book much at all, but it drove home the most significant issue with the Three Laws in such a clear and direct manner. I'd much rather have a film do a great job focusing on getting across one particular aspect of a book, than a film that does a mediocre job of getting everything across - something a lot of sci-fi movies, like Dune, are guilty of.
* * *
Batman & Robin, however, was horrendous. This is especially true how easy it should be to make another decent, successful Batman movie - it's not the sort of adaptation that is tricky to translate into film. Out of all the movies mentioned so far, I think Batman & Robin and Super Mario Bros tie for my vote.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bull. Starship Troopers bore naught but the most superficial resemblance to the book. And no, I'm not talking about having each and every plot element. I'm talking about taking a book with some profound points which you could agree or disagree with and turning it into a laughably bad action mess.
So, you really have nothing worthwhile to add to a discussion about how well the book was adapted. You can discuss the merits of the movie in its own right all you want (though I don't see any, personally, other than, perhaps, Dina Meyer topless) but it is a terrible, terrible, terrible adaptation of a book.
In fact, other than the fact that a) there were bugs, b) there were marines, c) the names used were the same, and d) it had the same title - the movie bears little resemblance to the book at all. The themes are gone, the entire concept of how marines fought is gone... it's just a terrible, terrible, terrible adaptation.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I haven't seen the movie of I, Robot, but if the robots in that are villains, then I'm inclined to think that if I did see it, it would get my vote for worst movie adaptation. A movie that betrays everything the author of the original work stood for cannot be considered a good adaptation, regardless of how entertaining the movie itself might be.
Not that I'm passing judgment on it; like I said, I haven't seen it, so know only what I hear.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Said by Icarus: "You know, if you said you liked it, I could just agree to disagree. But caught the tone of the book well?!?! There's about a minute on why you have to have been in the military to vote, and that's it. Aside from that, it's freaking 90210 in space, with no attention to the political philosophy that was the underpinning of the entire novel."
Hmmm. I have not read the book in 7 years or so. I think I was just taking Heinlein's general tone for most books (humor and cheese). The movie reminded me of him. The whole movie was an advertisement to join the military. I thought that was awesome. It was supposed to be cheesey. I love Heinlein, btw. I don't think he is all humor and cheese.
Now I'll have to read it again and I better shut my mouth til I do!
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Starship Troopers, oddly, isn't particularly humorous or cheesy. Its a bit of a commentary on a political philosophy (hint: he wasn't serious about it being possible to have an exact moral calculus), but its also a tribute to a particular sort of person.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I could have forgiven Starship Troopers many things if they had kept the drop scenes from the book - how the MI actually got on the planets, which was very cool - but they had to just turn it into "Oh a shuttle drops them off."
posted
Interesting tidbit (which I have no proof to backup): I remember reading somewhere that I, Robot and Starship Troopers were originally scripted as Hardwired and Bug Hunt. The studio then realised that they could buy the rights to the famed and beloved books and the scripts were brought more into line with the novels.
Posts: 254 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The worst movie adaptation of a book I can think of is Disneys "The Black Cauldron". They tried to mash together the brilliant books "The Book of Three" and "The Black Cauldron" and lost the heart of both of the stories. It was terrible. The Prydain books deserve to be told in their entirety or not at all.
Posts: 1336 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Interesting tidbit (which I have no proof to backup): I remember reading somewhere that I, Robot . . . [was] originally scripted as Hardwired
yeah, I posted about this when the movie came out, and posted links documenting this, but people persist in thinking of it as an adaptation of an Asimov story. Posts: 289 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's too bad the dead can't come back and sue. I wonder if the late Dr. Asimov would have a case. He could sue for . . . uh . . . Anal Rape of Intellectual Property.
Uh, I'm sure one of you legal types has a better name for it. . . .
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Goo Boy: I have heard the same thing. I liked the movie itself--but it's not an Asimov story (which is what everyone else is saying...dang!)
The movie that comes to mind for me is Dune--the version that was released in the eighties that involved that dude from Twin Peaks whose name I can't recall and (of all people) Sting. At first I didn't understand why my dad was so ticked off at the movie, then I read the book. Then I got ticked off. So much of what made that novel work was gutted.
