Starship troopers 2: hero of the federation

[denoir 0]

IT'S NOT FACIST!

No, it's fascist

No but seriously the concept of citizenship having to be earned through a service to the state, the ideology of discarding the individual rights for an abstract notion of doing good for society etc

Anyway, I shound't go off commenting too much something that I havn't read, but here is an analysis by somebody who has.

Was Robert Heinlein a Fascist? [berkley]

Quote[/b] ]

Was Robert Heinlein a Fascist?

Director Paul Verhoeven uses substantial amounts of neo-fascist imagery in his movie adaptation of science-fiction author Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers. This has led to a debate over whether this is fair to Heinlein. Is the novel Starship Troopers in some sense "fascist"? Or is Verhoeven unfairly distorting the themes of the novel on which his movie is based?

The question "was Robert Heinlein a card-carrying fascist?" is easily answered: no. While Heinlein was writing Starship Troopers, he was also writing Stranger in a Strange Land. Soon thereafter he wrote The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. Neither of those science-fiction novels could have been written by a fascist, for both are very "liberal" in the old-fashioned classical sense of "liberty"--libertarian in fact.

But if we ask about the authorial voice in Starship Troopers we get a different answer. The characters the author seems to approve of, the opinions they express, and and the philosophies that they espouse are far from libertarian--and are in fact profoundly hostile to the belief that governments are established to safeguard the liberties of individuals.

Is the authorial voice inStarship Troopers fascist? The German philospher Ernst Nolte's classic Fascism in Its Epoch set out four key characteristics of fascism:

[*]Strong belief that--through social darwinism--morality is ultimately tied to blood and race, understood as descent and genetic relationship.

[*]Strong rejection of the classical "liberal" belief that individuals have rights that any legitimate state is bound to respect

[*]In its place, an assertion that individuals have duties to the state, seen as the decision-making organ of the collectivity.

[*]A strong fear of Marxist communism, and an eagerness to use its weapons--suspension of parliamentary democracy, mass propaganda, rallies, street violence, and so forth--to combat it.

The viewpoint character in Starship Troopers adopts, and his sympathetically-drawn teachers preach, the first three of these at great length in the novel.

The fourth key charactgeristic is implicit in the novel. Consider the fear of the Bugs as a mighty adversary ("we were learning, expensively, just how efficient a total communism can be when used by a people actually adapted to it by evolution" (p. 152)). Consider the invented historical background of the novel, in which the twentieth-century United States collapsed because of its excessive solicitude for individual rights and its worship of the words of Thomas Jefferson and was replaced by the "veterans' government" that made no claim to derive its powers from the consent of the governed.

All of Nolte's key characteristics of fascism are present. Other political philosophies share one or two of these characteristics: conservatism, for example, shares the fear of Marxian communism and the belief that liberal political institutions like democracy may have to be sacrificed to stop it; republicanism shares the belief that individuals have duties (but these duties are owed only to a state that safeguards their rights). It is the combination of the four that qualifies for the label of "fascism."

Thus the authorial persona in Starship Troopers is "fascist"--where "fascism" is not just an insult, but is a descriptive label for a certain viewpoint that has been tragically common in twentieth-century politics.

So Verhoeven is fully within the bounds of authorial intention in using fascist imagery for Starship Troopers. In so doing, he is being true to the authorial persona of the novel.

----------------------------------

For example, from Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers:

"'What is "moral sense"? It is an elaboration of the instinct to survive. The instinct to survive is human nature itself, and every aspect of our personalities derives from it. Anything that conflicts with the survival instinct acts sooner or later to eliminate the individual and thereby fails to show up in future generations. This truth is mathematically demonstrable, everywhere verifiable; it is the single eternal imperative controlling everything we do.

"'But the instinct to survive', he had gone on, 'can be cultivated into motivations more subtle and much more complex than the blind, brute instinct of the individual to stay alive. Young lady, what you miscalled your "moral instinct" was the instilling in you by your elders of the truth that survival can have stronger imperatives than that of your own personal survival. Survival of your family, for example. Of your children, when you have them. Of your nation, if you struggle that high up the scale. And so on up. A scientifically verifiable theoryof morals must be rooted in the individual's instinct to survive--and nowhere else! --and must correctly describe the hierarchy of survival, note the motivations at each level, and resolve all conflicts.

"'We have such a theory now; we can solve any moral problem, on any level. Self-interest, love of family, duty to country, responsibility toward the human race--we are even developing an exact ethic for extra-human relations...'" (p. 118).

