«

[Chuck the plant]

Originally posted by Zarkumo@Mar 26 2005, 02:55 PM
(I'm also a bit offended by your question, I must admit, cause if I hadn't read the novel I wouldn't have taken it as an example...)

Nothing personal, but since I'm studying movies and media I learned personally that nine out of ten people who favour Kubrick never bothered to read any of the actual novels many of his movies based on (worst example in the case of "Clockwork Orange" was when some lecturing-group gave kudos to Kubrick for "inventing a whole new language for the movie"... One of the very few times I actually COULDN'T help myself and had to interrupt a lecture right in the middle of it... not exactly making the group look good ). So as I said, nothing personal, just wanted to be sure and I apologise, if I really offended you.

As for the rest about that particular movie: Personal taste, I think. I prefer the original ending. Many think of it as being meant to be "redeeming", but I don't second that, it's just realistic.
Plus, when you read the book, it still seems timeless in a pretty good way, while the movie is doubtlessly dated (and I can't help but think it kinda was even back then, especially regarding clothes etc... somehow I doubt someone would have thought of those to be "a realistic perspective" even back then, while the book predates many things that later actually came true when we look at the punk-movement and related sub-cultures... one could argue now, if they weren't inspired by the book in the first place, though)

Actually I think Kubrick was VERY good at turning novels into movies, or let's say: making movies based on or inspired by novels. And actually I think you can say this even if you haven't read a single novel. Because the movies are, in general, all excellent movies. They speak for themselves

That's exactly what I said: He was good at making movies. But he was bad at turning novels into movies, because as you said yourself: They stand on their own and often don't really relate much to the novels anymore and that makes him bad at actually turning novels into movies. The fact that I found EVERY novel better then the film he made out of it doesn't mean I find the films bad. I just think they're bad compared to the books.

[wormpaul]

Nah..

Not my type of games/movies..

BTW:

Starship Troopers was made by a dutch man k:

[Danny252]

Believe I saw part of the movie once..
the bugs send big asteroids at earth, right?

[Sean]

Is Starship Troopers II any good?

[wormpaul]

Originally posted by Magic@Mar 27 2005, 10:01 PM
Is Starship Troopers II any good?

Nah..

A cheap B movie :not_ok:

[DeathDude]

No kidding, 'agrees with wormpaul.'

[Partizanka]

I don't know if this is off topic, on topic or what. I'm not art, literature or film student, but I loved the book dearly (it is required reading at some officer schools). I thought it was not only interesting and enjoyable to read, but also a good commentary and realistic enough for my tastes. I love all of Heinlein's books, but Starship Troopers is on the top 5 with me.

The movie I despise totally. For an action movie it is bad, for a joke movie it is bad, for anything I would ever want to watch, it is bad. If I want to watch bad movies for fun I will watch some old propaganda movies or find something with Bruce Cambell in it, he makes good bad movies.

The game I did enjoy some. It is very simple and easy to beat, but its kind of fun and they added in the armored suits that were so important in the book.

I also saw some of the animated series. I thought the series was much better then the movie. It had powered armor, skinnies and actually took itself seriously some time.

[wormpaul]

Originally posted by DeathDude@Mar 28 2005, 12:04 AM
No kidding, 'agrees with wormpaul.'

Thank you Death Dude :bleh:

[Sean]

I wont be renting it then =D

[Jim6]

Just as a preface: I was at least partially unsober when I posted that :whistle:

Anyway, I don't think I can argue better than, nor avoid repeating the arguments from this, so I'll just link to it and be done.

Personally, I completely agree with the "quote" that the books serves as propaganda for the military, and would attribute my being in the reserve due to it, but I think the book also propounds a solid argument for a system that rewards social responsibility.

My main problem with the movie is that, rathar than stay faithful to the book, it almost lampoons it - exaggerating the more easily mockable parts, and ignoring (to various extents) the subtleties to the extent that the movie is seen by most as an action movie. Compare this to the book - aside from short sequences at the start and end, there is very little actual combat. The book focuses on the training, and social setting of the universe i which it is set, and much less on the war.

On another note, I'm glad you brought this up - it meant that when packing my books for moving house, I kept ST out so I can read it again soon

Edit: And no, you shouldn't rent ST2; no one should.