Another one that comes to mind is Jurrassic Park. I'm almost embarrassed to say that I liked the novel very much. When the movie came out and it was Spielberg behind the camera, I should have been wary then. I came out of the theatre, and I was mad. He ruined the whole concept Crichton had laid out. The special effects were good, but much like I, Robot, the movie's story and the novel's story was completely different.
quote:So, you really have nothing worthwhile to add to a discussion about how well the book was adapted. You can discuss the merits of the movie in its own right all you want (though I don't see any, personally, other than, perhaps, Dina Meyer topless) but it is a terrible, terrible, terrible adaptation of a book.
I was talking about the merits of the movie in its own right - which is why I mentioned that I hadn't read the book.
Having said that, a good adaptation should strive to be a good movie in its own right, not to necessarilly be faithful to the book. Starship Troopers is a good adaptation because it takes a concept and translates into a good movie in its own right - even if it does not follow the plot or themes of the original book. Jurassic Park might be a more classic example. Or, even more classic, The Wizard of Oz (which significantly changes the original story, but is nevertheless a great adaptation.) Similarly, a film that exactly follows a book but is nevertheless a bad film in it own right has failed also as an adaptation, regardless of how exactly it follows the book.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if I make a completely different, but good, movie, then put the name of a famous book on it, that would be a good adaptation? I see we disagree significantly on the meaning of the word "adaptation".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Starship Troopers is a good adaptation because it takes a concept and translates into a good movie in its own right - even if it does not follow the plot or themes of the original book.
The trick to it being an adaptation is that it is taking a story told in one medium and telling it in another. The movie titled Starship Troopers bares such small resemblance to the book that if the names were all changed, no one would have even thought the two were related.
So, no, it's a terrible adaptation.
Using your logic, you could say that Harry Potter is a good adaptation of Ender's Game. It took the concept and translated it, even though the plot and themes are different. Or even that Starship Troopers was a good adaptation of Ender's Game, using the same logic.
In order for it to be a "good" "adaptation" it must take the essence of the original and translate it, without losing that essence, into a different medium.
Starship Troopers didn't even make that attempt.
And I stand by my first comment. You haven't read the book so you have nothing worthwhile to say about whether it is a good adaptation or not. You have no basis for comparison. You are talking out of your hindquarters in an attempt to defend the merits of the movie, when the attack was aimed at how well it was adapted.
Your comments about Jurassic Park and the Wizard of Oz are going into adaptation theory alone, and do not address anything about how Starship Troopers was handled. Because you can't address that, having no experience of the original.
It's like arguing a comparison between two brands of vanilla ice cream, without ever having tasted one. You can't make a value statement that one is better or worse, because you have no basis for that comparison.
Your arguments belong in a thread titled "Much Maligned Movies with Merit" or "Movies That Get a Bad Rap" or somesuch. As an adaptation, Starship Troopers is about as bad as it gets.
Maybe try reading the book and seeing how the essence of the book was stripped and gutted, replaced with sex scenes and masses of humans with machine guns. Or seeing how a novel long look at the concept of citizenship, service and duty is torn apart and replaced by flashy commercial propaganda.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So if I make a completely different, but good, movie, then put the name of a famous book on it, that would be a good adaptation?
No, then it would be good, but not an adaptation.
quote:The movie titled Starship Troopers bares such small resemblance to the book that if the names were all changed, no one would have even thought the two were related.
If it is true that Starship Troopers has no relationship to the book it is named after then it would not be an adaptation at all, and thus could not be the worst adaptation.
Given that it IS an adaptation, it must bear some resemblance to the novel. Then we just want to know whether it's a good adaptation or not. I think that the primary goal of an adaptation is to make a good film, not to faithfully follow the source, so (unless you disagree with that) a good adaptation would be one that is a good film. When you see an adaptation, what do you hope to get out of it?
Additionally, if by "worst adaptations" we are talking about "movies that least follow the books they are named after", I bet there are films that follow their source material less closely than even Starship Troopers. The Lost World (Jurassic Park II) might win the prize for this, given that it bears no resemblance to the novel. There's also the Final Fantasy movie, which doesn't really follow anything from any of the games. And even some fantastic films, such as Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, depart pretty far from their soucre - I wouldn't call Willy Wonka a bad adaptation because of this.
quote:In order for it to be a "good" "adaptation" it must take the essence of the original and translate it, without losing that essence, into a different medium.
