And, although I have not seen (or heard) RED PLANET and MISSION TO MARS, and therefore am unable to comment, your remarks about both movies seem perfectly valid and reasonable to me, and I look forward to viewing and commenting on both movies. Being a great fan of ARMAGEDDON and CON AIR, I of course disagree with your's and Marian's opinions of those movies. However, you make the crucial point, that no matter how abhorrent you may find the agenda of these Bruckheimer movies, they are at least technically proficient and do appeal to much of the intended audience. The same cannot be said of the tedious and lame STARSHIP TROOPERS.

Andre, I thoroughly agree with your dismissal of Verhoeven's tediously routine STARSHIP TROOPERS. It is the sort of movie that fails to appeal, to a satisfactory degree to any section of the cinema-going public, least of all its target audience.

Any supposed satirical intentions were more than nullified by the stultifying scripting, simplistic storyline, phoney-looking 'special effects', cardboard performances, funereal pacing, and Poledouris' remarkably bland scoring.

STARSHIP TROOPERS was neither clever enough to work as satire, or exciting enough to work as a fun movie entertainment. The movie's too stupid for most adults, and too boring for the kiddies.

All of STARSHIP TROOPERS' better ideas (such as they are) were culled from the Heinlein novel on which the movie is based. The special-effects laden battle scenes are particularly uninventive, being as repetitive and obviously phoney as a Playstation shoot-'em-up. In fact, everything about STARSHIP TROOPERS bores, from the banal and self-consciously delivered one-liners to the one-dimensional and stereo-typical characterizations.

I have to comment on one of Jeff Bond's many comically inept observations - "In the story humanity is the equivalent of the "pure" master race and the bugs are treated the way Nazi Germany wanted to treat the Jews"

As Lancelot alluded to, to compare the 'bugs' in STARSHIP TROOPERS with the European Jewish community would be offensive if such a comparison wasn't so utterly puerile...although Jeff Bond does goes on to rather feebly 'qualify' his statement. The Jewish people of Nazi Germany (and Europe) were not the aggressors. They were persecuted by Hitler's regime, not because they threatened to annihilate all non-Jewish Germans (as the bugs in STARSHIP TROOPERS threatened humanity), but simply because of their ethnicity.

However, some of JJH's comments about STARSHIP TROOPERS (and life in general) even surpass Jeff Bond's for sheer out-of-touch lunacy.

For instance - "The UN would be nothing without the US holding it together, and I can foresee a time when the US backs out altogether. "

Although the UN would be largely impotent without the US, it is very much in the United States' interest to remain a member, and, it's just as well that not everyone shares such stay-at-home 'little Englander' philosophies as JJH's, otherwise the United States itself would never have come into being in the first place. As for the rest of JJH's paranoid and naive anti-globalization nonsense, I think his attempt to give STARSHIP TROOPERS any credence perfectly illustrates his grasp of the state of things.

Globalization is both inevitable and welcome, though of course society and government must continually guard against the obvious pitfalls. And whether JJH, and his ostrich-like fraternity like it or not, the world is destined to become a 'single nation'of sorts, though not in the austere and pessimistic way that many science-fiction movies portray, but neither will society become the artificial, passionless and antiseptic fantasy-land of STAR TREK.

But to look to fatuous nothing-movies like STARSHIP TROOPERS as a 'warning of things to come' is simply laughable. JJH's close-minded attitude towards globalization amounts to prejudice of the worst kind. The idea that all of the people of this planet will never live in relative harmony is both nihilistic and pessimistic to a damaging degree, and anyone with such ideas is both a coward and a bigot. A 'united planet' will not mean the end of cultural variety - people will continue to practice their traditions and maintain their own languages - if they wish.

But, at the end of the day, American culture, or what it will develop into, will come to dominate the entire planet, because that is what people want. In the end, the most flexible and popular culture will absorb all others. Over time, American culture will further develop and evolve, its greatest asset being its ability to absorb other disparate cultures, thus enriching itself in the process.

Additionally, as time goes by, all of the races of planet Earth will mingle, and in the end, there will be a mono-race and a mono-culture (although old traditions will not necessarily die). That might sound like a nightmarish scenario to someone who is as blinkered and uncomprehending as JJH, but in reality a 'united planet' is not only something to be pursued, it is also inevitable. Even today, you cannot define an American, a Briton, a German or a Dutchman by the colour of his skin, his religion or his cultural practices - now that globalization has started, it is irrepressible.

