slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) (10/11/85)
> >Ah, but this second episode of Amazing Stories deserves more comment in >passing. Such subtle, delicately nuanced characterization, not unlike Steve >Martin playing Hamlet. The striving for consistent moral outlook, full of >the cogent meanings and latent ambiguities but rarely found in authentic >replicas of fortune cookies. Motivations of individuals and relationships >between these individuals and events woven into a tapestry (travesty?) of >cause and effect not seen since Heisenberg first dreamed of an electron >farting. And finally, the science; even I, who am inclined to let minor >points go by for the sake of dramatic or literary license was dumber-struck >at the sheer elan with which Spielberg extended his range of scientific facts >and plausibilities to new, if not outer, limits. > -- Jim Brunet > I did not watch all of the episode in question, since I was cooking dinner at the time. However, I did catch the end. The reason I saw the end was that I was intrigued by the howling and laughter coming from the family room where the rest of the family was gathered around it. So I went in. My husband's father, who hates sf and doesn't laugh that much, was practically rolling on the floor. My husband, who loves sf, and who ordinarily demands strict accordance with scientific fact, or at least coherent logical format from his sf, was doing likewise. My daughter, 12, could not speak--she just pointed to the screen gestured for me to join them. In most sf, I agree with you, things like characterization, scientific accuracy, and so on, are important. But this was a FARCE. Different rules apply. The important thing was that everyone in front of that set had FUN. I think the thing worked--along the lines of "Star Smashers of the Galaxy Rangers." -- Sue Brezden Real World: Room 1B17 Net World: ihnp4!drutx!slb AT&T Information Systems 11900 North Pecos Westminster, Co. 80234 (303)538-3829 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I march to the beat of a different drummer, whose identity, location, and musical ability are as yet unknown. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
jimb@ISM780B.UUCP (10/15/85)
>In most sf, I agree with you, things like characterization, scientific >accuracy, and so on, are important. But this was a FARCE. Different >rules apply. The important thing was that everyone in front of that set >had FUN. I think the thing worked--along the lines of "Star Smashers of the >Galaxy Rangers." > > Sue Brezden Here, we get into the murky ground of artistic intent, of knowing what was in the producer/director's mind. I agree, it was a FARCE. The question is, was it *meant* to be? I don't think so, though I'm willing to listen to arguments supporting that position. My responses are clouded by the perception that for many people, that's all SF is -- a farce. It is this view of SF that gives reasonable ammunition to SF's detractors. I am particularly pained because farce SF -- whether intentional or not -- keeps many people from discovering the GOOD SF -- and while we can all disagree over exactly what the good stuff is, we can probably agree that it's there and that it's not a farce. I particularly object to a farcial treatment of SF on a nationwide TV audience, where many people will form or confirm their ideas about SF. A small, cult movie like STAR CRASH or HARDWARE WARS is one thing; most of the audience has already been converted and will take it as a spoof. Most of the folks out there in TV land don't know any better. Did anybody see the third week? (I didn't.) Can you shed any additional light on this discussion? Did the farce continue? Is it intentional? What is the meaning of 42? Beware the dark side of the farce. -- from the bewildered musings of Jim Brunet decvax!cca!ima!jimb ucbvax!ucla-cs!ism780!jimb ihnp4!vortex!ism780!jimb
slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) (10/21/85)
>>But this was a FARCE. Different rules apply. >> Sue Brezden > >Here, we get into the murky ground of artistic intent, of knowing what was in >the producer/director's mind. I agree, it was a FARCE. The question is, was >it *meant* to be? I don't think so, though I'm willing to listen to >arguments supporting that position. Afraid we'll only know that by asking Spielberg. My contention that it *was* meant to be is backed up by the shear mass of silliness in the thing. Surely even Spielberg knows that aluminum cans aren't attracted by a magnet? And the characters were obvious broad, comical types. Spielberg is not that heavy-handed with characters ordinarily--whatever his other faults. >My responses are clouded by the perception that for many people, that's all >SF is -- a farce. >-- from the bewildered musings of Jim Brunet I find that painful, also. Especially when my mother or father looks at the cover of the book I'm reading and says something like "Still reading that trash?" Sigh. But I also know people who were drawn into SF by such farces. We have to laugh at ourselves--heartily and often. -- Sue Brezden ihnp4!drutx!slb ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I march to the beat of a different drummer, whose identity, location, and musical ability are as yet unknown. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~