[*]I shudder to think of what a social darwinism-based exact ethic for extra-human relations would be.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers:

"All wars arise from population pressure. (Yes, even the Crusades, though you have to dig into trade routes and birth rates and several other things to prove it.) Morals--all correct moral rules--derive from the instinct to survive; moral behavior is survival behavior above the individual level--as in a father who dies to save his children. But since population pressure results from the process of surviving through others, then war, because it results from population pressure, derives from the same inherited instinct which produces all moral rules suitable for human beings....

"Without debating the usefulness or morality of planned parenthood, it may be verified by observation that any breed which stops its own increase gets crowded out by breeds which expand. Some human populations did so, in Terran history, and other breeds moved in and engulfed them.

"Nevertheless, let's assume the human race manages to balance birth and death... and thereby becomes peaceful. What happens?

"Soon (about next Wednesday) the Bugs move in, kill off this breed which 'ain'ta gonna study war no more' and the universe forgets us.... oth races are tough and smart and want the same real estate....

"But does man have any 'right' to spread throughout the universe?

"Man is what he is, a wild animal with the will to survive, and (so far) the ability, against all competition. Unless one accepts that, anything one says about morals, war, politics--you name it--is nonsense. Correct morals arise from knowing what Man is --not what do-gooders and well-meaning old Aunt Nellies would like him to be.

"The universe will let us know--later--whether or not Man has any 'right' to expand through it.

"In the meantime the M[obile] I[nfantry] will be in there, on the bounce and swinging, on the side of our own race." (pp. 186).

[*]The last person to assert that "all wars arise from population pressure" was Adolf Hitler. Relatively few wars, in fact, arise from a desire for more lebensraum: Hitler was exceptional in wanting to exterminate and enslave the peoples to Germany's east--to use the German sword to win land for the German plough to gain resources for the further biological expansion of the German people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers:

"'The basis of all morality is duty, a concept with the same relation to group that self-interest has to individual. Nobody preached duty... the society they were in told them endlessly about their "rights"

"'The results should have been predictable, since a human being has no natural rights of any nature. '

"Mr. Dubois had paused. Someone took the bait. 'Sir? How about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?'

"'Ah, yes, the "unalienable rights." Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What "right" to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What "right" to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of "right"? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is "unalienable"? And is it "right"? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.

"'The third "right"?--the "pursuit of happiness"? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can "pursue happiness" as long as my brain lives--but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it.'

"'... And that was the soft spot which destroyed what was in many ways [the] admirable culture [of twentieth-century America].... [T]heir citizens... glorified their mythology of "rights"...and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure.'" (pp. 119-120).

[*]It is enough to say that Thomas Jefferson was not dumb, and was well aware that the ocean did not respect one's right to life. In the Declaration of Independence "unalienable" means exactly what it says--that you cannot give it away to your government in exchange for something else (a promise of security, say). Good to look at is Gary Wills's Inventing America: Jefferson's Declaration of Independence.

[shadow 6]

I have'nt seen Starship Troopers 2, but when I think about it I'm not sure I want to either. Kinda like when you see Universal Soldier 2 & 3 suddenly appearing on shelves with unknown actors in it and a plot that makes anorectixs look fat.

Universal Soldiers 1 and 2000 was cool though.

[hellfish6 7]

I think that if I say anything more about this, I'm just going to be digging myself into a hole that I can't get out of.

So I'll just shup up and go back to my socialist roots.

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]FEDNET (The future World in the book/movie) is controlled by a Fascist Military Council, atleast thats what I got from watching the first movie.

Actually, FEDNET is a media outlet, a TV Channel (FEDeral NETwork).

And as described in the book, I would prefer a world like that to what we have now. To me, it makes a lot of sense.

One thing for example is in regards to voting. To be able to vote in the Federation, you must have served. Serving grants you many rights, voting being one of them. That means you value that right more and might actually bother to find out what you are voting about. In modern society, something like half the population bother to vote. Most vote out of habit and few bother to actually read up on what they are voting for. Further more, in the Federation, to become a politician you must also serve first, to earn that right. Again, that means you get a whole other level of commitment, and a more enhanced sense of community and belonging.

The cool thing is that everyone could serve, you couldnt be denied the right to serve. Even if you had no legs, just one arm and no eyes to see with, the Federation would make up some task you could do if that was what you really wanted. So, its actually quite equal. All it requires is comitment and dedication (seems like good basis for earning voting rights for me).

