Starship Troopers 3: Heinlein Spins in his grave

Hivemind187

Just finished watching this.

If you see it (and I sincerely hope people dont) you'll notice a ridiculously over-the-top pro christian message throughout. It's so poorly produced I couldnt tell at first whether it was intended to be a joke, tongue in cheek or serious. I'm sad to say it appears to be the later.

Zillah

To the....video shop. Yeah. Where I pay money for the movies I watch.

Seems strange for starship troopers, they generally go for ultra-patriotic not pro-Christian.

Dades

Jeez, this thread's connection to A&A is the most tenuous yet!

Lucky for you, I've read, and watched Starship Troopers...

Book & first film, ftw.
Second film, FAIL.

Is the third film even worth a curiosity rent?

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Is the third film even worth a curiosity rent?

I say it is. Whoever's got the biggest telly should invite everybody else over so that, as a group, we could all feel persecuted together.

Dades

robindch wrote: »

I say it is. Whoever's got the biggest telly should invite everybody else over so that, as a group, we could all feel persecuted together.

A triple bill with The Passion of the Christ and The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe maybe?

robindch

Dades wrote: »

A triple bill with The Passion of the Christ and The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe maybe?

I'd ditch the last and replace it with Jesus Christ, Superstar. Could have 'em going on three tellies at once for a persecution triple-whammy!

I just watched half the movie on tuesday and sorry for moving away on the topic but is Johny Rico's voice dubbed over with a deeper version of his own voice ?

pH

robindch wrote: »

I say it is. Whoever's got the biggest telly should invite everybody else over so that, as a group, we could all feel persecuted together.

I've got a projector - 108" screen.

Bring popcorn and beer.

PDN

Dades wrote: »

Jeez, this thread's connection to A&A is the most tenuous yet!

In a non-stamp collecting forum wouldn't any thread that doesn't actually advocate stamp collecting be on topic?

Dades

PDN wrote: »

In a non-stamp collecting forum wouldn't any thread that doesn't actually advocate stamp collecting be on topic?

Usually at least it would have something to do with why we don't, or the consequences of, not collecting stamps!

Galvasean

How strange. The fist film was quite anti religion.
"I find the idea of a bug that can think offensive!"

Hivemind187

It just appeared to me from the watching (I mean gun fire that comes from cross shaped barrel arrangements ... c'mon!) that some religious crowd have got their hooks into the film franchise. It's happened before and it appears that it's happened again.

I wasnt expecting much (though seeing Paul Verhoven's name attached on the production roll gave me some faint hope) but the cynical and shallow attempt to show faith as capable of overcoming-all-evil is nauseating.

Someone mentioned to me recently that their was a sequel made to 2001: A Space Odyssey which had some kind of pro-god message tacked on at the end, not sure if this is the case but it leads me to the thrust of my case (which I should perhaps have made earlier).

How often is it happening that the religious right and co buy their way into film and tv to either subtly or overtly cram their message down the throats of the unwilling (and sometimes unwitting?) viewer? Is it right that they are allowed to do this without any rebuke whereas any film that questions the existance of god or attacks religion tends to end up being condemned or picketed?

Yes, I know I'm on a bit of a rant with this but I'm really annoyed that yet another really good thing in the world has been claimed by the god-fondlers.

Galvasean

That's a fair enough point Hivemind. i suppose we, the non believers could picket religious themed films, but then we'd look crazy..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UDoIBgiUAQ

The Mad Hatter

Hivemind187 wrote: »

It just appeared to me from the watching (I mean gun fire that comes from cross shaped barrel arrangements ... c'mon!) that some religious crowd have got their hooks into the film franchise. It's happened before and it appears that it's happened again.

I wasnt expecting much (though seeing Paul Verhoven's name attached on the production roll gave me some faint hope) but the cynical and shallow attempt to show faith as capable of overcoming-all-evil is nauseating.

Someone mentioned to me recently that their was a sequel made to 2001: A Space Odyssey which had some kind of pro-god message tacked on at the end, not sure if this is the case but it leads me to the thrust of my case (which I should perhaps have made earlier).

How often is it happening that the religious right and co buy their way into film and tv to either subtly or overtly cram their message down the throats of the unwilling (and sometimes unwitting?) viewer? Is it right that they are allowed to do this without any rebuke whereas any film that questions the existance of god or attacks religion tends to end up being condemned or picketed?

Yes, I know I'm on a bit of a rant with this but I'm really annoyed that yet another really good thing in the world has been claimed by the god-fondlers.

