The Letters to the Editor department is intended to be a forum for our readers to express their own opinions and ideas. While we appreciate the many complimentary letters we receive each day, you won't find them on this page. Instead, you will find letters that go beyond or even contradict what we have written, letters that offer a different perspective and provide a different view of science fiction. If you would like to submit a letter, please use our feedback form or send a message to scifiweekly@scifi.com.
-- Craig E. Engler, Editor
Troopers review right on
our review of Starship Troopers hit the mark in most respects but did not convey its obvious contempt for its audience. You were quite right that the effects/battle scenes were the only good bit (without bothering about such trifles as plot or characterisation) but these too were undermined by the unexplained, if not inexplicable, storyline.
The absence of the book's powered armour made ludicrous the idea that a bunch of (superbly coiffured) people in flak jackets and a popgun would be dumped on a hostile planet without airborne or spaceborne support. Once there they, and their orbiting starships, mill about in a manner very much like their insect opponents, with even less attempts to hide, co-ordinate with one another or use more powerful weapons on the distant hordes of foes.
Heinlien's novel, despite its dubious morality, succeeded so well because of its internal logic: autocratic right wing rantings apart, the actions of each character and species made sense. The movies only attempts at morality appeared in the minimal (supposedly ironic) video inserts, but these were clearly lost on the audience of which I was a part. Well this is Arizona.
All around bad films aren't half as annoying as salvageable ones like Starship Troopers which, with little more than editing changes and a few wry comments to lampoon the militaristic cliches and macho posturing, could have been riotously funny, sad, horrifying and thought provoking.
Starship Troopers is clearly product, nothing more.
Steve Roberts
sroberts@midsinc.com
Puzzled by Troopers rating
am puzzled by your reaction to Starship Troopers. This movie is a
great example of American "B" sci-fi movie making, yet you appear to be holding it [to] higher standards. Verhoeven was not attempting to create great (artsy) cinema, but rather he was trying to make an exciting and entertaining movie. On that point he succeeded rather spectacularly, in my opinion.
When reviewed against other big-budget sci-fi eye candy, Troopers holds
its own nicely with the likes of Independence Day (rated 5 by SFW),
Star Trek: First Contact (rated 4 by SFW), and Men in Black (rated an A
pick by SFW). You review lumps Starship Troopers in with Lost World
(which earned its D+ review) and other adaptation crap. That is the
problem with adaptation movies--they are always seen as a reenactment
of the written work and not a product in their own right.
I propose that if Heinlein had not originally written Troopers, but rather a screenwriter had conceived of this story, the movie would have been rated much higher than a C pick from SFW. In contrast, the film version of Heinlein's Puppet Master did not have nearly the same quality and is more deserving of your C rating.
My rating for Starship Troopers: A- , a must see!
Bryan Bateman,
bryan.bateman@ps.net
Troopers is terrible
hy couldn't you just come out and say it: Starship Troopers is a terrible movie, and the worst science fiction adaptation since Nightfall? You could have saved me a few dollars and a lot of aggravation.
I found nothing to like about it, either as a movie--hackneyed, plotless, and needlessly gory--or as an adaptation. In fact, it is depressing that, almost 40 years after the novel was published, the filmmaker's view of the Mobile Infantry is so much more low tech than Heinlein's. Didn't the guy even read the novel?
Science fiction in the visual media is going to continue to get worse if we keep putting up with crap like Starship Troopers.
Harold Smith
smithh@indy.tce.com
Reviewer didn't read Troopers
find it ironic, with all the hoopla surrounding [Starship Troopers], that you managed to find a reviewer who obviously had never read the book, or
understood a word of the story. To describe Heinlein's vision as
cryptofascistic shows skull density of stellar magnitude.
The director said in an interview on one of the Web pages I have seen,
that he managed to "cut out all the fascist stuff." If the director
misunderstood the book so deeply, perhaps we should not be surprised
when he fails even in his misguided attempt to correct imagined
shortcomings.
Regardless of how the movie came out, the ideas behind Starship Troopers are more cogent than any dozen babbling spoiled-brat reviewer ever spewed forth, put together. Social conscience, courage and military necessity will not go away simply because they displease a bunch of Hollywood cowards.
Does everything involving the military deserve the fascist rubric?
Fascism has a precise definition, Heinlein didn't meet it. Storm troopers
could never be Starship Troopers. They lack the imagination.
Alan Katerinsky
alank@buffnet.net
Editor: Patrick, the writer who reviewed Starship Troopers for us, did indeed read the book.
