@RUTGERS.ARPA:DINGMAN@RADC-TOPS20.ARPA (05/02/85)
From: DINGMAN@RADC-TOPS20.ARPA
After reading this digest for about a year and a half, I have to say
I'm upset with the way most everyone complains about SF movies. Most
comments about SF books are neutral to good, while most comments about
SF movies are neutral to negative. Very few good, supporting
statements are made. Now you must remember that writing allows
much more freedom of expression than does movie making. I feel that
given the restrictions of time, money, available actors (with talent)
and politics (which eventually enter any large project) what we see
is not too bad. Comments I've seen are about like this:
WIZARDS: Generally poor
LORD OF THE RINGS: Awful
2010: Fair, but criticized heavily on details
SILENT RUNNING: Some support, but mostly criticized
for lack of a 'realistic' plot & ending
STAR WARS: Not taken serously
DUNE: Horrible adaptation (I might even agree here)
And so on...
My point is that I don't blame the movie industry for not putting
its heart and soul into SF. No matter what they try, it gets
torn apart by SF 'fans'. Nothing is good enough, nothing is acceptable.
Well I enjoy seeing a new SF movie, if it is a serious attempt to do
well, even if it falls short. We see *so* little of it. WIZARDS
was enjoyable, LotR was entertaining, and 2010 was far better than
watching the The Love Boat.
I'm not saying films shouldn't be criticized. If they weren't
nothing would improve. But the impression from this digest is,
"Nothing is good enough for us. You do your best and we'll pick
it to death somehow." Many of the criticisms I've seen are really
ridiculous. If I was a movie producer and read this digest, I
wouldn't even attempt SF. I'd get Jacqueline Bisset, put her in
a T-shirt, and be assured to make money without anyone noticing the
plot (or lack of).
I'd like to see more constructive comments; remove the clothespins
from your noses and point out the good parts, the creative and
original ideas, the novel approaches. Don't be in such a hurry
to jump on the bandwagon of critics that recognition is forgotten.
Support for what the industry does right may create more progress
and generate more creative ideas than continuous, boring and tiresome
criticisms.
Comments, anyone?
-- jd "Why me?" "Because it might be boobytrapped."
-------barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (05/09/85)
> After reading this digest for about a year and a half, I have to say >I'm upset with the way most everyone complains about SF movies. Most >comments about SF books are neutral to good, while most comments about >SF movies are neutral to negative. Very few good, supporting >statements are made. Now you must remember that writing allows >much more freedom of expression than does movie making. I feel that >given the restrictions of time, money, available actors (with talent) >and politics (which eventually enter any large project) what we see >is not too bad. Well, I partly agree with you. I've certainly been guilty of potshots at movies I dislike on this net, perhaps more often than I've put in a kind word for those movies I like. It's easier to pan than praise, I think. Still, I must take partial exception to your comments. There are a number of people on the net who are kind enough to take the trouble to do very good reviews of SF movies, reviews that are thorough, well- written, and fair. We may not always agree with these reviewers' opinions, but they always explain their opinions, and I end up feeling better- informed about the films even when I don't agree with the conclusions. The Leepers (Mark and Evelyn) and Peter Reiher, as well as some other worthy critics whose names escape me (sorry) deserve our thanks for their efforts, and they have mine. I also think you give the filmmakers too much slack. Sure, there are many difficulties encountered in making good films, but it remains true that many SF films come out badly because they're just bad art. Many are made for the quick buck, many are made by people who are quite ignorant of science fiction, but too arrogant or unconcerned to find out about it before making their sci-fi trash. Look at many of the SF films of recent years: SF is popular these days, and a lot of these films had the necessary time, money and talent to be good. Even so, not all of them were. Consider DUNE; consider THE BLACK HOLE; consider how often Hollywood has chosen the good old remake, when there are dozens of classic SF novels crying to be made into films. I don't think all the abysmal failures can be written off as due to the inevitable difficulties of filmmaking. The fact is, too many producers neither know nor care what makes a good film. Their only concern is to make sure-fire box-office winners, and their shortcomings as artists are often most apparent with SF films, because they see SF as a trash genre, mostly for the kiddies and teens. > My point is that I don't blame the movie industry for not putting >its heart and soul into SF. No matter what they try, it gets >torn apart by SF 'fans'. Nothing is good enough, nothing is acceptable. No, not really true. An example: STAR WARS was at first seen by Fox as middle-weight Summer fare which would at best turn a small profit. It originally had a small promotional budget, and opened at minor locations. It was only because Lucas had Charlie Lippincott running around to all the SF cons for a year before it opened that the movie took off as it did, in my opinion. SF fans were waiting for that film with their mouths watering because of the presentations at the cons, and this was why the lines ran around the block when the film quietly opened. It was only after the studios saw this initial enthusiastic reception that the film was given a big "premiere" at the Chinese, and a big promo budget. Most SF fans *like* STAR