Talk:Starship Troopers (film)

message: What ignorant mook was trying so hard over exaggerating the already over the top fascism thing that they pretend the weapons have ANYTHING to do with 1940 technology?
What a disgrace to Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.160.132 (talk) 07:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  World War II weapons? 

message: There appears to be a concerted effort by some editors to maintain this film received almost overwhelmingly negative reviews and poor critical reception.
With 63% on RT and 51% on Metacrtic (cited), those numbers would put it squarely in the mixed reception camp. It you look up almost any other article on any film with scores comparable to these from two of the most popular and well known review aggregators (as close to 'consensus' as you can get) you will find almost all of them refer to the critical reception as mostly mixed, or perhaps mixed to negative.
Calling the critical consensus blanketly negative is extremely misleading, and doing so on the basis of a single line from one Atlantic article and ignoring the review aggregator scores is giving undue weight to one source.
As I stated earlier, whether or not a film's critical reception is labeled "positive, mixed, negative" or some combination of these adjectives is almost always in sync with the review aggregation sites. The way this article chooses to portray the critical reception is out of line with almost all other modern films. Zaqwert (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Interpreting review aggregator scores is original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very apparent that the "positive, mixed, negative, etc." descriptions for hundreds, if not thousands, of major release film articles appear very much to be based on such and are remarkably consistent across the board. Are all those thousands of articles and their tens of thousands of editors doing it incorrectly, all in unison? It's certainly possible I guess, however it seems like a huge oversight in film article conventions that's gone mostly unnoticed for a decade.Zaqwert (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, there are many articles that have original research in them.  I fix it when I see it.  You can, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks like history is being rewritten.  When this film was originally released, it was widely known to be a stinker.  Recently, one can only guess why, it has been giving more positive reviews.  That does not mean it's a good film, and it doesn't change the fact that it was a box-office loser.  Those facts will never change.  98.194.39.86 (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Appreciate your concern, but think you're beating a dead horse here; we already have a sourced statement in the article that the film received negative reviews upon release. DonIago (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical Reception 

message: In the Salon article cited by reference [18], Aasif Mandvi does not mention or criticize Starship Troopers directly; rather it is used as an example in the accompanying slide show created by Max Rivlin-Nadler.
Whitewashing, a history
WebWaster (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate Attribution 

message: It looks like Cpl. Watkins' name appears for the first time in the synopsis: "... and Watkins, mortally wounded, sacrifices himself by detonating the bomb to enable the others to escape."  He appears in the cast list but isn't otherwise mentioned.  Changeto "... and another trooper (Cpl. Watkins), mortally wounded ..." ? Bbolker (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Plot updated.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusing appearance of name in synopsis? 

message: In the Salon article cited by reference [18], Aasif Mandvi does not mention or criticize Starship Troopers directly; rather it is used as an example in the accompanying slide show created by Max Rivlin-Nadler.
Whitewashing, a history  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Block (talk • contribs) 03:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you a sockpuppet of Webwaster?  It's just that the post here is an exact copy of the one they made back in 2017 - the reference you are talking about is no longer ref 18, but is now ref 19, which suggests you are just reposting, rather than looking anew at the topic?  Chaheel Riens (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why has this inaccurate attribution not been corrected? 

message: The sentence "after it was endorsed by internet celebrities such as PewDiePie and Macaulay Culkin" can be sure proven by the fact of the linked youtube video or the article. But saying "was only more broadly popularized in the latter part of the decade, after it was endorsed" is a not proven claim. To be able to securely write such a claim you need to correlate the popularity of the movie to this "endorsments" through research and statistics which needs to be cited. 
The person who wrote this is clearly a PewDiePie fan and follower and probably a Gen-Z, and wants to endorse him. I do not claim this only becasue they want to credit him but the fact that this movie was already at kult-status in my youth when I was in highschool in early 2000s. There was no pewdiepie back then, not even facebook. I assume only a person young enough to not know something was popular or not until pewdiepie makes a video about it, must be a post-social media child.
Not knowing something was already popular in certain circles does not make it suddenly become popular solely becasue you somehow found out about it, therfore it must have gotten popular now for you to take notice.
It only shows you had no Idea. Period. 
There is not need for a discussion though. This is wikipedia not a opinion page. You need to cite statistics not only the man's video as evidence. That only proves he made a video about it. His reach is irrelevant. What would be relevant is a statistic showing how the sales of that said movie risen directly attributed to the linked video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.216.215.66  (talk • contribs) 
:What on Earth does this have to do with Starship Troopers? DonIago (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: They're talking about the part in the reappraisal section that seems to credit Pew Die Pie and Macaulay Culkin with making it a cult hit? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, my bad! DonIago (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Thankfully this sentence is gone after User:Darkwarriorblake's impressive rewrite. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  The bigger question is why did it take so long for this silliness to reverted or challenged? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. -- 109.78.195.60 (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credit to Internet Celebrities? 

message: Based on the request of , I just started copy editing this article.
If you have any feedback/questions/remarks/etc., I would kindly ask you to put them here as long as the CE is in progress, in stead of starting an edit war.
Kind regards, Call me Matt - Bling Collector 15:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy-Edit in Progress 

message: Recently, the film has become a hot topic in online discourses on Media Literacy, due to attempts made by actual fascists to claim the film and misrepresent it's themes. The topic is part of much larger discourse on misrepresentation of various media by right wing and far right pundits. Are there any reliable sources that cover this subject, and if there are, is it worth mentioning it? 46.97.170.120 (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media literacy discourse