[denoir 0]

Why on earth would military service be a measure of a good voter or a good politician? It's only relevant if you plan on using your military a lot. If you are thinking of it as a contribution to society, we already have that. It's called taxes.

A hallmark of totalitarian regimes is when you put the wellbeing of the state before the wellbeing of the individuals. And so far all such systems, Nazism, Fascism, Stalinism have failed big time. It is becase "the state" is just an abstract construction. It has no value by itself. The only value is induced through the people.

[hellfish6 7]

You weren't limited to serving in the military. Heinlein said after writing the book that 90% of the people who become citizens did so though non-military organizations (think Peace Corps, I guess).

He also touches on the notion that people who served don't make better citizens, but as I don't have the book around anymore, I can't tell you what he said.

[stevevcb 3]

It's been said before, but I'll say it again.

The book, the original, was pure satire, so therefore was not fascist. It was taking the mickey out of fascism, if anything.

The film was a very diluted version of the original. Verhoven did a nice job of missing the point of the book if you ask me. It was watchable crap if you ask me, nothing special. If it'd been truer to the book in terms of its message, it would have been much better. But then again, the average cinema audience doesn't want a thought-provoking take on society. They want an hour and a half of things blowing up and flashy CGI effects. I mean, I watched Lost in Translation at the cinema when it came out, and thought it was the best film of the year. I saw Lord of the Rings on DVD and thought it was utter shite. However, the majority of people rave about the latter and dismiss the former. That's people for you.

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]Why on earth would military service be a measure of a good voter or a good politician? It's only relevant if you plan on using your military a lot. If you are thinking of it as a contribution to society, we already have that. It's called taxes.

Like stated before, all service wasnt military. It was basically anything and everything that was in gain for the Federation (rescue services, health care etc). If you wanted to serve, there was a place for everyone. Not just soldiers. The movie however makes it appear as if soldiering was the only way to go. Which isnt the case in the book.

[CanadianTerror 0]

I bought StarShip Troopers 2 last night.

I wasn't expecting a B horror movie.

The best part about this flick was the blond chick.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

What are you talking about??

Starship Troopers was exactly that.  A simple summer action flick.  What undertexts?

And what the hell is a "B movie"?

I love you, Icefire. You make my life worth living.

Hellfish, that's what makes fascism so damn seductive- it hooks you with the service and the duty and the honor, and then it smacks you over the head with the jackboots and the lebensraum.

I really need to go buy a new copy of that book... mine is an old hardback that's missing several pages and half the dustcover.

[Gollum1 0]

@ June 05 2004,19:35)]

What are you talking about??

Starship Troopers was exactly that. A simple summer action flick. What undertexts?

And what the hell is a "B movie"?

I love you, Icefire. You make my life worth living.

I'm starting to think he was being sarcastic. I hope.

This thread has inspired me, I'll be seeing the movie tonight or tomorrow...

[hellfish6 7]

Screw the movie. Read the damn book!

[Gollum1 0]

Screw the movie. Read the damn book!

I HAVE read it

[Winters 1]

Havent seen the second one, i enjoyed the first movie but it seemed to me like they realized they were running out of film and had to end the film abrutly

[Milkman 1]

One thing I never understood was why did we wage conventional war with the bugs? Why not nuke their planets? It isn't like we wanted their planets for colonization or anything.

[Gadger 0]

Violence is the ultima ratio for all species, result of unquenchable instinct for survival. Or, as the Romans said, "if you want peace, prepare for war." So true... and pacifists be damned.

Citizenship (the right to vote) is a franchise that is earned by serving in the Federal Service. Non-citizens enjoy all other rights and privileges of life except the right to vote. Military personnel cannot vote while on active duty, only following retirement.

The Federal Service is 95% non-military (that is, a huge bureaucracy), only a small percentage go into its military branches, and of these, and even smaller percentage sees active combat.

One is free to quit at any time during his/her service except in active combat. There are no penalties for quitting except forfeiting forever the right to become a citizen. Desertion in non-combat situations is punishable with flogging (if the deserter ever surrenders, there's no effort to hunt him/her down). Other "crash landing" offences (murder, etc.) are punishable with death by hanging.

Society is pretty quiet, the life is apparently prosperous, and there is no handicap in not being a citizen (e.g. Rico's family is rich, he's going to Harvard) except one's own conscience.

