Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: shawn Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: A fresh take on the Star Wars films Date: Sun, 12 May 2024 06:14:32 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 39 Message-ID: References: <20240507112300.00000489@example.com> <18l04j5bvs54jd6aijufh67edt34ivveuc@4ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sun, 12 May 2024 12:14:34 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="65f14d621bb64fa4df1ef99b13b7a1f0"; logging-data="2812050"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX194LPumsqzjzgeZ/yXSl+RqT2NDJ29Y6mA=" User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272 Cancel-Lock: sha1:86tgyv1ZQomvLGEninXl1c+aRAs= Bytes: 3235 On Sun, 12 May 2024 06:54:55 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" wrote: >shawn wrote: >>Sat, 11 May 2024 22:35:20 -0700, The Horny Goat wrote: >>>Fri, 10 May 2024 19:06:45 -0400, moviePig wrote: > >>>>Well, *somebody* with wit had to have been behind it. That much >>>>tongue-in-cheek can't have been accidental. Fwiw, the Internet seems >>>>rather definite that Verhoeven (a dedicated Liberal) was satirizing. > >>>Got a cite on that? Sounds like an interesting article or two. > >>https://collider.com/starship-troopers-review-satire-at-its-best/ > >>The cold hard truth of Starship Troopers, Paul Verhoeven's 1997 >>follow-up to his infamous 1995 Showgirls, is painfully obvious from >>the start: this is not Oscar bait. The acting is wooden, especially >>from lead actor Casper Van Dien. Denise Richards' performance is also >>suspect, playing aspiring pilot Carmen Ibanez. The only actors that >>stand out are the steady veterans Clancy Brown and Michael Ironside. >>What Starship Troopers is, though, is satire at its best, with >>Verhoeven masterfully weaving social commentary and potshots >>throughout the film. > >But the novel he was adapting wasn't satire, and the social commentary >was different. Quite frankly, I didn't care for the movie. I thought >the potshots he took were against easy targets. For that reason, I've >seen the movie once and never revisted it and had no interest in the >sequel. No doubt. He took the name of the book and some of the ideas from the book to make a very different movie. So there's no way you can judge the book by the movie because they are so different. I've seen the movie a few times as background noise but never a serious watch because it isn't something one should take seriously. Even his satire is so broad it prevents me from even taking his obvious potshots seriously. I have the sequels on my list to watch some day just to see what they are like but I'm clearly in no rush to see any of them.