Challenged to name a movie that fell disappointingly short of its original book, my first reaction is Starship Troopers.
I was tremendously excited when I learned they would make this book into a movie, even while I doubted they would capture its flavor in full. The problem is internal dialogue. Really interesting books take us into the inner life of their main characters; in revealing those meditations and self-recriminations, they expose the soul of their actors. Without that insight, fictional characters are about as intellectually interesting as rock-em-sock-em robots.
Typically, movies substitute external dialogue and narrative for these inner debates. An example of this done well is the 1984 version of Dune. Without the narrative voiced by Gurney Halleck (Patrick Stewart) and Princess Irulan (Virginia Madsen), this story would be impenetrable. With it, and by dint of voicing much of the book's mental dialogue, it succeeds as an adaptation.
So I knew it would be possible to capture the philosophy- and social-commentary-laden substance of Heinlein's novel. I saw it in the theatrical release, and was sorely disappointed. This is simply not Heinlein's story.
Oh, the bugs are there. The sneak attack by this alien hive-dwelling race that wipes out Johnny Rico's home city is in the movie. The Mobile Infantry are there, with their armored suits complete with heads-up displays, pocket nukes and jump jets. What didn't survive the cut? Only the reason why Johnny joins the service in the first place.
Heinlein's novel hinges on two social differences in the world of Starship Troopers. First, only veterans—those who have chosen to place their lives "between their loved home and the war's desolation"—have the right to vote. Civilians do not have that right, and neither do serving troopers. Heinlein justifies this very succinctly:
Suddenly he pointed his stump at me. "You. What is the moral difference, if any, between the soldier and the civilian?"Second, it is anyone's choice to enlist at any time after their 18th birthday. The services will find something for the enlistee to do, to allow them to earn the franchise. But if they go AWOL, resign, or are drummed out for any reason, they never have the opportunity to try again. Politicians from dogcatcher to President must, under this system, be veterans, and there are no "reserves".
"The difference," I answered carefully, " lies in the field of civic virtue. A soldier accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he is a member, defending it, if need be, with his life. The civilian does not."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Matt Paprocki
Ok, I have yet to read the book (it's on my "list of things to do"), but when have you see a movie, especially a major Hollywood production, follow the book exactly? Reading over this, I can tell the book has all those different meanings and purposes the film had. Maybe not to the same extent, but they did find the right director to convey everything.
Taken on its own, Troopers is a solid flick filled with some of the best gore sequences ever concieved. Shame they blew it with the sequel. Now there is something to complain about.
2 - Al Barger
I'm voting with DrPat. This movie constitutes some kind of war crime. Robert Heinlein got reduced to a frickin' video game- and rather a lame bug-squashing one at that.
Why hasn't Heinlein ever had a real movie made from any of his work? And why has no one made films of any of his major works, ie Stranger or The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress?
3 - DrPat
Matt, even if you hadn't said you've not read the book, I would have known. This movie not only doesn't score on any level with the book's message, it's not even in the same ballpark.
I think I said I didn't expect the movie to reproduce the book. Do you not see the difference between the sample quote given to Lt. Rasczak and the original from Col. DuBois? This was only one of many ways in which the script failed to capture the substance of the original.
Worse, as I said, was the complete omission of the motivational philosophy in the novel. Instead, as Al said, they reduced the tale to video-game level: "F*ck the moral message, let's squish some bugs!"
4 - SFC SKI
I'd blanked out how bad this movie was in comparison to the book, it was too traumatic.
Dr. Pat, A word please?:
"The Mobile Infantry are there, with their armored suits complete with heads-up displays, pocket nukes and jump jets" What version were you watching? There was an obvious and apalling dearth of armored suits as Heinlein described them, probably because only Japanese Sci-Fi will actually fully mask it's stars for storyline, Hollywood never will.
There is also lack of mention as to why only veterans were allowed to vote: Society had so broken down, and more from internal failure (a general lack of civic further fro brevity) that only mustered out vets were willing and able to band together to do what needed to be done to bring about order. It was bloody, brutal, and swift, and unpleasant. The vets said to the people, we will do this unpleasant necessary task, but from now on, the only people who can charfge us with the task will be those who were willing to take on the burden of service. Tis is a key piece of the book, and whether it reflects Heinlein's personal worldview or is just a provocative plot twist is up for debate.
The females in combat aspect was drawn from Joe Haldeman's power-armored space combat novel, "Forever War" another staple of anyone's sci-fi diet, IMO. Now, Haldeman's and Heinlein's wars, Vietnam and WWII respectively, definitely show their different atittudes towards war in almost every page. In fact outside of powered suits and aliens, they are 2 very different novels, though both touch on the social aspects to great lengths. You'd be better off spending time reading them than watching the travesty of title known as the movie "Starship Troopers".
