Postmaster@bbn-vax (06/01/85)
From: dm@bbn-vax.arpa Someone, in discussing ``the problems of SF'', mentioned the ``poor, misunderstood SF'' syndrome: the critics don't take SF seriously, so they ignore it; and pointed out that it wasn't true anymore--that literary critics DO take a lot of SF seriously. MOVIE Critics, on the other hand... I've seen a number of SF films which I considered quite good (excellent when judged by SF's standards, acceptable when judged by what meager standards of the Filmic Arts I'm able to apply to movies): ``Something Wicked this way comes'' (perhaps the finest portrayal of a novel as a film I have EVER seen), ``Brainstorms'' and ``Dreamscape'' (two movies which, had they been literature, would have been acceptable short stories, and which I think serve as evidence that, in film at least, one word is worth a thousand pictures), ``Android'', which have been panned by the critics, get tiny amounts of promotion, and close in a week. Critics look at these films, and say, ``Oh, this is Science Fiction'', turn off significant parts of their brains, and then write a review that says: ``It wasn't _Star Wars_'' (meaning, it wasn't ``good'' by the same measure of ``good'' that one applies to conclude that _Star Wars_ was Real Good). The films don't get any promotion to speak of, and aren't around long enough (at least here in Boston) for word-of-mouth to do them any good, so they vanish from the face of the earth. Result: good SF movies lose out to _Star Wars_ clones, where special effects substitute for ideas.