Starship Troopers: book vs movie 

The book has one of the best depictions of what it is like to go through boot camp and the struggle we all had. Though some of the runs are outlandish.

I'm older and so read the book shortly after it came out. I loved it. I was in the Marines and agree with Heinlein that an all-volunteer force is superior on several levels to a drafted one. After getting out of the Marine Corps and graduating from college, I went to work at Douglas Aircraft Company in the Missiles and Space division. Starship Troopers was frequently discussed and much loved in that military-oriented company. The movie shocked me inasmuch as it made fun of Heinlein's ideas about the military. Rico was promoted, not demoted at the end. I read the book several times over the years, but only managed to watch the movie just the once.

Rico was not demoted at the end of the book. He was a "Temporary 3rd Lt." who was injured on Planet P helping Sgt. Zim. He then completed his training at OCS and was commissioned as a 2nd Lt. He is assigned to "The Roughnecks" as it's CO after Lt. Jelal is wounded, renaming it "Rico's Roughnecks". His father is under him as the platoon Sgt & XO. Several missions later he is assigned Temp. 3rd Lt. Bearpaw to train. They then do the drop on Klendathu as the book ends.

Heinlien wrote about the controversy: “It [the book] is an invitation to THINK and NOT to BELIEVE.”

This is one of those different generations things. In the 1960s, one of America's most important questions was whether there should be a military draft. The single most effective argument against abolishing the draft was that it was necessary to recruit sufficient personel to defend America against overwhelming outside forces. (This was in a period where the percieved likely enemies were communal societies with seemingly unlimited populations and no respect for individual lives.) In this book, Heinlein creates a society that can defend itself without a draft. All that's necessary (according to the book) is to invest heavily in "force multiplers" (like power-armor and specialized support units) and to balance priviledge (i.e. the right to vote) with service (i.e. military service). At that level, the novel is one huge argument against the draft. That's why the book reads like a philosophical analysis of the justifications for the use of force against outsiders and against the society's own citizens. Almost every scene in the book discusses the use of force on some level, from the conditions of forcing H.S. students to take particular classes, to the pros and cons of destroying of planets.

He was not demoted at the end. He reverted back to cadet, as the deployment rank was temporary, then it jumps to when he is a lieutenant. There was a few pages talking about issuing the pips worn by previous cadets on their temporary assignment.

Starship Troopers was one of my fav books in high school. I was so excited when the movie was announced for release the summer I graduated. I was devastated coming out of the premier, the movie having butchered the book so badly. That was a me problem though, I went into the movie wanting a movie based on my favourite book, and what I got was a satire of sci-fi action movies, military propaganda, and fascist rhetoric. Those are all things Verhoeven excels at. I eventually came around on Starship Troopers, and now consider it my favourite comedy of 1997. I still long for a proper adaptation of the book though.

Psychic powers were in the book at the end with ‘the talent.’ He was the guy that could sense the bugs underground tunnel network. He was a pretentious little diva, I thought it was pretty funny. Great video!!!!

Maybe I'm dumb, but the possibility of a satire never passed through my mind while reading the book. I thought it was a very interesting view on sociology and phylosophy and I loved it. I liked the movie before reading the book, but after reading the original it totally lost any value (except for the awesome soundtrack). I seriously hope the book wasn't meant to be a satire, cause I loved how it can make doubt many concepts we took for granted. Bu the way, I read somewhere that Verhoven never actually read the whole book, instead it stopped reading after few pages, hence the huge difference between the two. I see more Robocop in his movie than I see Starship Troopers the book.

One of the best novels that I read for a very long time. And the Power Armor concept is truly remarkable and inspired many media and video games for many generations to come. I love the world building and how it explains to the reader about the world of Starship Troopers really is. And it still holds up as one of the best novels. Without Starship troopers theirs no Halo, Starcraft, Warhammer 40k and many more.

Heinlein must have done something right because I judge every Generation Ship story by Orphans of the Sky and every Power Armor story by Starship Troopers. I didn't read either as satire, I read them as space adventure. These two helped define the sub-genre where I feel most at home. Other than the lack of Power Armor my biggest gripe with the movie is the guns that never run out of ammunition. When the 24hr cable news stations started I thought "Hey, the Starship Troopers movie got it right." What passages did you tab in the book? I'm always curious when I see BookTubers tab books.

When Rico is waiting to catch his shuttle to go to Officer Training… and that “Sergeant” stops to ask him for help. Crushed me .

The book was required reading for Marine Corps Infantry Officers when I was in back in the 80s

