this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2024
629 points (95.0% liked)
Games
15794 readers
640 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't disagree with this synopsis, but I'm sadly unsurprised that your familiarity with the source material stops at the movie — which, in fact, was preceded (nearly 40 years) & inspired by a (far better) book of the same name from Heinlein. 😅😶 What's more, Helldivers 2 seems to take more cues from the book than the movie, and it does the original more honor than the cult classic did in '97, too.
Lastly, who in their right mind ever expects alt-right fucknuts to parse irony? Isn't that integral to their M.O., the consistent whoosh so frequent that it must be like white noise in their skulls 24/7? (Yes, there's a supremacy joke in there, but I'm too tired to dig it up)
The main difference from the film being that the novel isn't a satire--Heinlein was being sincere.
While it is no secret that Heinlein was a closeted auto-fellating fascist with a fetish for ubermensch fantasies, neither is it argued that he was disingenuous in writing the book as unabashed bootlicking propaganda. His earnest attempt to aggrandize the measuring of individual citizens' worth by hardline nationalism, et al, is precisely why Starship Troopers is an unintentional satire.
The 1997 movie underscores this in its simplicity, and the chucklefucks described in the article above are yet more reasons why the rest of us need to be vigilant against the normalization of this bullshit.
You're not wrong. I have no idea why people are downvoting you
We're dealing with people who read at a fifth grade level at best. They barely understand the text, let a lone the subtext.
They'd have to know what the concept of subtext meant first, and then be able to perceive such, before even beginning to understand the blatant (to most anytime else in the human species) undertones of eviscerating sarcasm.
I think you are criticizing the movie for not being more overt in its political messaging. As a counterpoint, I think that if it had been more overt, it would have been less accessible overall and particularly to those who most need to be exposed to that message. It's intentionally subversive, which means that it can exist in homes, in conversations, and in minds where a more direct stating of the same idea would be rejected out of hand.
I apologize if I gave you that impression, as that is incorrect and I completely agree with your assessment: the movie was a cult classic for many reasons that include it being just subtle enough to almost feel sincere but overt enough to deliver the cheeky dark humor that Heinlein himself was too fervent a fanboi to grasp.
Ah, OK... then what did you mean about the book being far better?
Those that don't need their subversive undertones delivered with the subtlety of an axe handle behind the wood shed might recognize that the book is a far more effective source of multilayered and sardonic humor.