Comment by rpdillon | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rpdillon | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

For fellow HN'ers reading this epically long back and forth:

sig appears to be taking the more mainstream stance that Starship Troopers is satire. This is reinforced my popular interpretations from, say, Wikipedia, but refuted by others, like say, IMDB.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_(film)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120201/

mrob is part of the coalition (that included many critics when the film was released) that asserts the film has no elements that are satirical. I admit pointing to specifics that show the satire is tough. "Do you want to know more?" was the biggest tipoff to me.

But my point is that this argument is still going on in wider society. Lots of people say satire, and lots don't. But the balance say it is:

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/11/-e...

https://screenrant.com/starship-troopers-movie-meaning-fasci...

From Wikipedia:

> Since its release, Starship Troopers has been critically re-evaluated, and it is now considered a cult classic and a prescient satire of fascism and authoritarian governance that has grown in relevance.

> This is reinforced my popular interpretations from, say, Wikipedia, but refuted by others, like say, IMDB.

Not "refuted", "disputed". If you "dispute" something you disagree with it. If you "refute" something you not only disagree with it but you conclusively prove you are correct.

They certainly haven't done the latter.

This word is very frequently used incorrectly. Sometimes on purpose by people (such as politicians) who would love to be able to actually refute some allegation, but instead just disagree with it and say that they refute it.

Yeah, I just looked at the tags for the genre on IMDB, and confirmed "Satire" wasn't there for Starship Troopers, but is there for other satires.

Thanks for the language lesson. You're of course correct, but "refute vs. dispute" isn't one of my language pet peeves (like "less vs. fewer" is), so thanks for the correction.

What do people involved with the production of the film have to say about it?

The director intended to make a satire, but critics (and mrob) assert that he failed to do so.

I had no idea that people seriously think that the film isn't satire - I thought it was just people who had barely paid attention to it and weren't really giving it much thought that didn't spot the satirical elements throughout the film.

They're even wearing fascist style uniforms and all the commercials are so over-the-top.

Maybe part of it is due to how it was promoted - in the UK, it was promoted as satire, but I believe the USA promoted it as a straight action film.

from: https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/anti-fascist-leanings-paul-verh...

> “I remember coming out of Heathrow and seeing the posters, which were great,” Verhoeven added. “They were just stupid lines about war from the movie. I thought, ‘Finally, someone knows how to promote this.’ In America, they promoted it as just another bang-bang-bang movie.”

> They're even wearing fascist style uniforms and all the commercials are so over-the-top

The big clue to me is when they visit the recruiter. The man is sitting at a desk and says something along the lines of "the galactic marines made me the man I am today", only for him to push back and reveal he's lost both his legs.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/mLt-lDOzD1k

The recruiter also has a metal, presumably replaced arm as well.

This seems.. wrong? From the director's mouth, confirming it's satire [0]

> Robert Heinlein’s original 1959 science-fiction novel was militaristic, if not fascistic. So I decided to make a movie about fascists who aren’t aware of their fascism. Robocop was just urban politics – this was about American politics. As a European it seemed to me that certain aspects of US society could become fascistic: the refusal to limit the amount of arms; the number of executions in Texas when George W Bush was governor.

I really have no idea why Wikipedia says what it does. Someone should edit it.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/jan/22/how-we-made-...

I'm of the opinion that if you want to make a satire, intending to make a satire isn't enough, you have to actually make a satire. Others might disagree. The famous Roland Barthes essay "The Death of the Author" is relevant here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author

Reply on news.ycombinator.com