I enjoyed watching the movie Starship Troopers and the issues it "addresses" (to use the term lightly). However, Wikipedia says:
The film diverged greatly in terms of the themes and plot of the novel, and received mixed reviews from critics.
How did the film diverge? What remains of Robert A. Heinlein's original novel?
First, major differences:
Moral/philosophical/ethical/political/social underpinnings.
The novel was an ode to the citizen soldier, with in-depth asides for explaining the ethical and political system of humanity.
Christopher Weuve's excellent "Thoughts on Starship Troopers" resource addresses this in great detail with supporting cites, see especially "Myth #3" section.
Very specifically, the society was in no way fascist/militarist. The power is held by civilian authorities (see Zim's quote below as well); you don't get to vote until you retire from the Civil Cervice; you don't even need to be in the military to earn Citizenship; you don't lose any rights except franchise by not serving; and the overall amount of freedom seems to be higher than most democracies in Real World.
Additionally, H&MP teacher in Rico's school, Mr. Dubois, waxes eloquently on freedom in Chapter 8, portratying freedom in a very positive light, as something that should be fought for (and tyranny as something that should be opposed).
Paul Anderson (not exactly a right wing jingoist) summed it up best:
I never joined in the idiot cries of "fascist!" It was plain that the society of Starship Troopers is, on balance, more free than ours today. I did wonder how stable its order of things would be, and expressed my doubts in public print as well as in the occasional letters we exchanged. Heinlein took no offense. After a little argument back and forth, we both fell into reminiscences of Switzerland, where he got the notion in the first place. ["RAH: A Memoir."]
The movie was basically a satire of fascism/militarism, with absolutely the opposite message/idea from the book. And the satire was based on Verhoeven-made-up strawman society which had virtually nothing in common with one in the book.
Of course, given that, none of the book's many moral/political philosophy bits (or deep game-theoretical and historical rationales for espoused philosophies) are even remotely alluded to in the movie aside from brief mention that people enlist so they can be citizens and vote.
The book focused much more on training and the ethos of the soldier.
In the movie, the ethos was merely "kill kill kill", as per the prior point.
As a very interesting pinpoint example, witness the training scene with Sgt. Zim teaching recruits how to throw the knives.
In the film, this is basically just the usual attempt to show military to be between mindlessly jingoistic and sadistic, with Zim's answer pretty much being to put a knife through the questioner's hand.
In the book, Zim provides two thoughtful answers, one military (and deeper than one in the film), and another, more important one, a whole mini-lecture about measured use of force... interspersed with the notions of civilian control of the military.
The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him . . . but to make him do what you want him to do. Not killing . . . but controlled and purposeful violence. But it's not your business or mine to decide the purpose or the control. It's never a soldier's business to decide when or where or how — or why — he fights; that belongs to the statesmen and the generals. The statesmen decide why and how much; the generals take it from there and tell us where and when and how. We supply the violence; other people — 'older and wiser heads,' as they say — supply the control. Which is as it should be.
Hardly a rah rah jingoistic militarism made-up to be caricatured by Verhoeven. This is a drill sergeant - basically, the main source of training and wisdom of recruits - stressing civilian control of the military. This is 180 degree opposite of "Militaristic".
Johnny Rico's ethnicity was changed. In the novel Juan "Johnny" Rico is Filipino (and Carmen is Hispanic, last name Ibanez). Heinlein was known for putting minority characters in important roles in his novels and often in a positive light at a time when ethnic diversity in SciFi to say nothing of the status of race relations in the United States (segregation) at the time of writing.
In the movie Rico and Carmen are depicted (both casting wise and as characters) as typical all-American Homecoming King/Queen.
Power armor - which makes one of the main points of the book's scifi components - doesn't pop up in the Verhoeven movie (and only pops up in CGI sequel #3).
Book Plot details missing from the movie
Rico's entire Officer Candidate School arc is missing.
