Talk:Starship Troopers (film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

World War II weapons?

What ignorant mook was trying so hard over exaggerating the already over the top fascism thing that they pretend the weapons have ANYTHING to do with 1940 technology?

What a disgrace to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.160.132 (talk) 07:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The working part of the rifle, is a Ruger AC556. The design is basically a copy of the M1 Garand, which was designed in the 1930s and used as the United States main battle rifle in... World War II. Dunno what that has to do with fascism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.247.216 (talk • contribs)

Inaccurate Attribution

In the Salon article cited by reference [18], Aasif Mandvi does not mention or criticize Starship Troopers directly; rather it is used as an example in the accompanying slide show created by Max Rivlin-Nadler.

Whitewashing, a history

WebWaster (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Critical Reception

There appears to be a concerted effort by some editors to maintain this film received almost overwhelmingly negative reviews and poor critical reception.

With 63% on RT and 51% on Metacrtic (cited), those numbers would put it squarely in the mixed reception camp. It you look up almost any other article on any film with scores comparable to these from two of the most popular and well known review aggregators (as close to 'consensus' as you can get) you will find almost all of them refer to the critical reception as mostly mixed, or perhaps mixed to negative.

Calling the critical consensus blanketly negative is extremely misleading, and doing so on the basis of a single line from one Atlantic article and ignoring the review aggregator scores is giving undue weight to one source.

As I stated earlier, whether or not a film's critical reception is labeled "positive, mixed, negative" or some combination of these adjectives is almost always in sync with the review aggregation sites. The way this article chooses to portray the critical reception is out of line with almost all other modern films. Zaqwert (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Interpreting review aggregator scores is original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

It's very apparent that the "positive, mixed, negative, etc." descriptions for hundreds, if not thousands, of major release film articles appear very much to be based on such and are remarkably consistent across the board. Are all those thousands of articles and their tens of thousands of editors doing it incorrectly, all in unison? It's certainly possible I guess, however it seems like a huge oversight in film article conventions that's gone mostly unnoticed for a decade.Zaqwert (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there are many articles that have original research in them. I fix it when I see it. You can, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks like history is being rewritten. When this film was originally released, it was widely known to be a stinker. Recently, one can only guess why, it has been giving more positive reviews. That does not mean it's a good film, and it doesn't change the fact that it was a box-office loser. Those facts will never change. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Appreciate your concern, but think you're beating a dead horse here; we already have a sourced statement in the article that the film received negative reviews upon release. DonIago (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

confusing appearance of name in synopsis?

It looks like Cpl. Watkins' name appears for the first time in the synopsis: "... and Watkins, mortally wounded, sacrifices himself by detonating the bomb to enable the others to escape." He appears in the cast list but isn't otherwise mentioned. Changeto "... and another trooper (Cpl. Watkins), mortally wounded ..." ? Bbolker (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Plot updated. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

POV pushing by indeffed user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why has this inaccurate attribution not been corrected? In the Salon article cited by reference [18], Aasif Mandvi does not mention or criticize Starship Troopers directly; rather it is used as an example in the accompanying slide show created by Max Rivlin-Nadler. Whitewashing, a history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Block (talk • contribs) 03:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC) Are you a sockpuppet of Webwaster? It's just that the post here is an exact copy of the one they made back in 2017 - the reference you are talking about is no longer ref 18, but is now ref 19, which suggests you are just reposting, rather than looking anew at the topic? Chaheel Riens (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Whitewashing?