Verhoeven didn't read Troopers
have just had the unpleasant experience of seeing Starship Troopers.
To call this film bad is to give it too much credit. After seeing the
film I have to wonder if the director Mr. Verhoeven bothered to read the
book first; I seriously doubt it.
Mr. Verhoeven must think that all the people who watch sci-fi films are
either idiots or want to join the Nazi party (is there a difference?).
The plot and storyline of his film were beyond ludicrous, it was
insulting to any rational and logical person.
In Mr. Heinlein's original book the bugs were intelligent enough to build
spaceships, establish colonies on other planets, and harness the power
of the atom. Mr. Verhoeven's bugs didn't appear to be smart enough to
add two plus two and come up with four; yet they somehow managed to
attack the Earth with asteroids from billions of miles away. These same
bugs weren't smart enough to use any weapons when attacking the
"troopers" on the ground except their claws.
I don't have a problem with the decision to leave out the powered suits
that put the mobile in mobile infantry, or any of the other minor
changes that always come about when transferring a book to the big
screen. My problem is the fact that this film didn't even try to remain
faithful to the original. The special effect are spectacular and very
well done, but that isn't enough to redeem this mockery of a classic
piece of science fiction literature.
Verhoeven's film Starship Troopers is an insult to Mr. Heinlein's
visionary work and to every fan of intelligent science fiction.
Brian Middleton
bmiddleton@sprynet.com
Troopers left gory aftertaste
've been a long-time fan of Robert Heinlein and re-read Starship Troopers when I get a chance. I agree that the movie was very violent. I haven't seen a film with this level of violence or intensity since Platoon.
The aftertaste that was tossed out from the book (the suits, the
training, the philosophy/politics) was replaced with gore.
On its own, Starship Troopers was a striking, ferocious film. It plays a little too fascist in the propaganda inserts. I never got that from the book, and I don't think that was Robert Heinlein's idea. Johnny Rico's line about the responsibility of citizenship as he buried his friend lays most of Robert Heinlein's concept out in plain bald English.
It would be unfortunate if most of the ideas of the film and the book
are lost to most of the audience because of the level and impact of the
violence.
I don't know if I will watch this over and over in the theater like I
did with Star Wars. However, I will buy the video when it comes out.
radical priest
guyp@MOM.SPIE.ORG
Troopers was totally awesome
just saw Starship Troopers. In my mind it was totally awesome.
The special effects were the best that I've seen this year.
This movie had everything a die-hard sci-fi junkie would be looking for: action, love triangle, blood and guts (courage).
I can't wait to see it a second time, and they left a lot of room for a sequel. I paid $4.25 to attend the early showing, and it was well worth every penny.
I just cannot tell you how exciting it was to see that movie, it was the best ride yet. To all of the individuals that made that movie a success, keep up the great work. I'm already looking forward to the sequel. Also, I would like to thank the Sci-Fi Channel for their coverage of the behind-the-scenes special too.
Virgil Yanccey
vyancey@wans.net
Troopers not fascist
t amazes me that Americans with a modest education cannot take the time
to verify the meaning of the words they use.
According to the dictionary, fascism is a form of government that uses
pseudo-religious fervor and brutality to support its power.
There is no evidence of any brutality to keep power nor pseudo-religious
fervor in Heinlein's book--except in the eyes of those who remake the
world in their warped images.
Historically speaking, World War II era, the "Socialist" Nazis, Communists, and Italians were all fascists. As are the modern Chinese, Cambodians, and Vietnamese.
And the United States and England, though not fascist, were Socialists.
And I suspect, when the chips are down, both will turn fascist more than Heinlein's Federation.
Rt. Rev. Dr. Jeff Ganaposki
jgmail@bellsouth.net
Troopers not a good girl flick
recently took my girlfriend to the movie Starship Troopers and would like to warn all SF guys and girls out there. For the guys, I would strongly recommend that you refrain from taking a date to see this movie--especially a first date!--for I made the mistake of going with my girlfriend. The movie is very gory--probably too gory for most dates. This is a movie for a guys night out thing. For the girls, Do Not let a guy take you to this movie if you tend to want to get queasy when a person is ripped in half, or a giant bug is splattered everywhere. This is just a warning to the weak of stomach. My personal opinion is that I loved all the special effects and blood.