My two brothers and I were Marines, and we discussed the Starship Trooper movie when it came out. I was overseas and movie theaters were banned as unholy abominations, so I didn't see Starship Troopers. My younger brother loved the movie but was bothered by the armed mob tactics displayed, so I sent him a copy of the novel. "Dizzy was a guy!" Infantry combat is a team sport. Modern infantry units practice a ten-meter dispersion between individuals and there is a twenty-five-meter dispersion between squads. This dispersion was learned the hard way on the battlefields of World War One--the troops would actually be closer in restricted terrain, but the idea was that no one bullet would go through two men and that throwing a hand grenade at the squad would only inflict one or two casualties. Dispersion has to be closer in movies because a silent squad sneaking through hostile terrain does not engage in chit-chat communicating today by hand signals until action is joined, and by brief radio commands. Today's battlefields are lonely, empty places swept clear of visible life by very lethal weapons fire. In Starship Troopers the dispersion between individual troops was measured in miles. in Chapter One: "You'll be dropped in two skirmish lines, calculated two-thousand-yard intervals." Steve and I played this out in the Starship Troopers board game by Avalon Hill. The lack of powered armor broke the movie, and the dispersion between individual soldiers in the novel was far greater than the dispersion between AT-AT Walkers in "Star Wars--the Empire Strikes Back." For cinematic reasons, Hollywood has to employ American Civil War tactics or there wouldn't be anything interesting happening on the screen. Check the movie "1917" and notice how much more evolved the tactical dispersion is for the British First World War battalion. As Heinlein described the three suits, Mobile Infantry had better battlefield mobility than modern tanks, better armor protection and greater firepower. Starship Trooper combat armor could be flown, nice to get over ditches and walls and rivers, but it wasn't smart to stay airborne long due to enemy fire. Like modern helicopters, the powered armor-wearing infantry stayed close to the deck and relied on speed. Situational awareness was made possible by networked C3I (command, control, communications and intelligence) that came online before the real-world Desert Storm. There was a tactical nuclear weapon in the real world when the M28/M29 Davy Crockett atomic bazooka was fielded in 1961--and Heinlein's Starship Troopers had similar weapons mounted on their armor. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) When I read about the Davy Crockett in a 1961 book by C. B. Colby called "Our Space Age Army: weapons and aircraft of the modern U.S. Army" (I was in the eighth grade and the year was 1971) I thought that the Davy Crockett was a fake, something to scare the big bad Red Russian Bear. The M388 warhead had a yield of 20 tons of TNT (the Hiroshima bomb had a yield of 12,000 tons of TNT) but the casualty radius of the M388 was greater than the range of the 1.25-mile "lightweight" M28 launcher--telling me that the Davy Crockett was an enhanced radiation warhead, a true death ray machine. You can visit a Davy Crockett mockup in several US atomic museums. www.nuclearmuseum.org/ I didn't believe that the Davy Crockett was real until I stumbled across range clean-up protocols for the M390 practice round while being certified to run Nevada Army National Guard small arms ranges in 2005. The practice round had a radioactive trace element so that the radiation cloud created could be scored--by Geiger counter. Part of my disbelief was putting six warheads and a launcher in the hands of a junior sergeant. One Davy Crockett squad was attached to forward battalion battle groups to destroy Soviet tank battalions--units containing 30 T-55 main battle tanks when the Davy Crockett was first fielded. Well--the movie did have small and destructive rockets--but the effects of detonation would have been nastier than the movie showed. The US Army of 1959, the year Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" was published, was already a complex beast.

End of Chapter 13. Rico mentions he speaks Tagalog at home. This is the language of the Philippines. Maybe they had connections with South America but after Buenos Aires is destroying, Rico offers condolences to the ships only “porteño”. Port city resident. Rico is surprised to learn his mother was in Buenos Aires. Perhaps his Filipino family emigrated to South America but he is FILIPINO Thx

Great video, Whitney! I think it can become a great recurring format of putting sci-fi films and their corresponding books against each other. Greetings from Greece!

I remember decades ago that the discussions in my group of friends were quite a bit different. We didn't think it was satire at all. A view on society certainly. The coming of age and dealing with internal conflicts of personal vs group think. Was it a practical way to organize a military? Did the Roman concept of military service for citizenship really work for a technologically advanced civilization. How would it change views on military service within society itself? Why would a society continue to accept it? The clear delination between the branch of service for men versus woman. The movie had both men and women serving in ground forces, while in the book women were pilots and did not serve in ground forces, and men did not serve as pilots. How did that show or reflect society at large with such a strong division shown in the military between the sexes? I always viewed the movie as more inspired by than a true adaptation of the book personally. Thanks for your review. It was interesting and put Starship Troopers on my TBRr (To Be Reread).

I'm a huge Heinlein fan. I've read all of his works and even heard him speak at a convention in Seattle circa 1977. He said that to truly understand him you must read "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress," "Starship Troopers," and the unedited version of "Stranger in a Strange Land." Robert A. Heinlein wrote the first Sci-Fi story which featured a transgendered hero, 1959's short story "All You Zombies." it was adapted into a movie, the 2014 Australian feature "Predestination." His novel "The Door Into Summer" was adapted into the 2021/22 Japanese film of the same name. Other Heinlein novels that have been adapted into films include "Destination Moon" and "The Puppet Masters." It would be interesting to see you to do comparison videos on them.

How about a comparison video on the differences between the book and the late 80’s anime. I loved those power armor designs

Been wanting to read the book for a really long time now. Thanks for a reminder. Hope this thought doest get lost in the Endless TBR. Also great vid!

There is a huge error in your interpretation of the last chapter of the book. Johnny has not been demoted by his return to The Roughnecks. He is now the CO (Commanding Officer) of the unit. This is made quite plain in the first few paragraphs of the chapter. He clearly states that he now has a JO (Junior Officer) under instruction (i.e., a 3rd LT, Johnny's rank earlier in the book when he was under the instruction of a senior officer). He refers to himself as "The Old Man" (i.e., The Unit CO). The CO of the Rodger Young refers to him as "Lieutenant" when he reports that "Rico's Roughnecks" are ready for drop. Why is the unit called "Rico's Roughnecks"? Because he is the unit CO. Lastly, there is a second Rico in the Roughnecks. This is Johnny's father who is now the units Platoon Sergeant (A senior NCO, but not an officer and therefore junior to Johnny). As discussed in the book, the father joined the service when his wife (i.e., Johnny's mother) was killed in the Bug's raid on Buenos Aires. The father and Johnny have a discussion on this point earlier in the book when they accidentally meet when Johnny is transferring to OCS (Officer Candidate School) and his father is transferring to the Roughnecks. One question you might want to add to the discussion is "What is Johnny's ethnicity"? This was not well represented in the movie. In any case thanks for making a great episode. Keep up the good work!