As I said originally, I think this may be putting too much weight on the issue of how closely it follows the source material. I think a good adaptation is when you take an idea and use it to generate something else worthwhile in a different medium, which may or may not reflect the essence of the original. This is because when I go to see an adapted movie, I care a lot more about whether the thing I am watching is good than I do about whether it accurately reflects the source. This is why I think OSC can make a good adaptation of Ender's Game while significantly alterning the plot and combining it with Ender's Shadow. I don't agree with that idea, just because I have a hard time imagining how to improve on such an already good plot, but even if it did come out with a radically different Ender's Game it would still be an adaptation, and if good as a film it would be a good adaptation.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Ender's Game would be turned into a movie in the same way that Starship Troopers was, the game itself would have been removed entirely and replaced with a watered down bootcamp segment. After that, Ender and his crew would have been handed machine guns and sent off to fight the Buggers close up, with Ender screwing Valentine in his tent during breaks in the action.
The closest thing we come to agreeing is that Starship Troopers may be so bad of an adaptation, that it ceases to be adaptation at all, and instead becomes "shameless use of established intellectual property to promote a film not remotely connected to the source of its title and character names".
If I could somehow disassociate the fact that they *tried* to bank on the appeal of Starship Troopers, and somehow reedited the film to change its name and the names of all the characters, then I could safely remove it from my list of bad adaptations.
If Heinlein were alive, he probably would have wanted his name taken off the project, a la Alan Moore.
quote:I think that the primary goal of an adaptation is to make a good film, not to faithfully follow the source, so (unless you disagree with that) a good adaptation would be one that is a good film.
There's a big difference between faithfully following the source, and maintaining the essence of the source. For instance, LotR, I felt, kept the essence of the books alive, while trimming portions of the plot (such as Tom Bombadil) and adding bits for continuity's sake (such as the added Arwen scenes). However, it kept the gestalt of the movie intact, and took pains to streamline and not drastically deviate from the source material.
Starship Troopers made no such effort. It is as though an entirely different bug movie was made, then late in the writing process, someone said "hey, this is sort of like a book I read once". After that, the producers bought the rights and the script was force-fit into an "adaptation" (better read as "scam") that used the names and title of the book, stole a few notable lines, and threw in a couple minor plot points.
Go read the book, Tres. It's short. You can finish it this afternoon. Get it from the library. Come to the discussion with some actual background, rather than just spouting nonsense.
As to it being a good movie, it's as much of a good movie as the Da Vinci Code is a good book. Popular in the most cotton candy, substance-less, fluffy sort of way, and designed for mass consumption by an audience that has no conception anymore what a good film is.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've never read the "Left Behind" books, but I had a co-worker who liked them. What was bad about the books and/or movies?
Where to start? Bad writing, bad theology, bad everything.
Although I guess I should point out it's only bad theology from MY perspective - there actually are people who do believe in that hyper-literal interpretation of Revelation. I'm just not one of them.
Still, theology aside, those were some awful books. I only managed to read the first couple, then gave up completely, so I guess it's theoretically possible the later ones were much better but even then there is no way they could have redeemed the earlier books.
I would say that every aspiring writer should read the first one, to learn how NOT to do characterization.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Go read the book, Tres. It's short. You can finish it this afternoon. Get it from the library. Come to the discussion with some actual background, rather than just spouting nonsense.
I haven't claimed a thing yet about how well the movie reflects the book, so I don't think reading the book is would alter anything I've said. If I'm spouting nonsense, it's nonsense about the movie rather than the book, and about how adaptations need not keep the essence of the source material to be good.
quote:As to it being a good movie, it's as much of a good movie as the Da Vinci Code is a good book. Popular in the most cotton candy, substance-less, fluffy sort of way, and designed for mass consumption by an audience that has no conception anymore what a good film is.