Did Heinlein glorify the military? You bet he did. He was inordinately proud of his family's long record of service and was very bitter that his own poor health resulted in him getting discharged from the Navy. See his notes to that effect in Expanded Universe. He had a special soft spot for the Poor Bloody Infantry that offers so little glamour but that is the one branch he deemed crucially important in warfare.

The government in ST is militaristic/fascist. Blatantly untrue. On p. 143 is states plainly that "in peacetime most veterans come from non-combat auxiliary services." And "veteran" means simply someone who has gone through the service. The Federal Service is not fascist either because there is no dictator in whom all authority is centralized (the Sky Marshal can be replaced), there is voting, and (apparently) a free market economy. The Terran Federation is a republic, one with a democratic form of government where the right to vote is a privilege that is earned by service.

[IceFire 0]

@ June 04 2004,23:38)]But the first movie will always hold a special place in my heart as one of my favorite B movies.

It wasn't a B-movie. It was a first class satire of B-movies.. or regular Hollywood productions and American culture. It's one of my all-time favourites.

I remember when I watched it the first time... after the first 10 minutes I was pissed off at what kind of crap I was watching.. Then after a while, I started noticing things like ..hmm..those insignias look a bit Nazi don't they... and more and more.. After 20 minutes I was really enjoing the movie. It's superb satire and the most amusing part is that so many people completely missed the point of the movie and watched it like it was just another crappy Hollywood action/teen movie.

There's a good part on the DVD extras where the director Paul Verhoeven tells with amusement how he chose the actors because they didn't see the undertext of the movie. They thought they were doing an action movie. They didn't get the fascist undertones and that the movie was a big foot up the ass to mainstream "patriotic" Hollywood movies.

What are you talking about??

Starship Troopers was exactly that.  A simple summer action flick.  What undertexts?

And what the hell is a "B movie"?

Oh boy.

Well. Remember at the end when the Doogie Hooser comes out and starts talkin' crap about how they got the mother bug or some shit....any how...take a real close look at what he's wearing.

Looks awful SS don't ya think?

Remember all the cuts to the News style reels in the movie? Awful lot like the Movie-Tone news from WW2 don't ya think? Propoganda? Notice how they always talk about winning and doing everything you can for the fight (ie showing kids squishing bugs)? And then how the movie would always cut to a battle in which half the people got massacred? Gotta read into things...

Also notice how the bugs are refered to as just that..."bugs"? In the book it is made clear that they are intelligent, with a sophisticated social strata, while still being dismissed by the Federation as "just bugs". Intelligent enough for colonization. (Japs? Krauts?)

And most importantly, remember the important (but brief) lecture in the school?

The jist is, that if you don't serve in the military or government type position, you don't get to vote. Period.

Heinlen never really said he was advocating such a system, and when the book was written, he was all but accused of being a communist.

One thing that is missing from the movie that is in the book is the emphasis on "equal opportunity". That is to say, he makes quite a deal in the book that females that enlist or almost always picked to be pilots because women tend to grasp math and abstract theories better than males. Males like to blow shit up.

Also I don't remember the dumb ass romance between Denise Richards character and the dork on the ship. I do remember the Roger Young getting the shit blown out of it in the book though.

ASIDE: Heinlen purposely chose the name Robert Young for the ship, as that is a soldier (WW1 or 2...can't remember) that charged a machine gun nest to save his comrades, dove tailing nicely into his theme of self sacrifice for the good of the many.

I also heard he picked the main actors because they were "pretty". Kinda fitting in to the mindless mentality that Verhoevan was trying to go against.

The acting was horrible, but surprisingly that fit nicely in with the message.

In any case read the book. It will become quite clear.

Oh yeah. And it was really unclear if Heinlen advocated such a system. On one hand he seemed to say the people that sacrificed should be the only ones that should get to politically chose, but then show the process of sacrifice as almost a waste. That the "government" chose the battles, and it was the "commoners" that suffered the consequences, usually under false pretenses (patriotism, national safety, etc, etc.)

Fits nicely in today time wouldn't you say?

Hmm, I think I need to watch that movie again. It seemed like a good action packed alien killing movie when I saw it.

But alot of what you mentioned is a common theme in any futuristic movie. Like movies where the Brave New World where everything is regulated and democracy and free thought is old fashioned and technology and government control is everywhere.

You can see that same theme in any movie about some time in the year 2050whatever. It's just a joke there to provide amusement to the viewer. Little references to our own time in the far future. Like that scene in "Demolition Man" where Stallone is told that Taco Bell is the major fancy restaurant, and Arnold Shortsinegger was president.