Watching this because Starship troopers discord with the release of Helldivers 2. Never knew that originally Heinlein wanted this to be sold as a YA novel but in hindsight that does make sense.

Where did you get the book with that cover? I wants it

Well, I feel obliged to speak up, about this film. Your analysis, regarding whether the film's version of Rico's evolved from 1950s USA civilization, is a dystopia or a utopia, is correct. I have read the book at least 20 times over the last 58 years, learning a lot of new concepts every time from 10 to 25 years of age, and a little more since.. When this film appeared (1997), most SF Fandom felt it had nearly no connection to RAH's novel, except for a percieved illegitimate use of character's names and background story. How the producer's acquired the rights, was discussed. It was assumed the estate had no idea what was intended. The film is a parody and criticism of the book, overtly undermining virtually everything RAH tries to convey, very logically, in the novel. If you read Have Spacesuit Will Travel, Citizen Of The Galaxy, Red Planet, The Past Through Tomorrow, The Star Beast, The Long Watch, Coventry, Glory Road, etc. he is very consistent. I have never felt Starship Troopers was satirical in any way, just the opposite. That RAH era came after his 1960 or so health issues. The film is fine if you just watch it as a joke, which it clearly is intended to be.

Haven't read the book but the movie is kind of a guilty pleasure with me lol. This is an interesting comparison. Not being an avid reader yet, I've often heard the phrase "it's nothing like the book." about many movies. These two seem to be very different as well. Great video

Thanks for a thought provoking video Whitney. I was a little nervous of watching your review of Starship Troopers as I first read this when I was at university (many many years ago), and it has been a favourite ever since, so I was worried what you might think. But I thought your review of the book was really good and very fair. You covered the criticisms .and you were spot on - it does make you think about society and how it evolves. But then you challenged me - is Starship Troopers (the book) a satire? Because I read it when I was much younger I never thought of it as satire and have never considered it such even when I've re-read the novel in later years. But is it? Do I need to think again? The film is, of course, a full-on satire with caricatures of the characters from the book and some of the key parts (power armour) completely missing. Sadly, even knowing all that, I have never liked the movie because it pretends to be the movie of a much loved novel. If the book didn't exist and the movie was just released as an 'over the top' SF satire I may have enjoyed it a bit more... but maybe not. But even when I try and consider it as a stand alone movie I'm afraid I don't rate it so, in this instance, we hold differing views. But that's right and proper. I am pleased you liked the book though. Great review - hope you will do more book v film reviews. It's an interesting format.

This is the only YT review of Starship Troopers book vs movie so kudos to this lady! I think her opinion on which is better has been greatly influenced by how she became aware in her case she saw the movie 1st. I 1st read the book in on a friend’s recommendation in 1985. That’s a huge friendship bonding experience. Fun fact : the book was on the CNO’s top ten reading list for something 10 yrs like 5yrs as well as every other branch of the military. Next, I saw the 1988 Anime OVA with same friend and a few others at the monthly anime club. Anime was not mainstream then and the club members would spend 2 months translating and adding subtitles. Kazutaka Watanabe’s power armor designs were exactly how the book described! Lastly, I saw the movie and was totally let down for all the reasons why this YT creator loved it. It glossed over or totally omitted everything that made the book awesome. The depth of the moral conflict, societal responsibility, no power armor, why women were not in the Mobile Infantry, (they had equal or arguably more important roles in the military). No Neodogs, the drop and recall all wrong and some of the most intense moments during these 2 evolutions. Watching hundreds of humans armed w/ basically a M-16 using sheer numbers to combat the Bugs was the biggest 🤦‍♂️ moment of the movie. When in the book 1 M.I. Trooper is on wasting everything w/n a 3 mile - 8 mile radius. Basically, when we see 300 humans fighting a wave of bugs in the movie, imagine it’s 1 Trooper versus that wave of bugs and that’s how the book is, with your battle buddies on your left and right are at the horizon so you don’t accidentally kill each other. The movie is nothing but pretty people, love story and propaganda. It doesn’t get the story or the sci-fi right. Which is not surprising since the director admitted that he only read the 1st chapter of the book and said that he gets the gist of it all. The Watchmen is book accurate and has tons of inner monologue. The Bat-Man also has mainly inner monologue. Starship Troopers fans of the book deserves an accurate remake of the movie.

I just discovered you!! Love your reviews!

You did a great job with the analogies. Segue: Roadside Picnic: It's clear that Matt from Book Pilled and I read two different books so to keep your friendship alive may I suggest starting the book at page 105 (the giant marsh mellow cover paperback) and reviewing it from that point. The book that I read everyone spoke to each other with disdain, disrespect and hatred. Everyone clearly had it with everyone else. Artifacts: meh. Love the Melting Watch, 1954 by Salvador Dali. Great content.

