First is the fact that very few Americans read very much at all. For many, a book a year is their quota. For these people, the movie is often their only window into some of the great and influential works of literature. When it is done right, such as Ford's adaptation of Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath, what you end up with is two great works of art, both a movie and a book.

This doesn't mean that the movie must be a perfect copy of the source material; that's nigh impossible, as they two different mediums each with their own strengths and weaknesses. But a movie should at the very least be faithful to the intent, thrust, and theme of the book. What takes real skill by a director is to figure out how to portray the essence of the book on the screen; which parts he must keep, which need to be discarded, which need to be presented as visuals only, which need character dialog and and actor interpretation to bring across the point. The only real exception to this is when the movie is a deliberate parody.

Verhoeven's film does not do any of this. One, it deliberately presents the antithesis of the philosophy Heinlein presented. Two, it leaves out the major technological advance (powered armor) that allowed for truly innovative in-the-field tactics, instead presenting the soldiers as completely inept (firing at bugs while in a circle?! Talk about friendly fire casualties! Or starship captains who allow formations almost guaranteed to cause collisions. Or field tactics of run en-mass towards the enemy, and run away the same way?). Third, it deliberately misrepresents a key point about the M.I., that they always do pick up on a downed soldier (the scene where our troop leader shoots the man downed by one of the bugs). It's a bad movie on its face, not even considering how faithfully it hewed to the book (which, by the way, is far from a 'relatively obscure' work - it has influenced many other writers, has been on the bestseller lists, is the comparison stick used to measure any new work of military science fiction, and is on the recommended reading list of our military academies).

There are always going to be some complaints about movies made from other source material, be it books or comic books, as inevitably there will be something left out or added that the fan of the source material feels is inappropriate. But when the level of complaint reaches a screeching crescendo, as it has with Starship Troopers, it's a sure indication that the director blew it.

hyperpat

AmishJohn

This adaption of 'Wanted' looks SO far removed from the actual comic upon which it's based that I can totally disassociate it from the source. It looks like they've decided to make the story about good-guy assassins maintaining the world's safety RATHER than a book about a secret society of truly evil people fighting amongst themselves. I'm sure they decided that a story about a guy who kills his geometry teacher in retaliation for scolding him and murders an entire police station on a whim probably wouldn't make a very heroic character. ;)

Starship Troopers slanted everything to match the director's intent, rather than the author's intent. But it's likely many people walked out of the theater not realizing that one was different from the other..and quite likely assumed the director was producing the author's intent.

As to Heinlein's proposed-fascism...here's a brief discussion on that very topic:
[hyperpat.wordpress.com]

WizarDru

What I'm asking is why he had any obligation, artistically speaking, to produce a piece of work that was harmonious with the original source material?

In fact, a movie that was a precise thematic adaptation of Heinlein's work would be largely useless, because Heinlein already wrote that. The only kind of adaptation that's artistically valid is the kind that reinterprets the source material. Why do we need to have two works that speak with the same theme? Is the book "wrong" now, because the movie was different?

Then, of course, it's plain why you'd use the same title--the relationship of the movie to the book is as relevant an artistic element as anything else in the piece; keeping the title the same is necessary.

braak

AmishJohn

I'm not saying that Heinlein was a fascist, or even that Starship Troopers is a kind of fascist advocacy; but there are certain elements where his admiration for certain elements in common with fascism are clear--and I think that that's something that changed as he progressed as a writer.

@AmishJohn: What do you mean, flamebait? You're saying that Neumeier and Verhoeven sat down and said, "Let's purposefully recharacterize the source material, because there'll be a huge controversy around this relatively obscure science fiction novel from the fifties?"

Fidelity to source material is no more a characteristic of a good adaptation than verisimilitude or historical accuracy is.

braak

AmishJohn

While I did find the movie entertaining on its own merits, I found it upsetting that the director never bothered to finish reading the book or that most of the writers were unaware of its existence while writing the movie.

wolfjoat

Honestly though--are you really suggesting that Starship Troopers the book is the cornerstone of someone's faith, philosophy, and cultural heritage? Even Heinlein changed his mind about most of that stuff.

braak

AmishJohn

In my mind, this makes the adaptation itself a work of art, that a simple, literal, and faithful adaptation would not have been.

braak

marvel girl

Really, Starship Troopers had MORE to be upset about, because the movie got enough of the details right that it had to be explained what parts where horribly, horribly WRONG. Wanted is completely different from page THREE of the comic. Starship Troopers is similar in many ways, but completely re-contextualizes EVERYTHING to mean exactly what Heinlein DIDN'T mean.

WizarDru

AmishJohn

Aethyr

WizarDru

RAHfanboy

AmishJohn

Aethyr

Oh god, it's doomed, isn't it?

foolish-rain

strider_mt2k

I'm sorry, what? I was too busy having horrid flashbacks of High School in California.

Evdor

I&I

Evil Tortie's Mom

liash

B

Log1c

B

Did you just say hella?

Evdor

Aethyr

''Hi..Fox, is it?''

''Yeah, and you are?''

''Em, Fox..Fox Mul...Doesn't matter..''

Calraigh

Seriously, the only thing they seem to have kept from the comic are the names. Everything else has been discarded. And it's sad, really, because if they didn't want to make WANTED they could go and make another movie with original names.

Now if you'll excuse me I'll go read Bicycle Repair Man.

JesusDeSaad

Charlie Jane Anders

If it werent for Angelina Jolie and the guy who played Leto II I would never see it.

OW-Holmes

Scoff.

Plague