Starship Troopers

The movie is superior but the book was an inspiration to so many sci-fi writers it's worth examining.

This guy gets it.

Like others have said it's one of those few cases of the film being better than the book, it's like American Psycho. Putting more emphasis on dark humour/satire (in this case satirising fascism) gives the films something stronger

The book is trash
no story
no plot
no characters
just the insane monologues of a man petrified of the sputnik launch

The film is great multi-layered satire

no he doesn't, he clearly misunderstood the movies intention.

>The movie is a really solid satire of jingoistic military movies
fucking psued peabrain interpretation t b q h
Verhoeven and Neumeier really wanted to make a film about the upbeat feeling of 1933 - 1939 Germany but they knew that the financiers of Hollywood would shitcan the idea upon proposal so they repackaged their movie, giving it a sci fi dressing.

>Verhoeven and Neumeier really wanted to make a film about the upbeat feeling of 1933 - 1939 Germany but they knew that the financiers of Hollywood would shitcan the idea upon proposal so they repackaged their movie, giving it a sci fi dressing.

Why would you even post something like this that is completely wrong?

>satire
It's a half in the bag situation. The commercial skits are satire, but I get a sense that even those are being "uplifted" into a comically positive light. It's ultimately pro-war / military life.

both are pleb-tier, you dumb fucks

>It's ultimately pro-war / military life.

I genuinely don't know how you can be this dense. Did you even watch the film?

I think it's too subtle a movie for you if you think it's just pure satire. The movie has actual character development, a fairly lovable cast, and a number of heart-warming scenes which all rely on the war backdrop. Yes, it's cut up with those funny satirical commercials, but that movie is a cult hit with military sci-fi lovers for a reason — it represents a ton of things they love about the genre, and positively so.

None of those things mean it isn't satire.

Maybe a quote from the director himself would make you think differently:

>"War makes fascists of us all. I've heard this film nicknamed All Quiet On the Final Frontier which is actually not far from the truth."
>Verhoeven says his satirical use of irony and hyperbole is "playing with fascism or fascist imagery to point out certain aspects of American society... of course, the movie is about 'Let's all go to war and let's all die.'"

When you saw the scenes with "Mobile Infantry made me the man I am today", "It's afraid" and everyone cheering, the way all the protagonists lose any sense of individuality and just become disposable cogs in the war machine, you watched these scenes and thought "yep, this film is pro war"?

I think maybe the film is too subtle for you to understand..

The director utterly failed then. The movie is too thick in interesting character drama for that effect to seep through at any significant length. When the plot of the movie is more interesting than your meta anti-war message, you have failed.

Those scenes felt like comical jabs, but the whole movie has a YA feel. It felt more celebratory of "the melting pot of military scifi" which includes some cynical satire, but also genuine love for the science fiction aspect and the romantic drama war produces. Not pure satire.

>Those scenes felt like comical jabs, but the whole movie has a YA feel.

This is the entire point, why do you think the main cast are good looking, The OC type actors? Look at the character progression, you have the cast going from aspirational teens at the start and by the end they're all just braindead killing machines. Have another quote:

>"If I tell the world that a right-wing, fascist way of doing things doesn't work, no one will listen to me. So I'm going to make a perfect fascist world: everyone is beautiful, everything is shiny, everything has big guns and fancy ships, but it's only good for killing fucking bugs!"

Don't blame Verhoeven because you didn't get the film.

>braindead killing machines
Who was this, exactly?

>Rico
The dude wasn't comfortable in the academic setting. He admires his teacher, who is a hard ass. He wants to impress his girlfriend. He makes squad leader because he has natural talent as a leader, but fucks up and goes through administrative punishment and suffers the deaths of his comrades. This is not stone cold braindead killing, it becomes emotionally invested killing.

>Carmen
Egotistical girl just following the wave, pulled further in by her attraction to egotistical male Zander. She goes for pilot particularly because it turns the war into something very abstract, because she doesn't even care about it really.