That's all it is. I think you all are reading too deep into some little jokes that the writer snuck into the movie.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

That's all it is.  I think you all are reading too deep into some little jokes that the writer snuck into the movie.

Honest to God, you are the best poster on these forums. Here are segments of an interview with Paul Verhoeven, the director of Starship Troopers:

Quote[/b] ]Q- You’re receiving the Lifetime Achievement award here, and they’re showing some of your films, including Starship Troopers. It’s amazing to see how that movie is being received now, compared with some of the reviews it got when it first came out.

A- Yes! After being accused of being Fascist, or Nazi I would say, a correction has taken place I think, to a certain degree. And fortunately so, because it was very disappointing when the film came out that I was attacked. Less in England, I must say, but in Europe very much so, and also in the United States based on an article in the Washington Post, where in an editorial the film was discussed as being done by a Nazi.

Q- And now?

A- People have understood that it was about American politics.

............

Q- Even now, though, some people still describe Starship Troopers as a silly bit of science fiction about giant bugs?

A- That’s true – there has always been a pleasure of me to work in the B-genre and elevate that, or use that as a vehicle for other thoughts. It’s like the paintings of Karel Appel, our Dutch guy, who was copying all these children’s paintings. That was a heavy influence – or you could even look at Dada. It’s a normal thing in art, to use the ‘mediocre’ and the ‘banal’ to make a statement. That kind of sophistication in art is rare in film-making.

       If you look at painting or even in music – especially at the beginning of the 20th century. Even the titles of some of these pieces: ‘Musique en forme de poire’ by Satie. Using the banal – something that is everyday, which is used in a different way. This is normal in a lot of the arts, only in film-making it isn’t, because of the high entertainment value, where everything has to be immediately understood. It’s rare, and if you use that, this method of hyperbole and irony and alienation, it’s very difficult for the audiences and even for the film critics to see through that. Often they are not even basically educated in the other arts, so they can only look at movies in the same way they’ve been looking at movies for the last fifty years or so.

.......

Q- With Starship Troopers and Robocop, you’re dealing in media satire. Now we’re perhaps seeing the satire become reality, post September 11th. Do you watch CNN and think ‘I made that 15 years ago?’

A- Other people say that. It’s more Starship Troopers than Robocop. With Robocop the ironies are about urban situations, Starship Troopers is more to do with foreign politics. It’s about propaganda, and the function of propaganda versus reality, and how it spins reality, and et cetera. Robocop is mostly about the idiocy of American television. These kind of people that flip-flop between extreme sadness, and fun, and a commercial. I always thought that Robocop was my reaction to being thrown into American society, and looking around with wide eyes, thinking ‘this is completely crazy’.

       That’s all in Robocop. A lot of what we could call the ‘sociology’ was already in the script – this was something that the American writers have brought in. Starship Troopers was more more me reflecting on American politics – to a certain degree, domestic American politics. There’s a lot of parallels with what happened after September 11, of course – not just in the obvious way of shooting rockets in tunnels at the Taliban, or the ‘arachnids’ in the movie – but also in the function of propaganda and spinning. In some ways it’s a pleasure that it all became true, but on the other hand there’s not much pleasure that it came true…

....

Q- Do you think you could make a movie about this change of atmosphere, in America?

A- Well, if I didn’t already do that with Starship Troopers, then basically I don’t think so. Not at the moment – it would be impossible to get it off the ground. The American studios are already asked by the government to be as patriotic as possible, and to participate in this ‘fight against terrorism’. It would be very difficult to make a critical movie. If I would do it, it would be extremely critical of that.

Q- But you could do it, by making a movie that seemed patriotic but in fact is a critique.

A- If I found something, I would try to do that. But during the period I was making Starship Troopers there were six different regimes at Sony, and the film always ‘switched through’, so by the time people started to realise what the movie was about it was too late! Then the new people came in, and they would only stay for three or four months, one after the other: Mike Medavoy was there, then Mark Platt, then Mark Canton, then Bob Cooper, then Jon Calley. So there was five regimes, during one movie.

Q- The rumour was that Calley was such a fan he wanted to do a sequel, even though the box office wasn’t so great for the movie. Is that true?