The free and affluent people of this planet have a duty (and most have a desire) to give all reasonable aid to their less fortunate neighbours, be they the persecuted Kurds of Iraq, the developing economies of the Far East, or the starving of Africa. If we don't help the persecuted and starving of our planet, we lose something ourselves....and whilst there is one nation on Earth that suffers from poverty and famine, or its people oppressed by government, none of us can pretend to have a clear conscience.

If only the JJH's of this world would open their eyes and welcome what is already happening.

Anyway, STARSHIP TROOPERS fails as miserably in its purported satirical aims as NATURAL BORN KILLERS and FIGHT CLUB, but unlike the latter two movies, isn't even good enough to sneer at.

Finally, I am amazed that anyone should regard STARSHIP TROOPERS with anything other than derision, but then again, I thought SPAWN was a good movie.

What can I say, except "Live and let live..."

quote:

---

Well said, Andre. STARSHIP TROOPERS is a f*cking load of crap.

---

an unusually illiterate post from you, or whomever Daniel 2 really is.....

as for your diatribe against me, I have only thing to say:

Long live Starship Troopers!

"I have to comment on one of Jeff Bond's many comically inept observations - "In the story humanity is the equivalent of the "pure" master race and the bugs are treated the way Nazi Germany wanted to treat the Jews"

"As Lancelot alluded to, to compare the 'bugs' in STARSHIP TROOPERS with the European Jewish community would be offensive if such a comparison wasn't so utterly puerile... although Jeff Bond does goes on to rather feebly 'qualify' his statement. The Jewish people of Nazi Germany (and Europe) were not the aggressors. They were persecuted by Hitler's regime, not because they threatened to annihilate all non-Jewish Germans (as the bugs in STARSHIP TROOPERS threatened humanity), but simply because of their ethnicity."

I just want to again thank Daniel2 and Lancelot for clearing up this whole issue about the Jews not being the aggressors in WWII. All this time I'd been under the impression that the Jews had launched asteroids at Earth, leading to Hitler's hostility toward them. This clearly led to my confusion in stating that the bugs in Starship Troopers were stand-ins for the Jews.

On the other hand, it's also possible that Daniel2 couldn't be bothered to actually read my "sheer out-of-touch lunacy" in order to determine what I was actually saying.

I do agree that Armageddon and Con-Air well-served their audiences, if you consider their audiences to be chimpanzees. If Starship Troopers is appallingly offensive yet Con-Air (which dangles the idea of the rape of a young girl in front of the audience for entertainment's sake) is great entertainment, I guess I'll have to stick with Starship Troopers.

Daniel2...your insights are well communicated and intelligent as always...you had me up until you said you liked Spawn...then the world crumbled.

Oh well, I think Starship Troopers is decent eye candy...albeit from Verhoeven's perverse pallot.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JeffBond:

I just want to again thank Daniel2 and Lancelot for clearing up this whole issue about the Jews not being the aggressors in WWII. All this time I'd been under the impression that the Jews had launched asteroids at Earth, leading to Hitler's hostility toward them. This clearly led to my confusion in stating that the bugs in Starship Troopers were stand-ins for the Jews.

---

With all due reverence to the horrors the Jews endured during the Holocaust, that has to be one of the funniest sarcastic responses I've ever read on this board. I hope this argument continues, if for anything, for my entertainment...

Tim

NP: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quill:
Andre...do you ever wonder why you are at the heart of every heated (and usually ugly) arguments...

---

Answer: because I am not a hypocrite and don't care to play on the new "politically correct" rules.

So, naturaly, I will piss-off some people from time to time.

If God-boy up there were a real person instead of a fictional robot, I could give a little more credence to his garish views. But as it is, I have to laugh at the author.

I cannot believe I missed the falling out between Dr Evil and Andre!

these two used to be inseparable compadres!
ai! es no bueno! (or Spanish words to that effect, then translated into Portuguese).

I seem to remember Andre and the Evil one falling out a long time ago, then making up. I missed the second falling out, or third, or fourth ...