I'd argue the exact opposite. Starship Troopers mocks the masses and the fluffy movies they consume. It's somewhat subtle, and designed in such a way that I'm not sure very casual moviegoers would get it.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Based on what, the newsreels? Because everything else about the movie is pap. I saw the newsreels as merely failed camp--and perhaps an attempt to tie the movie to the Golden Age of science fiction, when Heinlein did much of his writing--not as clever satire.
-o-
Oh, and Noemon wins, for using the word "gestalt." If you want to pull ahead again, you need to work "paradigm" into your answer.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doctor Dolittle - the 1967 version with Rex Harrison is on my list of worst adaptations. Superfluous female character thrown in. Harrison not only didn't look right for the part, he didn't really have the personality of the Doctor Dolittle in the Lofting books. On top of it all, the movie had Anthony Newley in a starring role, along with his songs (shudder).
I don't have a beef with the Eddie Murphy "Dolittle" movies since they don't pretend to be adaptations at all. They took the name, the ability, and the profession of the Doctor and started pretty much from scratch after that.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I think there's a vast difference between being a "good adaptation" and a "good movie". I think it's entirely possible for a movie to be a terrible adaptation, yet still be a good and entertaining movie.
I can't apply that specifically to Starship Troopers, because I have no direct experience with anything bearing that name, whether book or movie. So I couldn't say whether any of it is a good anything. All I'm saying is that just because a movie adaptation may be good as a movie, that doesn't automatically mean it is any good as an adaptation.
I think you have to maintain certain aspects of the source material to qualify as having a good adaptation. That doesn't mean you have to use everything from the source material--for one thing, that's rarely even possible. If we're talking about a novel, there's just too much there to attempt to translate to the screen, and you have to keep in mind that book and film are different storytelling media, with different capabilities and different expectations from the audience. So absolute faithfulness is not desirable.
But you still have to have some faithfulness if you want to have a movie that is good as an adaptation. You have to maintain certain things, like key scenes and overall themes. Say you made a movie called Ender's Game, and it took place in a terrestrial boot camp, all the characters were in their twenties, and Ender was screwing Petra any time they weren't out fighting the aliens. The resulting movie might very well be entertaining to a lot of people, and for them it would qualify as a "good movie". But no matter how you sliced it, it would still be a piss-poor adaptation.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, I'm not Noemon... at least I don't think I am. Maybe I should go check a mirror.
And Tres, you're arguing that it's a good movie, and that it's an adaptation. You have nothing to say that has any meaning with regards to how *well* it was adapted, as you have no knowledge of the source.
The adaptation itself was terrible. If you accept the fact that it *is* an adaptation (and not just a scam to use the name tie-in to get higher box office returns), and you inexplicably like that sort of cotton candy fluff film, then you could conceivably say it was an adaptation that was also good.
However, that does not mean it was adapted well, nor, as the connotative meaning of the words has been taken for much of this thread, was it a good adaptation.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought Rosemary's Baby completely missed the redeeming qualities present in the book.
I'm not saying it's the worst adaptation I've ever seen, but it comes to mind when thinking of bad adaptations.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Based on what, the newsreels? Because everything else about the movie is pap.
The whole movie is satire, not "pap." The newsreels are part of it, but the most important part is the characters and their motivations - which are so blatantly overblown that it really drives home the absurdity of certain attitudes towards war while fairly harshly mocking the sci-fi movie genre. It is intentionally cartoony to make those points.
quote:If you accept the fact that it *is* an adaptation (and not just a scam to use the name tie-in to get higher box office returns), and you inexplicably like that sort of cotton candy fluff film, then you could conceivably say it was an adaptation that was also good.
As I mentioned above, it is the opposite of a cotton candy fluff film. And I am certainly not the only one who enjoyed it as a satirical work. Consider the user comments from IMDB, where the movie has a 6.7 rating, which is pretty good for IMDB. Note that very few, if any, of the user comments mention action, violence, or other cheese factors as reasons to enjoy the movie. Most of them mention its commentary on society as the most positive aspect of it. Thus, it should be considered more an intellectual film then a cotton candy action film... because the former is what people get out of it.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if you check Rotten Tomtatoes, it's got a 58% fresh rating... and the positive comments include:
quote: "A jaw-dropping experience, so rigorously one-dimensional and free from even the pretense of intelligence it's hard not to be astonished and even mesmerized by what is on the screen."
quote: "If viewed as a comedy, Starship Troopers is quite enjoyable..."
quote: "It's a sci-fi gorefest, and a fun one at that."
quote: "Just enjoy the fun of watching Neil Patrick Harris in his audition for Apt Pupil and roll with it, baby."
quote: "Flawed but fun."
