Should I watch the movie or read the book?

>>84351686
watch the movie

then read the book

>>84351695
yep.
realize how much of a hack verhoven is
>no power armor.

>>84351686
Both.

They're pretty different.

Both.
Both are different and good for their own reasons.

File: Bugs.jpg (167KB, 1424x1414px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1424x1414px

>>84351686
really grinds your gears huh

Why didn't they use tanks?

>>84351733
>calling infantrymen "apes" wasn't actually referring to them being mammals as opposed to insects
Took me by surprise.

>>84351777
>
they were in boot camp in that scene you tard.
>>84351792
because the (((federation))) didn't use power armor.

>>84351686
The movie has Denise Richard's titties, the book can't possibly compare.

>>84351792
They're probably a lot harder to drop from orbit than soldiers.

You know, without being destroyed when they hit the ground.

>>84351841
it doesn't. It has diz's titties.

Watch the book, read the movie

>>84351852
They drop soldiers via transport. They can easily stow a tank in there

File: NmQtNGIyNi1iMjkxLT.jpg (51KB, 460x300px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 460x300px

>>84351865

>>84351858
That tank top though. Was enough to have a good wank or 12 back in 97.

>>84351686
>Should I watch the movie or read the book?
Both

>>84351733
It's almost like the same idea can be interpreted differently huh

It's almost like verhoeven can think for himself and had a vision or something

It's almost like he's an auteur, but that cocnept is easily forgotten in the age of no name capeshit conveyor

>>84351902
yeah. I forgot about it when you saw those titties.

>>84351910
>interpreted differently.
>named mobile infantry and cap troopers
>don't deploy in capsules and aren't mobile at all.

>>84351910
The movie's infantry didn't have power armor because that shit would've been way to expensive to produce with the movie's budget, not because the director just chose to interpret things differently.

It was necessity, not vision.

>>84351910
Veerhoven flat out said that he didn't read the book at all though.

>>84352119
It's almost like there are directors that dont have their craniums permanently lodged up their colons

>>84352159
Yep, reading the source material can cloud your vision

Book's an enjoyable read but it's hardly a literary masterpiece, it's not even heinlein's best

>>84352209
I did like the political commentary though. Always stuck with me, even though I read it when I was younger.

>>84352381
The book's right about one thing: universal suffrage was a mistake

Then again a blind retard can come to the same conclusion

The film's message is stronger in my opinion

>>84351686
Both

>>84351686
always do the colouring book first.

>Book is a dry philosophical text which is basically just an analogy for the Korean War.

>Movie is a schlocky eye-rolling satire of crypto-fascism.

Whichever sounds more appealing OP.

The book really outlines the threat modern day western societies face with the invasion of Islam.

>>84351686
Watch the movie, the book is dogshit.

>>84351686
Read the movie then watch the book

>>84352981
>The film's message is stronger in my opinion

The film's message is more overt, but the book's stays with you forever.