OOTS #1162 - The Discussion Thread

[Fyraltari]

I loved that film.

Once I learnt of the director's background and intended message, I love it even more.

Grey Wolf

I know a lot about that film and its relationship with the book it is adapted from (in good part thanks to the Nexus VI channel on YouTube (in French)) as well as the message even though I have not actually seen it (it’s high on my must watch list). But I don’t know about the director’s background, could you elaborate if it’s not too political (our shenanigans have already got the LotR thread locked :-( ).

(I like parentheses.)

[D.One]

And less now than ever before.

Even way before. We have a huge latitude range here, as well as seashore and inlands, so pick your choice:

Wanna rainforest? We've got it.
Wanna temperate-like pine woods? We've got it too.
Wanna not-far-from-desert cactus? Covered.
Wanna aligator-filled marshes? Got that too

You won't find ice cold tundra, but I think that would be too much to ask...

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I know a lot about that film and its relationship with the book it is adapted from (in good part thanks to the Nexus VI channel on YouTube (in French)) as well as the message even though I have not actually seen it (it’s high on my must watch list). But I don’t know about the director’s background, could you elaborate if it’s not too political (our shenanigans have already got the LotR thread locked :-( ).

(I like parentheses.)

Verhoeven was a kid in Holland in the 1940s. He always loved film (unsurprisingly, given his career), so he grew very familiar with military propaganda films, since that was what was being shown at the time. He also developed a strong dislike of certain political movements, which I shall not discuss. Starship Troopers (the book) is quite openly propagandistic in favour of those movements, and thus Verhoeven (1) didn't manage to get very far into the book, for likely obvious reasons and (2) decided to take the opportunity to satire war-time propaganda films. Being the master of satire that he is (see also Robocop), it was subtle enough that you get the feeling it's making fun of the subject, while not being anvilicious about it.

Would you Like to Know More?

Grey Wolf

[D.One]

(I like parentheses.)

{[(Who doesn't?)]}

[Ruck]

Verhoeven was a kid in Holland in the 1940s. He always loved film (unsurprisingly, given his career), so he grew very familiar with military propaganda films, since that was what was being shown at the time. He also developed a strong dislike of certain political movements, which I shall not discuss. Starship Troopers (the book) is quite openly propagandistic in favour of those movements, and thus Verhoeven (1) didn't manage to get very far into the book, for likely obvious reasons and (2) decided to take the opportunity to satire war-time propaganda films. Being the master of satire that he is (see also Robocop), it was subtle enough that you get the feeling it's making fun of the subject, while not being anvilicious about it.

Would you Like to Know More?

Grey Wolf

Robocop is probably the most prescient film about what America would become, which should be pretty alarming to a lot more people.

[Ironsmith]

Robocop is probably the most prescient film about what America would become, which should be pretty alarming to a lot more people.

Sorry if this sounds a little dense, but... how so? I don't see any USB shivs, 6-million-dollar-men or law enforcement drones anywhere...

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Sorry if this sounds a little dense, but... how so? I don't see any USB shivs, 6-million-dollar-men or law enforcement drones anywhere...

There is no way to answer this question without politics. I strongly encourage you not to pursue the topic.

Grey Wolf

[Skull the Troll]

No they didn't. IRS did. You don't mess with the money men.

The Untouchables were the money men. Elliot Ness was Treasury, not FBI. Theres a History Buffs episode on Youtube about the movie. Its really good, and explains how getting him on taxes was always the plan.

[Ironsmith]

There is no way to answer this question without politics. I strongly encourage you not to pursue the topic.

Grey Wolf

Fair enough. That in of itself is a satisfactory answer for the time being.