Yes, truly a tribute to the great satirists of our time. If the director thought that a book that seriously looked into the nature of war, citizenship, duty, service, and the human condition needed to be turned into a cartoonish montage of propaganda footage, maybe that speaks more to the state of our society than anything else. Perhaps Verhoeven thought it needed to be dumbed down to such an extent to appeal to the mass market audience - who aren't used to, you know, thinking.
But again you are talking about its worth as a movie. This isn't the place for that, Tres. This thread is talking about movies that were adapted poorly from source material, not the worth of the resulting movies in their own right. You still have no business in that discussion, so it doesn't surprise me that you're avoiding the topic.
So, go read the book. It's really quite good, though a bit dated, and it doesn't feel the need to cater to the lowest common denominator. You will see no sex scenes, nor brains being sucked out, nor flashily edited commercials, nor really even very much combat with bugs. It doesn't need it - it actually assumes the reader is a functioning, intelligent person who can grasp discussion of more serious topics without all the added fluff.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
quote: "If Heinlein were alive, he probably would have wanted his name taken off the project, a la Alan Moore."
So I guess it would be like "Lawnmower Man"?
PS. I totally agree with Tresopax about Starship Troopers and probably with the quote above, if it's as far from the book as you all say it is. I don't remember.
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if you check Rotten Tomtatoes, it's got a 58% fresh rating... and the positive comments include:
Rottentomatoes.com just lists initial reviews by reviewers, and only gives one line of that review. I think it's safe to say, given the comments from actual fans of the film on IMDB, that those one-liners do not reflect the real reasons people found it enjoyable. This is not uncommon for reviews.
quote:But again you are talking about its worth as a movie. This isn't the place for that, Tres. This thread is talking about movies that were adapted poorly from source material, not the worth of the resulting movies in their own right. You still have no business in that discussion, so it doesn't surprise me that you're avoiding the topic.
Only if you believe its independent worth as a movie is not relevant to its worth as an adaptation, which I disputed. And even then, only if you don't believe threads are allowed to meander.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. Okay, let's get a few things clear. We can rate a few things about Starship Troopers.
a) the worth of the book b) the worth of the movie c) how well the movie was adapted from its source material
You can speak to point b. You cannot speak to points a or c.
It's pretty simple.
So, chatter all you want about its worth as a movie. It's not really relevant. And your argument that your posts are simply derailment is pretty weak. It's akin to saying "I never really meant what I said to have anything to do with the thread topic, I'm just rambling".
It's a terrible adaptation. You can deny that until you're blue in the face, but until you read the book, you'll sound like a little kid shouting at his parents that he doesn't like ketchup, even though he's never tried it. Any time you make any judgement about the worth of the adaptation, you are just making yourself sound more foolish.
***
As for imdb v. rottentomatoes. The first is by fans - and those, you will often see, rate in extremes only. How many perfect 10's v. 0's are there? Either they are saying "it's the bestestest movie I've ever seen!" or they're saying "it's complete and utter dreck".
Case in point:
quote: Call me a patriot, but I consider Paul Verhoeven one of the best directors alive. Starship Troopers is Paul Verhoeven at his best, creating the kind of futuristic atmosphere like nobody has ever done before. Okay, it's violent and the acting's a bit cheesy at times, but there's no denying this is one of the best sci-fi films ever made................10
RT is by reviewers, most of whom are paid to watch and review movies.