I took a science fiction literature class in college where we read "Stranger in a Strange Land" and the professor indicated that Heinlein wrote that book, which is a much different story, concurrently with "Starship Troopers" and took ideas from one that worked better in the other and mixed them together. This was in the late 1980's so I didn't have anything to fall back on, but it was his opinion that "Starship Troopers" was partly a satire, that there are positive aspects of the military but the dogmatic approach should be tempered. My further understanding since that time, is that it is complicated and Heinlein's opinion likely swung between the two. That being said, I have read this book probably once a year since 1983 and tempered it with reading"The Forever War" right afterwards which presents things in a much different light.

The lack of power armor served the broader agenda of the film which tried to portray conflict as mostly wasteful. No power armor means more soldiers are going to die. In the book, the MI are a treasured and valuable resource that are meant to use their power in surgical ways.

Great video. As someone who was in the military the book just hits home more for me, but I love the movie for taking a different approach and giving us 2 great stories

Oh, one more point: before he was a published writer, Heinlein was a graduate of the Naval Academy at Annapolis, MD and a serving naval officer until he was medically discharged. I never for once thought that this novel was intended as satire.

I remember seeing this when it came out in theaters, got whiplash from the satire and propaganda along with the love diamond, what a crazy good flick :) I enjoyed the book way later and was gonna read it again, but wanted to find some cool book vs adaptation vids first. Thanks for the great work and interesting thoughts on them both!

I can't pinpoint any specific source, but I remember hearing years ago that Heinlein was considered by the politically left to be politically far right. I'm pretty sure I'd read that Verhoeven - being an outspoken leftist - specifically chose ST to adapt not as a fan but to repurpose what he saw as far right propaganda into a satire of American imperialism. Again, this could all be completely wrong, but I thought that was the hubbub surrounding ST back around the time of the release of the movie.

Great comparison. Makes me think I should re-read/watch both the book and the film soon (both were about 10 years ago). I didn't see the book as a satire at the time, but might well read more into it on a re-read.....

Wow great video, you just earned a sub

Juan Rico was a lieutenant in Chapter 14 and his father was his platoon sergeant. Not demoted--Lieutenant Rico graduated from OCS and was put in command of a platoon. Candidate Bearpaw was Rico's J.O. and "second in command" because Mobile Infantry officers all have to have combat experience as enlisted soldiers. Check Chapter 14 again. When I saw "Saving Private Ryan" for the first time, Captain Miller's trembling while in the LCVP waiting to land on the beach reminded me of the bookends to "Starship Troopers." Chapter One began with "I always get the shakes before a drop." The last page has Johnny Rico being hit by the shakes again--a neat book end.

Heinlein was discharged from the navy for health reasons in the thirties which may account for his mixed messaging about the military. The psychic thing is a carry over from another Heinlein book Time for the Stars. I'm a big Heinlein fan and while I really like the book I think your right about the movie. I don't know if you know but they made at least 2 sequels to Starship Troopers one where the characters almost look real but are cartoons. Always look forward to your videos.

In Heinlein's day most writers were not promoting their personal beliefs through their stories. Impossible though it apparently is for many people today to grasp, only in recent decades has art become almost exclusively a vehicle for pushing an author's personal agenda.

I liked his idea that politicians had to prove they could put the good of the many in front of themselves. Not that they always would but that they could. Please remember there is no such thing as a juvenile delinquent, only undisciplined juveniles that become adult delinquents. very simplistic but hard to debunk because of the simplicity.

I count myself fortunate to have read the novel years before the film was made. The film is good, plain, shoot-em-up fun and I think it can stand as it is on its own merit. But Heinlein's work is undoubtedly deeper, definitely multilayered. I liked your review, Whitney!

I should mention that the movie Director did NOT enjoy the book, finding it "boring", and instead changed the movie's direction in his own way, which is also where most of the satire actually came from.

Good job with the analysis! I think the movie is a good sci-fi movie, but not so good adaptation. However I like both, but from different reasons. The next should be "Forever War"... to read, analyze and also to adapt to the big screen! ;)

Good review but in one point i have to be inconsistent with you. Maybe you have seen 'Robocop', also made by Paul Verhoeven back in 1987. In this movie he use news reels and commercials the same way like 10 years later in 'Starship Troopers'! These scenes are in the same style of filming, satirical and over the top. I think Heinlein was a good writer, who tested different styles of writing, but 'Starship Troopers' was more personal for him as a former soldier. And i think he was a man with a good foresight about what he writes in Chapter 8 about raising kids and dogs and collapsing societies.

Even though it would be more expensive to add power armor in the movie, I think maybe it was intentional. If I can remember, in the book the Mobile Infantry was an elite or at least professional unit where recruits get extensive combat training in the basic period before ever touching power armor. In the book they were ill equiped cannon-fodder employed in human wave tactics like WW1 infantry or north korean soldiers during Korea War without proper combined arms tactics like modern armies usually do. Also if I remember, unlike in the movie, the Federation in the book actually made everything to discourage militarism and glorification of war, to the point of sending recruiters without legs with the sole purpose of scaring volunteers, meanwhile in the movie Verhoeven used it to create a contradiction between Federation's propaganda glorifying war and what really happens to soldiers in battle in order to create the dystopia feeling you said. The Federation in the book doesn't seem to glorify war, they still want soldiers but they want to make sure you know what you are signing for, which is more in line with what professional units in our time do. And if I'm not mistaken if you enlisted and didn't show up they would not even bother of going after you (I read the book 6 years ago, so some stuff is hard to remember). So the book's Federation treats war more as a neccessary evil meanwhile the movie's one glorifies it through propaganda, and that also reflects on the view of citizenship of book's Federation, something that a lot of people want but only a few truly want to risk their lives to get, even though it is not really necessary to be a citizen to have a good life in the book. This is why I also think it's unfair to say that the book is fascist, it has nothing to do with that. A modern, professional and well equiped infantry unit would not fit well with what Verhoeven wanted to do, so this is why the movie's Mobile Infantry does not have power armor in my opinion.