>Dizzy
Enlists to be closer to Rico.

>Carl
War is a great opportunity for the curious scientific mind to flourish.

>Ace
Dude loves a good bromance, which war facilitates. Maybe the worst offender, but he's also one of the most fun characters of the movie.

Most of the movie focuses on the character drama. It has highs and lows, all which rely on the war backdrop. It is a little cheesy and a little cynical but in a harmless lovable way. It is not cynical and ugly enough to come across as a pure satire of war.

fuck off to the sf+fantasy/YA containment thread, you fucking brainlets.

is this what /pol/ tourists bring to the board?

>Who was this, exactly?
Every character in the film? In literally the first scene Rico is being indoctrinated into the war machine of the film. The entire point is the manipulation of these people's ideas. The bugs didn't attack first. The humans aren't "defending their homeland" like claimed. The war is necessary for the survival of the human race, the war machine is what keeps everyone going. The character drama of the film is there because if it was just straight up satire it wouldn't work as a narrative film.

Honestly mate, I don't know how many times I have to explain it to you. The film is incredibly cynical and satirical. I'm not disagreeing the film isn't fun and has light hearted scenes, but the film is straight up satire of fascist, military based systems of power.

next thing you're going to try and say the military industrial complex is a bad thing

I don't see how my personal opinions are relevant to a directors intent with his film.

>The entire point is the manipulation of these people's ideas.
Is that the point of the scene when his teacher tells him to figure things out for himself? Gee whiz, I didn't realize telling him to do what he wants was code for do what I want without personal choice, silly me.

Dude, Rico didn't have his own ideas. He regurgitated textbooks and his grades were shit. I don't see what the fuck is the problem with him wanting to enlist, it's not being forced on him at any point. Seems like a natural and also fitting conclusion for someone like him. He's even chosen as squad leader early on because they recognize his natural ability for it. And as far as the other characters go, I don't see any scene that demonstrates they even really care all that much about the war itself other than Rico, they are all going into it for personal reasons. I don't see ideological indoctrination as having a big presence in any of their lives.

>The bugs didn't attack first. The humans aren't "defending their homeland" like claimed.
lol, come on. At the end the movie suggested that diplomacy may be a possibility with the presence of "brain bugs", at least it did to me. If it's a possibility then it's within reason, but at the beginning there was no such perceived possibility. The bugs are massive war machines themselves, it doesn't even matter who attacked first here. At first sight I would attack first too to get the upper hand because they look incredibly dangerous and that's what natural instinct makes you do.

>The character drama of the film is there because if it was just straight up satire it wouldn't work as a narrative film.
If they knew this, why did they write in these light hearted scenes that justify the war by virtue of being emotionally appealing? There is no sense of tragedy, fear in love, and camaraderie without the war backdrop.

>now excuse me while I go back to reading off the canon list, with all the originality that entails

Ok, this is a point I didn't really think about until watching the RLM review. Look at the actors they got to play those roles. They are not movie actors, they are sitcom actors. Niel Patric Haris is an outlier, but at the time he was just a random pretty boy. The guy playing Rico's biggest acting role before the movie was 7 episodes of Beverly hills, 90210. They got Michael fucking Ironside to play the hard bitten military leader, you don't do that if you are making a serious non B movie.

fpbp

I found the book better than the movie. I actually hated the movie, but I can see the appeal to individuals who like cheese, or satire (both of which do not appeal to me).

Good posts.

Important to note.

Do you like any of Verhoeven's other films?

That is a good point. At the same time, I still think the director kind of failed. For someone who much prefers sincere military scifi over anti-war satire, there was not nearly enough about the movie to curb my enthusiasm about the sincere aspects of the genre or to even rub me the wrong way about "fascistic tendencies." I think you are a crazy person to be that against authoritarian values anyway. Everything in life has its place, and wisdom is about knowing when and where things must be prioritized.