WARS, a *lot* (Ellison notwithstanding), and while we would also like to see some more serious SF films, we're willing to recognize quality when we see it. >If I was a movie producer and read this digest, I >wouldn't even attempt SF. I'd get Jacqueline Bisset, put her in >a T-shirt, and be assured to make money without anyone noticing the >plot (or lack of). What I find truly ironic is that many of the producer's "sure- fire" formula films actually bite the big one at the BO. If these potboilers really *were* guaranteed money-makers, I'd be a little more inclined to excuse the low level of artistry that too often characterizes Hollywood films. But since this is not so, I'll still maintain that the major problem is that many producers are Philistines, and too stupid to even realize that. They think the average moviegoer has as little taste as they do, but that's not (quite) true. > I'd like to see more constructive comments; remove the clothespins >from your noses and point out the good parts, the creative and >original ideas, the novel approaches. Don't be in such a hurry >to jump on the bandwagon of critics that recognition is forgotten. >Support for what the industry does right may create more progress >and generate more creative ideas than continuous, boring and tiresome >criticisms. Partly true; mea culpa. But part of encouraging better films is also not to let them get away with junk and sloppy seconds. If we're not willing to call a spade a dirty old shovel, how will the schlockmeisters ever realize we're not satisfied with garbage? - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
@RUTGERS.ARPA:DINGMAN@RADC-TOPS20.ARPA (05/10/85)
From: DINGMAN@RADC-TOPS20.ARPA > From Mark Leeper: > > I know I am not the only person that this is aimed at, but I am >probably one. You're right...but I do consider your reviews to be more accurate and fair than most. They seem to show some thought and analysis behind them, rather than just a first impression being popped out. The targets of my criticism were primarily those who watch a movie and on the following day make comments like "Boy, that wasn't how I would have done it." (in the case of a book adaptation), or "Gees, nobody would wear a space suit like that." These kind of comments are generally opinions (preconceived usually) on how that person would have presented an idea. It doesn't say much about the quality of the movie. That is unless the movie does something gross like forget about space being a vacuum. What REALLY gets me, though, is when one person expresses an opinion like the above, then bunches of people start in on the movie with similiar remarks. This gets dragged out into long discussions that, after a few days, makes the movie sound like it didn't do anything right. As Alastair Milne pointed out, people who disagree then become afraid of speaking out for fear of looking gullible or basically stupid. Well I'm gullible *and* basically stupid, so I wanted to get a message to those who sit by in silent disagreement to come out of the closet and DON'T be afraid to point out the GOOD things. At the same time, the critics shouldn't be so closeminded as to expect a movie to be the same as their interpretation, and upset if it isn't. And don't send extended flames about things that are a) trivial or b) nonessential to the storyline. So that's what I intended in my original message. You're right Mark, I wasn't entirely right. Some of my comments were exagerations. All of this has brought up another item of interest. When a movie is adapted from a book, how obligated is the movie to follow the story? With the kinds of restrictions I mentioned in my last message, a direct correlation of story elements is usually impossible. What if the author of the screenplay believes the story can be improved with some plot (or character) changes? Should it be done? How much? --jd -------
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (05/12/85)
>> I know I am not the only person that this is aimed at, but I am >>probably one. > >You're right...but I do consider your reviews to be more accurate >and fair than most. They seem to show some thought and analysis >behind them, rather than just a first impression being popped >out. Thank you. As for your statements about the endless arguments about technical details, I find them frustrating at times. Some technical details about space, for example, are fairly well established. Others are still in some doubt. It is clear that you should not hear the spacecraft go by in STAR WARS, but as to whether aero-braking would work in Jupiter's atmosphere, I suspect that nobody is really certain at this point. There may be technical problems with it. It is still a new idea. I don't think that it is really necessary to require science fiction film makers to be right on top of the latest technology. If they make a film consistant with science as she was understood five years earlier, that is fine with me. I have little patience for the people who think that 2010 was technically all fouled up, but who think that Thomas Disch's ON WINGS OF SONG -- in which people fly by singing -- is acceptable as science fiction. Oddly enough, I often think that cinematic science fiction must meet harsher standards than its literary counterpart. >All of this has brought up another item of interest. When a >movie is adapted from a book, how obligated is the movie to >follow the story? With the kinds of restrictions I mentioned in >my last message, a direct correlation of story elements is >usually impossible. What if the author of the screenplay >believes the story can be improved with some plot (or character) >changes? Should it be done? How much? A filmmaker's first loyalty should be to make a good film. His second should be to be faithful to the source where it does not come into conflict with the