Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: A fresh take on the Star Wars films
Date: Sun, 12 May 2024 18:10:39 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <7gf24j141hlm65kkk6u86tdielv150lsrl@4ax.com>
References: <20240507112300.00000489@example.com> <v1m9a6$1k7nb$1@dont-email.me> <18l04j5bvs54jd6aijufh67edt34ivveuc@4ax.com> <u6p04jp0rt4qoks9sbje9s0j5u449o1f8c@4ax.com> <v1pp3v$2j21h$1@dont-email.me> <sd514j512d48oi81ej7v8fk8p6onvsbbqk@4ax.com> <v1qnam$2psg3$1@dont-email.me> <532614685.737233536.419562.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 00:10:39 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="26dbc7239de2165b49fd4fbee427ee0a";
	logging-data="3173241"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/sdVK9fv0QK+x/NDRSpqD/OZL0fs7zhY0="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:e3ADJZc4lcpCQ8rHi4rn9q+RGDA=
Bytes: 4112

On Sun, 12 May 2024 12:10:47 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:

>Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 5/12/2024 3:14 AM, shawn wrote:
>>> On Sun, 12 May 2024 06:54:55 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>> Sat, 11 May 2024 22:35:20 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> Fri, 10 May 2024 19:06:45 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> 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.
>> 
>> The sequels are cheap "sci-fi" horror direct to video productions.  If 
>> you like deliberately bad movies you _may_ want to check them out. 
>> Otherwise don't bother.  (From someone who has watched them.)
>> 
>
>Agreed

Which is why I haven't gotten around to watch them. I enjoy cheap
sci-fi movies but I have the feeling those are truly bad but not bad
enough to be enjoyable for how bad they are based just on the still
images I've seen.