If you intend to criticize a thing, intentionally showing it in a negative light is the wrong thing to do. It is super easy to get into strawman territory. The film did the right thing, sincerely showing a fascist society and pointing out the issues that come out of that. Bad satire shoves stuff in your face and can't shut up about the clever allegory it is making. Verhoeven is just having guys say "The MI made me the man I am today" with three missing limbs. Bad satire would be him saying that, then they flash back to him on a battlefield, begging his CO to retreat while he comically keeps getting shot in his limbs. His CO keeps telling him he dosen't have orders to retreat, and that they are cut off from communication.

Good satire shouldn't bother you if you believe in a thing. You generally have already accepted the implied consequences of that thing. It should make you think about it more though, and if you are just on the edge of a thing it make you really face the implications.

>Good satire [criticism] shouldn't bother you if you believe in a thing.

Should be pinned at the top of this board for all tourists.

>The film did the right thing, sincerely showing a fascist society and pointing out the issues that come out of that.
It also points out the good things, it has both... like any sincere story will do. If satire is about showing both the positive and negative of a thing and providing value to both agreers and disagreers then it seems like a worthless genre.

You seem like the type of dude who tried to start a fight club irl

Wait... the positive things? There were positive things? At best I guess the sense of camaraderie? Which makes the eventual death of characters in battle hurt more.

>character development and romantic drama isn't positive
Do you know where we are? Veeky Forums - Literature. If you don't find great pleasure in even brutal tragedy, why are you here? And that's not satire, literary masters across all ages write about tragedy passionately.

...but that isn't a positive of the society, which was the subject of discussion. The interpersonal story was interesting, but mostly it was showing how hollow the main characters in the love... line I guess? Not really a triangle. The two people that had some amount of personality were dead in the end, and the initial obvious ship were sitting there realizing what they had lost.

What is negative about:

>discovering yourself via harsh scenarios
>developing self respect by accepting some well deserved lashings from a system bigger than yourself
>learning to appreciate the good things in life via loss and fear of your loved ones dying
>brotherly love from being raised on the same battlefield together
>getting to blow off steam by shooting big dumb bugs
>getting to be a war hero
>getting to train your brain and satisfy your curiosity of the alien mind

and more.

It's a movie that features Doogie Howser in a literal SS uniform. It's a satire.

>Veeky Forums
>whole thread discussing the movie instead of the book
>never change

They are completly different the film is a satyre the book a full military stuff.
both are excellent.

>REE
epic

What does this even mean?

Nah.

futurewarstories.blogspot.com/2010/12/fws-movie-review-of-starship-troopers.html

futurewarstories.blogspot.com/2012/03/fws-broken-promises-starship-troopers.html

Can't tell if this thread was derailed on deliberate by HFYfags or accidentally by autists.

>The bugs are massive war machines themselves
>At first sight I would attack first too to get the upper hand because they look incredibly dangerous and that's what natural instinct makes you do.

I always figured part of the joke of the movie was that humanity acts as an equally barbarous war machine as any real intellectual thought is tossed away in the war effort

HFY, faggot.

Yeah, that's what pseuds like to think. Then they get their heads bitten off in war or they become total hypocrites.

Okay so we just got trolled by Le Reddit Commissar blammo Xenos XDXDXD retards.

The book is more sophisticated than the movie though. Just saiyan.

I kinda dislike most of the general ideas used in a lot of sci-fi military literature and that's without the metatextual issues I have with some of the writers or concepts. It's pretty much a matter of taste and I really enjoy goofy in-your-face satire a lot more than literally anything else, desu.

That's fine. pleb

Sincere military scifi is a lot closer to the zeitgeist of our time than any satire of it though. And it is no less mature for it.

Fuck off /pol/.

A satisfactory life is doing recreational drugs, drinking overpriced coffee, and reading pretentious post-modern lit while still maintaining that base pleasures and consumerism is for the unknowing cogs of an apathetic capitalistic machine.

