So many questions.
Are they going to call the movie “Helldivers 2”? because I haven’t seen Helldivers 1 yet.
Does this writer not know that there are already FIVE Starship Troopers movies, each worst than the last? News of a 6th film isn’t exactly stirring excitement in my loins.
Does Sony think claiming they’re “going back to the original book” is a good thing in this case? Heinlein’s novel has none of the political satire that Verhoeven injected into the story, and that audiences associate with the property. Starship Troopers played straight is… well, it would be the original Starship Troopers, but not nearly as interesting.
I viewed the movie as a play on the propaganda within the universe of the book (roughly the equivalent of films like “black hawk down”).
A movie playing it straight could be interesting. My only concern is how it will resonate with the current political situation. The original book was far more subtle in its view on fascism. It could easily turn into a fascist call to arms.
Verhoeven made the choice to make the movie a farce because he realized that making the movie serious would likely be interpreted as saying nice things about Nazis.
Making a video game movie and starting the first one off with “2” in the title would be a very video game thing to do.
Street Fighter definitely could have used the opportunity. It’s one of those games that most people learned about from the second in the series and not the original game.
Does that mean we will get helldivers2: the movie: the game?
I’m interested in what the sequel would be called, “Helldivers2 2: dive hellier”?
Right? The book reads like a futuristic Jarhead
I mean, as long as they put effort into it and cater to the fan base, it could do well. If it is just an attempt at using an established name to create a new, generic sci-fi universe, it probably won’t be a hit.
Sony Pictures is rebooting one of their IPs?!
But they’re the same thing
ok
I’m so excited. This could be as good as Madame web, or Even Kraven.
The 1959 novel was wildly different but I think it perhaps won’t be well received.
Wasn’t the original novel just pro fascist, but the movie made it into a ‘pro fascist’ satire? Or am I remembering that wrong?
I was curious, cuz I wasn’t sure either. Wikipedia has a summary:
It won the Hugo Award for Best Novel in 1960,[3] and was praised by reviewers for its scenes of training and combat and its visualization of a future military.[11][12] It also became enormously controversial because of the political views it seemed to support. Reviewers were strongly critical of the book’s intentional glorification of the military,[13][14] an aspect described as propaganda and likened to recruitment.[15] The novel’s militarism, and the fact that government service – most often military service – was a prerequisite to the right to vote in the novel’s fictional society, led to it being frequently described as fascist.[14][16][17] Others disagree, arguing that Heinlein was only exploring the idea of limiting the right to vote to a certain group of people.
Lol And then for the 1997(!!) movie it says:
The film was directed by Paul Verhoeven (who found the book too boring to finish)
It had the stated intention of treating its material in an ironic or sarcastic manner, to undermine the political ideology of the novel.
Paul Verhoeven couldn’t finish a short book so he picked two chapters that capture nothing of the book’s intent.
You should read the novel yourself.
The first chapter is one of the best battle scenes I’ve ever read.
Also, the political system is democratic. The caveat is that in order to vote you have to demonstrated a willingness to put something ahead of your personal comfort. Anyone can do Service. It explicitly says in the book that “a blind man in a wheelchair” would be given tasks within his ability to perform in order to vote.
I was so bewildered reading the novel. I had heard he wrote it as a pro military propaganda piece, but I couldn’t help but see it as satire.
They are kitted out in mech suits, making them seem more machine than man, put into drop pods that are fired onto the planet like bullets out a gun. In the pod they are isolated from their comrades, isolated from their humanity, literally turned into pieces of a weapon.
Then they land on the alien planet to perform a terrorist attack on a civilian city. And this book is meant to be pro war?
You remind of a story from the WW2 era.
A German intellectual cuts out in 1935 and comes to America. He’s kinda famous, so he gets a newspaper interview. He proudly proclaims that he considers himself a pacifist.
A letter to the editor points out that it’s easy to call yourself a pacifist when you’ve got an ocean between you and the war.
Thanks. Maybe i will read it.
Quick guide to Heinlein.
the name of the movie is “Predestination” It’s based on a story called “…All You Zombies.” Great time travel story.
“Tunnel In The Sky” In the future, interstellar teleportation allows mankind to colonize distant planets. A group of high school/college age students are sent to one undeveloped world for a three day survival test. When you read it you’ll see that it’s been ripped off a dozen times or more.
“The Man Who Sold The Moon” Written before Sputnik, thsi novel gets all the history and science wrong but it’s still a great read. A businessman decides to colonize the Moon, and uses bribery, ballyhoo, and bullshit to make it happen.
The man wrote both the ultimate hippie novel [Stanger In A Strange Land] and the ultimate Libertarian novel [The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress]
Having read some other Heinlein, I don’t think the man was capable of being pro-fascism (see The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Stranger in a Strange Land). The book, in only my personal opinion, seemed more like a thought experiment, like most science fiction
It definitely was, this was written by Heinlein over the course of like two weeks as an angry response to the US suspending nuclear weapon testing. Mind you this was still in the 50’s and right in the middle of the red scare.
Heinlein was a rampant libertarian, and as we’ve seen with the GOP libertarians are not too far removed from fascism. I think Heinlein kinda cooled his heels over time, and mellowed later in his career.
I did not know that, thanks
Heinlein experimented with loads of governmental and social structures, Starship Troopers was one such experiment.
His various books explored the pros and cons of various government styles in a fairly honest way. Unfortunately, modern films don’t do well with nuances. It’s fascism on the surface, but there are echoes of the deep cracks that make it so terrifying and self destructive.
There’s debate on whether Heinlein meant it as satire or actual advice.
deleted by creator
The book was satire.
Ok but I didn’t know about a helldiver’s movie and I’m so fucking pumped.
FOR MANAGED DEMOCRACY ON THE BIG SCREEN WOOOOO
deleted by creator
“Corporate needs you to find difference between this (motion) picture and this (motion) picture”
But Helldivers is based on Starship troopers the movie not the book but the new Starship troppers movie will be based not on the movie, so, the book?
The book and the movie are wildy different, the movie was made by someone that didn’t bother reading the full book so just winged the story and made his own kida thing.
That is leaving out the reason the movie isn’t cloessly following the book. It’s facistic. Like very much so.
iirc the the creative who made the movie is quoted “I didn’t finish the book, it was too boring”
Yes, the books is heavy on the facisism, so a true movie adaptation that isn’t going the route of satirical parody wouldn’t read so well, and nowadays it might be a little to close to reality.
What about Helldivers 1? Seems weird to skip the first installment.
The stuff you’d include in a movie (fascism, capes, managed democracy, friendly fire, dropships, weird aliens) are the same between the two installments.