You said, in response to a particularly inane piece of Bondsh*t - ".....that has to be one of the funniest sarcastic responses I've ever read on this board."

Next you'll be telling me you enjoyed STARSHIP TROOPERS.....which goes hand-in-hand with having a fondness for wearing fingerless mittens, flares, cardigans, 'save-the-dung-beetle' t-shirts, and bodily-discharge-stained baggy white y-fronts, a devotion to Ernest Angley's Christian ministries, a respect for the movie-making ?talents? of the dismally conventional and artistically-challenged Stanley Kubrick, a love of WHAT DREAMS MAY COME and PATCH ADAMS, a penchant for watching grass grow and a fetish for smelling your own farts.

By saying what he did, Jeff Bond merely accentuated and magnified the ludicrousness and outright stupidity of his original 'observation' - ie his comparison between the marauding and utterly hostile bugs of STARSHIP TROOPERS with the industrious and peace-loving Jewish community of nazi Germany.

By the way, if you don't know who Ernest Angley is (ask Chris Kinsinger), then I am very envious of you and would advise that you do not read on.

For the masochists amongst you, Ernest Angley is a particularly oleaginous Ohio-based bible-thumping Christian preacher who is remarkably similar in appearance to a bloated Ron Dixon (with a case of mumps) of the Liverpudlian soap opera Brookside - for any UK readers. For anyone else in the world, Angley resembles an unholy cross between Liberace (in particular, the teeth and timbre) and Laurence Olivier playing Douglas MacArthur (complete with grotesque waxwork makeup) in the Rev. Moon's 1981 moviemaking fiasco INCHON, whilst also evoking the physical presence of the hunch-backed and deformed Richard III (according to popular legend).

Angley has the general appearance of a young-looking 90 year-old, complete with ill-fitting jet-black pudding-basin wig - the worst toupee I have seen since John Wayne's McQ (1974).

Angley's expositions have as much inventive, inspirational, and interesting content as the lame-brained movie STARSHIP TROOPERS, except Angley's performances have a certain ghastly fascination that transfixes one, whereas the Verhoeven movie simply paralyses the emotions of the viewer with utter boredom.

During his shows, that play to audiences of thousands, a giant illuminated cross can be seen ominously suspended above the gallery of gullible zealots - almost 'threatening' the misguided victims of this 'prophet of falsehoods' with 'divine might'.....the giant cross being almost as threatening as Angley's own manic lunges towards those he purports to heal. Only Robin Williams outdoes Angley for sheer slop-slurping and emetic insincere sincerity. Would you buy a used car from either of these nauseating non-entities?

As the programme progresses, the camera picks out individual mesmerized members of the audience, who increasingly begin to resemble rabbits caught in the glare of an automobile's headlamps.

In between lengthy sermons delivered in the manner of a haemorrhoids-ridden boxing MC, that usually go something like - "....cast off Satan's shackles, praise Jehovah, praise Jesus, praise de Holy One, praise ME!!!!! (make out your checks to the 'oleaginous one', crossed of course).....", we are treated to various 'musical' interludes that manage to further evoke the inspirational bankruptcy of such movies as STARSHIP TROOPERS.

Such moronic-misasmatic-musical mishaps as the Singing Men's Quartet, that would more accurately be described as the 'Foursome of Grotesques', helps fuel the mounting volume of hilarity welling-up within the viewer. As this quartet of questionable dullards proceed to injure the ear with sounds only marginally more acceptable than those emanating from a chorus of burping hippopotamuses and consumptive hyenas, only one thing holds them together - their profound inability to sing a single note.

http://www.ernestangley.org/Music/Quartet/quartet.htm

Click above and you will actually experience a fate worse than hearing the Singing Men's Quartet sing.....you will see them as well.

The voices range from the hippopotamus on the left (baritone) to the hyena on the right (falsetto - hear this guy, and it might put you off music for life). That guy second from left, you know, the one with the Jimmy Carter fixed-grin, has to be seen to be believed as he prances and gesticulates to every syllable he dribbles.