Just finished this book last night

It was ok but not the best. Wouldn't really recommend though

Why do people say it was satirical anti-war movie? I get the ads seem over the top, but if you look at WWII US posters, they're less edgy than that. Am I /pol/ now?

>Why do people say it was satirical anti-war movie?

Because it is?
Because it's really blatant?
Because the writer and director said it was?

Like really, it's not difficult. I have a friend who didn't get it and thinks it's a "fuck yeah" army film, but even he figured it out eventually.

It's comments like this that make it real easy to tell you spergs weren't even a stain on your mama's mattress when this movie actually came out.

As an oldbie who was actually around when the movie came out... no, no it was not "satire"... in fact the TRAILER for the film made it out to be this epic, inspiring, galactic war saga between mankind and alien insects hellbent on destroying everything.

That was what every person who went to see the movie thought it was going to be... instead... instead we got 90210 in fucking space... and it was SHIT!

It was not "satire", it was not "clever", it was not anything other than tweenage level "love stories" sloppily bitched on into a sci-fi movie with some of the absolute WORST acting ever.

The shit you're talking about is what dipshit millennials came up with AFTER the fact when they randomly stumbled on over the movie and just ASSumed it was intended as satire/parody rather than seriousness.

Again, at the time it came out... it was MEANT as a serious movie... and they fucked it all up.

Watch the trailer... don't bother with the movie itself. They blow all the best scenes and all the best dialogue on the trailer, everything else in the movie is garbage.

youtube.com/watch?v=XvAsR4O4W0w

Explain me the vibrating sarcasm of the scene that I fail to understand.

So... you don't find anything satirical about a one armed veteran arguing that violence is the only solution to any problem, while actors specifically chosen to for looking like pretty airheads dick around in class?

If you genuinely believe this and aren't trolling, I think you need to rewatch the film or something. If you can't see satire as obvious as this, from a director who is famous for satirical films, I can't help you any more.

Who has more integrity and authority to talk about the effectiveness of violence and the meritocratic system of governance than an injured war veteran, still loyal to the cause? He is not played off in the scene as a fossil from the old times and the ideas he is presenting are not strawman bullshit, nothing towards contrary is ever said in the film, in any way, nor is a case presented for the democracy. It is a dead serious argument that would seem preachy without the students messing about.

Rico understands the ideas explicitly, “straight from the book,” but not implicitly, as expressed by their carefree goofing about in the class, not really caring about the gravity of all that is said. This is the scene that sets the premise of understanding those ideas in a concrete manner in the coming war. The case for the citizenship is not left at the theoretical, “social science” level, but is what Rico becomes in the progress of the film. He becomes Rasczak at the end, inheriting the Rough Necks.

The satirical aspects of the film really are skin deep, comical news splashes, that do not seem out of place when compared to the total wars real human societies have fought. The core ideas are with the camaraderie, love and finding one's place within the system, not the overthrow or mockery of right-wing government.

I genuinely don't see how you can be this clueless, the film is obvious satire. What does it take to understand this?

Honestly, if you think the satirical aspects are "skin deep" and the generic, bland melodrama in the film isn't, I think you've got it backwards. If the satire in the film is skin deep, why are so many people, including people in this thread completely ignorant to it and think it's just the little news clips that are the be all and end all of satire in the film, and not that the entire film is a commentary on contemporary America and fascism.

I'll refer you to this quote again:

>>"If I tell the world that a right-wing, fascist way of doing things doesn't work, no one will listen to me. So I'm going to make a perfect fascist world: everyone is beautiful, everything is shiny, everything has big guns and fancy ships, but it's only good for killing fucking bugs!"

>a perfect world is supposed to be satirical
How? Why?

He's either trolling or a retard, just drop it. Do something constructive with your time.

Maybe you should try and understand his point rather than reading it literally. He's created a classic utopia as dystopia. The world is full of beautiful people, advanced technology, space travel and yet humanity is still stuck fighting pointless squabbles for essentially no reason, we've just moved on from fighting eachother.