A- I strongly doubt that. But at least he supported it. He’s always been a little bit of an outsider, in a way that he has done quote-unquote ‘dangerous projects’, also when he was with other studios. He was a good friend of Kubrick, of course. He is one of the few people in the industry who are more willing to take risks or do something a little outrageous. Unfortunately Sony has not been doing so well, and this has forced the whole regime into making movies that are not representative of the ideas that Jon Calley, or Amy Pascal, really have in the minds, and would have liked to do. They have been frustrated, because the movies that were, in the beginning, when they started in that direction, those movies didn’t work.

He's Dutch, by the way.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]The government in ST is militaristic/fascist. Blatantly untrue. On p. 143 is states plainly that "in peacetime most veterans come from non-combat auxiliary services." And "veteran" means simply someone who has gone through the service. The Federal Service is not fascist either because there is no dictator in whom all authority is centralized (the Sky Marshal can be replaced), there is voting, and (apparently) a free market economy. The Terran Federation is a republic, one with a democratic form of government where the right to vote is a privilege that is earned by service.

Fascism occurs and prospers on more levels than the purely superficial ones you cite. In fact, most instances of fascism occur on the psychological and educational levels. Our main character, Rico, is continually pointed out, by himself and others, as being not especially bright. Nonetheless, he is a favorite of his H&MP professor, and an ideal candidate for OCS. In fact, in OCS History & Moral Philosophy (a glorified political reeducation seminar) serves as a litmus test for judging if a cap trooper is worthy of holding a commission, or even worthy staying in the Army for the duration of his term, and by extension, whether he is worthy or not of citizenship. In fact, read the opening quotation from John Paul Jones for chapter 12 (the OCS chapter)- it exhorts the necessity of absolute despotism in military matters. And a government formed of military veterans will brook no interference in issues deemed important enough... just as everything else about the Federation, the outer veneer is admirable and, to any right-minded Western-educated person to be right and good, but if you look past the surface, something ugly lurks.

Take another example, the 'other' forms that Federal Service may take. Sure, on outer examination it seems nice, but the Fleet Sergeant at the recruiting desk derides that as idiocy. What non-military Federal Service entails is a 2-year term of slavery, whether on a work crew or as a human lab rat. They dangle a carrot, a carrot that is repeatedly admitted to being mostly symbolic (but engineered by the society nonetheless), and then exploit volunteers mercilessly. Sure, all of it seems admirable at twenty paces, but look closer and the system starts to get muddled and uncertain, just like an Impressionist painting. I could do this all night, but I'll refrain.

[Gollum1 0]

Saw the film...I've seen better and I've seen worse, it was competently directed and the special effects were good for the budget, but it was still clear what they didn't afford. There is a lack of good, large establishing effect shots and often the action is separated into the camera zooming up on people firing their rifles (which have no recoil and have had their muzzle flashes and sounds added later) and then another shot of a lone bug being shot up.

It feels a bit cheap, but who cares, it's ok, and great for a b-movie.

The dialogue and concept are familiar from 'aliens', but of course Aliens is a nice movie and action scenes could be very suspenseful. The acting was competent.

There were some plot holes and inconsistencies, often of the kind Milkman mentioned. It would be a bit boring if all the bugs were just nuked, but it would make sense. The same can be said of Matrix:Revolutions, where the machines drill a hole into the Zion roof and try to swarm the place with nothing but mélee-attack equipped robots when they could just drop a few nukes through the hole. Well, that wouldn't be entertaining, would it?

Rent it for a fun evening. "shed no tears for me, my glory lives forever."

[The Frenchman 0]

One thing I never understood was why did we wage conventional war with the bugs? Why not nuke their planets? It isn't like we wanted their planets for colonization or anything.

Milkman, please hold out your hand.

*Frenchman throws a knife at Milkman's hand and nails it to a wall*

Because we can not fire a nuke if the hand is nailed down.

[mick78 0]

ST1 was silly enough to make me not want to get the 2nd, though my brother did and told me it wasnt worth watching.

If you cant Nuke the planet (because you have a knife through your hand???), why not use the airforce? in st1 there is only 1 scene that i can recall where they use low flying bombers of some description... Considering the bugs used wave attacks in massed formations, air strikes would have been great.

About the only other thing i remember from ST1 is how there was a boob scene, an implied sex scene, and then that chick gets ripped to shreds.

cool

[Akira 0]

Actaully some of them were for colonization. Remember the little outpost that they go investigate in the first one?

Also nukes would do little. Most of the "bug" infrastructure is completely underground. Plus it is unclear if bugs would even be effected (other than the immediate blast). If bugs are resistant to radiation (think cockroaches) then you would do little other than make it difficult for your own troops to go down.