sf-lovers (07/26/82)
>From JPM@MIT-AI Sun Jul 25 21:07:08 1982
SF-LOVERS Digest Wednesday, 21 Jul 1982 Volume 6 : Issue 21
Today's Topics:
Administrivia - Transmission Procedures,
SF Books - The Restaurant at the End of the Universe,
SF Movies - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan &
The Thing & Blade Runner, Random Topics - Violence in Movies,
Spoiler - Blade Runner
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Friday, July 23, 1982 6:02AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS-REQUEST at MIT-AI
Subject: Transmission Procedures
One of the machines in the transmission path of the digest went down
for an extensive period of time the middle of this week. This
resulted in the queuing of the Tuesday digest, issue 20, for an
excessive period of time, and thus late delivery. All subsequent
issues were yanked until this problem was resolved, and thus the
digests will be slightly out of sinq for a bit.
We have now changed our transmission path and procedures. We are now
transmitting from SRI-CSL. We may encounter some slight transmission
difficulties until things get up to steam, so please bear with us.
The mailbox for submissions to the digest remains SF-LOVERS@MIT-AI,
and that for administrative requests SF-LOVERS-REQUEST@MIT-Ai.
Happy reading,
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 7 Jul 1982 at 1034-CDT
From: ables at UTEXAS-11 (King Ables)
Subject: ramblings
RE: Someone's complaint that STII was just like another episode:
That's *exactly* why it's so good! That's why the first one was a flop.
I liked the first one, but it's because I'm such a die-hard Trekkie (I
hate that name but at least people know what I'm talking about when I
use it). I can see why the first one didn't go over well. The second
one returns to the atmosphere of the show. Kirk is in top form. The
conflict/friendship between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy is at its best.
RE: Steve Gutfreund's comments about Bladerunner finally bringing SF
to the silver screen:
I though Bladerunner was good, not great, but good. The effects were
stunning. The story was slow in places, but over all very interesting.
It made me think. I agree this is "real" SF which makes it unique in
the light of SW, ST, etc. I like science fiction a lot but am not as
obsessed by general SF as I am by ST, SW, and a few others. I am not
"into" SF as much as I'm sure many of you are. Those that are will
love Bladerunner. Those that just like the flashy, easy to under-
stand stories, may not like it as much. My little sister, who has of
late become a SW/Harrison Ford freak, went to Bladerunner sure she
would love it. She came back unsure of what even went on (she's not a
Sci-Fi person). I think this made her realize that SF is more than
just SW and TREK! It was really rather humorous.
Finally read the second Hitchhiker's book "The Restaurant at the End
of the Universe." Didn't seem as continually funny as the first one,
but still a good book. The last few chapters made it worth it.
Looking forward to the third and final part "Life, the Universe, and
Everything."
Sorry for blabbering to excess.
King
------------------------------
Date: 30-Jun-82 10:28AM-EDT (Wed)
From: David Miller <Miller at YALE>
Subject: The Thing and Bladerunner
Yesterday I saw both "The Thing" and "Bladerunner" with only a six
hour break between the films. They are slightly different versions of
the same basic idea, and therefore their reviews are somewhat merged.
pico review: (Thing) Worth the price of a matinee ticket.
(BR) Well done, worth full price at least once.
micro review: (Thing) A must see for John Carpenter fans, horror fans,
and John W Cambell fans. A reasonably accurate
version of "Who Goes There" with some creative
goo and gore added, mostly in good taste.
(BR) Visually incredible! the score by Vangelis is
superb. Harrison Ford is typical Ford, and very
good for his role. Done in the style of the old
detective films --with narration (a style I've
not seen (with the exception of "Dead Men Don't
Wear Plaid") for many years.
macro review: Both these films deal with enemies in human form, and
one man's story of how he hunts them down. In both
films, who is human and who is not gets sufficiently
confused to cause the hero to go through considerable
mental anguish. The difference in the films is that
in the "Thing" the enemy is EVIL and must be
destroyed, in "Bladerunner" there is no reason to
destroy the enemy except that that is the hero's job,
and like many Vietnam Vet, he starts to question on
whether or not it is the right thing to do.
"The Thing" is pure entertainment, the only message in
the movie is not to let strange dogs bite you.