As for the "one line" only bit - those are hyperlinks. You know, those things you click to get the full review? They're easy, you just move your mouse over them, then hit the left button. Here is an example of a review that was considered *positive*. Or this gem, another positive review, which goes on to say:
quote: Probably the best way to approach Starship Troopers is to divorce it from its intelligent and gripping pedigree. Many of the most intellectually stimulating aspects of the book have been stripped away, and those that remain are only shadows of their former selves. (It's still a lot smarter than Independence Day, however.) Viewers offended by the "watering down" of themes in this summer's superlative motion picture version of Contact will be horrified by what has happened here. Nevertheless, taken on its own terms, the movie entity Starship Troopers offers an enjoyable two hours. At its best, the film recaptures the kind of taut, visceral thrills offered by James Cameron's Aliens. At its worst, it replicates the feel of a futuristic episode of TV's Beverly Hills 90210.
And here is another *positive* review, which goes on to say:
quote: So, I've spent a lot of time harping on this film. Yet I've seen it at least five f***ing times. Why do I watch this every time it comes on Late-night HBO? Well, obviously, the film does something right - though most of it is in the eye-candy department. Besides the beautifully rendered swarms of bugs, there is gore aplenty. Bugs getting blown up, shot up, splattered. Humans getting decapitated, eviscerated, even melted with acid bug-breath. Lots of pretty gunfire and explosions, etcetera (supposedly, more ammunition was used in Starship Troopers than in any previous movie). Then you've got the gratuitous co-ed trooper shower scene, and the lovely Dina Meyer showing her nice, natural cans not once, but twice!
Yeah, I think he pretty much covered all the good points.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:a) the worth of the book b) the worth of the movie c) how well the movie was adapted from its source material
You can speak to point b. You cannot speak to points a or c.
The trouble is that you think the topic is c, and I think the topic is b. Or, more exactly, you think a "bad adaptation" is a movie that fails at c, and I think a "bad adaptation" is an adaptation that fails at b. Why can't we just discuss both?
Either way, the only thing I have really spoken to is b.
quote:As for imdb v. rottentomatoes. The first is by fans - and those, you will often see, rate in extremes only. How many perfect 10's v. 0's are there? Either they are saying "it's the bestestest movie I've ever seen!" or they're saying "it's complete and utter dreck".
But if you want to find out what people really enjoy about a movie, you should talk to its actual fans. Reviewers just describe what they speculate people would or should enjoy about a film, and are often wrong on that account. Asking someone who doesn't like a film, or who only slightly enjoyed it, is not a good way to find out what turns people on to it.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:. . . but the most important part is the characters and their motivations - which are so blatantly overblown that it really drives home the absurdity of certain attitudes towards war while fairly harshly mocking the sci-fi movie genre. It is intentionally cartoony to make those points.
Respectfully, I think you're giving this film too much credit. It's like you thought, "Goodness, it can't possibly be this bad, can it? It must be on purpose. It must be satire."
No. It's really just that dumb.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just want to say two things before I start my rant.
1. Starship Troopers (the book) helped sclupt my views about politics, duty, soilderly, war, and many other serious topics. It did that while it entertained, it did it with dignity and a sense of humanity that made me truly relate with the characters. To put it another way, this book is sacred, like Ender's Game.
2. I hate anyone who likes Starship Troopers the movie. I will kneecap Paul Verhoven if I see him walking down the street. If I know you are a fan of the movie Starship Troopers, and you are on fire, I will not piss on you, where as if you are not on fire, I will.
quote:I'm talking about taking a book with some profound points which you could agree or disagree with and turning it into a laughably bad action mess.
quote:Maybe try reading the book and seeing how the essence of the book was stripped and gutted, replaced with sex scenes and masses of humans with machine guns. Or seeing how a novel long look at the concept of citizenship, service and duty is torn apart and replaced by flashy commercial propaganda.
quote:If the director thought that a book that seriously looked into the nature of war, citizenship, duty, service, and the human condition needed to be turned into a cartoonish montage of propaganda footage, maybe that speaks more to the state of our society than anything else.
[rant] Okay, if you want to make a satire about sci-fi fluff movies throwing the government/miltary into a bad (Nazi) light, go for it. There is a market. If you want to add mechinegun fire, gratuitious sex, lots of CG violence, great, you will make a lot of money.
But, don't go and pick -the- book that has nothing to do with bad/flashy sci-fi, or an unfair government.