Here's a picture of Angley's Grace Cathedral Orchestra, a collection of instrumentalists that is about as animated, up-tempo, and natural as the Abominable Dr Phibe's clockwork band.

http://www.ernestangley.org/Music/Orchestra/Orchestra.htm

Click below for a picture of Angley's Angel's Grace Cathedral Choir, perhaps the most ghastly collection of humanity ever assembled. By the way, one of the older members of the choir, who resembles grandpa from The Munsters, sways and enunciates with particular relish - must be pushing for promotion to the Singing Men's Quartet.

http://www.ernestangley.org/Music/Choir/choir.htm

And here is the arch-conman himself. No further description is necessary -

http://www.ernestangley.org/About/About.htm

Finally, Jeff Bond seems to make out that such movies as STARSHIP TROOPERS and CON AIR are 'guilty pleasures', because of their 'popcorn' nature. Putting the jawdroppingly banal STARSHIP TROOPERS briefly to one side, the last emotion I feel when it comes to enjoying CON AIR or ARMAGEDDON or any of Bruckheimer's other supremely accomplished movie-making achievements, is guilt. I make no secret of my admiration for these movies that easily eclipse (for sheer invention, sophistication, and technical proficiency) much of the obscure and pretentious moviemaking work that the 'self-proclaimed arthouse movie-going elite' seem to favour.

I have to wonder in which fantastical and utterly divorced-from-reality dimension Jeff Bond exists. The idea that movies such as STARSHIP TROOPERS and CON AIR are anything other than harmless family entertainments, his words were 'appallingly offensive', suggests to me that Bond lives in a fantasy world of candy-floss clouds, marshmallow houses, marzipan people and sickly marmalade music (ie RUDY, PATCH ADAMS and CITY HALL). Next he'll be saying that FIGHT CLUB, GOODFELLAS, and NATURAL BORN KILLERS are brimming with intelligent and shocking social comment, when in actuality such movies are merely harmless, simplistic and unflinchingly routine movie offerings that appeal most to younger teenagers, whilst being mildly amusing to older teenagers and the adult audience.

Earlier, Bond also referred to STARSHIP TROOPERS as STARSH*T TROOPERS. Such a name change is too much of a compliment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DANIEL2:
By saying what he did, Jeff Bond merely accentuated and magnified the ludicrousness and outright stupidity of his original 'observation' - ie his comparison between the marauding and utterly hostile bugs of STARSHIP TROOPERS with the industrious and peace-loving Jewish community of nazi Germany.

---

Read the thread again. Who says that the bugs ARE marauding and hostile?`

Re your comment that what you feel when you enjoy Starship Troopers and Con Air is guilt - that's correct. The difference is, in the case of ST you are SUPPOSED to feel guilty.

Once again your contribution to the discussion is about as welcome, appropriate and intelligent as scabies.

You said - "Re your comment that what you feel when you enjoy Starship Troopers and Con Air is guilt - that's correct."

Perhaps you should re-read my comments. I do not regard Bruckheimer's movies as a guilty pleasure, as I have said repeatedly, I am not ashamed to voice my appreciation of such fine contributions to moviemaking as CON AIR and THE ROCK.

I agree, Quill.

Check out what Bond said about fans of two my favourite movies -

"I do agree that Armageddon and Con-Air well-served their audiences, if you consider their audiences to be chimpanzees."

However, I should point out that STARSHIP TROOPERS didn't disgust me in the least, it merely bored my socks off.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DANIEL2:
Once again your contribution to the discussion is about as welcome, appropriate and intelligent as scabies.

---

Why, thanks!

quote:

---

Perhaps you should re-read my comments.

---

Make them shorter. I try to pick out the most important parts of them, but I don't have the time to spend 10 minutes on every of your posts.

I always welcome Andre's opinions and agree with him about Zimmer and co. While I don't share his political views he is always welcome to share them with us. I don't believe in personal attacks against people and I also feel everyone is entitled to their opinion. (plus the fact Andre has gotten me interested in Morricone now. )

But I say again...It's only a movie folks, it's only a movie.

quote:

---

But I say again...It's only a movie folks, it's only a movie.

---

Mark,
such sensible statements scare certain people. you should best keep those sentiments out of sight, or Daniel 2 will lash out at you and call you old-fashioned!

You said - "I try to pick out the most important parts of them, but I don't have the time to spend 10 minutes on every of your posts."

Mark Olivarez

In response to Mark's comment, it's only a movie folks, it's only a movie., you said - "....such sensible statements....", as if the in-depth or enthusiastic discussion of movies is somehow anathema.