"Bladerunner" has got more to it, without the plot it
is an interesting study of a possible future Earth,
inhabited by the poor and unskilled who could not make
it to one of the off world colonies. It also shows the
wisdom of Asimov's three laws, and how even with them
a severe moral question still remains.
The main problem with "Bladerunner" is the lack of
development of Ford with the female lead. The
relationship between the two is not sufficiently
developed to add anything to the plot, in fact you
will probably forget she exists during the last half
of the movie. The lack of a believable relationship
makes the very end of the movie quite corny, and
almost spoils the mood that was carefully built up for
the first two hours.
"The Thing" has no weaknesses. It is exactly what it
says it is a SF action horror film in the style of
"Alien", though I feel better done, and with fewer
logical flaws.
Both films are worth seeing, though a certain
fascination with the grotesque will greatly aid your
appreciation of "The Thing."
Dave
(miller@yale)
------------------------------
Date: 8 Jul 1982 13:21 CDT
From: Johnston.DLOS at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Blade Runner -- SF-LOVERS Digest V6 #8
I am amazed at the number of people who seem to feel that SF should
present us with potential problems to be solved before the physical
reality is here. I saw Blade Runner and thought it stank, even before
reading any reviews. Science Fiction has always been a form of
ENTERTAINMENT for me, not food for thought. If I want to think deep
thoughts about miserable conditions, I'll read Solzhienitzen (sp?).
That's all he writes. This is the same reason I got tired of
Heinlein. All his books espouse his philosophy. I feel there are
better settings for that than SF. Blade Runner was just depressing.
We are provided with accelerated technology which has only brought the
Earth to ruin. The ecology is totally destroyed, no buildings in the
entire city are maintained (except the headquarters of the big
corporation which caused the problem in the first place), and it's
never even light. I find nothing entertaining in this. But then,
some people found "Looking for Mr. Goodbar" entertaining. No arguing
taste, right?
Rick
------------------------------
Date: 12-Jul-82 10:37AM-EDT (Mon)
From: David Miller <Miller at YALE>
Subject: Bladerunner and violence in movies
It disturbs me somewhat to see all the official horror at the
"violence" in movies such as BLADERUNNER. Those critics that
complained about such graphic scenes as fingers being snapped and
heads being crushed should go see the film again. There are NO such
scenes in the movie. It is all left up to the viewers imagination,
aided by some good sound effects, and some leading glimpses. Oh the
tone of BLADERUNNER is very violent, but I thought that was the idea
of the film: whether or not a being deserved the common courtesy of
humanity, or whether they should be treated like a toy to be broken
and thrown away just because they are not quite natural.
The uproar over this film reminds me quite a bit of that which came
over the film ROLLERBALL, another film that seems very violent, but
which really just manipulates the viewers imagination extremely well.
I thought the link of violence in film to that of real life was when
it was glorified and made to look not at all unpleasant -- as in the
police movies of a few years ago. In BLADERUNNER and ROLLERBALL
violence was made to look painful, sick, and not at all pleasant both
for the person the act was upon, and the person doing the act. I
suspect bladerunner will not inspire anyone to run out in the street
and start shooting replicants, it made the whole thing look quite
unpleasant.
Dave
(miller@yale)
------------------------------
Date: 13 Jul 1982 2224-EDT
From: Joseph A. Frisbie <JAF at MIT-EECS>
Subject: Bladerunner
My first impression of bladerunner was that it was bit too
violent. Real life does indeed include violence, but should we derive
entertainment from it? I don't object to having violence as part of a
movie, but I do object to it being highlighted.
Bladerunner is one of the few SF movies that addresses a
social question, and will undoubtedly be talked about for a while. I
felt however, that there were a few fundamental problems with the
premise. If the citizens felt replicants were enough of a problem to
outlaw them on earth, and set special task forces to handle it,
(expensive and LA didn't seem to be prospering) why didn't they just
outlaw the human form for robots?
Also, if they were outlawed on earth, why were they designed
there? Earth is ambiguous also, if only the dregs of humanity are
left, why would the replicants head out there? and even if they did,
who would care? And if the replicants are dangerous, why not ban them
from where the elite live.
I would hesitate to call it the Maltese Falcon of SF because
Drekard only found one replicant by detective work (snake dancer),
although it was apparent they were trying for a Sam Spade character.