Yeah, you're probably right. I'm just killing time at work. Arguing with people on Veeky Forums is a great time waster.

I'm not trolling, I am disagreeing with you. I'm responding to a claim that perfect representations of society are "satire" because they in disagreement of our current ways. The movie is internally consistent and makes it point. Now address my case about the classroom narrative or fuck off.

Look, dipshit, if you were alive when the movie came out, THIS is what you saw...

youtube.com/watch?v=Y07I_KER5fE

THAT is what you were expecting... THAT is not what was delivered.

Starship Troopers, from MY generation's perspective is the BIGGEST LIE in movie making ever produced.

It single handedly kicked off the entire "misleading movie trailers" trope you stupid little crotch goblin!

Sorry grandpaw, you got duped.

How is that misleading? It's hooyah humanity all the way through.

I don't know what your point about classroom narrative is. If you can't see how a bloke lecturing a bunch of kids about how the solution to every problem is with violence, while himself being an amputee as a result of the system of violence being perpetuated, being satire, I can't help you. Then him asking if he truly is indoctrinated like everyone else. Just read the youtube comments on that video for fucks sake, people saying "it's actually true you know". Verhoeven would laugh at you and the people who think the film is supposed to be like Heinlen's novel and not more in the way of a tear down of it.

The point of the "perfect world" is to show how backwards the society really is in comparison to the way we would picture a futuristic utopia. The movie is internally consistent in being a straightforward satire and it makes its point incredibly obvious, you're just too dense to realise it. Just think, maybe it makes sense that Verhoeven, who grew up in Nazi occupied Netherlands, would make a film like this? Honestly just read an interview from Verhoeven or watch the DVD commentary if you truly don't get it.

So the film is actually a lot more than just a dumb action film portrayed in the trailer?

What exactly is the problem here?
Also, Hollywood have been doing this for years before Starship Troopers came out.

youtu.be/Bk_x9W1xKng

It's presented as a serious sci-fi war drama, similar in style to DS9...

youtube.com/watch?v=MCm70favfYI

Which is what everyone thought it was going to be... instead it turned out to be 90210 in space with every other character fucking each other every other five minutes with cheesy assed dialogue and even cheesier acting ability.

I don't care about Verhoeven or his hypothetical fee-fees, I saw the movie and this is what I walked out with. You already said your piece about the veteran to which I responded, and your perceived dystopia lacks a lot of the dystopian elements, such as misery or poverty, none of that is in the film. What I'm essentially saying is that while You might have a personal grudge against right-wing-anything, the film certainly doesn't. Much of the satirical projection takes place in your head. That granpa here can confirm that nobody in his day thought it as satire, and his complaints are about acting. Can you at least see what I'm trying to get at, even if you disagree?

>I don't care about Verhoeven or his hypothetical fee-fees

So we're talking about what the directors intent of the film is, and you're saying you don't care what the director's intent is?

I can sort of see where you're coming from in the same way I can see why my friend who loves this film as a serious action movie does.

I just think you've missed the point completely. I mean I don't know how to change your mind when it seems to me, and almost everyone who looked at this film seriously, incredibly obvious that this is a satire. Justt like the rest of Verhoeven's filmography.

>You might have a personal grudge against right-wing-anything

I doubt it considering I'm fairly conservative myself. I'm not trying to say anything personally about agreeing or disagreeing with the film's message, I'm literally just stating to you that this is a satirical film, because it is. You've just misunderstood it.

Do you think Robocop isn't a satire as well?

Something else I'd like to point out, I know you kids really like Neil Patrick Harris, you think of him as a comedian, as a funny guy, he's done some recent sitcom stuff and has become this lovable character in the eyes of your generation.

But this is not a shared experience. Back in the 90s Neil Patrick Harris was HATED, he was a 3rd rate actor just slightly above the level of Wil Wheaton. He was essentially perceived as an annoying Wesley Crusher knock-off.

