Is it really that mind-boggling? ST has always seemed to me to read whichever way you are already predisposed to. How does everybody dying make it an anti-war movie? I would be shocked if the kind of person who believes in the good of a war machine were surprised that lots of people die in war.
Maybe my memory is a bit hazy, but the bugs actually annihilate a city, right? What is the human response supposed to be? The extreme nature of the government and military only come across as insane if you’ve already been educated about fascism. Desperate times do indeed call for desperate measures, which muddies the antifascist message in my opinion.
It’s a great movie, but anyone who thinks it’s going to change anyone’s mind from their preconceptions is fooling themselves.
"I want to make a movie so painfully obvious in its satire that everyone who understands it lives in perpetual psychological torment inflicted on them by all the people who don’t."
Paul Verhoeven, director of Starship Troopers
The movie makes it clear that:
The bugs were responding to human colonization
Humans fired the first shots
The government is lying to everyone claiming the bugs are mindless. They overjoyed shouts of the soldiers when they learn the opposite is true - is only because they learn that the bugs are terrified.
The endless over the top propaganda is supposed to be a pretty fuckin heavy clue that it’s a fascist state.
4 in particular I think is more open to interpretation based on ones existing biases than people seem to think. Being over the top doesn’t necessarily have to be mockery and authorial intent is peanuts to a random personwatching a movie.
The other points IIRC are individual moments rather than recurring themes. It’s not surprising to me that significant numbers of people overlook them.
One of the hallmarks of fascism is that the enemy are simultaneously too strong - so we must militarise - and too weak, because we are the superior race and destined to prevail.
The movie point blank states towards the beginning that the Bugs were flinging out their pods/eggs/whatever into space looking to land on worlds to colonize
The movie gives all appearances and inferences that the Bugs attacked first. Not the humans. This makes further sense by point 1, and how far away the bugs home world actually is.
The only announcement made of a bug being afraid wasn’t all bugs. It was only the large “thinking” bug at the end of the movie, after it had its mouth cut off and it was strapped down and being experimented on in the lab. There was no inferences at all of any other bugs being made. So no, the government wasn’t depicted in the movie as lying about knowing of any bug intelligence. I didn’t know of any intelligent bugs, and by the end of the movie it was only known that the one type of rare smart bug captured was the only intelligent one, and that it was able to possibly psychically control the other dumb bugs.
The propaganda films say that the bugs are attacking by flinging asteroids from the other side of the milky way, do you know how long that would take? Also we never see any bugs in space, just the plasma getting thrown, never see how they are supposedly throwing these asteroids.
There’s also no presentation that it isn’t true, and by whatever means, we do know for sure that the Bugs are attacking earth. Retaliation or not, so either way it’s people stuck having to fight in order to save humanity.
Maybe my memory is a bit hazy, but the bugs actually annihilate a city, right?
The bugs were alleged to send an asteroid from another solar system and hit Earth. Logically, the bugs would have to know hundreds of years that they were going to get in a war with the Humans, know how to shoot an asteroid across the galaxy, and know exactly Earth was going to be for the asteroid to hit.
The bugs don’t launch the asteroids ballistically, they are launched superluminally as can be seen by the gravity singularity that Denise Richards detects when they (almost) avoid the asteroid.
Reasonable question! It was a sub called “the_donald”. It started with a bunch of folks saying outrageous things that were satirizing Trump and his followers. Unfortunately it wasn’t outrageous enough because it was slowly taken over by true believers who spouted the same outrageous shit because they actually believed it.
NGL I'm still a little salty at OWI only making the Extermination game after the Troopers Mod for Squad took off so hard. No credit to the hard work on that mod that rekindled the interest at all.
Oh gosh yes! It's popularity has dropped a bit since OWI's little stunt, but you should check it out on Fridays when we try and get the OG's to come back and show us how to kill some BUGS.
I’ve seen this a few times, ca you explain this to me? Is it a way of talking about people that consider themselves capital G gamers without having them come in and ruin the conversation with whining or gamergate bs?
If you read carefully this is actually very similar to the Steam news. I doubt Valve or GOG care, but generally the games are “sold” by the publisher as non transferable licenses for you to play them. So the part that matters isn’t up to them.
The one holdout among the console makers is Nintendo, whose PC strategy is still to threaten fan projects with lawsuits. Perhaps I do not have to hand it to Nintendo for this, but as a result of its obstinance, the Switch is the only console I’d consider buying as a PC gamer. Nintendo remains a one-of-a-kind gaming company, whereas Xbox and PlayStation feel less and less distinguishable from gaming at large—aka PC gaming.
I’m not sure about this analysis of the Switch’s success. The “lawsuit” argument is pretty irrelevant; the console would sell regardless of whether emulation existed (as it has, for most of the big titles and for much of the console’s life). I think the “one-of-a-kind” argument is accurate, but I’d also suggest that the very wide library of games is a major reason why Nintendo has performed so well in this generation. The Switch appeals to almost every single type of gamer - there is so much variety there. Additionally, the portability is clear point of difference: for many, the Switch is more like a handheld that they can occasionally play on the TV, rather than a traditional home console. And finally, the Switch is just a more affordable option and that has mattered a lot since 2020.
Consoles are great if you want the same thing you can get on your computer but with worse graphics, shittier framerate, and a terrible device for input.
Most people now have the console they prefer, and it’s lasting them. They don’t necessarily need new consoles. This is true EVEN if that console is a PS4, Xbox One, or Switch. They don’t get everything, but a surprising number of major releases still come to all those destinations.
It’s still nicely convenient to have consoles for less setup and configuration. Some people manage really complex problems for their work and home projects already - a desktop computer may be beyond their tolerance.
What is the difference? You can buy a smaller PC, install Bazzite OS on it and plug it into your tv. Voila, you now have a steam console. Quite literally. lol
Dude just destroyed his indie rep in one fell move. Regardless of what you feel of the situation, noone wants to “talk shop” with the guy known for stealing ideas
pcgamer.com
Gorące