sf-lovers (07/28/82)
>From JPM@MIT-AI Wed Jul 28 14:10:47 1982
SF-LOVERS Digest Sunday, 25 Jul 1982 Volume 6 : Issue 25
Today's Topics:
SF Movies - Revenues & The Secret of NIMH &
Blade Runner & Poltergeist & ET: The Extra-Terrestrial,
SF Topics - Books vs Movies,
Spoiler - ET: The Extra-Terrestrial
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 27 Jul 1982 1350-PDT
From: Robert Amsler <AMSLER at SRI-AI>
Subject: 11 Top-Grossing Films (week ending July 7) (source: Variety)
Ranks: Last-week =>This week
Film Name (Rank Change + = up 1, - = down 1)
Total to Date
Weeks on Chart
1 => 1. E T - The Extra-Terrestrial $23,721,283 ( 4 weeks)
5 => 2. Blade Runner (+++) $ 4,363,497 ( 2 weeks)
3 => 3. Rocky III $23,560,379 ( 6 weeks)
4 => 4. Poltergeist $13,808,381 ( 5 weeks)
7 => 5. Annie (++) $ 7,572,065 ( 7 weeks)
2 => 6. Firefox (----) $ 7,134,092 ( 3 weeks)
6 => 7. Star Trek II-Wrath of Kahn (-) $15,664,867 ( 5 weeks)
8 => 8. The Thing $ 2,559,139 ( 2 weeks)
9 => 9. Author Author $ 2,304,756 ( 3 weeks)
10=>10. Bambi $ 4,321,303 (15 weeks)
11=>11. Megaforce $ 972,272 ( 2 weeks)
------------------------------
Date: 23 Jul 1982 05:36:47-PDT
From: decvax!duke!uok!uokvax!jab at Berkeley
Subject: The Secret of NIMH
The Secret of NIMH (I believe that's spelled right) is an experience.
The animation is very, very good. It puts Disney studios to shame
(note that I distinguish between present Disney Studios and the works
Walt Disney worked on.) I would compare this to Walt Disney at his
best --- it isn't *quite* as good, but extremely close.
And that's not even the good part!
The plot is similar to some of the plots Walt Disney pulled out of his
hat: not so intense as to frighten children, but interesting enough to
keep everybody well entertained.
I'll not say much more, except that I was pleased that Walt Disney's
craft is finally being followed.
Jeff
------------------------------
Date: 07/13/82 21:27:14
From: ZEMON@MIT-MC
Subject: The Secret of NIMH
This is a /good/ movie.
I haven't seen animation like this in YEARS. Along with a
story THAT good . . . . I think Disney's blown it. Again. (Why'd
they ever let Bluth (?) go, anyway?)
Go see it. (And take your family and friends, especially the
youngsters.)
-Landon-
------------------------------
Date: 10 Jul 1982 0039-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Secret of Nimh
Star Watch: Disney Deserters Create New Animated Film
By BOB THOMAS
Associated Press Writer
HOLLYWOOD (AP) - On Sept. 13, 1979, Don Bluth led a band of fellow
artists out of Walt Disney studios. Almost three years and $7 million
later, the result of their exodus can be seen in the nation's
theaters.
The MGM-United Artists release is called ''The Secret of NIMH,''
and its similarity to the classic Disney animated features is more
than coincidental. Bluth, Gary Goldman, John Pomeroy and the other 14
defectors vowed to carry on the Walt Disney traditions that they felt
were being stifled at the studio Disney had founded.
Don Bluth Productions started in Bluth's garage and still operates
in a modest manner, with headquarters in a building behind a savings
and loan on Ventura Boulevard in Studio City. The atmosphere is more
confident now than it was when ''NIMH'' was in its early stages. The
company has now completed its first feature and has already embarked
on another.
Bluth was in a state of high anticipation as the ''NIMH'' openings
approached. That's unusual for a man who is normally under total
control.
''We proved we could make a feature on schedule and on budget,''
he said ''Now we hope producers and exhibitors will be convinced there
is a future for animation. They will be - if our picture makes
money.''
''The Secret of NIMH'' is based on a Robert C. O'Brien book about
Mrs. Frisby, a resourceful mouse who tries to keep her family together
and seeks help from a number of forest animals, including a
superintelligent cadre of rats.