Kudos on highlighting Chapter 8. There is a later chapter that touches upon moral theory as well.

For a coming-of-age story, there's Juan "Johnny" Rico's "hump" in boot camp. I experienced my own "hump" moment minutes after arriving at MCRD San Diego in the dark and standing in a pair of yellow footprints under blazing lights. It wasn't the yelling--I had been yelled at my entire life. No--the Marine drill instructors introduced us to our chain of command. President, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Navy...and then my Uncle Ron was mentioned. His name was on the billboard welcoming us all to basic training--Sergeant Major Ronald J. Linehan was also my Recruit Training Regiment Sergeant Major. I had good days and bad days after that, but none were quite as bad as the realization that in my case the Corps really was my family. I am guessing that the title "Starship Troopers" was used for marketing purposes--and it worked with me, at least! The original title was "Bug Hunt" and I wish that they had stuck with that--because I was disappointed when I expected Robert Heinlein, and they gave me satire pretending to be anti-fascist. The movie was creative, but it wasn't Heinlein.

The Forever War (1974) by Joe Haldeman, is/was a much better "military Sci Fi" novel than Starship Troopers". Rumor has it that the screenwriters and director ignored the book and just attempted to make a Sci Fi War movie, and it's the reason so many of us that read and reread the book were pissed at what we saw on the "silver Screen".

It’s a little weird but was power rangers lost galaxy creators semi inspired by the movie starship troopers? The sentai version doesn’t have the same main villain, they fight space pirates and the rangers fight insect like villains Scorpius and his daughter trakeena who are insect/insect like. The space colony Terra Venture (the place the rangers defend) also used the same outfits as the movie. Beyond that there isn’t much similarities but it’s interesting, also that the roughneck show was on fox’s kid as well (I couldn’t watch that show, mom wouldn’t let me :/ )

The book is deep philosophical discussions that often end with the conclusion that there are no easy answers. The movie is a fairly shallow critique of fascism that accidentally makes fascism look pretty cool. There are psychics in the book. They are used on planet p to look for tunnels. Johnny Rico was not demoted, he graduated and was assigned as an officer to his old unit. Carmen is mentioned extensively through the book, and kept as a professional in her own right instead of merely a love interest. Its also kind of sad to see how the frankly groundbreaking diversity in the book is done away with in the movie by verhoven just to make a point. The book came out int 1959, so imagine the shock of many readers to find out that jonny rico was a tagalog speaking filipino the whole time. As far as whether the book is a satire, i actually think it's more of a thought exercise. The author came from a military family and was in the military himself. The book was a way to consider what the ideal military-run society would look like. He actually spends a good deal of the book criticizing the militaries flaws. The main takeaway that his characters tried to impresss on Jonny was that the current system was good because it worked, not because it was inherently good, and that if it ever ceased to work, it would have to be replaced.

Great video! My take on the ending of the movie is that even though they get irrefutable evidence that the arachnids are in fact sentient beings, they still keep on going. In the end they have actually learnt nothing, and they have become pawns of the Federation military agenda. I think the directors intention was to subvert the roles of Humans vs Bugs. With humans being singular-minded and almost ant-like in the way they enforce their agenda and invade planets. The ending shows the brain bug being afraid (ie, they're not just chemical robots but actual sentient beings with feelings), and the Federation sees this as a "win". The moment should be a revelation, but instead it almost implies a POV of "They are not like us". But if they have feelings, and this make them UNLIKE humans, what are humans then? The whole story concludes with one last piece of Federation propaganda, trying to gather more ants for their army. The last thing we see is a triumphant gold coloured text prompt saying "THEY'LL KEEP ON FIGHTING, AND THEY WILL WIN". Exactly like in the beginning. Nothing has changed. On the point of character evolution: I think the characters have evolved in their career roles, but not as individuals. They have been assimilated into the human hive-mind. And now they will keep on fighting! And they will win! ... Or will they?

I like your analysis. I just listened to the audio of this book after being a fan of the film since I saw it the night it came out. The movie had a fairly high budget. The power armor aspect was ditched bc it was costly. Which is a shame for fans of the book who probably expected the team from robocop to deliver powersuits in a similar way. When reading the book I didn’t get satire as much as I got CRITICISMS from heinlein. For instance, they mention how every soldier in a power suit is valued not because the soldier matters but because the power suit is so expensive. Otherwise, the human is expendable. There is some truth to this in the armed services, especially during ww2. Adapting a book into a movie is always difficult. They’re different mediums. People complain about Verhoevens knowledge of the book but Ed Neumeier is the one who wrote the screenplay, and from a screen-writing POV he did a good job taking from the book what could be put on film while creating original ideas for a generation the book was NOT written for. On top of that, Neumeier and Verhoeven were creating a thematic sequel to Robocop, and it really shows. So the goal was two-pronged: make starship troopers into a movie, and have it fit the style and aesthetic previously achieved by Paul Verhoeven. And I think the film was more than successful in that venture.