[Mightymosy]

Verhoeven was a kid in Holland in the 1940s. He always loved film (unsurprisingly, given his career), so he grew very familiar with military propaganda films, since that was what was being shown at the time. He also developed a strong dislike of certain political movements, which I shall not discuss. Starship Troopers (the book) is quite openly propagandistic in favour of those movements, and thus Verhoeven (1) didn't manage to get very far into the book, for likely obvious reasons and (2) decided to take the opportunity to satire war-time propaganda films. Being the master of satire that he is (see also Robocop), it was subtle enough that you get the feeling it's making fun of the subject, while not being anvilicious about it.

Would you Like to Know More?

Grey Wolf

I don't know if that worked well, actually.

I have grown up in that country, and the people who liked Starship Troopers (I didn't like it) really liked the war and the militarism.
I think the comrade who liked it best was probably the one whose main interest was WW2. He had like a bazillion of tanks and knew all sort of German miltary stuff and we were never quite sure *how* much he liked this stuff if you get what I mean....

To get back to OotS, in my opinion Starship Troopers has a similar problem as the Tarquin character: if you make stuff too cool, people will like it, no matter if you intended it to be a parody or an example that *should* discourage people or a subtle warning that evil can be subtle.

TL&DR: Too subtle is too subtle.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

TL&DR: Too subtle is too subtle.

The Weirdo is positive proof that there is no amount of unsubtle that won't be misread by someone, somewhere. Too unsubtle, though, is detrimental to the quality of a work - thus why anvilicious is usually a negative characteristic, no matter how much the anvil needs to be dropped. The reason why I like Verhoeven films is because his subtle satire adds character without dominating the film. That it is too subtle for some people is not a problem.

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

I mean, it is a problem. But not the movie's.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Wikipedia said he managed to shut down a lot of the illegal stills and breweries thus shutting down a lot of Capone's bootlegging; even if, as you mentioned, none of the Volstead charges actually managed to stick to Capone.

Hence the cash flow issue leading to that crack I made about no more graft.

There's a line of thought that the Feds deliberately hit him with tax fraud to cost him cred in prison, BTW. Cheating on your taxes doesn't help your status in the yard at Alcatraz.

[The_Weirdo]

{[(Who doesn't?)]}

Hey, as long as we're here, do you know the Tormenta setting? If you do, you likely know my take on the minotaurs.

[Mightymosy]

I mean, it is a problem. But not the movie's.

The Weirdo is positive proof that there is no amount of unsubtle that won't be misread by someone, somewhere. Too unsubtle, though, is detrimental to the quality of a work - thus why anvilicious is usually a negative characteristic, no matter how much the anvil needs to be dropped. The reason why I like Verhoeven films is because his subtle satire adds character without dominating the film. That it is too subtle for some people is not a problem.

Grey Wolf

The Weirdo....still wonder what happened to "Don't feed the troll".

Anyway, do you think the movie would have had more impact or less impact if it had been less subtle?

I have a bold assumption, and you may tell me if that's true or not:

I assume that Starship Troopers did NOT change your opinion on militarism.

I assume you went into that movie with a sensible view on things, and you went out of that movie with a sensible view on things.

My point is this: Subtle criticism can often lead to this:
People who *get* it bathe in its glory ("oh how clever this movie points out the things that are wrong!")
People who don't *get* it bathe in its false glory (in this case, celebrating militarism).
Both groups are happy, nobody changes.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I assume that Starship Troopers did NOT change your opinion on militarism.

You would be wrong.

Both film and book made me think about their subject and altered the way I though about it. Not necessarily in the direction intended by their respective authors.

Grey Wolf

[Mightymosy]

@GWc:

That's interesting. I'd like to know in which direction the movie changed your view.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

@GWc:

That's interesting. I'd like to know in which direction the movie changed your view.

There is no way to answer this question without politics. I strongly encourage you not to pursue the topic.

Grey Wolf

GW c

[Mightymosy]

@GWc: You could send as PM

[Grey_Wolf_c]

@GWc: You could send as PM

No I couldn't. Forum rules apply to PMs.

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

Mightymosy, the "c" in Grey Wolf's username is just there to make sure the username isn't taken already, it doesn't stand for anything. You can just drop it (I know this because GW told me).