Flatline
mustang@tecinfo.com
Clute is a snob
Dear John Clute,
ntellectual, elitist snobbery of the worst kind. Grant me a small degree
of latitude because of my lack of familiarity with your writings (although I do own one of your books). Your anti Faith/God/Religion bias is
anti science-fiction. Sure religious persecution, holy wars, etc. are part
of our violent and infamous history, but focusing your column so tightly
betrays an agenda you may not want on your shoulders. Science fiction
writing, while logical and humanist in general, necessarily presumes the
existence of a spiritual, metaphysical, non-corporeal existence. The triumph
of good over evil as the moving force in so much of literature (SF
included) is not just the good guy killing the bad guy. It is humanity's
search for a meaning for its existence. If so much evil is done in the
name of religion, and religion is one of the major societal forces, how do
we account for you and me? (haha)
Although some SF writing does serve to attack/debunk organized religion
there is much that takes a more thoughtful approach. Attacking belief in
God, which could be argued is the faith in the triumph of good over evil,
is not only a fundamental lack of appreciation of the worth of the human
life, it betrays a superficial and lazy approach to analysis of SF and
genre writing and their authors.
Danny Crossland
dannyc@neo.lrun.com
John Clute Replies:
Dear Danny,
You raise a lot of issues in your comments on what you call my
"anti Faith/God/Religion bias" as expressed in one (or maybe more) of my
reviews for Science Fiction Weekly. And I won't attempt to answer
everything. A couple of points though.
1) I'm assuming your response is directed mainly to my reviews of
Patricia Anthony's God's Fire and Dan Simmons's The Rise of Endymion,
both of which are books sustainedly unfriendly to organized religion, as
is much SF. In part, my reviews are a paraphrase; in part, they reflect
my own deep distaste for organized religion, and insofar as they do, you
are absolutely correct to note (and absolutely within your rights,
obviously, to dislike) that distaste for organized religion.
2) Your argument that SF's humanist inclinations depend upon the
necessary presumption of a spiritual non-corporeal realm is, I'm afraid,
less an argument than a premise. A premise (I might add) that is
profoundly open to dispute. There is an immense range of SF literature
which approaches, accepts, attacks, subverts, sublimates that premise;
very little SF literature, however, is inclined to take that premise for
granted.
3) I certainly am not.
4) Over against the ancient and contemporary evils committed by
organized religions, I do agree that a world in which you and I can
disagree politely, without seeking to imprison one another, is a fragile
world. But I see no reason to credit the organized religions of the world
with the creation of a secular society which allows us to speak, which
allows SF to be written in clear (as opposed to the Aesopian codes
used--for instance--by SF writers under the old Soviet Bloc, which was an
organized religion par excellence...).
5) I make a huge distinction myself between faith and religion.
Although I am very assuredly an atheist with regard to any of the deities
created (or, if you like, worshipped) by the organized religions of this
planet, I am with similar assurance an agnostic with regard to the nature
of the universe at large. This distinction, I think, I probably share
with a lot of sf writers. I demur most deeply from your presumption that
sf writers who address critically the history of religions on this planet
are less "thoughtful" than those who (I guess) write A Canticle for
Leibowitz, a very important book, and one I love: but one whose
conclusions about the world and history are both more pessimistic than
even my own, and radically at odds with my take on the historical
analogue there presented with the Dark Ages (romanticized versions of the
retention of civilization in the Dark Ages by monk scribes and archivists
tend to ignore Moslem civilization, which retained a much wider range of
documents; not to speak of India or China....).
6) Did you find the Anthony and the Simmons novels distasteful? I
ask because, in a way (even though I agree with their conclusions), I do
think that by attacking me you're killing the messenger.
Sincerely,
John Clute
Earth not close captioned
wanted to tell you, while you have a glowing review of Earth: Final Conflict, 28 million Americans have been systematically shut out of possible enjoyment of this TV program. How? This, and
Nightman, have not been closed captioned for the hearing impaired. The
irony of it is that starting on the first of the year, they will be required
by law to closed caption these programs. Why haven't they started out doing so from their start a month ago and building a core audience of the deaf?
It sounds, to me, that Gene Roddenberry is turning over in his grave at this
time. Look at the cast of the original Star Trek. If he didn't have the
compassion to see beyond that insignificant 1 percent of the profits (and possible millions of potential profits) to millions of Americans, I truly don't know who would! I'm afraid I'll be lost when this show premieres. Too bad. Tribune Media has lost me as a possible viewer. For a production company that wants to view the future, they seem to have a very narrow view that only focuses on the bottom line.
