Starship Troopers - re:View

The book (one of my favourites) is a little diffrent. There the perspective is that of the mobile infantist. The classic hero arc but in a fashist world. Like in the movie, there is no enlightenment or revolution though, just the story of a regular directionless Joe who finds his true self and a purpose in life in the Mobile Infantry. The movie is brilliant in a diffrent way. It's basically satire on all levels. Paul Verhoeven claimed he hated the book and didn't finish it. Red Letter Media has a very good analyis of the whole thing: ▶ this video "How do you tell your actor that you cast them as a joke?"

in “Notes on Nationalism (1945)” · View on HN

I think there's more depth to the film than you might be giving it credit for. There's a lot of goofy heavy-handedness on the surface, but there are some layers underneath, in the writing and the arcs of the characters The guys at Red Letter Media did a pretty good breakdown of it[0] all in all. But even just consider the scene in the beginning when Rasczak is teaching the class about citizenship[1]. It's goofy and funny on the meta-level, because, well, it's Michael Ironside, and he's saying things that at first pass sound insane . But there's a whole lot in that dialog, and it's all played deadly straight. And then compare Rico's genuine, "I don't know" there, to where his character is at the end of the film. I think it recommends itself to a lot of different levels of examination, without sounding like you're trying too hard. --- [0] ▶ this video [1] [link]

in “The Predictions of Robert A. Heinlein, from the Cold War to the Waterbed” · View on HN

I haven't seen it but I know it was featured on Red Letter Media's re:View series where they review movies they actually like [0]. Especially at the start they discuss its legacy and why people like/hate it. [0] ▶ this video

in “How “Starship Troopers” Aligns with Our Moment of American Defeat” · View on HN