The "Skinnies" aren't mentioned in the movie, in the novel they're allied wit the Bugs initially; and are in the first combat scene we see (where Dizzy dies).
Rico's MP teacher (Col DuBois), his first commander (Lieutenant Rasczak) and Sgt/Lt Jelal were all compressed into a single Rasczak character.
Movie Plot details made up despite not being in the book
The love plot with Carmen and Johnny is non-existent in the book (she merely has a brief platonic date with him when he's in OCS).
Co-ed military, especially common showers
Romance between Rico and Dizzy Flores (who's a male soldier in the book)
Pretty much entire story with Carmen (training, participation in space battle #1, participation in space battle #2).
In the book, she enlists, and isn't heard of aside from except from meeting Rico once when he's in OCS.
Carl's character (who dies early in the book, off-page), gets merged with a listening specialist "talent" character, and with not-actually-shown-in-the-book intelligence officers; to become, in the movie, a very nazi-looking (link, link, and especially link) and to put it mildly, unsympathetic, intelligence officer.
Entire naval fighting. In the book, all we see of the Navy is the MI carriers function - no space warfare.
Minor differences:
The Bugs in the novel are much more technologically advanced, employing firearms and starships
Johnny's father lives in the novel, he's away on business when Buenos Ares is hit and his wife dies, leading him to enlist in the Mobile Infantry eventually serving under his son's command.
There's a scene in the book where on the first day of boot camp, the super-hardass Sergeant Zim accidentally breaks someone's wrist in a hand-to-hand combat demo. He says "I'm sorry. You hurried me a little," and sends the soldier off to the hospital.
In the movie I remember a similar scene at the start of boot camp where the sergeant deliberately and sadistically breaks a soldier's wrist. (Can anyone confirm the details? It's been a while.)
Similar event; completely different message.
At least two major themes remain from the book:
Beyond that, not so much remains. There is no powered battle armor. I suppose some of the character names may remain, and Buenos Aires gets crunched in both, but not much else.
The movie is, at best, inspired by the book. Not that it's a bad movie, I found i pretty entertaining. But other than borrowing some names, places and events they really have very little in common. The book is to a large extent a political and philosophical statement about militarism and moral imperatives. The movie is mostly a war/adventure-story with some romance mixed in.
There is a short sequence from a school-session in the movie where they have a dialog about citizenship that echoes, at least weakly, some sentiments in the book but that is never followed up on and it doesn't really tie into anything else in the movie. The rest is shootin' aliens and kissin' girls.
The majority of the book is Rico going deciding to be a trooper, why, getting schooled on why the government system works the way it does, and the experience of him going from naive rich kid slacker to hardened soldier, hero, and leader. Something like 80 to 95% of the book is essays on Government, Rights, Ethics, etc.
So just about everything is changed from the book to the movie considering the movie focuses on boot camp and then 1 or 2 mission, one of which everything goes wrong with little to none of the understanding of the why or how of anything. In other words, all the important intellectual stuff was removed to provide a action comedy (brainless humor) more or less. I would say that the movie is more of a Parody of what someone who doesn't understand what the book is about made.
All that being said... Go read the book. It's one of my 5 must reads and should be forced on everyone to read at some point, and enjoy the movie for what it is. You might also want to read everything else by Heinlein too, because while they aren't the same universe, it will help understand Starship Troopers and put its world in better context.
The one I could never get over - No powered armor! Not sure if it is true, but for me, Heinlein created the modern concept of powered armor. One of my favorite books ever!
So it was as if - We're going to be make a new Iron Man movie, except we are not going to do the metal suit thing...
A few names... and part of even those mixed up.
Most movie adaptations that eviscerates an original novel look like doing so out of ignorance. ST raises the bar to new level, even with elaborate application of ruining effort it is hard to reach.
(IMO accidental stuff like having war, enemies, aliens, human, future, etc is not worthwhile to list.)
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
