Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: A fresh take on the Star Wars films
Date: Sun, 12 May 2024 19:00:21 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <v1rhm5$31ea6$3@dont-email.me>
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>
 <v1r959$2vhna$1@dont-email.me>
 <714258912.737241713.474998.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 01:00:22 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c1730ace7618f99c718c5118c481b7e9";
	logging-data="3193158"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+peFKQuXl98BwHMgJ8hUd7xBUnGMe6azk="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yOwOUpI4cZQL7Fm4C4WoHZYKh2c=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <714258912.737241713.474998.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
Bytes: 4648

On 5/12/2024 5:22 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 5/12/2024 11:30 AM, Dimensional Traveler 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.)
>>
>> The sub-topic here is the satire in the original, which the sequels
>> jettisoned entirely.  Probably not a bad decision, given how much of the
>> audience seems not to have recognized it to start with.
> 
> Neither did Verhoeven.

How else would you interpret, e.g., this quote?

--------
Verhoeven said "We were accused by The Washington Post of being 
neo-Nazis! ... It was tremendously disappointing. They couldn't see that 
all I have done is ironically create a fascist utopia."

    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_(film)
--------