Since the editors seem to be so insistent on the idea that the casting of Caspar Van Dien as the Johnny Rico character in Starship Troopers is "whitewashing", then I expect they'll be making a visit to the pages for Thor: Ragnarok and The Dark Tower, since the former casts black actors as Nordic deities, and the latter casts a black actor in a role that was occupied by a white man in the source novel. If it's culturally offensive to cast white actors in traditionally non-white roles, then it should be equally offensive to cast non-white actors in traditionally white roles, right? So I expect to see the editors point that out on the aforementioned Wikipedia pages. If you only take offense at "whitewashing," but not the replacement of white characters by non-whites, that would make you a complete hypocrite, wouldn't it? It would mean that you have a cultural standard of reference that you don't assert impartially, but only in support of your own hidden prejudices--a complete ethnic double standard that would reflect a real lack of moral character. I know the editors wouldn't want to be people like that, because it would be really contemptible. So let's see if they're consistent in their cultural/ethnic sensitivities, because I would hate to find out they're hypocrites. I would hope their own consciences would bother them as well, if that were true. So go get busy and right the wrongs on those two Wikipedia pages I mentioned--Thor and Dark Tower. I'm trusting Wikipedia to do the right thing here. Don't let me or yourself down. Be consistent and fair. Do what's right.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Block (talk • contribs) 03:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

What does this have to do with improving this article? Would it not be more prudent to leave comments at the Talk pages for those articles? DonIago (talk) 04:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

If you're not going to express criticism of casting non-white actors in traditionally white roles, then why do you express criticism of casting white actors in non-white roles? Obviously you're not against ethnically inaccurate casting when it goes against whites, only when it goes against non-whites. It would be an improvement to the article to remove your own prejudices and biases by removing the "whitewashing" citation if you're not going to call attention to the casting of non-whites in white roles as well, such as in the other articles I mentioned. Hypocrisy is always bad. This isn't a hard concept to understand. You don't even have the courage to directly discuss the issue do you? Probably because you know I'm right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Block (talk • contribs) 04:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss what reliable sources have discussed, as you are similarly welcome to do. But I'm not going to go out of my way to research a subject that's of marginal interest to me, nor am I under any obligation to do so, and as I already told you, the only reason I reverted your deletion was because you didn't provide an explanation for it at the time. If you maintain your current tone you're likely to get blocked for attacking your fellow editors, so might I suggest you focus more on improving article content and less on what you believe to be the motives of your fellow editors?

I'll say right now that it's unlikely I'll respond further if you continue with your current tone, as you're coming off as more interested in hurling accusations at others than in working collaboratively. DonIago (talk) 05:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Script Origins?

The article states that Verhoeven was originally working on an unrelated script called "Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine", and only after some legal shenanigans this was turned into Starship Troopers. This is a strong and interesting claim, but is there some actual source corroborating this? The article is referring to an American Cinematographer (AC) article by Les Paul Robley, "Interstellar Exterminators". The link to this merely leads to a paywalled excerpt (https://www.questia.com/read/1P3-1504299331/interstellar-exterminators), but AC appears to have the full article for open access here: https://ascmag.com/articles/starship-troopers-interstellar-exterminators

Now it turns out that the AC-article does not actually mention anything like this origin story. In fact, it almost exclusively deals with filming technicalities: lenses, lighting and so on. As such I don't see how this can be used as a source for the claim.

The title "Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine" is on the other hand mentioned in a different article in the references, specifically this one at Empire Online: https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/paul-verhoeven/ However, here they merely state this was the working title. Such titles are common in the industry and do not imply any odd licensing background. There is nothing about Verhoeven starting with an unrelated script.

I'm not saying the claim is untrue, I could easily see it being true, but as it stands there seems to be no source for it. Does anyone have anything better? Elanguescence (talk)

Alright, I have removed the claim. The claim was introduced in 2013 and only ever referenced the AC article that actually does not support it. Similar claims can nowadays be found on a number of "10-interesting-things-about-Starship-Troopers"-style websites, but they popped up after 2013, are unsourced and possibly just took it from Wikipedia.

Moreover, the script writer has claimed to have been a fan of the novel since childhood:

https://io9.gizmodo.com/starship-troopers-iii-actually-based-on-heinlein-novel-360061

He has also claimed that his first draft was actually closer to the novel:

https://hnentertainment.co/exclusive-starship-troopers-screenwriter-ed-neumeier-teases-tv-series-and-talks-pg-13-movie-reboot/

I am not ruling out that there were some legal licensing issues, that they started filming before they had the rights or similar. And I would be happy to read and accept a source that actually supports the claim that the initial script was unrelated to the novel. But as it stands there is no such source, and the claims of the script writer make the claim at least problematic.