Starship Troopers is required reading at West Point (as is Ender's Game), and should be, because it is not about a fight with aliens, but instead why we fight. To put your one and only life in between danger and the ones you love is heroic. Getting soaped up in a co-ed bathroom is entertaining. Get it yet? Starship Troopers by Robert A Heinlein is important. Starship Troopers by Paul Verhoven is (at best) entertaining, and at worst a total steaming pile of dog dung.
It's like replacing a universitiy's reserch super computer with an Xbox. Sure, it's fun, but we just lost something important.
In case you hadn't noticed, I am angry. When you take a national treasure and wipe your ass with it, it's one thing. But then to have the sheer balls to put Heinlein's name on that turd makes me want to put a bullet in someone. [/rant]
L.A. Confidential was a GREAT adaptation. The book spaned over 20 years, where as the movie takes place in about a week. Several senes were changed, subplots were moved to main characters, the book and the movie are different. And yet they tell the same tale, the journey of the characters follows a slightly different path to the same destination.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The trouble is that you think the topic is c, and I think the topic is b. Or, more exactly, you think a "bad adaptation" is a movie that fails at c, and I think a "bad adaptation" is an adaptation that fails at b. Why can't we just discuss both?
I think you're the only one talking about b in a thread full of people talking about c.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or, more exactly, you think a "bad adaptation" is a movie that fails at c, and I think a "bad adaptation" is an adaptation that fails at b. Why can't we just discuss both?
I'd say a bad adaptation is one that fails at either b or c. From what I remember, Starship Troopers failed on both counts.
Posts: 148 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Either way, the only thing I have really spoken to is b.
No. You've continually tried to make the statement that *because* it is a good movie (arguing point b) then it *must* have been adapted well (point c).
That's foolish, and, as Jon Boy said, you're the only one who appears to be misunderstanding the commentary on this thread. No one was talking about b - that's your particular axe that you're grinding.
Again, go read the book.
quote: But if you want to find out what people really enjoy about a movie, you should talk to its actual fans
See, but we're not looking at whether people like the movie. I don't care if people like the movie. If you only talk to the fans, you're going to come out thinking *every* movie is good - because you ignored the detractors. We're not looking at what "turns people on" to the movie, either - we're evaluating it's worth as an adaptation outside it's populartiy, or lack thereof.
People liked Titanic, too, so much so that it made $600 million dollars domestic. That doesn't make it a great movie - it just means people liked it. People liked Home Alone, enough to make it the 24th highest grossing movie of all time, but that doesn't make it quality cinema, either.
It means that it caters to the mass market, and, in so doing, has to be dumbed down and filled with action and sex. You know, the lowest common denominator.
This is not to say that a bad movie can't be fun, or enjoyable. It's just that you have to check your brain at the door in order to watch it.
Much like the DaVinci Code - people liked it, and pseudo-intellectuals claimed that it had more value than simply a summer beach book, that it had literary worth and delved into important topics. In truth, it was pulp garbage, filled with writer's conceits and bad information, all designed to get more books to fly off the shelf. Starship Troopers is much the same.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
The Secret of NIMH, in which they took a wonderful children's animal story/science fiction novel and added a bunch of CRAP to it. Like that stupid magic amulet. And they made Nicodemus a doddering old enchanter-type, instead of an intelligent, articulate leader.
I will never forgive Bluth for this movie.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think you're the only one talking about b in a thread full of people talking about c.
Icarus flat out said "What bothered me about Starship Troopers was that it was an awful movie." That's b, almost exactly. Several others then agreed, including FlyingCow, and have also been listing reasons why Starship Troopers fails as a movie in its own right.
quote:See, but we're not looking at whether people like the movie.
No, in regards to my mention of user comments, we were looking at WHY they liked the movie. This is because you are suggesting "you have to check your brain at the door in order to watch it" when in fact, many of those who have watched it and enjoyed it did so because they appreciated the intellectual aspects of it - not the popcorny aspects. Thus you don't have to check your brain at the door - in fact, having a well-functioning brain may be a requirement for appreciating it fully.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
(In the novels, the robots recognized the dilemma of humanity needing their protection from themselves, in conflict with the stifling effect that the protection of robots would have, and decided to absent themselves from the human galaxy, after formulating the zeroeth law.)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