Oh, come on - let's be fair! None of these films sell well enough to do any real damage. There are dozens - perhaps hundreds - of film sequels which have absolutely no relation to the original in terms of theme or quality (see under Disney), but as they're almost totally ignored by the public at large, they do no harm.

Sherifu

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Just finished watching this.

If you see it (and I sincerely hope people dont) you'll notice a ridiculously over-the-top pro christian message throughout. It's so poorly produced I couldnt tell at first whether it was intended to be a joke, tongue in cheek or serious. I'm sad to say it appears to be the later.

Is this a joke?

Dades

Sherifu wrote: »

Is this a joke?

If it was, it would be in the this thread.

You seen the movie and disagree?

Sherifu

Dades wrote: »

If it was, it would be in the this thread.

You seen the movie and disagree?

About to watch it now. It's sci-fi and it's bugs. Not expecting any political or religious messages.

kowloon

Unless he had a good sense of humour Heinlein would have been turning in his grave after the first film, it completely took the pi55 (and was highly entertaining). The second film was pure ****.

RuggieBear

i think the religious part was a total piss take.:D

Dades

Sherifu wrote: »

About to watch it now. It's sci-fi and it's bugs. Not expecting any political or religious messages.

The first film (book) was a complete political statement. The second was a cash in - I'm curious myself now about the third!

1huge1

Haven't seen it yet, according to wikipedia it doesnt seem to be out here for another two months so I assume you people are acquiring it using other means...
Anyway surely with Casper Van Dien back they might of put in a lot more effort than the dreadul 2nd movie.

RuggieBear

1huge1 wrote: »

Haven't seen it yet, according to wikipedia it doesnt seem to be out here for another two months so I assume you people are acquiring it using other means...
Anyway surely with Casper Van Dien back they might of put in a lot more effort than the dreadul 2nd movie.

nope. tbh some of the acting is cringe inducingly bad....and that's saying alot in scifi movie

kowloon

Watched it. I am speechess at how $hit it is, in many ways it's worse than number two, it's a BAD BAD film. The religion is in it but the film is so bad it doesn't really matter what the message behind it is supposed to be.

Galvasean

Worse tahn the second... is it a film at all?

Honey-ec

I didn't even know there was a second, let alone a third.

kowloon

Galvasean wrote: »

Worse tahn the second... is it a film at all?

Comparing the second and third is like comparing two pieces of $hit, does it really matter which is worse? They're not even bad in a funny way.

1huge1

kowloon wrote: »

Comparing the first and second is like comparing two pieces of $hit, does it really matter which is worse? They're not even bad in a funny way.

The first was a masterpiece in my opinion.

growler

i thought the "pro christian" message was so firmly tongue in cheek that the director would develop ulcers, it made a total mockery of religion imo, from religion being outlawed to being the saviour of humanity (as people could be more easily convinced to die for a religion that just pure arachnaphobia).

I genuinely thought it made a total mockery of all things faith based and depicted the believers as total idiots, except maybe the heroine wanting a wedding.

reading too deply into this movie, in fact reading anything into this movie is too much reading, its crap.

I imagine spoilers to be superfluous as "plot" and starship troopers have rarely appeared in a sentence together.

I too liked the first one :-)

kowloon

1huge1 wrote: »

The first was a masterpiece in my opinion.

I fukd up, I meant to say second and third! Post fixed.

TerrorFirmer

It depends on what way you look at it, the acting and storyline, as well as presentation, in general were actually pretty good (except that horrific eastern European woman, she should have been ravaged by the bugs in the first frame); the propoganda/satire element was brilliant and similar to the first movie. But, unlike the second, it had woeful special effects.....man they were so, so, so terribly bad in spots. Laughably bad. Mash SST2 (effects) and SST3 (actors, storyline) together and you actually have a good film, pity they couldn't get it right on either count.

Hated the whole religious angle, especially the climatic 'divine touch' of Johnny Rico.....ugh. Not quite sure where they were heading with that.

toiletduck

Just finished watching it. Jeez what a load. I have to take exception with the part of the thread title though

Heinlein Spins in his grave

I'm sure he'd be happy with the Marauders i.e. what the M.I. should be (from the book).... and Jolene Blalock in tight outfits.

Dades

toiletduck wrote: »

... and Jolene Blalock in tight outfits.

I'm sorry... why had nobody mentioned Jolene Blalock in tight outfits before?

I think I may survive the indoctrination now.

toiletduck

Well she's not featured on the Slydice gathering card for nothing!

growler wrote: »

I genuinely thought it made a total mockery of all things faith based and depicted the believers as total idiots, except maybe the heroine wanting a wedding.

Tend to agree with that.