Scott E. Johnston
doodah1@gate.net
Plagiarizing Clarke
arth:The Final Conflict is mindless crap and should be retitled: Childhood's End. Arthur [C. Clarke] did a better job and Gene [Roddenberry] should be sued for plagiarism.
Niels Walkau
walkau@eagle.ca
Defending Gattaca
his is a letter defending Gattaca... hopefully. It's in response to Seulky Shin, in his letter called, "Gattaca is bad sci-fi."
I think you went into this movie with the wrong attitude. Maybe you thought it was going to be a new Brave New World, or 1984, or some kind of social epic, but I really don't think writer/director [Andrew Niccol] was trying for that. Hope not, anyway.
I saw a hero that was not perfect. I don't mean his physical attributes, I mean his morals. He was not, as most heros in movies are, a saint. I connected with his whole dream of going into space, and I loved the fact that Niccols finally put a plausible future solar system into a movie...although I'm not sure if what he envisioned is going to happen by 2025. Get this clear, however, Vincent/Jerome is not Winston Smith! He is simply someone who wants to go to space; that's his dream, that's all there is
to it. He doesn't want to change things, he just wants to go to space, and than he can die.
As to 4,000 launches a year...when we have colonies on Mars, and on Luna, there will be this kind of traffic--providing of course we find a cheaper way to do it, as Gattaca the corporation presumably did.
You were wondering why Gattaca would take Vincent/Jerome on with his heart problems... didn't you get the plot of the movie? He wore a device to cover his own pulse and replace it with the real Jerome's. Remember the scene when he has been running on a treadmill, and the doctor remarks, "Jerome the metronome" because his pulse is so perfect? Then suddenly he runs out of taped pulse, and his readings go off the scale for a split second--he leaves and covers it up.
"He might have made something of the social upheaval caused by the rise of new, scientifically produced elite."
Why? This wasn't, as I said, another Brave New World. He was not trying to shove some ideology down our throats. He simply set up a alternate universe and gave us a story.
"Or he could have explored the horrible tragedies of the early years of genetic engineering. But alas, he did not. So we got a re-warmed future setting: that familiar sterile and semi-fascist bureaucracy."
You really should try and watch this movie again. My opinion is that what you wanted to see in this movie would have destroyed it. Nicols gave us a kind of noir-detective movie. He wasn't trying to make comments on genetic engineering--he's letting us make our own decisions. Hell, the way he sets it up, you can either root for the genetically superiors, or the natural births. I can't pick a side. What is so bad about the genetically improved humans? Why would there be riots? We're talking about the children of the world (Well, the technologically advanced cultures anyway)...the parents chose to make their children better. It wasn't as if aliens came down, like in Alien Nation, which were, in some ways, better than Humans...this is a slow process which took a generation.
"May Alien Resurrection or Starship Troopers save us."
Both sci-fi movies. However, Gattaca is, whether you like it or not, a great sci-fi movie. Go to the library, quick now, and find Alfred Bester's The Stars My Destination. Or, if you've got the courage, try and find Robert Heinlein's The Green Hills of Earth. It takes more than an alien to make a great sci-fi story. I'm dying to see Starship Troopers, despite what they've done to Heinlein's plot...it looks like an awesome way to spend a few hours at the matinee...but I'll tell you right now I'm probably not going to come out of it with one of those thoughtful looks on my face. I'll be grinning, and describing to those who've already seen it, all the best bits over and over.
You don't have to like Gattaca. Not everyone likes Independence Day. Some people don't even like This Island Earth. But calling Gattaca bad science fiction is wrong...I mean, I shouldn't care, but Nicols isn't here to defend himself, and
I figured I might as well say something...
Long live "Lulungameena," 'cuz it's the sweetest place in the universe.
Ben Nilsson
nhouse@pacificnet.net
Sheckley deserves credit
n your current news you mention The Tenth Victim, which is a
remake of the '65 film of the same name. It may interest you
to know that the Italian film is based upon a book of the same
name, by Robert Sheckley.
Having read the book I can tell you the basic idea, namely
having figured out that humanity will always have war unless
they have some other means of releasing their inherent
violence. Thus the impetus for The Hunt. Each Hunt there is
one Victim, and one Hunter. If you succeed in killing your
victim you become a victim for someone else's hunt. If you
survive you can apply to hunt again. After surviving 10 Hunts
(and being the Victim 10 times) you can join the Hunt Club...
very prestigious.
He's written several other books dealing with The Hunt,
including Victim Prime. I can't remember the names of the
others.
Yanni Cooper
aslum@rocketmail.com