If that is what you believe, then why are you here discussing movies and film music? It would appear to me that the only people taking this discussion too seriously are you and Mark.

The thing is JJH, anyone who expresses an interest in film music is, to varying degrees, weird or odd. There's no point in you or Mark pretending otherwise. Indeed, everyone on this planet has their foibles, fetishes and eccentricities....some more than most. A nerdish interest in cinema is usually an indication of a high level of weirdness in the individual, and may co-exist with a difficulty in relating properly to other people or an inability to form lasting relationships, and a general perception from 'normal society' of such an individual's 'loner' status.

As for myself, not only do I have a nerdish interest in cinema and film music, I also enjoy trainspotting, bird-watching, stamp-collecting, observing the weather, bus-timetable collecting and telegraph pole cataloguing, amongst many other anorak interests. If you like, I am the 'complete anorak'.

I always find it amusing that some individuals, such as Mark, like to pretend that their interest in a certain subject, such as movies, is merely cursory, or 'mainstream', and is therefore 'acceptable' in the eyes of the rest of society. Such a sheepish, self-delusional attitude is both amusing, and a little sad.

All I can say to Mark is, 'let yourself go'. Live your life as you want to live it, and don't feel self-conscious about how other people might perceive your interest in certain nerdish subjects, be it movie-music or drain-covers.

However Mark, it is important to remember that other frequenters of this board do enjoy going in-depth into the agenda and workings of a movie or a film-score, after all, that is partly the function of this message-board, to exchange ideas and opinions in the hope of gaining a better understanding of a score or movie. Twice at this thread you have said how 'silly' or how 'pointless' this discussion is, without actually contributing anything to the conversation yourself.

Censorship is increasingly becoming an outmoded relic of our unenlightened past, and what Mark has said at this thread is perilously close to censorship. I hope he will reflect on that.

In this age of political-correctness, tolerance, freedom-of-choice and general sophistication, the words, (as quoted by Andre a little earlier), live and let live, have never been more relevant.

JJH goes on to say - "....or Daniel 2 will lash out at you and call you old-fashioned!"

I'm sorry you feel that I have 'lashed out' at you, when all I have done is merely responded to some of your opinions that I perceive to be 'old fashioned' or simply misguided.

Society is ever evolving, ever improving, and ever maturing, much like CMS (contemporary musical sensibilities). The wilderness has been conquered, new technologies have been developed, and western civilization now enjoys unprecedented levels of peace. The male sex, in its macho, aggressive, physical, strutting, egotistic and destructive form, has served its purpose. Women today have overtaken 'men' as the leaders of society (you will find that most male leaders of society have a strong and resourceful wife or partner 'pulling the strings'). As the 21st century progresses, women themselves will continue to become leaders of government and industry, and will one day (in the not too distant future) outnumber men as leaders of society. Women aren't doing this by discovering their masculine side, no, they are doing it by reinforcing their natural and inherent feminine superiority. The female intellect and powers of reason are well in advance of those of the male.

Up until the middle of the 20th century, women were actively undermined by men. Prior to the mid-20th century, the world was basically an uncivilized and unruly place…..mankind was yet to fully master the forces of nature (he hasn't 'fully' yet, but he's done enough to make life comfortable for himself), and society itself was still rather primitive. It is no coincidence that as society has developed and become more mature and sophisticated it is the refulgency of womankind that has blazed the trail and it is the female of the species that is acquiring the ascendancy. Not only that, the pilosity of the male merely reinforces the more primitive nature of man and the male sexuality is also far more inclined toward allotropy.

In any case, as far as humans are concerned, the male of the species is far more feminine than the female is masculine…..if you catch my drift. The male sex is the weaker sex, emotionally and intellectually. The female is also physically far stronger than the male….I doubt if many men would survive the menstrual cycle, let alone giving birth.

As equality blossoms, it has become extraordinarily condescending of men to hold doors open for women…..not only that, it is also a perfect example of the male instinct for childishly transparent duplicity, flummery and disingenuousness.

Apart from anything else, the male is severely handicapped by his sex drive, an overactive libido does tend to cloud his judgement and weaken his objectivity, though in time an effective drug will be developed to quell mankind's innate sexual febrility.