5 - Tim Hall
I loved the film precisely because it deliberately pisses over Heinlein's appalling crypto-fascist tract of a book.
ST is one of the only books I have ever thrown across the room in disgust. It was Heinlein's spanking fetish, rather than the relentless militarism that offended the worst. It felt like being stuck in a lift with Norman Tebbit.
6 - Andrew Ian Dodge
Um Tim? Startship Troopers cryto-fascist? I think you read the wrong book mate. You don't really get Heinlein do you?
The movie was total shite, course they topped it with the second one. Some of the dialogue in that movie is cringeworthy in extremis.
7 - SFC Ski
That is usually the charge levelled against the book by people who have trouble parsing meaning from what is written and insert their own instead.
8 - Deano
Actually Heinlein quite deliberately made the society in Starship Troopers one whereby anyone can vote, but you have to earn your citizenship and right to vote first through service (military or social, although the book only focused on the military side of things). You could not vote or run for office unless you have put in your time.
Paul Verhovan, who directed the film version deliberated took a very specific, almost satirical approach to the subject matter, in many cases trivializing Heinlein's argument that society is best served by those who put themselves out there for society. Verhovon's work has been greatly influenced by his childhood in WWII German occupied Holland, which has given him a interesting take on militarism and fascism.
This might have offered an interesting take on the story except that the movie did a vey poor job of portraying the Mobile Infantry envisioned by Heinlein ie. no mobile armor, no drops, little focus on the moral questions that the book raises).
Not to mention the low, low quality of the MI's weaponry and tactics (hmmm...giant alien bug to destroy. Let's stand ten feet away in a circle (in each others line of fire for gawdsake!) and all shoot at it).
Poor and shoddy execution of great written material. Coulda been a good movie...
Oh, and the only Heinlein-based film other than Starship troopers that I'm aware of it The Puppet Masters, which wasn't bad for a b-movie...
9 - DrPat
I've seen the "spanking fetish" come up before with Heinlein's work, but ST is the only story that explicitly states Heinein's reasons for approving corporal punishment. In a reminiscence about his History & Moral Philosophy class, Rico recalls Col. DuBois saying
10 - DWMF
I agree. The film was a total travesty of the book. Absolute shite. Verhoeven (the director) is quite the leftie, and has no respect for Heinlein's philosophy. Everything of any interest was stripped out.
11 - JR
Being a leftie is no excuse. An intellectually honest person can create (or recreate) art that challenges his own world view. Verhoeven is either an inferior talent, or he is too compromised by the stupidity of the industry in which he works.
12 - Eric Berlin
Excellent post and discussion, DrPat.
Let's back up a minute here, though: you liked the film version of Dune? Isn't it generally regarded as one of the worst films ever made? I can't even answer the latter question as I can only get through about 10 minutes of the movie without itching to do something/anything else.
13 - SFC Ski
I believe he is referring to the much better Sci-Fi Channel remake.
While Lynch's version is very poor as in relation to the book, the movie is a visual feast.
14 - JR
...you liked the film version of Dune? Isn't it generally regarded as one of the worst films ever made? I can't even answer the latter question as I can only get through about 10 minutes of the movie without itching to do something/anything else.
Hell, I felt that way reading the book.
15 - Eric Berlin
I found Dune the book to be only so-so, which I feel nearly embarrassed about, being generally a sci fi fan.
16 - DrPat
I did like the '84 Dune movie, but it is included in this post because, despite the reliance of the book on internal dialogue, the movie succeeded in adapting the story to allow the internal voice expression via narrative and external dialogue.
As I said, I knew ST could be adapted despite Heinlein's usual reliance on reminiscence and rumination because David Lynch had managed to do it with Dune.
Aside from that, Dune had serious flaws as a movie, I agree. Even so, I prefer it to the 2000 made-for-TV version starring William Hurt as Duke Leto. The mini-series squandered the advantage they should have had in adapting this huge novel into a longer format than the cinematic version, incorporating little more of the novel than was included in the original movie.
17 - Aaron, Duke De Mondo
DrPat, i haven't read the book, and so will concede that perhaps had i done so, the film may have impressed me less. An example of this is American Psycho, the novel of which i found to be among the most incisive, visceral, funny and utterly despicable (and all at one time) tome to have crossed mine eye-blobs. In light of this, the flick could only dissapoint.