The animation and effects are top grade, as are the voices: Dom
DeLuise, Elizabeth Hartman, John Carradine, Peter Strauss, Derek
Jacobi, Hermione Baddeley.
Bluth said that he had learned much as leader of his own band of
artists.
''First of all, the value of story,'' he said. ''I bought five or
six how-to books and learned all about plot points and paradigms - the
rise-and-fall action of the story. I also realized that we needed a
comic and a villain. We turned Jeremy the crow into a comedian; the
villain came late, one of the rats.
''The second thing I learned was how to get along with people,''
Bluth said. ''Making an animated feature is not just drawing. It's
dealing with many artistic people who become angry and excited, hold
grudges and need to be convinced to get along with each other. That
part of my job was even harder than the story.''
Bluth provided incentive for cooperation. He cut in all of the
staff - 140 at full production - for a share of the profits.
''They were told, 'This picture is something that you own, too.'
That was reason for them to dig down inside themselves and bring more
to the picture,'' said Bluth.
''The Secret of NIMH'' is a rarity this summer: a G-rated movie.
Most producers seek to avoid the G. Not Bluth.
''Producers believe that the teen-age market requires movies that
are fast, violent, sex or drug oriented,'' he said. ''That puts a real
burden on young people: To be treated as if they have no feelings.
''I'm encouraged by the big business being done by 'E.T.' Steven
Spielberg has put another diet on the plate of teen-age moviegoers, a
movie that is frankly sentimental. I'm hopeful that 'E.T.' will help
make room for other family pictures. Like 'The Secret of NIMH.'''
------------------------------
Date: 26 July 1982 13:05-EDT (Monday)
From: David H. Kaufman <CYPHER.KAUFMAN at MIT-AI>
Subject: Bladerunner
I enjoyed Bladerunner-the-movie, but felt that it did not live up to
Bladerunner-the-book. Actually, the movie pulled from the book the
society and the characters names (but not the characters themselves)
and then went off on its own. The combination of book (read first)
and movie I found interesting - they complement each other without
telling the same story; kind of like reading the book Star Wars only
more so.
Has anybody noticed yet that Harrison Ford can't act? He's always
essentially the same character - luckily for him, the strong man with
a conscience roles are plentiful these days (This is not derogatory; I
rather enjoy the character he always ends up playing, I'm just amused
when I see Han Solo swing through Raiders, etc.). Going off at a
tangent from my tangent, did anybody else keep seeing Star Wars and
Empire antics during Bladerunner? Each time Deckard pulled off an
athletic stunt, I saw Luke or Han doing the same thing a few years ago
. . . .
Right, now I'll leave the poor movie makers alone and ask a simple
question: does anyone know when HitchHiker's Guide Book Three is
coming out? (And for all you who enjoyed the first two, I suggest that
you see if you can get your hands on the records, or tapes of the
radio play: they're kind of the same situation I described above
about storylines. But don't buy the records if you can avoid it -
they have a short life before they begin to fall apart.) Hope I
haven't bored you too much,
Dave Kaufman
------------------------------
Date: 12 Jul 82 2:03-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: flicks
Well, I've caught my two or three movies for the year. Here are some
short reviews for those of you who hate the long ones from the
newswires.
Poltergeist: ***
More of Spielberg's Southern California suburban comedy-drama.
The effects by ILM are excellent. The plot is a bit weak.
Overall, I'd say it's worthwhile once for anyone in the teens
or over. Not recommended for little kids. Very intense in
places.
"Last June, Spielberg paid $60,500 for the balsa wood sled
with 'Rosebud' painted on it, featured with the poignant
last scene of Citizen Kane. He said he wants to hang it over
his desk to remind him of how important quality is in films.
Maybe some day Rosebud will remind him that bigger, louder
schlockier gimmicks, mixed with blood, violence, and ersatz
science, are not enough to make a motion picture memorable."
Martin Gardner, in Discover
E.T.: ** 1/2
More of Spielberg's Southern California suburban
comedy-fantasy. Perhaps a great children's film but tiresome
otherwise. I still think The Black Stallion from 1980
surpasses it and touches adults much better too, not to
mention TBS's more beautiful photography, lyrical hypnotic
island sequences, and haunting score. E.T. is awfully mushy
in places but hysterical in others (school-room). Overall, I'd
say it's worthwhile for any children. Adults might get bored
in places. I did.
