Quote:
This is basically wrong. ST was heavily based on historical WW2 propaganda and is what the Federation would have produced. The only variation is the nude scenes and the extended action shots, which would have been based on their market researchers
The nude scenes were fine. The action sequences were god-awful and the antithesis of Heinlein's point. I didn't say the propaganda part was what I had a problem with (though to a certain extent I did), but most of my issue with it was the ridiculous depiction of the military. PV's military was untrained, undisciplined yahoos, whereas Heinlein was presenting the military as a highly selective profession requiring discipline and specialized knowledge.
Heinlein depicted the training as extremely difficult, but very effective, whereas PV depicted it as a joke. The scene with the accidental shooting is where the movie completely lost me, both for its stupid depiction of the training and for the main character being allowed to continue after that.
Then they get out in combat are armed with distance weapons and are fighting bugs who are hand-to-hand (or tentacle-to-hand, whatever) only. So what do these "highly trained" rifle-armed soldiers do? They charge towards the bug, masking each-other's fire and getting into its range. Makes sense, because we all know how much better rifles work on bus-sized targets from 10 feet than from 100. :eyeroll:
I could go on for longer than the stupid movie. PV wanted to make an anti-militarism SF movie, which he did poorly because he doesn't understand the military at all, but whatevs. I would just find the movie mildly annoying if it didn't claim to be based on Heinlein. There was no cause at all to link it to a pro-military classic that argued (I would agree likely incorrectly) that a government run exclusively by veterans would be largely like any other government except for its focus on civic duty and tried to break stereotypes of soldiers as dumb drones and/or cowboys.