What, no, WHY!?

More proof that there are no orginal movies anymore, but why touch this movie?

...probably because it's barely anything like the original story by Heinlein! I admit  I think the original movie has some delightful 1990's badness in it, but....it's not a very good depiction of Heinlein's work. :/  

   While I do agree Hollywood clearly has no more ideas left, I'd be more in favor of this redux!

Never even knew about the book but makes sense that a movie is based of one, and now I have a lot of reading to do since I just did a quick search and found a fair bit of info.

Yeah, you honestly might even hate the movie, if you read Heinlein's story now. I've heard of that happening. D:

Holy hell blasted shit storm Batman!

They remade Total Recall and Robocop??  I guess 2012 is going to be the year of the remake. I swear here and now, with all you as witnesses, if they even think about touching Blade Runner; heads will roll.

Robocop has not been remade yet...But they're trying to get it started next year. It....does not sound good at all. This is what Jose Padhila wants to do with it, in his own words- "How do you make RoboCop? How do you slowly bring a guy to be a robot? How do you actually take humanity out of someone and how do you program a brain, so to speak, and how does that affect an individual?....[The original movie] lends itself to a lot of social criticism, but also[...]poses a question, 'To when do you lose you humanity?' The way it does that is by replacing body parts with machine parts, and that's very smart because guess what? It's going to happen!" Uh, yeah. Just....not good...

Total Recall, yes, I'm afraid so....I think they may still be filming, or wrapping up by now.

Well, as you may know (or...not, I'm not sure!), Ridley Scott does want to make a Blade Runner sequel, but not a redux, no; he's already made that clear. So be thankful there! I even made a thread about that in here, too!

I'd be fine with that, and revisiting the world, just not redoing the world. I need to follow that site though

Evil dead remakes, 3 new (remakeish) mad max movies, and BONESHAKER SCREEN ADAPTATION! christ!

ShirowWolf,  "...probably because it's barely anything like the original story by Heinlein! I admit  I think the original movie has some delightful 1990's badness in it, but....it's not a very good depiction of Heinlein's work. :/  

   While I do agree Hollywood clearly has no more ideas left, I'd be more in favor of this redux!"

The movie was nothing like the book which is what made it awesome!  Violence, nudity, brain eating aliens.  It had it all.  Here.  Let me give anyone that hasn't read the book the lowdown.  "I got in my mech and nuked some stuff today.  I'm not sure what and don't seem to care.  Time for another ten page diatribe about military procedure."

They wanted to make a movie about mechs and uhhh...umm...long stilted nothing this time?  Hopefully they'll just use the cool name and make whatever they want again.  Ooo.  With brain eating aliens, violence and nudity.

...since they already did that, why not make something different, and try to create something more akin to Heinlein's actual story? Not only do you have this movie already, you have, what, 2 DTV sequels, too? Isn't...that enough? :P

I'm not sure even your hardest of hardcore fratboy military shooter types could sit through a faithful adaption.  Have to throw in some nudity or killing at least.  But I dunno.  You seem to have gotten alot more out of the book then I did.  What was there to make a movie about?

....like, all of it? The movie barely touched on anything real from Heinlein's story. It wasn't just 'Man VS. Giant Bugs.' The best answer I can give is  to  try re-reading the story,  and maybe you'll see. Some hints I can give is that Heinlein's story took a look at themes such as philosophical aspects on society and social responsibilities, war, punishment, politics and government, evidently anti-Communistic, in particular. Many have also accused Heinlein of expressing fascistic views, and well, I'd say the Terran Federation is indeed pretty fascistic. That doesn't mean that's what Heinlein himself supported though; I am not certain. While you may say some of these things are in the movie, eh, not really. They may be mentioned or looked at, but only briefly, if at all. I think it's better to just read Heinlein's story if you want the whole depiction of the matter. But then, books tend to always be better, anyway.

Having read Number of the Beast.  It was my impression that Heinlein is just a fascist trying to rationalize his brainwashing and failing miserably, but hey.  

Interesting enough seeing into the head of one of these nutjobs, but no longer own the book and not going to purchase again just for freakshow value.  So tell me.  

How does any of what you've just said translate into a movie?  Honestly I don't even know what he was fighting in the book.  He nuked stuff with his mech occasionally.  He was as detached and unconcerned about what he was nuking as I was reading about it.  He'd talk about it for a paragraph.  Before ranting more militaristic bs for pages upon pages.  Name me something that happened in the book.  Some long narrative still requires a visual.  The movie is him sitting around in his barracks talking to himself?  Because that's the book I remember.

I guess 2012 is going to be the year of the remake.

Hasn't the past decade been remakes? So shouldn't it be called the decade of the remake, or as it's going the decades of the remake.

I have been reading up on the book and found this, "Director Paul Verhoeven admits to never finishing the novel, claiming he read through the first few chapters and became both bored and depressed."

I have to question some of the people that criticize a book set in a military setting when you read "the almost complete lack of sexuality among the characters and the absence of any serious romance."

...Uh, there are a number of ways a filmmaker could translate Heinlein's themes into a movie. You....want me to name them all, or something? How about they start with reading the book and see how that goes? The director of the original movie, Peter Verhoeven, admitted that he didn't. Maybe it would have helped if he did? I admit it's not always such an easy task to make the transition from print to film, but they could have done a better job than they did. The funny thing is, it does feel like a Verhoeven movie, and like something that would have come right out of the 1980's; maybe after he was done with Robocop. That means though that it doesn't do Heinlein's work any real justice.

