Who needs a knife in a nuke fight anyway?

Who needs a knife in a nuke fight anyway?

I don't get this movie?

>bad cgi
>corny dialogue
>cheesy violence
>bad ending?

This movie is really, bad.

I know this is bait but the CGI is incredibly impressive for '97

Underage millennial faggot detected

>but sir, bugs don't have hands

who cares ?

>PAUL VER-FUCKING-HOT-BITCHES AND GRATUITOUS-VIOLENCE-HOVEN

if only him and Kubrick did a sci fi colab....

CGI is amazing, especially for a 1997 movie, its the best war parody ever made, it even predicted the Saving Private Ryan gorefest by one year.

I bet you identify as genderfluid or some other bullshit you little bitch.

why didn't they actually just nuke the bugs?

>Shoot a nuke down a bug hole, you got a lotta dead bugs

>bad cgi
Remove this and you'll have more convincing b8 in the future.

If you kill the enemy, you won't be able to keep the fascist military society up. You won't stay in power.

Similar to why the US doesn't just vaporize all of its enemies in the ME.

daily reminder the book is bull and Heinlein was a hack

>hurr if society was ran by genius benevolent incorruptible generals we'd be better off.

There isn't a single officer in the book with any character flaws whatsoever

>nuke the planet you want to colonize

Or maybe because you can't just vaporize an entire civilian populace just to eradicate a minority insurgent population. Think before you post mouth breather.

This is why Verhoeven made this movie was a persiflage of Sup Forumss wet dream.

>you want to colonize
t. space mormon retard

>can't

is that the Offspring guy?

>persiflage
excellent vocabulary user. I'll be sure to bait /lit/ with it later

I bet you think all black and white movies are boring too.

That's how Heinlein wrote. Have you ever read Stranger in a Strange Land?

Holy shit that was one hard novel to get through. One character was such a Mary Sue (Jubal Harshaw), where literally everything he said was considered to be like some form of gospel that couldn't be reputed.

Was no surprise, Heinlein had the exact same philosophy.

Fuck that novel.

>bad cgi

Nigga, you just went full retard

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Just discover greentext newcuck?

We CAN vaporize the Mid East though, moron. We don't. We COULD stop fighting endless wars with no real goal. We don't.

You probably think that this movie was just an action-thriller.

cut back on the video games

>We CAN vaporize the Mid East though
>We don't. We COULD stop fighting endless wars with no real goal. We don't.
No, not at all. We wouldn't be able to survive that considering there are other nuclear powers in the region and allies of nuclear powers in the region. Look up mutually assured destruction and stop being 12.

Oh, yeah, Russia would end the world over Iran? Or NKorea?

>he thinks you have to agree with a movie's political statement in order to analyze it

His analogy is stupid but in the original book it was implied the meteor was a false flag.

>Oh, yeah, Russia would end the world over Iran? Or NKorea?
these questions were posed in the 40s and 50s. It's currently understood that a nuclear power would need to respond to nuclear provocation (even salami tactics) because the opposite would mean submission, loss of influence and deterrence.

The questions were posed but not answered

The analogy isn't mine, it's the author's. What nation do you think he's parodying?

>Oh, yeah, Russia would end the world over Iran?
Most of the world would react pretty horribly if you just started dropping nukes on Afghanistan, even if they have no diplomatic relations with anyone involved. Not to mention nukes have lasting effects like fallout and whatnot. You made a dumb analogy. Quit being 12 user.

>The questions were posed but not answered
they won't be answered until your horizon consists of ash and more ash

the point of deterrence is to never actually answer them. Watch Fail Safe

>The analogy isn't mine, it's the author's.
I wasn't aware the author was criticizing the US involvement in the Middle East in 1959. Nukes don't solve insurgencies dumbass. Go to bed.

Fuck you're dense my dudes. I never said nukes, I said vaporized.

>bad cgi

you fucked up

The dubs have this one anons.

Really grinds your gears huh?

oh you mean turn them into a sauna? I can get behind that

The 1950's had THE most unpopular wars: Korean and Vietnam.
No shit he wasn't referring to ME

Is this legit aspergers?

Vaporized with what? Conventional bombing of every single person in a country is extremely costly and would have just as many repercussions on the world stage.

>Russia would have sat by if we used nukes in Korea or Vietnam
Damn user, what's it like being 12?

Oh yeah? Using a nuke on another sovereign nation is different than bombing? Guess what pal, we just bombed the shit out of a Syrian airbase not too long ago. Nothing happened. Read the news every once in a while, champ.

Never said nuke : - )

isn't different*

>We just bombed the shit out of a Syrian airbase not too long ago. Nothing happened.
Did that "vaporize" every single person in Syria? Damn, based Trump at it again :^)

Have you even read it? It is not remotely implied anywhere. Please quote the exact passage you are supposedly referring to.

The fuck they don't

You need to vaporize every single person in Syria to take out our enemies? very interesting conjecture my dude

>when you make a dumb analogy but are too autistic to back down

see >We CAN vaporize the Mid East though, moron
What does that entail then exactly fedora lord?

Wat ?

>when you satire your country's warlike tendency and an autist on Sup Forums 60 years later takes your book literally

>every single Syrian civilian is a part of ISIS or the Assad regime
dam u some sort of geopolitical genius

>every single Syrian civilian is a part of ISIS or the Assad regime
Not at all what I said, but something you brought up with this
>We CAN vaporize the Mid East though, moron
This is a scenario you put forward. Why would this be a good idea? Why would it work? Keep squirming retard.

>an autist on Sup Forums 60 years later takes your book literally
Yeah, why would some autist think of vaporizing the middle east as a good analogy? Kids these days.

...

Not at all what anyone was saying, but keep squirming beta bitch ;^)

100 pussyups soldier! up and down my dick!

>calls others "beta" when they argue with him

According to the book, (based on the movie) the bugs live deep in the ground so nukes will just make the surface unhabitable and won't harm the bugs.

According to the comics, the bugs also live deep underground and the federation want the resources so they won't make it into a "nuclear wasteland" (I think it was in the "dominant species" comic).

>acts like a beta and an autist with no argument
Going to cry now?

Fuck now I want to rewatch it with my dad. Should I watch Starship Troopers or Predator 1 with him? Or better, both of them

>according to the books
>based on the movies

What the fuck are you doing, man? In the book it explicitly describes the drop trooper going down to the surface and fucking napalming the otherwise non-hostile bug settlements.

...

whenever I see either actor in any other movie I always get them mixed up, and they don't even look alike. I don't know why.

>posting a thumbnail

...

...

Predator 1 is top-tier dadkino, but watch Starship Troopers because you're posting in a fucking Starship Troopers thread. Also remember to swallow and don't ignore the balls.

Yeah, sorry, i just noticed it.

I was writing something and then change it and then change it again and didn't notice the mistake.

We talked about watching Predator 1 yesterday since the whole 30th anniversary thing but I ended up sleeping early so he watched old cowboy movies that he loves with my mother. Today we both have nothing better to do so might as well watch them instead of going through the worst part of Twin Peaks S02

If you kill your enemies, they win.