And that line at the end where he's all, "It's afraid!" ...yeah, we all thought that was gawd damn hilarious... not because we saw it as satire, but because we saw it as some of the absolute WORST acting ever from one of the WORST actors on screen at the time.

Imagine Wil Wheaton (who is still generally hated by everyone) in the same role with the same cheesy dialogue and bad acting... that's how my generation saw Neil Patrick Harris.

>If you can't see how a bloke lecturing a bunch of kids about how the solution to every problem is with violence, while himself being an amputee as a result of the system of violence being perpetuated, being satire, I can't help you.
There is nothing satirical about that. Losing an arm in combat does not mean you will stand against violence from here on out, especially if you are a tough son of a bitch. Leave your house for once in your life.

It's been fun, I guess we agree that we disagree. Can't remember anything about robocop.

Robocop was also seen as a serious sci-fi movie when it came out, but that was largely because the effects used were considered "cutting edge".

A lot of those old films have not aged well, effects wise, which is why a lot of them are now considered satirical and parody.

People now think those little commercial bits that the director did were intended as comedy, but they weren't, they were intended as kind of dystopian marker points to try and illustrate how absurdly fucked up the future was likely going to be.

They were meant more as absurdist/exaggerated political commentary than satirical comedy.

>Do you think Robocop isn't a satire as well?
Good job, you managed to make me rage at my desk.

This is more of a satire of fascism and militarism than it is specifically anti-war. Of course, if you're against fascism and militarism, you're probably at least somewhat anti-war.

Mainstream politics are generally against violence as a solution. Sure, you've got people who are more willing to use violence, and you've got a certain hidden violence in fiery rhetoric, but in general, people do not like killing.

There are many children's television shows, for instance, that advocate non-violent solutions. They put emphasis on finding mutual understanding with other people for a peaceful coexistence. There's always another perspective that we should consider, because we might not always see the entire situation. Maybe the bully is just being mean because he's been bullied himself. I could go on, but I hope you see the point.

The scene you've posted shows a teacher giving a lesson that is directly opposite to what most people believe in. Most people believe in non-violence, and they also believe in democracy. Most people want to consider multiple perspectives to find the truth.

The teacher (Michael Ironside) is advocating for one-sided, violent solutions and decrying democracy. This is the joke.

And the joke continues for the whole movie because the main characters go from silly teenagers to battle-hardened fascists. It's like a horrific coming-of-age story, where young and relatively innocent children grow up to learn the wrong lesson from their experiences.

Here's another scene that makes the joke a bit more explicit:
youtube.com/watch?v=FoPTPe33PQY

A man with a mechanical arm and no legs congratulates Rico on going into the Mobile Infantry, saying it "made [him] the man [he] is today". Usually when people say "X made me the man I am today", it's about strength of character or some other positive development. This man has no limbs, which most of us would not consider to be a positive development in his life.

Huh... that is super interesting. I will admit my view of NPH is totally colored by Dr.Horrible being my first exposure to him. Honestly I would be more forgiving of WW if the first thing I saw him in he got punched in the face repeatedly.

It still suprises me that he is comparable to WW. WW just has the most punchable face and voice possible. The first time I saw him was in Darkmatter I think, a fairly recent series. Still really wanted to see him get a fist in the teeth. Of course later seeing some NextGen cemented my desire to see him come to bodily harm. I dunno, his punchability feels like it comes more from his mannerisms and constant smirk then shitty acting.

Man... DS9 was to good.

It's literally pulled straight from the book, which intended to represent the views of the teacher as legitimate you fucking subhuman. The teacher was Heinlein's mouthpiece in the novel.

The subject of the scene isn't the teacher, it's the students and their silly classroom games, this is obvious by the way it's filmed. The students aren't taking the class or it's content very seriously because the teacher comes off as a kooky old man. The students are Verhoven's mouthpiece and Verhoven, just like the students, spends the entire movie pissing all over Heinlein's novel and the principles that the novel stands for.

