[Scotty]

Sure, in the same way that the pond in my backyard and the Pacific ocean can have a good combined dialogue on the percentage of earth's surface they cover.  One of them presents a meaningful (if not particularly agreeable, going for the "I agree with this" definition) dialogue, the other goes "lol they're almost nazis" and then blows a bunch of **** up.

The title is the same.  The characters have similar names.  They fight "bugs".  That's where the meaningful similarities end.  I'm not about to congratulate the movie for putting forward the least required effort on the subject to make it a "dialogue".

[Scourge of Ages]

It's an entertaining movie, and it's just unfortunate that it's associated with the book. It's not the first terribly adapted book, and won't be the last.

Ever see the movie Timeline based on the Michael Crichton book? Bad adaptation, and overall bad movie. Ever see the Lord of the Rings movies? Pretty good on both counts.

I figure that there are primarily two types of adaptations: The one where only the name and barest premise serve as bones for another movie entirely (usually not so good but not necessarily), and the one where the movie is actually being made for people who enjoyed the book (can be done well). Bonus third type: cash grab combining fair respect to the source, but not done well.

Starship Troopers only exists because whoever greenlit it figured that the name it carried would be enough to turn a profit, probably. If it was just called "Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine" or something, we'd all just assume it was a SyFy style B-movie.

[swashmebuckle]

I just can't imagine a faithful attempt at a two hour movie adaptation having anything on Doogie Howser, psychic exterminator in space. The book will always be there for people who like that sort of thing, and the movie certainly benefitted from the license, even if it was just in getting funding. Personally I found the director taking a gleeful dump on fascism and militarism to be pretty refreshing given how action blockbusters usually come off in those respects.

Plus, don't people love saying the book was better? Another opportunity for them to say that. Everyone wins!

[deathfun]

The other question we need to concern ourselves with: Does it really matter?
I find that no, it really doesn't matter whether or not the movie was good or carried a name to sell more tickets. If anyone watched the trailer, they'd pretty much know what they were getting into

Because seriously, who would have thought the movie was anything like the book in this?

I don't think the movie was trying to be anything more really than the appropriately described "they're starship troopers and they're fighting bugs"

If you thought the movie was going to be like the book from that trailer... well... uh...

[S-99]

Did you just answer your own question? Yes, I think you did.

I certainly did. It doesn't matter of in the context of the making of the movie or the story either. It really didn't seem to be something that was thought of to be using explosive ammo.

Why no explosive ammo?  Because the federation is retarded

[Phantom Hoover]

Was explosive ammo in small arms even an established thing when the book was written?

[Colonol Dekker]

Rifle grenades were a thing.
Rocket style anti personell artillery goes back as far as Waterloo.

[Dragon]

Was explosive ammo in small arms even an established thing when the book was written?

Yes, it was known it's possible by then. Not only that, it was already banned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Petersburg_Declaration_of_1868
Fulminating (not explosive, but close) musket balls were already thing in 1863. By 1867 they found how to make them explode on contact with personnel and in 1868, they found the whole thing too gross. So, it was possible, though development of such ammunition for calibers below .50cal effectively stopped soon after they were invented. Admittedly, this is not very well known, but I'm pretty sure that explosive (and incendiary) HMG bullets were in use during WWII.

[Phantom Hoover]

Given that I could easily chalk it up to the concept being stamped out so early it never really entered the public consciousness.

[deathfun]

What's hilarious is the fact that the Security Council is known to just outright ignore the bans
Dragon's Breath anyone?

[Phantom Hoover]

They aren't explosive, though.

[deathfun]

But equally as awesome

Wait, better idea...
...why didn't they just build a giant magnifying glass and pretend to be God smiting them with such "FIERY" (get it because burning) VENGEANCE

[pecenipicek]

What's hilarious is the fact that the Security Council is known to just outright ignore the bans
Dragon's Breath anyone?

there's a difference between "spew fiery doom which may or may not splatter the target" and "disintegrate and pelt everything nearby with shrapnel of the target"

Not much, but its still there.

Spoiler:

if i remember correctly, explosive rounds are banned on grounds of massive overkill among other things?

[Colonol Dekker]

Geneva convention on human rights.  Laws of armed conflict of which every NATO soldier is schooled in state that you must inflict no unnecessary suffering in not so many words.

[pecenipicek]

Geneva convention on human rights.  Laws of armed conflict of which every NATO soldier is schooled in state that you must inflict no unnecessary suffering in not so many words.

thank you, my knowledge is very thin in that whole area

[SpardaSon21]

One thing I'd like to point out is that the parts of the Hague Convention of 1899 that restrict the use of poison gases in warfare and non-jacketed and indented rounds were never actually ratified by the United States.  The United States was also never invited to the St. Petersburg Declaration in 1868, and therefore never ratified that treaty.  Food for thought.

[Dragon]

Yeah, the US has not signed a number of things that forbid various weapons, including explosive rounds, cluster bombs, poison gases and the like. It still conforms to most of them, probably out of political convenience, but it has been known to use incendiary-explosive rounds against personnel (the infamous .50 Raufoss rounds), though in a very limited fashion (basically, snipers engaging targets of opportunity with anti-materiel rifles). There were also cases of dropping incendiaries on personnel in Iraq war (not napalm, as some reported, but pyrogel is even worse than that).

[Ghostavo]

Geneva convention on human rights.  Laws of armed conflict of which every NATO soldier is schooled in state that you must inflict no unnecessary suffering in not so many words.

It's actually the first Hague convention.

Wikipedia
[Geneva Conventions] do not address warfare proper—the use of weapons of war—which is the subject of the Hague Conventions (...)

EDIT: Damn you sparda!

[Colonol Dekker]

All that matters is that I was in date until December when my 15 year career finished