Overall, it was fast moving, and entertaining, and I would
recommend seeing it at least once, anyway.
Joe
------------------------------
Date: 13 Jul 1982 08:22:48-PDT
From: CSVAX.upstill at Berkeley
Subject: Blade Runner
The latest issue of American Cinematographer includes two pieces on
the making of Blade Runner, one focussing on the futuristic design of
the film and the other on the optical effects. Both make very
interesting reading.
Of particular interest is the end of the effects piece. Somebody
from Trumbull's team (Richard Yuricich?) says that they showed a
goodly amount of the effects footage one day to PKDick before he died.
How did he react? He was apparently blown away. He said they had
uncannily captured exactly what was in his head when he wrote the book
(to be taken with a grain of salt, of course, since this is not
subject to verification).
Steve
------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 15 Jul 1982 08:54-PDT
Subject: Blade Runner anachronism (non-spoiler)
From: jim at RAND-UNIX
Deckard has an obvious smallpox vaccination mark.
------------------------------
Date: Friday, July 23, 1982 6:02AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING! SPOILER WARNING!
The last message in this digest discusses some plot details in the
movie Blade Runner. Some readers may not wish to read on.
------------------------------
Date: 17 Jul 82 17:08-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: Bladerunner and The Bradbury
SPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILER
SPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILER
SPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILER
SPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILER
SPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILER
SPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILER
SPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILER
SPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILER
SPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILER
SPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILER
SPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILER
Did anyone notice that the hotel in Bladerunner where Ford nails some
replicants is the same one in which the Outer Limits episode 'Demon
With a Glass Hand' (by Harlan Ellison) was also filmed where Trent
(Bob Culp) battles with the aliens? It's called the Bradbury and is
actually located in Los Angeles as in the movie. I wonder if Ridley
Scott saw the Outer Limits episode.
Another micro-review of Bladerunner: great production values and
effects by Trumbull, awful dialogue and meager acting; however, it is
a refreshing change from the syrupy universes in the Spielberg/Lucas
movies.
------------------------------
End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************sf-lovers (07/26/82)
>From JPM@MIT-AI Mon Jul 26 04:53:33 1982
SF-LOVERS Digest Wednesday, 21 Jul 1982 Volume 6 : Issue 21
Today's Topics:
Administrivia - Transmission Procedures,
SF Books - The Restaurant at the End of the Universe,
SF Movies - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan &
The Thing & Blade Runner, Random Topics - Violence in Movies,
Spoiler - Blade Runner
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Friday, July 23, 1982 6:02AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS-REQUEST at MIT-AI
Subject: Transmission Procedures
One of the machines in the transmission path of the digest went down
for an extensive period of time the middle of this week. This
resulted in the queuing of the Tuesday digest, issue 20, for an
excessive period of time, and thus late delivery. All subsequent
issues were yanked until this problem was resolved, and thus the
digests will be slightly out of sinq for a bit.
We have now changed our transmission path and procedures. We are now
transmitting from SRI-CSL. We may encounter some slight transmission
difficulties until things get up to steam, so please bear with us.
The mailbox for submissions to the digest remains SF-LOVERS@MIT-AI,
and that for administrative requests SF-LOVERS-REQUEST@MIT-Ai.
Happy reading,
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 7 Jul 1982 at 1034-CDT
From: ables at UTEXAS-11 (King Ables)
Subject: ramblings
RE: Someone's complaint that STII was just like another episode:
That's *exactly* why it's so good! That's why the first one was a flop.
I liked the first one, but it's because I'm such a die-hard Trekkie (I
hate that name but at least people know what I'm talking about when I
use it). I can see why the first one didn't go over well. The second
one returns to the atmosphere of the show. Kirk is in top form. The
conflict/friendship between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy is at its best.
RE: Steve Gutfreund's comments about Bladerunner finally bringing SF
to the silver screen:
I though Bladerunner was good, not great, but good. The effects were
stunning. The story was slow in places, but over all very interesting.
