25 response about Starship Troopers 3’s Killer Trailer »

1. 

   “some chick” is Jolene Blalock dude. The hottest Vulcan ever. This movie I will definitely rent, but I’m not sur it even comes close to being as great as the orignal. There’s something slightly… off about the propaganda parts to this. It just doesn’t feel like it works as well. Plus, no Michael Ironside.

   Still, I’m willing to give this one a chance; especially since every time I picked up part two in the video store I just snickered and threw it over my shoulder.

   Comment by Andrew James — February 27, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
2. 

   “The hottest Vulcan ever.” - from Enterprise I take it? It’s the one ST I could NOT get into.

   Comment by Marina Antunes — February 28, 2008 @ 12:49 am
3. 

   According to this io9 post:
   http://io9.com/360061/starship-troopers-iii-actually-based-on-heinlein-novel-this-time
   it’s closer to the Heinlein novel and we might actually get to see power suits. I first read Starship Troopers when I was around 14 and the power suits were what I remembered the most from the book. I reread it as an adult and was amazed at how little story time the suits took. Still, I wasn’t alone. There were lots of people grumpy about their absence.

   And in addition to being hot, Jolene Blalock make a great Vulcan even in spite of the shite Enterprise scripts.

   Comment by Dale — February 28, 2008 @ 6:47 am
4. 

   The movie franchise has very little to do with the book.

   - No power armor
   - No small scale combat tactics. The movie is all about waves of infantry, whereas the book describes individual soliders spaced out kilometers apart from one another due to their weaponry (each soldier in armor carries the equivalent of a whole tank battation of firepower)
   - No intellgent, advanced weapon weilding bugs
   - No Skinnies (secondary enemy race)
   - No combat in the bug’s deep underground mazelike cavern complexes.

   The list goes on and on. About the only thing the movie uses from the book are a few key names, the idea of mankind vs space critters, and the backdrop of a semi-facist government.

   IMO, give it 5 more years and the series would be ripe for a reboot done in a somber, gritty style and smaller scale focusing on the mental and physical journey of a few characters. I’d include the power armor and other book elements, but focus on the soldier’s first experiences and how they are changed by the trauma of war. I’m thinking Full Metal Jacket meets Aliens. The sci-fi tech and alien settings are ancilliary to the eternal truisms of what it has meant to be a soldier throughout the ages. Or something like that

   Comment by TJ — February 28, 2008 @ 9:29 am
5. 

   I’m not a fan of Cheap-quels, and the second SST film definitely felt that way, so I passed, and I’d probably continue to pass without Verhoeven involved, yes, I know Neumeier wrote the first one and Robocop, but still…Verhoeven brings a lot to the equation.

   Having read the book and seen the first film multiple times, TJ is on the nose, however, I do love how Neumeier and Verhoeven did make the SST movie their own. I have the book for one thing, the movie for another. That is a good way to do an adaptation as far as I’m concerned.

   Comment by Kurt — February 28, 2008 @ 9:51 am
6. 

   Oh yea, mentioned time and time again in the DVD commentary with Verhoeven, is the main thing that he got out of reading the book and adapting it from the screen is simply “War makes fascists of us all” and he tried to incorporate that into every element of the satire, drama, etc. within the film, and I’d say that he was very, very successful. Oddly, I view this film as somewhat of a comfort-film, one I keep coming back to because it’s pretty fun when you boil it right down. It mocks and glorifies the strengths and weaknesses of an American blockbuster, like only one raised outside of the US and Hollywood can.

   Go Verhoeven.

   Comment by Kurt — February 28, 2008 @ 10:21 am
7. 

   Actually that quote is something he reads from a review of the film in the beginning of the commentary. I’ve listened to it several times, I actually don’t remember him talking about the book much.

   “It mocks and glorifies the strengths and weaknesses of an American blockbuster, like only one raised outside of the US and Hollywood can.”

   I agree with that. Only I dare not say things like that anymore.

   Comment by Henrik — February 28, 2008 @ 10:25 am
8. 

   Indeed Henrik, but over the course of the commentary track the war/fascist quote may not be Verhoeven’s words, but over the course of the commentary, he keeps coming back to it, retroactively or not, it is the essence of the film, which is not quite the thesis of the book but rather his interpretation of the book. I’ve always thought of the movie as “Paul Verhoeven’s Starship Troopers” anyways…

   Comment by Kurt Halfyard — February 28, 2008 @ 11:15 am
9. 

