I found the article very hard to read because of this too. Starship Troopers is a very very well made film with razor sharp writing and top notch effects. The acting is the only thing off about it. (But PERFECT in context) Verhoeven is a director who makes very, very good movies. He has had a few spectacular duds alongside his schlocky classics. Also practically none of the films listed are "B" movies nor at all bad. Showgirls and Flash Gorden do not go together either. I normally love the articles on the Escapist but this one didn't do it for me. From my understanding Lollipop Chainsaw was a big budget game had a kooky premise and ticked all the right boxes but had repetitive gameplay. I think summer blockbuster would be a more apt comparison. All bang but no substance. Suda 51 is not an auteur director who takes risks and fails spectacularly like a Terence Malick or Gus Van Sant. He is more like a Tarantino. (In his recent films) Well funded, a proven box office draw, pretty creative in his own area and doubtlessly talented, but ultimately a 1 trick pony. It's still not the best comparison but It's one I think people can relate to. Famous for being different and cool, but ultimately always making the same thing. Boring basically.TheMadDoctorsCat said:The comparison of "Starship Troopers" and "The Expendables" actually depresses me somewhat.
Yeah, any director that can't finish a novel with less than 300 pages is automatically put on my shit list forever.Arnoxthe1 said:He just read the beginning of it and then put it down saying it was 'too boring'.Anti-American Eagle said:I want to say the film version of Starship Troopers is good Satire. But, the problem is that it has dragged the name of the book down. Verhoeven hadn't finished the book, and I can only guess that he asked some one who had for a synopsis, looked up controversy about it and decided to parody it.
Seriously, screw that movie.
He said he found the book "depressing" Considering he grew up under Nazi Germany I can understand. The book is incredibly militaristic and lectures you at length about the benefits of a meritocracy without a hint of irony. It's a good book but it IS depressing. Verhoeven needs to read the Forever War.Do4600 said:Yeah, any director that can't finish a novel with less than 300 pages is automatically put on my shit list forever.Arnoxthe1 said:He just read the beginning of it and then put it down saying it was 'too boring'.Anti-American Eagle said:I want to say the film version of Starship Troopers is good Satire. But, the problem is that it has dragged the name of the book down. Verhoeven hadn't finished the book, and I can only guess that he asked some one who had for a synopsis, looked up controversy about it and decided to parody it.
Seriously, screw that movie.
I never said I swore off his films, I said he's on my shit list. Directing is an incredibly hard job, I think the bare minimum is at least reading the novel your film is adapted from, if you can't finish it, don't direct the film. There have been plenty of people who have turned down contracts based on those grounds. I remember hearing an interview with an actor who was offered a huge role as Hermann Göring in a war film and after much deliberation he decided he simply couldn't portray the man based on his own beliefs; that's the mature thing to do. The immature thing to do is to make the film a parody of the first half of the book you couldn't be bothered to complete.Lono Shrugged said:He said he found the book "depressing" Considering he grew up under Nazi Germany I can understand. The book is incredibly militaristic and lectures you at length about the benefits of a meritocracy without a hint of irony. It's a good book but it IS depressing. Verhoeven needs to read the Forever War.Do4600 said:Yeah, any director that can't finish a novel with less than 300 pages is automatically put on my shit list forever.Arnoxthe1 said:He just read the beginning of it and then put it down saying it was 'too boring'.Anti-American Eagle said:I want to say the film version of Starship Troopers is good Satire. But, the problem is that it has dragged the name of the book down. Verhoeven hadn't finished the book, and I can only guess that he asked some one who had for a synopsis, looked up controversy about it and decided to parody it.
Seriously, screw that movie.
So he reads part of a book and stops because it didn't engage him and you swear off his films forever because of it?
That's a little hypocritical if you ask me.
Well it is the game Square enix went out of it's way to deny even existed, so that's probably why.Magefeanor said:No mention of Cavia's Drakengard? I thought that was THE epitome of so bad it's good in the video game world.
To bad nearly no one have heard of it.
And I've always preferred Cavia over Suda51, I don't really get all the praise he gets...
One might argue that whatever or not Verhoeven read the entirety of Starship Troopers he still managed to get his satire of the book spot on. The things he satirizes are the very same things that Heinlein promotes as positive. The militaristic overtones, the us and them mentality, the faux meritocracy of being rewarded for submitting to the state and the general military fan-wanking that goes on in Starship Troopers. Whatever or not Verhoeven himself managed to read through the book seems kind of irrelevant, because it is obvious that the people who helped him put together the script did and they certainly made sure to satirize the salient points of Heinlein's ideal society.Do4600 said:I never said I swore off his films, I said he's on my shit list. Directing is an incredibly hard job, I think the bare minimum is at least reading the novel your film is adapted from, if you can't finish it, don't direct the film. There have been plenty of people who have turned down contracts based on those grounds. I remember hearing an interview with an actor who was offered a huge role as Hermann Göring in a war film and after much deliberation he decided he simply couldn't portray the man based on his own beliefs; that's the mature thing to do. The immature thing to do is to make the film a parody of the first half of the book you couldn't be bothered to complete.
If you are going to adapt something, know that something forwards and backwards, then you can at least make a point from expertise rather than an attack from ignorance.
Exactly the point I was going to make, not just the cost in money but also time. A bad film will probably take less than 2 hours of my time, and that includes getting to the cinema if I'm not just watching it on TV. On the other hand, 10 hours is generally considered the absolute minimum length a game should be. I may be willing to waste an hour or two on something that's entertaining despite, or because of, it's flaws. But spending tens of hours on something repetitive and unoriginal? What could possibly make me want to do that? A film might be able to get away with it because by the time I'm bored, it's over. But a game simply can't do the same because by the time I'm bored I'm probably barely out of the tutorial.bjj hero said:Youve missed a point not talking about value. It costs £8 or so for a cinema ticket. Ill chance some B movie schlock at that price. Console games come in around £40, at 5 times the price ill buy something with great story and game play instead.
Anita Whateverherlastnameis.Anti-American Eagle said:Otherwise... Wait, while I'm thinking it. Are there actually people who didn't realize that Lollipop chainsaw was a joke?
It's not often that bad gameplay is funny. I'm thinking that the best examples of funny bad gameplay are games full of glitches, where things like enemies flying into the sky after being hit are a common occurrence. Incidentally, that's probably why every video I've seen of Ride to Hell: Retribution is full of the laughter of the person playing the game.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:Firstly, you can't really argue for mediocre game mechanics as a plus. If I'm going to spend hours playing a game, then I want it to be responsive and intuitive and fun to play. Lollipop Chainsaw had shallow, janky gameplay, and that means that on a fundemantal level, the game fails. The combat in LC simply isn't very good. That means that, on a fundamental level, a large proportion of the game isn't very good. When you're required to sink multiple hours into it, instead of a film's usual 1-2, then that makes a difference. Two hours of Rocky Horror is fine. Twelve hours of Rocky Horror would be torture.