It made me think. I agree this is "real" SF which makes it unique in
the light of SW, ST, etc. I like science fiction a lot but am not as
obsessed by general SF as I am by ST, SW, and a few others. I am not
"into" SF as much as I'm sure many of you are. Those that are will
love Bladerunner. Those that just like the flashy, easy to under-
stand stories, may not like it as much. My little sister, who has of
late become a SW/Harrison Ford freak, went to Bladerunner sure she
would love it. She came back unsure of what even went on (she's not a
Sci-Fi person). I think this made her realize that SF is more than
just SW and TREK! It was really rather humorous.
Finally read the second Hitchhiker's book "The Restaurant at the End
of the Universe." Didn't seem as continually funny as the first one,
but still a good book. The last few chapters made it worth it.
Looking forward to the third and final part "Life, the Universe, and
Everything."
Sorry for blabbering to excess.
King
------------------------------
Date: 30-Jun-82 10:28AM-EDT (Wed)
From: David Miller <Miller at YALE>
Subject: The Thing and Bladerunner
Yesterday I saw both "The Thing" and "Bladerunner" with only a six
hour break between the films. They are slightly different versions of
the same basic idea, and therefore their reviews are somewhat merged.
pico review: (Thing) Worth the price of a matinee ticket.
(BR) Well done, worth full price at least once.
micro review: (Thing) A must see for John Carpenter fans, horror fans,
and John W Cambell fans. A reasonably accurate
version of "Who Goes There" with some creative
goo and gore added, mostly in good taste.
(BR) Visually incredible! the score by Vangelis is
superb. Harrison Ford is typical Ford, and very
good for his role. Done in the style of the old
detective films --with narration (a style I've
not seen (with the exception of "Dead Men Don't
Wear Plaid") for many years.
macro review: Both these films deal with enemies in human form, and
one man's story of how he hunts them down. In both
films, who is human and who is not gets sufficiently
confused to cause the hero to go through considerable
mental anguish. The difference in the films is that
in the "Thing" the enemy is EVIL and must be
destroyed, in "Bladerunner" there is no reason to
destroy the enemy except that that is the hero's job,
and like many Vietnam Vet, he starts to question on
whether or not it is the right thing to do.
"The Thing" is pure entertainment, the only message in
the movie is not to let strange dogs bite you.
"Bladerunner" has got more to it, without the plot it
is an interesting study of a possible future Earth,
inhabited by the poor and unskilled who could not make
it to one of the off world colonies. It also shows the
wisdom of Asimov's three laws, and how even with them
a severe moral question still remains.
The main problem with "Bladerunner" is the lack of
development of Ford with the female lead. The
relationship between the two is not sufficiently
developed to add anything to the plot, in fact you
will probably forget she exists during the last half
of the movie. The lack of a believable relationship
makes the very end of the movie quite corny, and
almost spoils the mood that was carefully built up for
the first two hours.
"The Thing" has no weaknesses. It is exactly what it
says it is a SF action horror film in the style of
"Alien", though I feel better done, and with fewer
logical flaws.
Both films are worth seeing, though a certain
fascination with the grotesque will greatly aid your
appreciation of "The Thing."
Dave
(miller@yale)
------------------------------
Date: 8 Jul 1982 13:21 CDT
From: Johnston.DLOS at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Blade Runner -- SF-LOVERS Digest V6 #8
I am amazed at the number of people who seem to feel that SF should
present us with potential problems to be solved before the physical
reality is here. I saw Blade Runner and thought it stank, even before
reading any reviews. Science Fiction has always been a form of
ENTERTAINMENT for me, not food for thought. If I want to think deep
thoughts about miserable conditions, I'll read Solzhienitzen (sp?).
That's all he writes. This is the same reason I got tired of
Heinlein. All his books espouse his philosophy. I feel there are
better settings for that than SF. Blade Runner was just depressing.
We are provided with accelerated technology which has only brought the
Earth to ruin. The ecology is totally destroyed, no buildings in the
entire city are maintained (except the headquarters of the big
corporation which caused the problem in the first place), and it's
never even light. I find nothing entertaining in this. But then,
some people found "Looking for Mr. Goodbar" entertaining. No arguing
taste, right?