The human male is also rather more mendacious than the female, thus it is only right that the male sex is compelled to reinforce the feminine aspect of his being….that can only benefit him, his acquaintances and society as a whole.

The male of the species is far more naturally inclined towards what are popularly perceived as feminine tendencies than the female is inclined toward what are popularly conceived as masculine tendencies. Indeed, as the inosculation of the sexes continues, the human race, as a whole, is becoming more feminine….and as such, femininity is serving as an emollient to mankind's primitive and barbaric nature and sensibilities. The human male's ongoing transubstantiation is thankfully irresistible, whilst civilization exists.

In our sophisticated and politically-correct age, femininity in females and males is being pursued, whilst 'masculinity' continues to be discredited, a situation that renders puerile nothing-movies like STARSHIP TROOPERS entirely obsolete.

While I don't mind these drawn out discussions I feel personal attacks or going after another poster is wrong.

As for the movie, I saw it once. While it was certainly no masterpiece of modern film making it had its moments. And the reference to Nazi Germany was very obvious but I tend not go around analyzing every movie I see. I either like it or hate it. I'm sure every movie you see has some hidden meaning whether it be sexual, social or historical. Some are obvious while others are hidden.

I save my analyzing for my true love which is sports. It's the NCAA's tournament time and I'm about to break out my brackets for the 64 teams.

I also enjoy model railroading, collecting toys from Star Trek, Star Wars and Godzilla, reading sports biographies and Tom Clancy novels, Photography and Sharks.

You said - "I save my analyzing for my true love which is sports. It's the NCAA's tournament time and I'm about to break out my brackets for the 64 teams."

Great to know you admit to being as big a freak as the rest of us.

How it all began...

1) Andre posts this topic, ripping off the nearly healed scab of is Mission to Mars the best or worst score of 2000. The inevitable debate will ensue between Red Planet and M2M.

2)Some rather sensible remarks are made as to the nature of the films and how they and their scores cannot really be compared...Andre scoffs at this sentiment...suggesting that Revell is a hack and that the movie is poor remake of Alien. (Hmmmm....)

3)Unfortunately the thread disgressed into jabs at Andre and Brazil (funny, but not necessary)...

4)Andre, feeling somewhat justified responds with a condescending post, illuminating for us the true meaning and story behind each film.

5)Some interesting and non-inflammatory posts follow...although Andre does manage to slip in a "Zimmer sucks" yet again without most people noticing.

6)Holy Crap...here comes Starship Troopers...the thread takes a turn into a dark, often-trod alley. Andre and I share our obligatory arguement...fun but tiring. I should have fled as soon as the conversation turned to analyzing a goofy movie like Troopers.

7) Somehow the discussion turned political, as Andre uses Starship Troopers to show how vile America and its evil Empire is. What happened after could only be expected.

Needless to say, this debate continued for another 10 days...jabs here, ridiculous posts there. JeffBond and Dr. Evil showed up for a Celebrity Deathmatch with Andre and then were gone. Marian entered as a thoughtful and polite voice, upholding Andre's right to state his opinion...though sadly...Andre would consider such sentiment as sugar-coated political correctness.

Well, when Daniel entered the fray I assumed the thread would finally take a dignified turn...and it did...almost. Somehow though, the conversation turned from pseudo-poltical movie analysis to a dissertation of the male and female gender...I'm actually still trying to figure that one out. Give me a couple days Daniel.

Well, a couple weeks and too many posts later, I must say that I am embarassed to have participated in this fiasco...but it was a hoot. Somehow, the political side of this thread infected the Planet of the Apes discussion as well...sadly, I helped propagate it. Oh well, lets go full circle...

When you see an awful movie like RED PLANET...

have to say, for the most part, I like it. But the only the middle section. The beginning is incredibly dull, and the ending is so completely insane as to be laughable. a crying alien? please. and the little humans chasing the bison looked like something out of the Age of Empires games.

I also remembered that a few months before this movie came out, Cydonia had been dismissed by NASA as merely a rock formation, and the "face" simply interplay between shadow and light photographed by Viking by coincidence. They have new pictures which show it to be nothing more than a hill. All of this rendering the film pointless, preachy, and overly sappy.

as for the Morricone score: top-notch. As a score, it's debatable whether it worked or not (obviously), but the music is magnificent!