Elanguescence (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable position to take. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Someone has reinstated the claim, reasoning that the original version of the AC article supposedly supports it. I do remain highly sceptical, as according to the AC-website only the images were altered in the online version, thus contradicting the changing editor's statement of it merely being a sample, and the online article "feels" comprehensive and complete. However, I certainly cannot rule out that AC is wrong about this, plus I am not willing to invest in obtaining the original magazine to check, so I guess it will have to stay as it is. I do believe though that it would be very beneficial for the wiki-article to quote the relevant line from the alleged AC-article, especially since it contradicts the script author's claim of the first draft being closer to the novel. Elanguescence (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

On second thought, given their editing comment I think the IP user 109.76.153.229 may not have read this talk page, just my own editing comment, and thus have assumed I was solely talking about the originally referenced paywall-excerpt of the AC article, not the full(?) version at the publisher's page. Moreover, someone else has now modified the reference to include the link to the full version, thus turning it into an obviously questionable reference for the "unrelated script" claim. I have tried to contact 109.76.153.229, but given the nature of IP user pages I doubt I will reach them.

Thus I am changing these parts once more. I promise not to turn this into an edit war - my hope is that 109.76.153.229 will read my more elaborate edit comment and the talk page and then help clarify the situation here; maybe they were confused about the reference link, or maybe they do indeed have access to some better source and a quote.

So in case 109.76.153.229 shows up here: I do not question that the director Verhoeven had not read the whole novel, this is well documented. However, this does not mean that the script was unrelated, as it was written not by the director, but by the screenwriter Neumeier, who had read the novel. The AC-article is available in full(?) at the publisher's site (https://ascmag.com/articles/starship-troopers-interstellar-exterminators) and does not support the script being unrelated; it focuses on filming techniques, cameras etc. Do you have a better source and maybe a quote stating that the script was unrelated? To me this is solely about this matter of "unrelated" - I do not question that the movie once had the "Bug Hunt..."-working title, that is also well documented, but movies often have working titles (for example to prevent fans from noticing and disturbing the production), and one cannot conclude much from that. It is also possible that they started filming before they had the rights, and initially kept some details generic in case the license did not work out (I read this on some other unsourced trivia-page, so I am not adding this, but it does sound plausible), which again does not mean that the script was unrelated.

I guess it is obvious that this is "bugging" me by now. ;-) But I am honestly interested in what was going on there, and I do not claim to know the truth. But so far the reference situation has been rather dubious, and I believe the article would benefit from clarification. If some original version of the AC-article supports the "unrelated script" claim, then I think it is very necessary to provide a quote, given that the publisher's own online version purports to be the full article and contains no such information.

In my edit I have preserved the AC-reference by using it as a source for the filming at Hell's Acre, as the article goes into much detail on that topic, and to wiki-readers it may be preferable over the only earlier reference to Hell's Acre, the DVD commentary.

Elanguescence (talk) 06:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

"I'm not saying the claim is untrue, I could easily see it being true," but yet editors delete things they don't even think are are incorrect, instead of tagging with {{Better reference}}. Out of sight is out of mind, deleting things you don't even disagree with is not productive, and not a good way to improve any article. Starting a talk page discussion, has a better chance of improving an article.

I thought this was another case of WP:SOURCEACCESS or WP:LINKROT and that the information would be in the source mentioned and probably also the DVD commentary. I dug deeper and found several Articles from American Cinematographer online but no mention of "Bug Hunt". Anyone watched the film with DVD commentary? (I plan to rewatch soon but it could be weeks.)

When was the claim added to the article? It would help to know (with the diff ideally) because there are probably sources that came later just repeating things they read in Wikipedia. I want to avoid any circular referencing.