....Name you something that happens in the book. Seriously? Well, I'm...not going to sit here and type out the story for you. But 'something' that happens? Uh, okay. Rico's mother was killed when the bugs destroy Buenos Aires, but Rico's father survives, enlists, and the two do meet at some point. That sure was 'something that happened.'

I agree, White Mage, that there have already been far too many reduxs anymore. Hollywood simply has no more real ideas left, and they clearly don't want too many. :/

Maybe an example would help illustrate my point.  I absolutely loved the short story The Langoliers by Stephen King.  What I enjoyed most about it however were the characters and their inner monologues.  It's what made the story for me.  Didn't translate into a movie worth a crap.  The movie was awful, and honestly I don't see alot of ways to have made it better.  Could tell the story, but the nuances that made it enjoyable will always be lost.  Starship Troopers was pretty much entirely inner monologue.  There really isn't alot else enticing about it.  That's what you indicate as enjoying about the book.  I really don't think that will ever translate into a movie you would enjoy or that anyone else would really like to see.

It depends on a lot of variables. Besides, keep in mind that people say 'That could never be made into a good movie!' all the time. A lot of people, including Christopher Tolkien, said that about The Lord of the Rings. He didn't want any movies made, but alas, he had no choice, since movie deals were in place before, out of his control. I admit that Peter Jackson, who....brought us such, uh...'classics' as Meet the Feebles and Bad Taste, didn't....seem like an ideal choice to helm these movies. Lo and behold though, he not only proved himself, but most people in general who saw the movies seemed to like them! They were a phenomenal success, financially and critically. So, honestly, it really depends on who's handling the production, and how they do it. As I suggested, it may help if the helmer(s) actually, uh, reads the book first, which Peter Verhoeven did not.

Books will always be better, but that doesn't mean that good movies can't be made from them. The opposite has been shown more than enough times. I definitely think it's possible. Will it happen with this movie though? We can only hope...

Lord of the Rings has a plot, action, and dialogue.  Starship Troopers doesn't.  What they are left with is making all of that up wholecloth and some nerd encrusted fanboy is going to crab about it anyway.  Why bother using anything from the book at all?

(Oh and Christopher Tolkien has been whoring out his fathers legacy since long before I was even born.  Have you read Unfinished Tales?  JRR would never have published the Silmarillion.  Much less any and every scribble he happened to make about LOTR.)

Then why call it Starship Troopers, if it's not going to use hardly any of Heinlein's story, and barely represent anything he wrote about? Then they should call it something else, if they're going to do that, and just make something more original. They won't do that though, since first, Hollywood has no original ideas left, and is set out on harvesting the past for as many reduxs as possible, evidently, and secondly, to cash in on Heinlein's name, I suppose, or the previously-used name.

Though you obviously disagree, there are a lot of Heinlien fans that did not like the movie, and yes, I think would be happy seeing a new one that does revolve more around Heinlein's actual story. You don't seem to think this is the case, but feel free to think whatever you want.

Also, note that I didn't say anything about Christopher Tolkien's literary work, and what he has done with the remnants of his father's. I'm thus, not sure why you brought that up, though I was well aware of what he was doing, yes. What I did say was, he didn't want any movies made at all about the work, but he didn't have a choice in the matter, really. My point was also that, despite Tolkien believing that no movie could match up with his father's work, a lot of fans highly disagree with him, and the movies were a phenomenal success. It's just one example of a work that 'can't be made into a movie' that was, and it worked great. I think it's possible that Starship Troopers can be made into a decent movie. As for whether it will be done or not, I have natural doubts, but I think it can be done. I hope that it will be. You....can't seem to understand this point either.

If you really don't want them to make another Starship Troopers movie, then send the producer angry letters, or....blog about it, or something; 'get  the word out.'

I loved the movie.  Remade Aliens and threw in some simulated sex and nudity.  What's not to like?  It's a catchy title.  Best part of the book.  Why not use it?  I hope they make a new one.  Update the CG a little.  Maybe more violence and nudity.

I didn't like the original Starship Troopers movie, but I enjoyed it. It was good for what it was, but they shouldn't have called it Starship Troopers.

And I loved the book, but tend to agree that it isn't the most easy one to translate to film. Love me some Heinlein, and heavy-handed metaphor, but I don't think I'd want to sit through a screening of Starship Troopers: The Book: The Movie.

I would recommend everyone who cares to read The Forever War by Joe Haldeman, since it was basically his rebuttal to Starship Troopers, but it gets a little weird at the end, and he would never allow it to be made into a film.

I think he's still mad at Hollywood, since his screenplay for Robot Jox ended up being, well, Robot Jox.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_Jox#Production

Anyway, read The Forever War. Won a Hugo.

Robot Jox. HaHa. I totally saw that movie. Wait. He was surprised that a movie directed by the guy who did Re Animator (great film in its way but...) and w/ Charles Band (of Full Moon Entertainment) as producer ended up being a cheesy B movie? I guess he must never have seen any of their films?

(I am actually a Full Moon Entertainment fan, but they're not exactly high art or anything.)

Well, there's getting a director with some technical prowess, but then when you find out he's gonna help write it, that's usually the time to go Alan Smithee on the film. There were many differences of opinions, it would seem.

Haldeman was in Vietnam, so I guess he didn't mind long dirty fights. Or losing, as the results bear out.

Anyway, if I ever needed a movie about guys in powered armor, I'd take Forever War over Starship Troopers, any day.