Can you compare the anti-starship troopers the forever war with starship troopers?

A strong argument for why the film is good, despite not being a faithful adaptation without the power armour. As for the book, what a fresh take, but I'm not convinced it was satire. However, saying that I would argue that RAH is what I call a philosophizing writer. He does what many philosophers do when constructing an argument (not the same as being argumentative JIC of confusion). Anyway, loved this, now subscribed and joined your Discord channel.

loved this one as a kid. love the movie too, time for a reread.

In reading the book several times I got the impression at the end of the book that Heinlein had reached the word count he was contracted to do and even though there was a lot more story to tell, he suddenly wrapped it up. Maybe for sequels which I do not know i they were ever written. I have ebooks of 47 of Heinlein's titles. At least in the movie franchise we were given 2 more live action movies. I have all 3 on DVD. Plus an animated movie. My feeling is that the movie critics never really understood the depth of the book and especially Heinlein's political commentary with the setting of the book. Even though the movie gave us a reasonable amount of background. I completely agree with you that in some ways the book was better and in others the movie was better. An excent analysis.

Great channel!!!!

Love the book it’s the reason I joined the army in 1988 love the film but there is no comparison Johnny Rico is pillipino in the book dizzy is a man and dies in the opening of the book Carl dies in a military accident and doesn’t have psychic powers and the biggest difference is johnnys father joins the fight against the Zergs I mean the bugs LOL both are great but really different

12:30 a funny explanation for the 'love diamond' is the writers of the movie had a idea for a 'military, alien, teen romance' movie originally called something like 'bug hunt at outpost 9' BUT no one would pick up their script so they thought they would attach a well known sci fi franchise to it. Paul Verhoven who directed the movie was the one who turned the movie into more of a satirical take because he didn't want to do a movie about a relatively fascist military dictatorship as he had lived through the nazi occupation of the Netherlands. A nice mix of the book and the movie is the RoughNeck StarShip Troopers chronicles tv show that was shown in this vid, as it deals more with book content but was executive produced by Verhoven and adds a lot more subtlety and complexity to the story..

Rico graduates officer candidate school and earns his officers commission at the end of the book. He ends up commanding his old platoon as it’s leader, a Second Lieutenant and I think his dad ends up as his Platoon Sergeant. I took it as a little more hopeful, despite the fact that it appears the war is going to go on for a while. Regardless, he still succeeds and now gets to go on fighting, now with his father at his side!

So was there a shower scene in the book? I’ll put it on my to-read list.

I've had Starship Troopers on my bookshelf for a while now and will read it at some point. Although I'm a little hesitant to read another Heinlein as Stranger In A Strange Land wasn't my thing. I didn't grok it.

(This is from memories of reading the book 10 years ago) I always felt that the one negative is that during bootcamp in the book they are doing "freeze" drills where you stop moving and drop to the ground and don't move no matter what. One of the privates falls onto a fire-ant hill and jumps up in pain. Obvious the drill instructor starts laying into the private for disobeying orders reiterating the "no matter what" to which the private punches the drill instructor. Now obviously assaulting an NCO gets you in huge trouble but all the officers in the room are attempting to play it down. Something along the lines of 'the private must have been full of adrenaline and simply swung at a human shaped target' to try and make it so they didn't have to punish the kid. That always stuck in my brain and I feel it shows heinlein presenting normal humans reacting to a fascist system rather than simply saying "fascism good :)" Military officers are willing to tell a baldface lie to prevent a private from being punished is going against the fascistic rules, they don't want to abide by the rules but will do it if there is no alternative. The other negative was that Rico was devastated and almost had a panic attack when (I believe) he was promoted to a rank that wasn't technically Mobile Infantry. He had to be consoled that he would be buried as a mobile infantry member if he died. I find it weirdly out of place to show the emotional weakness of a supposed Fascist Paragon. Rico is not a strong man, even as he comes into his own as a leader later in the book I never got the feeling of him, the character, personally promoting fascism even if he made use of the fascist military pipeline to become 'successful'. It's almost as if the squishy human inside of the mobile infantry power suit was a parallel for the squishy humans forced to live in a fascist ran government. And in the same way I remember it stated many times how the power suit was inches away from becoming unpowered and locking the victim into an uncomfortable body position or even instantly sealing off limbs. It is powerful and fragile at the same time, just as likely to kill its own people at a moments notice as it is to kill enemies. However within that steel trap the weak human could take out tens or hundreds of skinnys. Its like FEAR was the best weapon the mobile infantry and bugs dont feel fear. The loss of the power armor makes the Mobile infantry feel weak and useless at all times and loses the feeling of fascism being an implacable iron wall that is held together with gum, twine, and threats.

it sounds like some webnovels i enjoy reading so i think i should try and giving this book a read. not to mention that its written in first person. i usually prefer that more than 3rd person.

Looking forward to the remake/reboot coming up.

The book and movie are two completely different things. Heinlein's book (one of his best in my opinion) is a satirical blowup of fascism in a post WW2 world, during the rise of militarism and the cold war in the US and UK. In the book, the Bug War is the background against which Rico reflects his training and belief system that he's been taught and raised with (jingoism, militarism, etc.). Heinlein came under fire for writing the book as man saw it as supportive of militarism and fascism at the time. The movie uses the roughest framework of the book's Bug War as a main plot and story. If you read the book and get it, then the movie is entertaining and enjoyable, but simply a different story borrowing names and background to tell a pulp action war movie story. I enjoyed (and still enjoy) both for completely different reasons (and as completely different art forms). At least that's how I read and see it; your mileage may vary.

