I watched the movie and loved it, I love the sci-fi genre in general and this movie in particular. I know all the haters hate about the movie and appreciate the criticisms. This is one of my popcorn movies and I choose to ignore my own criticisms of the movie and just enjoy it.

When ever any one talks about the movie, the conversation inevitably turns to the book and how different and better the book was. I finally got around to reading the book and looked forward to a better understanding of the undercurrent themes of the movie.

What I came away with was Jonnie Rico's trip through bootcamp and climb through the ranks to officer. Very little in the way of the interpersonal relationships developed in the movie. Even less of the benefits and costs of being a "citizen" which is what I was really looking forward to the book developing. The book was not a bad read, but not very memorable and definitely left me feeling wanting more. More character development, more interpersonal development, more bug development, more space ship plot. I thought the movie did a much better job telling the story than the book.

What did I miss, help me understand what is the great appeal of the book.

I read the novel in the early late 60s or early 70s. (I do recall, "Have Spacesuit, Will Travel" was my first Heinlein novel in 1968).

You have to take it in the context of the time when it was written and with the backdrop of history up to that point, Post WWII, Korea and the early years of the Cold War, the new frontiers of space and the shadow of communism as well as the "Military Industrial Complex" and "Western Thought".

That coloring makes the story in the novel much richer, at least in my eyes, and to say, that the movie was much of a let down as it seemed to be more about gratuitously violence and rapid eye candy and fluff, that left "most of the body of the novel/story" on the killing floor... (but I still like it for it's own entertaining value)

That is a boomer and long running fan of Robert A.'s works POV.

Not sure if it helps you in your quest.

Robert James, one of Heinlein’s biographers, explained it in more detail:

“This time, Heinlein had written a deeply felt, intellectually challenging book, which he believed the nation’s youth needed to read. Heinlein was increasingly troubled by the Cold War, and the poor decisions he considered the Eisenhower administration to be making. As he cast his role in writing the juveniles as one of educating the young, he wanted them to think about the nature of citizenship, and promote the essential qualities of freedom and self-responsibility in the next generation. He always made sure there was plenty of excitement and sense of wonder, and this was especially true of this novel – the battles, the powered armor – but he also included issues to chew on to make his audience think. In Tunnel in the Sky, it was government; in Have Spacesuit, Will Travel, it was education. Here, it was the responsibility of the citizen to make mature decisions when voting, and to keep in mind the need to think of others at the highest possible scale when casting a vote.”

Source

Thanks, that does help to think in terms of when it was written. I watched the movie again and despite some of the cheese, i thought the movie did better job fleshing out some the undercurrent themes of the book.

I read it as a teen ager because i like science fiction. I probably didn't get what the intent was, it was only as an adult did I realize it was political. It was a surprise to me to find out in the end that the protagonist was a Filipino; I don't know what the point of that was.

But what burned into my mind was his speech near the end about how there is no such thing as a right to life and liberty. Something about if you were drowning in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, the waters don't care if you have a right to life. About the only right that existed was the right to pursue happiness - whether you're a king on his throne or imprisoned in a dungeon, both people had the right to pursue happiness.

I'm typing this from memory so you can see how much of an impression that realization made on me.

The way the book was better was how it detailed how the Mobile Infantry utilized their powered armor suits. If we think about far into the future war, do we really think it will still be grunts on the ground with rifles? If you watch the CGI Starship Troopers: The Traitor of Mars movie you might have a better feel for it. I love them all. The book, the movies, the cheesiness. It's all great. And let's not forget, it was Robert Heinlein that said: "An armed society is a polite society." Now maybe we aren't all that polite, but it's still a great quote.

Yeah, I watched the cartoon series, I loved all of it. The book was good as well, I guess I was just expecting something more revelatory or mind blowing in terms of service above one's self. Wasn't a bad book, just not mind blowing and so different from the movie, it's like the only thing they shared was a title.

If you like powered suits tech, I would suggest The Expanse, awesome display and geekdom of Martian powered battle suits. Really well done. Both the books and the TV series. And the show stayed really true to the books.

It’s been a long time since I read the book and then saw the movie much later, so my memory of both is a little vague, but I clearly remember the movie’s being a significant disappointment as compared with the book that made a significant impression on me.

One of my brothers who had heard about the planned making of the movie expected a much better depiction of the powered suits than was portrayed and many of the other scenes didn’t do justice to the book’s description. More important, Heinlein’s primary point was that the full benefits of citizenship should be given to only those who were willing to serve in the armed forces, and that was not explained well in the movie. Things like what was discussed in the force’s officer candidate training were not touched on in the movie at all (as I recall), and they were essential to understanding Heinlein’s philosophy.

(As an aside, the book had the first reference I’m aware of to society’s “sheep dogs,” and it correctly pointed out that real sheep dogs’ most important duty is to herd and control sheep for their masters, not to protect the sheep.)

One thing in particular I found annoying about the movie was the depiction of the one person as a Gestapo-like character, long leather coat and all. Then there was the dig at the military recruitment advertisements that struck me as anti-military caricatures. I find it hard to believe that Heinlein would have approved of either.

I admit, though, that one of the things that struck me most strongly when I read the book in my teens in the early 1960s was the idea of men wearing earrings. Fantastic sci-fi weapons and technology, women in combat and even all showering together? Yeah, okay: It’s fiction, but men wearing earrings‽ Give me a break. The need for the “willing suspension of disbelief,” is one thing, but there are limits.

Wow, I didn't even know there was a Starship Troopers the book. The movie, well, it's cheesy as hell, but I freaking loved it.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
More important, Heinlein’s primary point was that the full benefits of citizenship should be given to only those who were willing to serve in the armed forces, and that was not explained well in the movie.

It wasn't restricted to Military service, just Public service. There's a part in the book when Johnny Rico (who wasn't an Arian Ubermensch in the book) was talking to the recruiter trying to figure out what to do. Eventually, the recruiters gets tired and tells him that he only has to give Rico a chance to serve even if it's just to test new drugs on Pluto and if he didn't pick a path, that's where he's going.

The movie is trash. The book has been well explained by previous members. If you like it, you need to read Sixth Column (my favorite Heinlein) and Revolt in 2100 as well.

The movie was not great. But some of the CGI movies have made up for it.

The first thing to keep in mind is that Verhoeven hated the source material as it was "right wing" and never even finished the book.

The movie began life as just a typical mankind vs alien schlockfest. The writer was pitching it around Hollywood when some studio guy was like "Hey, this is sorta like "Starship Troopers". At some point, Verhoeven gets attached to it, reads two chapters, and decides he's gonna lampoon it (IMHO).

Starship Troopers is one of my favorite books, and apparently the USMC agreed with me....until 2020 when they dropped it from their reading list. My BP jumps up a few points when I see or read about Verhoeven's abomination.

I first read Starship Troopers as a teen in the late 70s and immediately was drawn in to the world of SciFi. Easily one of my top 5 SciFi stories.

The movies, pure rubbish. Such a let down when you have a lifetime of imagination to bring color to that world. MY two cents but there you have it.

On the bounce...