Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Mycakeissomoist t1_itnb486 wrote

My limited understanding was that the movie was made intentionally bad to underscore that it was to be taken as satyr, mocking the military complex and extreme violence/views. Having never read the book I would have assumed that it was also written to be satyr. As with all artforms, it's open to interpretation. So, at the very least, it could be read as such. It sounds like you're interested in reading it, so do, but don't take it literally.

Edit: satire* too many fantasies

0

Fafnir26 OP t1_itnbph8 wrote

Dude, the author stood behind some of the stuff you see in the film. The author made it intentionally horrible to satirize the book he hated and aparently barely read.

1

Ok_Aioli1990 t1_itndefn wrote

I believe you mean the director as Heinlein was deceased when this movie was made

2

Mycakeissomoist t1_itnfolh wrote

My point still stands. It's an artform, interpret it how you want. An artist creates in hopes of eliciting a thought/feeling/reaction. They are not in control of what you think/feel/do.

1

Hellblazer1138 t1_itnbugp wrote

It's not exactly satire but it's not an avocation of the form the government takes in the book. Heinlein is taking the idea and running with it.

1