Great video Whitney. This one has done great with a movie review."👍"

One of the points of both the book and the movie that you didn't discuss is that, in this world, in order to be a full fledged citizen you have to serve in the military. In the movie, Rico joined to be more impressive to Carmen. In the book, he joins because Carl does. Also, it's partly youthful rebellion, going against his father's wishes. Whatever his motivations, full citizenship means nothing to him because he has no context about it. His father, in accordance with 100 years of family tradition, actively shunned "politics" so it wasn't a feature of Rico's upbringing. The concept of earning citizenship was one of the features of the book that kind of stayed with me. Real warriors would tend to shun conflict whenever possible. It's the pumped up politicians and the wannabe Generalissimos that lead us into wars that should never be fought. The concept of service for full rights was referred to in the film but it didn't serve as anything but a punchline in Veerhoven's hands. Another feature of the "fascist" society he was satirizing. I wonder if one did have to serve in order to vote, if we would elect a better brand of representatives.

I like to think if there ever was a reboot more closer to speculative sci fi? Jonny Rico would probably be split into three characters. One from a Veteran Military Caste, one from a Civilian Employee Caste, One from an Inner Circle caste. Everyone is a citizen and not a citizen at the same time. Just go back and do your part for Animal Farm, I mean THE FEDERATION. lol

what a great channel.

Maybe it's a good way for me to start reading books, I watched movies and played the games , maybe i just had to learn about discovering different types of books like there are different types of games and movies, I think it's a bit of my fault for not looking out for these things before but also a bit of my school fault because here in my country which is not the US, usually school makes us read books that are either only about friendship, love and such things which are good, but i guess most young men like me would find boring very quickly, meanwhile I think it would be good if it's s bit like the movie, it's not only about the romance but also war and politics, and of course I think just like many other young men would like to be strong like Rico.

Nice video! I read the book long before the movie came out. I did not analyze the movie as well as you did, I just felt that the movie came across as way more fascist than the book based on my somewhat vague memory. I noticed that the Skinnys were not in the movie so I kind of dismissed it.

Starship Troopers, the novel, may be everything mentioned in the video and in the comments. But it seems nobody mentions: Its an ode to competence! Competence Porn one could say :D

Well, now I have to read Starship Troopers!

Verhoeven's movie and Heinlein's book have very little in common.

That's no diamond of love, that's thunder rune of love. It is said that you summon great evil if you cast this spell two times.

The book and the movie are pretty different things, with each tailored appropriately to it's media as you note. I like each of them for different reasons. The movie is more blatantly satirical and frankly it's a better story as you also note. I like the movie enough to get past what it is, to me, it's greatest flaw: It's fundamentally stupid in technical aspects. The lack of powered armor, the way the soldiers are used, their deployment, how they do their jobs, how they are supported, how the bugs operate and what they can do, the naval actions and deployment are all excessively dumb. But as I said, I can overlook and forgive that because it's well, it's fun. A lot of fun, and that's why I go to see a movie like this.

7:32 LOL

The phycic connection is the millitary intelegence guys who know how the bugs work off of little info combined with the phycic canine handlers.

The OVA is my favorite, and I did not hate the book, the movie was just to mean spirited for me

Perfect video. Love it. Sending you a private message re chapter 8...

I really like your review! One thing i actually thought was fun with the movie is that the propaganda pieces actually DO show things the way they were. But things are just so over the top and ridiculous that it doesn't feel that way. I love that there's not really much that actually points to the society being bad or malevolent in any way. But it feels like it should haha.

I heard an idea that the movie can be viewed as an in universe propaganda film, much like John Wayne's The Green Berets was during the Vietnam war.

You need to know he was a U.S. Navy Midshipman in the 1930s. His 3rd wife was a veteran.. He, Asimov and De Kamp all worked together in a military think tank in 1945. He was very pro-military.

Given this story was intended to be part of his "juveniles" series of books, and the general tenor of preaching he incorporated into those books, I think it is save to say that the story is the real deal, not a satire, especially since any satire would likely have gone over the heads of its intended readership, as I can personally attest to, having read this book in the 60's as a teenager.

You need to play the two games on steam too.

Juan Rico is FILIPINO

I watched the movie when it came out and I was about 16 or 17 years old. I expected a fun, sci-fi action movie. Instead I got a lame-ass teen sex romp/coming-of-age movie. A few years later, at a friend's insistence, I read the book, expecting a lame-ass teen sex romp/coming-of-age story. Instead I got a political treatise. So I don't know what to expect anymore... There's no such thing as a movie that's better than the book it's based on, so it should come as no surprise that that's the case here as well. And indeed, there have been better books written and worse movies made. However, never before in the history of film has their been a bigger gulf in quality between the book and the movie. "Starship Troopers" needs a "Dredd." That is, a movie remake (or, more precisely, a movie "reimagining") done by a filmmaker who is actually familiar with and respectful of the source material, which Verhoven certainly was NOT. The honor of Mr. Heinlein's magnum opus needs to be redeemed.

i too was disappointed that the movie seemed to satirize the book. but then I'd read it pretty uncritically when younger. also the lack of power armor and the apparent disposability of infantry

Good/fair video…but Rico is not demoted at the end. He’s the platoon leader of his old platoon. He’s now the respected “old man”.