This guy gets it.

It's so much better than the rest of Star Trek it's almost not even /trek/ anymore.

This is bait. That being said, the movie is an excellent B movie, if you're into that.

>in general, people do not like killing.
Not really. This is a fairly recent phenomenon and it isn't close to being universal yet. Art still glorifies killing as well, more than anything else, so there's that — a repressed desire being manifested and released via catharsis in our entertainment.

>Most people believe in non-violence, and they also believe in democracy.
People don't believe that in all ages. It depends on the time period. Aside from Ancient Greece's limited form of democracy, it is a form of government that is fairly new in human history. We don't know how long it will last either.

>The teacher (Michael Ironside) is advocating for one-sided, violent solutions and decrying democracy. This is the joke.
What I saw, as someone who is more fascistic than democratic in temperament, is a man who through experienced represented by his missing arm held wisdom about the battlefield. Him missing an arm was a testament to his seriousness about these issues. If someone was fascistic, and then lost an arm in war, and then changed their position, that would mean they were never really serious about it and they flipflopped away the moment it became a burden to them like a touchy feely idiot. Instead, the serious and tough individual takes his sacrifices and scars with him on his journey, letting them develop him, rather than put fear in him. This is what I saw in the teacher's hardened outlook. The movie does not portray this negatively, in my eyes, and the scene where he tells Rico to make his own decision is admirable and feels right. That is what a true mentor is supposed to tell his student. There is nothing ideological about that.

But whatever. I prefer Japan's takeaway of it. They love B movie shit and the "satire" is almost entirely lost to them. They just like cheesy fun things and killing big aliens. This is why they're pure.

youtube.com/watch?v=NxYv9cvvM9U

>naziboo is also a stupid uninformed weaboo

No surprise there

>not being a soulless cog in the democratic machine means you're uninformed
>liking something from Japan immediately means you're a weeaboo
Better watch those generalizations though, I hear that stuff isn't socially acceptable in civilized society anymore.

We're not in civilized society tho, are we? Join the army or move to Russia see how well you fit in. Cocksucker.

They won't let me in the military because I have severe asthma. I base my reason on successful individuals, however, not entirely myself, whose weaknesses I am aware of.

>people do not like killing.

>20th century was literally a bloodbath from the same sorts of peacenik bloviating with banal platitudes while putting people in gulags and camps

>This Entire thread
>It's not satire if it's not silly jokes
>If characters take themselves and each other seriously, it can't be critique
Leave this board and never return you mongs

>This is a fairly recent phenomenon and it isn't close to being universal yet.
Yes, it's sort of fairly recent, but it's universal amongst civilians. People may have a repressed desire for violence, but rare is the person who will say that violence is the answer to everything. For the most part, people will accept violence as a last resort, but they certainly won't accept it as a first one.

>People don't believe that in all ages. It depends on the time period.
And? The movie was made in this time period. Why would it matter what other ages would have thought?

>The movie does not portray this negatively, in my eyes, and the scene where he tells Rico to make his own decision is admirable and feels right. That is what a true mentor is supposed to tell his student. There is nothing ideological about that.
Of course it's ideological--Michael Ironside is a civics teacher (and later becomes Rico's mentor in the army). And the criticism of this ideology is the fact that the characters in the movie do things we don't like in the name of this ideology, and they do so with gusto.

Just because you agree with fascism doesn't mean this movie isn't a satire of it.

>I have asthma

Cry me a river and drown in it you pathetic LARPer.

If telling your student to make his own decision is ideology, then the word ideology has no meaning. Opinions are ideologies then.

...which I suppose is true, but isn't ideology supposed to carry with it the connotation of oppression? Shouldn't it be an "oppressive opinion" rather than just an "opinion"? Just use the word opinion then. There is nothing oppressive going on in the movie.

It's manipulative to weed out the unfit you unlimited cretinous dweeb