Reading various sources [1] it does look a lot like an editor may have put two and two together and got five. As you say the small specific claim of "unrelated" might be the problem. It looks a lot more like Verhoeven had and idea for a film [2] and just went with it. (It has happened before and will happen again, Blade Runner has barely any connection to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? for example.) It seems like securing the rights to the book was incidental.[3] So I mostly agree with what Elanguescence is saying, but I don't think it was necessary to delete so much from the article. Since we do have source saying "Bug Hunt At Outpost Nine" was a working title, then please restore that detail to the production section.[4] -- 109.77.209.168 (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

A 2016 article from Cinemablend includes the "unrelated script claim"[5] but the 2017 article from Mental Floss does present the "Bug Hunt" name as simply a placeholder name.[6] -- 109.77.209.168 (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, indeed, it does. Not sure, maybe that is good enough. It is so short that it feels to me like they might have taken it from Wikipedia, but I am not sure what standards are to be applied.

As far as I can tell the first explicit introduction of the claim happened in the intro section of the article on 2 August 2013: [7] This already used that specific AC-article as a reference, but without any link.

The production background section at the time was more vague:

"A report in an American Cinematographer article states that the Heinlein novel was optioned well into the pre-production period of the film, which had a working title of Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine; most of the writing team reportedly were unaware of the novel at the time. According to the DVD commentary, Paul Verhoeven never finished reading the novel, claiming he read through the first few chapters and became both 'bored and depressed.'"

This ends with another (linkless) reference to the AC-article.

The part I quoted had been around (with minor changes) for much longer. E.g. on 30 May 2009 [8] was when it started using the reference to the AC-article; before that it merely linked to the trivia-wiki from IMDB for a long time. Its genesis though was really early on, 25 October 2004: [9] At that time there was no reference. The addition had this editing comment: "I'll track down the exact AC reference; their online search doesn't go back far enough." - which does not sound like the editor back then had the actual article available.

I have brought back the part about the working title - I had not realized I had removed its only mentioning, sorry for that.

Regarding the rest, I am a little skeptical regarding the Cinemablend text, given its blog-like form and that the claim was already in Wikipedia for many years before that, but I will leave it to the judgement of more experienced editors.

Elanguescence (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I share your skepticism, and I don't find any of the sources to be compelling. Looks good enough for now. -- 109.77.209.168 (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be a book on The Making of Starship Troopers we should probably consult. The "making of" documentary [10] from the Bluray special features might also be worth looking at, but obviously the books will include more detail. -- 109.76.195.210 (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Reading the article for Robert A. Heinlein, I see it also mentions Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine, and in that case the reference provided is to an article from Fangoria. -- 109.78.215.166 (talk) 06:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Credit to Internet Celebrities?

The sentence "after it was endorsed by internet celebrities such as PewDiePie and Macaulay Culkin" can be sure proven by the fact of the linked youtube video or the article. But saying "was only more broadly popularized in the latter part of the decade, after it was endorsed" is a not proven claim. To be able to securely write such a claim you need to correlate the popularity of the movie to this "endorsments" through research and statistics which needs to be cited. The person who wrote this is clearly a PewDiePie fan and follower and probably a Gen-Z, and wants to endorse him. I do not claim this only becasue they want to credit him but the fact that this movie was already at kult-status in my youth when I was in highschool in early 2000s. There was no pewdiepie back then, not even facebook. I assume only a person young enough to not know something was popular or not until pewdiepie makes a video about it, must be a post-social media child. Not knowing something was already popular in certain circles does not make it suddenly become popular solely becasue you somehow found out about it, therfore it must have gotten popular now for you to take notice. It only shows you had no Idea. Period. There is not need for a discussion though. This is wikipedia not a opinion page. You need to cite statistics not only the man's video as evidence. That only proves he made a video about it. His reach is irrelevant. What would be relevant is a statistic showing how the sales of that said movie risen directly attributed to the linked video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.216.215.66 (talk • contribs)

What on Earth does this have to do with Starship Troopers? DonIago (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

They're talking about the part in the reappraisal section that seems to credit Pew Die Pie and Macaulay Culkin with making it a cult hit? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah, my bad! DonIago (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thankfully this sentence is gone after User:Darkwarriorblake's impressive rewrite. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The bigger question is why did it take so long for this silliness to reverted or challenged? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. -- 109.78.195.60 (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)