I just wanna say as someone who was a huge Heinlein fan when I was getting into Literary Sci-Fi back in High School, I can answer wether Heinlein was trying to make a Satire; the answer is largely no, he was writing more accurately a somewhat exaggerated and epic and over the top reinterpretation of his experiences in the Navy during WW2. But it should be noted that even though Starship Troopers may have some debatable beliefs presented in the book; it was not a thesis of Heinlein’s own ideals. Heinlein as a writer was not one for writing just his views and putting it to paper like many modern authors do; back then it was not exactly commonplace for a Writer to just plap their beliefs into a narrative; this is proven by the fact that Starship Troopers; a novel meant to a militaristic war story was followed up by: Stranger in a Strange Land; a Novel known to be “the Quintessential Hippie Guide Book”, it was a story where a human male was orphaned and raised by martians who learned how to master Psychic Abilities, teach this orphaned boy to learn how to use these psychic powers and uses the teachings of these Martians to overthrow a legit fascistic government on Earth (if the telepathic plot sounds familiar, its because the Telepathy part in the Starship Troopers movie was meant to be a beginning of a trilogy of Heinlein’s work, Stranger in a Strange Land was meant to be the sequel, but the movies box office made sure that wasn’t gonna happen). Starship Troopers is a novel that takes place in Heinlein’s own Narrative Universe/Multiverse where stories and settings are stand alone and tend to be reflective of the world itself in its contained story rather than what he himself believes. When you look at it from that point of view, it is more akin to Robert E. Howard’s Fictional Worlds than say Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek or Issac Asimov’s Foundation where the work is meant to be reflective of author morality.

Rico was also Filipino

Heinlein was definitely *not* writing this book as a satire. He really believed much of the things he wrote, as remember he wrote this book in the 1950s; a much different time from now and in many ways a much more conservative (and jingoistic) time.

15:39 Missed the letter i in “Spoiler”.

What a cast

The ending (SPOILER ALERT) of the Starship Troopers book has Juan Rico, now a lieutenant, about to lead an attack on Klendathu. His unit has changed its name from "Rasczak's Roughnecks" to "Rico's Roughnecks" and his father is Rico's platoon sergeant.

Movie deliberately satirised the novel, which the director saw as a fascist leaning novel. Though I love what the movie did, l think Director Verhoewen misread the novel’s intent. Like you perhaps, I think we should see Heinlein writing a novel that is very tongue in cheek, a kind of homage plus gentle satire of the kind of gung-ho ‘boy’s adventure novel’ that was popular at the time. After all the idea of YA fiction was not really part of the literary scene in the 1950s - or even in the 1970s during my childhood: you read children’s fiction till you got bored - in my case around the age of 13, when I would sneak into the adult section of the local library and borrow books there…Ian Fleming’s Bond novels, Alistair Maclean, Hammond Innes, and, yes, Robert Heinlein.

Good review! I'm a fan of book and film, but the book is very thought provoking. If l'm not mistaken, 'Starship Troopers' was penned during a 3 week period in 1958(?). President Eisenhower had just made public his intent to roll back nuclear weapons testing, and Heinlein, a Navy Vet in WWII, used the book as his "response" to said testing rollbacks. "[W]ill they worry about the fate of their decendants and dose themselves regularly with X-rays, or set off lots of dirty-type nuclear explosions every year to bulid up a fallout resevoir in their atmosphere? (Accepting, of course, the immediate dangers of radiation to themselves in order to provide a proper genetic heritage of mutation for the benefit of their descendants.)" Ch.11. Sadly, I don't believe this was satire, especially considering the political climate, with "McCarthy-ism", "The Red Scare", and other Cold War political agendas (Cuban Missile Crisis) looming in the decade. No one ever mentions the book was set in the 70th century, movie was set in the 24th. The 'Terran Federation' political system in the book (Citizen class, Civilian class) was taken almost directly from the example of the Early Roman Republic (especially during the Punic Wars). Both Citizen and Civilian class were taxed, but only Citizen class had the right to vote and hold office. An obvious example of : Taxation without Representation. Rico was Filipino, and for a former WWII US Navy Vet to make a Filipino the main protagonist, would've been a big plot-twist in the 1960's, mainly due to the racially charged times, and maybe was why he saved that reveal for so late in the book, after the reader has already emotionally invested in the character. The 'Terran Federation' "resolved" gender and culture equality issues in their own society, at the price of Forever Wars, by having a constant enemy.

1) Ther movie is an anti-military schlock that was named after the book, because Verhoeven was told the plot was too close to the book, so they had to buy the rights to the movie to avoid a lawsuit. 2). Heinlein was a libertarian, and a lot of his views are reflected in this book (I am NOT a libertarian, but I agreed with 99% of the views expressed in the book). 3) The book is pro-soldiers in the sense that it explains that the soldiers' loyalty is mostly to their comrades, not any politician or political system. 4) Verhoeven made a mockery of the book by presenting most of the book's points in a negative light - Heinlein had a lot of deep, thoughtful points in that book that make sense (that voting should be a priviledge, not a right, that only people who proved they are society-minding should be allowed to vote, that pole tax was OK as long as you can circumvent it - by a military stint, etc.) I loved the book, and I left a movie theatre in a daze and disbelief how a great book could be made so cartoonish and main points trivialized. I do hope Starship Troopers get to be remade following the book, NOT mocking it.