Rick
------------------------------
Date: 12-Jul-82 10:37AM-EDT (Mon)
From: David Miller <Miller at YALE>
Subject: Bladerunner and violence in movies
It disturbs me somewhat to see all the official horror at the
"violence" in movies such as BLADERUNNER. Those critics that
complained about such graphic scenes as fingers being snapped and
heads being crushed should go see the film again. There are NO such
scenes in the movie. It is all left up to the viewers imagination,
aided by some good sound effects, and some leading glimpses. Oh the
tone of BLADERUNNER is very violent, but I thought that was the idea
of the film: whether or not a being deserved the common courtesy of
humanity, or whether they should be treated like a toy to be broken
and thrown away just because they are not quite natural.
The uproar over this film reminds me quite a bit of that which came
over the film ROLLERBALL, another film that seems very violent, but
which really just manipulates the viewers imagination extremely well.
I thought the link of violence in film to that of real life was when
it was glorified and made to look not at all unpleasant -- as in the
police movies of a few years ago. In BLADERUNNER and ROLLERBALL
violence was made to look painful, sick, and not at all pleasant both
for the person the act was upon, and the person doing the act. I
suspect bladerunner will not inspire anyone to run out in the street
and start shooting replicants, it made the whole thing look quite
unpleasant.
Dave
(miller@yale)
------------------------------
Date: 13 Jul 1982 2224-EDT
From: Joseph A. Frisbie <JAF at MIT-EECS>
Subject: Bladerunner
My first impression of bladerunner was that it was bit too
violent. Real life does indeed include violence, but should we derive
entertainment from it? I don't object to having violence as part of a
movie, but I do object to it being highlighted.
Bladerunner is one of the few SF movies that addresses a
social question, and will undoubtedly be talked about for a while. I
felt however, that there were a few fundamental problems with the
premise. If the citizens felt replicants were enough of a problem to
outlaw them on earth, and set special task forces to handle it,
(expensive and LA didn't seem to be prospering) why didn't they just
outlaw the human form for robots?
Also, if they were outlawed on earth, why were they designed
there? Earth is ambiguous also, if only the dregs of humanity are
left, why would the replicants head out there? and even if they did,
who would care? And if the replicants are dangerous, why not ban them
from where the elite live.
I would hesitate to call it the Maltese Falcon of SF because
Drekard only found one replicant by detective work (snake dancer),
although it was apparent they were trying for a Sam Spade character.
Overall, it was fast moving, and entertaining, and I would
recommend seeing it at least once, anyway.
Joe
------------------------------
Date: 13 Jul 1982 08:22:48-PDT
From: CSVAX.upstill at Berkeley
Subject: Blade Runner
The latest issue of American Cinematographer includes two pieces on
the making of Blade Runner, one focussing on the futuristic design of
the film and the other on the optical effects. Both make very
interesting reading.
Of particular interest is the end of the effects piece. Somebody
from Trumbull's team (Richard Yuricich?) says that they showed a
goodly amount of the effects footage one day to PKDick before he died.
How did he react? He was apparently blown away. He said they had
uncannily captured exactly what was in his head when he wrote the book
(to be taken with a grain of salt, of course, since this is not
subject to verification).
Steve
------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 15 Jul 1982 08:54-PDT
Subject: Blade Runner anachronism (non-spoiler)
From: jim at RAND-UNIX
Deckard has an obvious smallpox vaccination mark.
------------------------------
Date: Friday, July 23, 1982 6:02AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING! SPOILER WARNING!
The last message in this digest discusses some plot details in the
movie Blade Runner. Some readers may not wish to read on.
------------------------------
Date: 17 Jul 82 17:08-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: Bladerunner and The Bradbury
SPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILER
SPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILER
SPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILER
SPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILER
SPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILER
SPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILER
SPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILER
SPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILER
SPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILER
SPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILER
SPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILER
Did anyone notice that the hotel in Bladerunner where Ford nails some
replicants is the same one in which the Outer Limits episode 'Demon
With a Glass Hand' (by Harlan Ellison) was also filmed where Trent
(Bob Culp) battles with the aliens? It's called the Bradbury and is
actually located in Los Angeles as in the movie. I wonder if Ridley
Scott saw the Outer Limits episode.
Another micro-review of Bladerunner: great production values and
effects by Trumbull, awful dialogue and meager acting; however, it is
a refreshing change from the syrupy universes in the Spielberg/Lucas
movies.
------------------------------
End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************