   I agree that it is his vision for the film, as he says when he originally mentions the quote. I just thought I’d point out that it was actually a quote that some stupid LA reviewer stumbled upon while trying to slack off the film.

   Comment by Henrik — February 28, 2008 @ 11:21 am
10. 

    Verhoeven’s vision is almost polar opposite to Heinlein’s.

    I enjoyed Verhoeven’s treatment but like Kurt, consider the movie and book as separate beasts.

    It would be nice to see a movie truer to Heilein’s thoughts, but I’m not sure you could call it Starship Troopers without bringing along a lot of baggage.

    Comment by Dale — February 28, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
11. 

    

    Comment by Marina Antunes — March 3, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
12. 

    I’m seriously missing Michael Ironside and Jake Busy in that poster. Looks pretty uninteresting…and the insect arms look (sadly) like houseplants. oi.

    Comment by Kurt — March 3, 2008 @ 7:25 pm
13. 

    The Japanese just put out a “BIG JAPANESE NARRATOR” version of the trailer. Still looks like Ass, but the japanese are taking the release pretty seriously it seems.

    Having just watched the original STARSHIP TROOPERS on the weekend (A film I hold dear to my heart) and All I can say is that this film gets better and better (and, sadly, more prophetic) as time goes by.

    “They Sucked His Brains Out” - there’s a line for post 9/11 over-reaction in IRAQ.

    (and Yie! from an effects point of view Starship Troopers 3 looks atrocious). One thing that stuck me about SST1 is how tactile the bugs look in the shorts and how seemlessly they blend with the props. Here, in SST3, not so much.

    Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 2, 2008 @ 11:05 am
14. 

    I swear to God, if I read or hear one more person refer to Heinlein’s book as being about a fascist military government I’m going to explode into a million pieces from irritation.

    Comment by Giovanni — December 17, 2008 @ 12:58 am
15. 

    @I agree with that. Only I dare not say things like that anymore.

    what the fuck are you talking about? You just said it! Quit playing the victim.

    Comment by Rusty James — December 17, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
16. 

    When I have seen Kurt say it, I dare, because I know it’s an over-insanely-completely-harmless-and-extremely-family-safe thing to say.

    Comment by Henrik — December 17, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
17. 

    Nope, more along the line when Jeffrey “THE DUDE” Lebowski gets hit on the head with a coffee mug by the police chief of Malibu and with nothing else to say, he just yells “Fascist!” in pain. That is somewhat the experience of reading Heinlen’s novel version of SST, which is why I actually prefer Verhoeven’s tongue in cheek film version.

    I also cry ‘fascist’ on RED DAWN for what it’s worth.

    Hardly the family safe thing to do, if anything I’m usually against all the soccer mom crap (which I also cry fascist!)

    ha.

    Comment by Kurt — December 17, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
18. 

    I also cry ‘fascist’ on RED DAWN for what it’s worth.

    Who pissed in your radiator? Red Dawn is gold Kurt, Gold!

    Comment by Matt Gamble — December 17, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
19. 

    Napovich! Napovich!

    **gun fire…. death**

    WOLVERINES!

    Comment by Andrew James — December 17, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
20. 

    so why do you think Red Dawn fascist?

    Comment by Rusty James — December 17, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
21. 

    Because he sucks.

    Comment by Matt Gamble — December 17, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
22. 

    The constant ‘American-isms’ The rah-rah sloganeering of the picture. Drives me nuts. I imagine even the lovers consider it more of a guilty pleasure than a good film. Ya know kinda like the Hitcher.

    Comment by Kurt Halfyard — December 17, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
23. 

    kinda like the Hitcher.

    Just for that I am buying your kids Kung Fu Panda.

    Comment by Matt Gamble — December 17, 2008 @ 8:46 pm
24. 

    @ The constant ‘American-isms’ The rah-rah sloganeering of the picture.

    Would it be more accurate to characterize you compliants as “nationalist” vs “fascist” ?

    Comment by Rusty James — December 18, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
25. 

    No, I think the problem runs a bit deeper than simple nationalism slash patriotism-gone-wild. But its been years since I’ve seen the film…

    Comment by Kurt — December 18, 2008 @ 2:13 pm

Leave a comment