"Spielberg sides with the children so wholeheartedly that he
reduces them and their adversaries alike to two-dimensional
characters. Bad guys start chasing good guys, and this film,
racing at the pace of a video game, becomes little more than
a slick thriller. The viewer feels manipulated, as by a
tear-jerker or a sitcom. All special effects stops are pulled
for the climax. Spielberg's technical mastery is indisputable.
If he ever grows up, he has the tools to make a film that is
truly out of this world."
John Stickney, in Discover
Just to give some sense of how I feel about Spielberg, his only movie
that has really impressed me is the TV movie Duel.
------------------------------
Date: 20 Jul 82 18:59:40 EDT (Tue)
From: Steve Bellovin <smb.unc@UDel-Relay>
Subject: E.T.
George Will had an interesting comment about E.T. in the July 19
"Newsweek":
Throughout the movie, [scientists] have been hunting the little
critter, electronically eavesdropping on the house and
generally acting like Watergate understudies.... But what is
bothersome is the animus against science, which is seen as a
morbid calling for callous vivisectionists and other unfeeling
technocrats.... Hostility to science is the
anti-intellectualism of the semi-intellectual.
------------------------------
Date: 18 Jul 1982 2221-EDT
From: James M. Turner <G.JMTURN at MIT-EECS>
Subject: Is film/video going to take over SF
I just saw E.T., and the quality of the film brings up some serious
questions about the viability of written SF. E.T. could very well win
the Oscar if nothing *really* spectacular comes along (co-staring
Jesus as Bob the mailman, or something along those lines.) In a year
when nothing seems to be coming out of the top SF authors but rehashed
plots and characters, the high quality and quantity (Gee Phil, these
things make money...) of SF films acts as a dramatic counter-pointer.
In the past, the inability of the camera to capture what minds could
imagine has restricted the impact the movie industry could make on SF.
But recent improvements in special effects make me wonder if the
written medium may not be inferior. Where is it written in stone that
books must be better than movies. Is this an elitist attitude? 1000
years ago, you didn't have mass market paperbacks. Everyone told
stories. Now the art of story telling is almost gone. Should we lament
the possible passing of written SF, or should we exalt in a new way to
experience the wonders of imagination? I'll leave it to you to
decide...
James
(One in a continuing series of attempts to divert SFL from movie
reviews)
------------------------------
Date: Wednesday, July 28, 1982 4:36AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING! SPOILER WARNING!
The last message in this digest discuss some plot details in the movie
ET: The Extra-Terrestrial. Some readers may not wish to read on.
------------------------------
Date: 14 Jul 1982 1638-PDT
From: First at SUMEX-AIM
Subject: Cardiac Arrest in E.T. - *SPOILER*
Like the rest of the civilized world, I thoroughly enjoyed E.T. but I
strongly question the believability of the medical aspects of the
film. After E.T. is found lying gravely ill on the bathroom floor, he
is hooked up to the mobile Intensive Care Unit while heroic efforts
are being made to keep him alive. He subsequently deteriorates and
has an arrest. The medical accuracy of the resussitative effort was
impeccable--in fact, instead of using actors they incorporated medical
people to go through the motions of reviving E.T.--something which
becomes an automatic action to doctors. It was therefore an excellent
depiction of a real "code" (medical jargon for reviving efforts after
a cardiac arrest) but this was not a human being! The EKG, blood
pressure, drugs used, etc. were particular for human physiology and
anatomy. clearly, E.T. was quite different than humans in more than
appearance--esp. his abilities to heal by touching. Medical
procedures for a code were developed with knowledge of where blood
vessels are, etc. It would be incredibly unlikely that they could
even figure out where to insert IV lines, let alone know which drugs
to use and in what doeses. One could say that the believability
standards in E.T. are lower than in most other SF films because of its
fairy tale tone and the fact that Spielberg has a history of not
playing close attention to such details in his films. But given the
large amount of screen time devoted to the fine details of the
resussitative efforts (including the liberal use of medical jargon),
there should have been more consideration of the unlikliness of the
situation.
--Michael (FIRST @ SUMEX-AIM)
------------------------------
End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************