I don't think it was misunderstood; it was just a poor job of being a satire of the book. To properly criticize a subject, /you have to take the premise seriously/, which is what Verhoeven didn't do.

The premise, the basic engine of the book, is a young man's coming of age story into military and society, and his longing to reconnect with his father. It's not really about fascism or propaganda. This shows that Verhoeven didn't really even care to understand the book. He critiqued what he thought it was about.

This is a longer post I wrote on reddit back in 2013:

"I argue that's why it sucks as a critique, because it just allows you to laugh and blow off the propaganda as fluff, instead of taking it seriously.

What's scary about Nazism, fascism, totalitarianism, etc. is how many people fall for it and then commit horrible acts, believing they're doing the right thing, while getting teary-eyed for the state.

When you read Starship Troopers, you find yourself getting a misty-eyed sentiment for the corps and "The Brave Sacrifice that our men and women make..." and then you think "WTF? This novel is about space bugs. Holy hell, this propaganda shit works!" and you begin to realize how insidious and effective the propaganda truly is.

When you watch Starship Troopers, you just laugh and say "Oh, what a ridiculous movie. Ha ha ha, isn't that funny." You don't fall for the propaganda, which is what an effective critique would have you do. Instead, you can stay above it and laugh condescendingly at those poor idiots who do, and then get eviscerated by space bugs. But you, as an audience member, are too smart for that, because you can clearly see that it's a sound stage. It allows you to remain safe in your comfort zone, whereas real art would expose you to your own vulnerability.

It's like the people who think they're getting a dig in on Hitler by calling him an "asshole" and saying "Fuck you, Hitler!" Sorry, not really the level of critique and understanding we need for Nazism. That's not a strong-enough tearing apart of Nazism.

Likewise, we need something stronger then a self-aware B-flick science fiction parody to criticize Starship Troopers. It doesn't really do the job. It's not a critique of the book, though it is a critique of militarism and state propaganda.

A true critique of Starship Troopers would address the actual mechanisms that Heinlein employs in the book, such as nostalgia, camaraderie, and espirit de corp, or the main character's estranged relationship with his father, and the role that seems to play in his finding fulfillment in military life. It's actual military service and culture, not state propaganda, that informs Rico's beliefs and feelings in the book.

Instead we get a movie seemingly inspired by Starship Troopers, taking place in the same universe, but not actually dealing with the themes presented in the book. And at that, a boring, B-grade science fiction parody that's supposed to be interesting because it knows its a parody wink, wink. It's not a criticism of the book."

"A criticism is basically a comedy, and a comedy has a straight man and a clown. In a parody or a farce, the comedic target is the buffoon, and the audience is the straight man who's job it is to say, "Hey, get your act together, stop fooling around!" But the mechanism of the comedic critique is that the target is too stupid to know better, and continues acting the clown.

When the movie is winking at the audience, it's not the clown because then it's in on the joke. Being over the top and cheesy, we know that the movie isn't taking itself seriously; it's playing dumb instead of being actually dumb. It's saying "hey, isn't this silly" instead of presenting actually silliness. As the audience, there is no position for criticism because the movie already knows it's misbehaving. It's our role to say "hey, this is silly", and when the movie does our role for us, it's boring because it allows us no participation.

Take this scenario:

Man on sidewalk: Hitting head with hammer.

Passer-by: "Hey! Don't do that! You'll hurt yourself!"

Man on Sidewalk: "But how will I get rid of these lice!?"

That's a comedic scenario (regardless of its quality). The Man is doing something actually dumb, being a buffoon, and the passer-by is criticizing the action, being the straight man. Now take this:

Man on Sidewalk: "Hey buddy, wouldn't it be silly if I hit my head with a hammer, like this?" Hits head with hammer "It's that crazy?"

Passer-by: "Yeah, that's crazy".

That's not a comedic scenario because the Man on sidewalk has taken both the roles of buffoon and straight man. In presenting the action as stupid, he's also acting as the straight man, his own critic, and the Passer-by has no role in the interaction; he adds nothing, he just agrees with the Man.

When you read Starship Troopers, its presented sincerely, at face value. That leads you to take it seriously, think about it, question it, arrive at your own conclusions. You play the straight man, questioning the actions of the guy on the sidewalk.

The movie is presented as a farce, a joke, "Hey look at this, isn't this ridiculous?" "Yes, it is, why am I watching it?" It's clearly over the top, an exaggerated caricature. It doesn't lead you to think deeply about the issues presented, it allows you to blow them off as silliness and fluff. There's no role for you here, nothing to engage in. You just agree: "Yup, this is totally ridick!"

It's like getting 1984 wrong. These books are seminal in American and trans-Atlantic thought about government and the individual. It's too important not to do the best job at."