However, in my humble opinion, Starship Troopers is a brilliant, brilliant, wickedly funny slab of satire, which, whilst not as wickedly funny nor as politically sharp as his earlier Robocop, is still something Voerhoeven should be proud as hell of. Certainly a lot prouder than he may be of Showgirls...
Starship Troopers was one of the most intelligent, subversive, blackly-comic mainstream movies i had seen in a long time, and i think if folks just see it as a CGI-filled action flick, they're missing about 90% of what was going on. It's a brilliant film; funny, smart, and dripping with an ironic wit that only becomes funnier when one realises most of the cast-members didn't get it.
18 - Aaron, Duke De Mondo
and to the comments regarding the cringe-inducing dialogue and so on, i'm just stumped as to how the joke passed you by? As Tim states, it's a lampooning of militaristic fascist sci-fi, which i can't claim the book to be part of, since i never read it. Sci-Fi as a filmic genre, though, is a notoriously reactionairy one (technological advances being something to fear, for example. not in all cases, but the majority) and Starship Troopers ruthlessly mocks it. Saying it's jsut a "stomp giant bugs" flick is just baffling to me. the bugs are, honest to god, the last thing that comes to my mind when i think of it. Again, it's a brilliantly ironic slab of satire. It's gleefully pissing on action movie conventions and ideas, and with a lot more suss than the recent Team America.
19 - Eric Berlin
Duke - I think the bug-squashing critique is accurate due to the fact there's scene after scene of bug attacks and bug/human massacres. I can see if over-the-top was done for effect, but it felt like hours of bug guts piled on top of bug guts, with the occasional trooper dude spiraling and contorting in agony. For most people, it becomes the movie and squashes (ha ha) anything else the film was trying to say.
20 - Aaron, Duke De Mondo
granted, there is a lot of it, and the second half of the film is a tad less interesting than the first, but i think the comedy is still the overriding element.
21 - DrPat
Obviously, if satire was what the director aimed for, he might have chosen a less well-loved novel to lampoon, or created an overt pastiche of Heinlein's and Haldeman's stories (maybe titling it Forever Starship Troopers). I don't believe satire was the goal, though. I think it more likely that the lure of those gory SFX simply overwhelmed the story.
And that brings me back to my original contention, which was not that ST was a bad movie, and not that Heinlein's novel was a masterpiece, but that the creators of the movie failed abysmally in the task of adapting the book to the screenplay.
The result may share a title and some character names with the novel, but it shares nothing else.
22 - Aaron, Duke De Mondo
DrPat, i don't think there's any question that satire was the goal. However, i am sympathetic with the points you make, that maybe fans of the book were hoping for something other than a springboard for Voerhoeven's mischevious antics. I imagine it's a bit like the Starsky And Hutch flick. Some folks see it as a fantastic, very funny film, others see it as a horrible blight on thier memories of the source work.
But you're right, the point wasn't whether or not it was a good film, but if it was a good adaptation, which you say it wasn't, and i'm guessing you're right. That's why i brought up American Psycho couple comments back. Fantastic novel, and probably a good film, but very underwhelming as an adaptation.
23 - Eric Berlin
To me, the film didn't work as comedy, satire, or action flick, which makes it kind of an interesting (in some ways) oddity, but nowhere near a good film.
24 - Polymath5
I agree with DrPat. Being a huge Heinlein fan, ST was always a favorite of mine. I love his philosophy on what is needed to be a citizen, not just a consumer at the public trough. I particularly liked that the service would find something for someone to do, even if they were physically disabled or had a medical condition that would prevent actual combat service.
I did enjoy the movie as I can readily go into a state of 'willing suspension of disbelief'. So as an action film I enjoyed, as being anything close to the book... The only movie in recent years that does a worse job of following a book is I, Robot.
However, there is lot to be said for Diz's shower and romp with Rico. (sorry couldn't resist)
25 - Dave Nalle
There's a reason why this movie didn't get made until after Heinlein was dead. While he was alive he had not only script approval, but also on-set approval of everything that was shot. He took the concepts of the book so seriously that he gave up money from his movie deal to get creative control. This fact actually shut down an earlier production of the movie before it got beyond the script stage. The story is that a production was assembled starring Martin Sheen and Charlie Sheen which never actually got to filming because Heinlein wouldn't approve the script and then died.
I think the best hope for a good remake would be to get the folks who do Stargate SG-1 for Sci Fi channel to do a full remake as a mini-series - Sci Fi could use the money they save on all their crappy movies to fund it. N. John Smith is a Heinlein disciple and would do the script properly.
Dave