>>211424738
>Heinlein's Starship Troopers isn't fascist,
I mean it was by definition, you just have to unpack your emotional baggage about what that word actually means.
The thing to remember about heinlein is a lot of the "science" in his science fiction is social and political science, and you're kind of a dipshit if you try to pigeon hole him as a person based on the books he wrote. Which isn't to say he never saw a self insert character he didn't like, but you have starship troopers, the moon is a harsh mistress, revolt in 2100, stranger in a strange land, and then time enough for love he's basically written about the entire spectrum of political science.
>actually. Verhoeven didn't even read the book.
He started reading the book and then threw it in the garbage, but you also have to remember paul Verhoven during WWII and lived through the nazi occupation of the netherlands. He actually has justification for being reflexive against that kind of right wing ultra-nationalism.
And honestly, that's fine, I don't really care much for "adaptations" that are just a shitty condensed cliff notes versions that is going to be full of studio notes.
I'd rather a director take the source material, use that to inform their movie and inspire it, but freely embrace doing their own thing.
I love the book and I love the movie, and I don't think they compete or invalidate each other.
A faithful adaptation would also be pretty fucking boring, the book is Rico's journal from deciding to enlist until his death.
Its basic training, he goes on a few small scale missions, his officer realizes he has potential and sends him off the OCS where he goes through more school, meanwhile the war with the bugs goes hot. Its good, but its also pretty boring and dry.