[Mightymosy]

No I couldn't. Forum rules apply to PMs.

Grey Wolf

Sure about that specifically?
Because under the header of forbidden topics the rules only talk about posts, not private messages.

Since private messages are "private", I have a hard time imagining this would be a very useful rule for PMs, or do the mods read PMs?

[The_Weirdo]

Sure about that specifically?
Because under the header of forbidden topics the rules only talk about posts, not private messages.

Since private messages are "private", I have a hard time imagining this would be a very useful rule for PMs, or do the mods read PMs?

I was told once that private messages also fall within the purview of the rules.

Regardless, it's quite easy to grasp someone's opinion on many topics judging by their opinion on works of fiction. If I hypothetically say all Cardassians in Star Trek deserve to die for what they did to the Bajorans, you will easily grasp my view on the Empire in Star Wars and other such views in many contexts.

At the end of the day, fiction and our views thereof both reflect and mold our values. If someone praises Darth Vader for "bringing order to the galaxy", chances are he'll identify Lawful Evil people in his D&D campaign as the true protagonists...

[Kish]

I also think "the Tarquin problem" is being vastly overplayed here. He presented himself as calm and perfectly in control: Intended. He was powerful, as a borderline-epic character: Intended. Over the course of the book he was shown to be a quasi-delusional control freak with delusions of grandeur, who wound up yelling impotently at the sky: Intended. His initial fan club essentially disintegrated over the course of the book he was in; it would be more optimistic than I am to seriously hope that any of them reconsidered their criteria for deciding they like characters, but how little they liked the message doesn't change the fact that it was both the intended message and the received message. Only someone who chose to literally ignore everything about Tarquin's personality in favor of "he's a powerful warlord with a massive army" could fail to see his flaws and his defeat--and attempting to get the message through to anyone functioning at that level would mean robbing it of everything that could be called good writing, in the name of a dubious-at-best goal.

[Keltest]

Sure about that specifically?
Because under the header of forbidden topics the rules only talk about posts, not private messages.

Since private messages are "private", I have a hard time imagining this would be a very useful rule for PMs, or do the mods read PMs?

The mods can read PMs, yes. And while they don't necessarily go out of their way to spy on all of us, if somebody were to, say, announce their intention to discuss a forbidden topic in PM, well, that gives them a much more specific thing to watch for.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Sure about that specifically?

Yes

as a reminder, the Forum Rules apply to all PMs as well as to the discussion areas of the Forum.

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

I was told once that private messages also fall within the purview of the rules.

Regardless, it's quite easy to grasp someone's opinion on many topics judging by their opinion on works of fiction. If I hypothetically say all Cardassians in Star Trek deserve to die for what they did to the Bajorans, you will easily grasp my view on the Empire in Star Wars and other such views in many contexts.

Is there one group you think does not deserve to die?

[The_Weirdo]

Is there one group you think does not deserve to die?

The Bajorans.
The Maquis. (Now, now: remember that there are Maquis in Star Trek!)
The Rebels.
The Gaul Village in Astérix.
In short: the victims, the attacked. The people who resist.

[Fyraltari]

The Bajorans.
The Maquis. (Now, now: remember that there are Maquis in Star Trek!)
The Rebels.
In short: the victims, the attacked. The people who resist.

What about those who belong to both? Like say, Kallus? or Mara Jade?

Edit: yes, am sure there are dense bushes in Star Trek.
Also the Gauls, in case you hadn’t noticed are not oppressed in Asterix
Nor were they in real life.

[Keltest]

The Bajorans.
The Maquis. (Now, now: remember that there are Maquis in Star Trek!)
The Rebels.
The Gaul Village in Astérix.
In short: the victims, the attacked. The people who resist.

That's not a useful distinction. Does Jabba count? He suffers under the rule of the Empire as much as the rebels do. The imperials took over his planet, after all.