first. If it does come into conflict in any but minor ways, perhaps the source material for the film was poorly chosen. More than likely, the source was chosen for its box-office appeal, not because it would make a good film. Now rare if the film that breaks this rule. VICTOR FRANKENSTEIN/TERROR OF FRANKENSTEIN, for example is a dull film. It is only notable because it is the only Frankenstein film that is faithful to the book. But the book was not written to make a good film and it is the wrong book to choose if you really are concerned about being faithful to the source. BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN is a much better film. Actually this is all academic. A filmmakers first loyalty is to his backers. He has to make a film that people want to see and that does not cost too much too make. That is the reason for most revisions. (Unless you have a David Lynch or a Ken Russell. They want to throw in weird images in the name of art. Funny how in this field, directing films, the best people are the craftsmen, not the artists. But then that probably reflects my own prejudices.) Also, occasionally the filmmaker wants to make a faithful adaptation but does not have the rights to the story. Sound far-fetched? They are adapting the film but don't have the rights to do the story? Ian Fleming sold only a few of his novels to the films but he sold all of the titles. That is why the James Bond films soured after THUNDERBALL. Little of this really answers your question, I know. I guess I would just repeat that first and foremost a film should be enjoyable and then be as close to its sources as possible. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (05/14/85)
I know I am not the only person that this is aimed at, but I am probably one. So I will speak for myself only. >After reading this digest for about a year and a half, I >have to say I'm upset with the way most everyone complains >about SF movies. Most comments about SF books are neutral >to good, while most comments about SF movies are neutral to >negative. I have been accused of the converse. >Very few good, supporting statements are made. That may be the period you have been looking at. BRAINSTORM was a good thoughtful science fiction film, but that was a while back. The film of 1984 was pretty good, but it was a depressing experience. It is not the kind of film that gets a big following (though BLADERUNNER seems to break this rule). >Now you must remember that writing allows much more freedom >of expression than does movie making. I feel that given the >restrictions of time, money, available actors (with talent) >and politics (which eventually enter any large project) what >we see is not too bad. Good low-budget science fiction films are rare, but good filmmakers do occasionally come up wit a good concept that doesn't need effects. UNEARTHLY STRANGER is certainly in the top 10% of science fiction films, yet it is just actors in front of a camera. No special effects required. In fairness, it also seems to have disappeared. Audiences want to see more than actors in front of a camera for some reason. > My point is that I don't blame the movie industry for not putting >its heart and soul into SF. No matter what they try, it >gets torn apart by SF 'fans'. And it makes big money at the box-office. Look how many more big budget science fiction films are made now than were made a decade ago. That does not argue that people who review these films shouldn't be fair to them, but don't exaggerate the credence that filmmakers give to the opinions of science fiction fans. I call them as I see them so I gave a +2 (on the -4 to +4 scale) to DUNE. That is hardly tearing apart a film that was to say the least flawed. I think many of the people on the net, like me, will rate a film high if it has something good in it, regardless if it also has bad touches. >Nothing is good enough, nothing is acceptable. I think that science fiction fans are considerably less harsh on science fiction films than are mainstream critics. Be fair, a good proportion of fantasy films get good reviews on the net. LADYHAWKE has gotten some real raves on the net. I don't think that science fiction films do worse than fantasy as a whole, but it is harder to discuss if the curse makes sense in LADYHAWKE than it does to discuss the ecology of SILENT RUNNING. >Well I enjoy seeing a new SF movie, So do I. Perhaps even a bit more than you do. >if it is a serious attempt to do well, even if it falls >short. We see *so* little of it. WIZARDS was enjoyable, >LotR was entertaining, and 2010 was far better than watching >the The Love Boat. I agree on two out of three, and did so in my original reviews. (I find a little hypocrisy in the story of WIZARDS.) > I'm not saying films shouldn't be criticized. If they weren't >nothing would improve. But the impression from this digest >is, "Nothing is good enough for us. You do your best and >we'll pick it to death somehow." That is not my observation. >Many of the criticisms >I've seen are really ridiculous. If I was a movie producer >and read this digest, I wouldn't even attempt SF. Oh yes you would! You would count the number of people commenting on the films and multiply by $4.50. I don't see anyone on the net saying that this or that film has soured them on going to see science fiction films. >I'd get >Jacqueline Bisset, put her in a T-shirt, and be assured to >make money without anyone noticing the plot (or lack of). Very seriously, I read Variety and that sort of film does not hit the top of the charts the way a science fiction film does. Of course, films like POLICE ACADEMY II do well too, and require a lot less thought, but they require a funny script, and that is a real gamble too. PA-II and LADYHAWKE are currently at the top of the charts. The latter is a well-made fantasy film and it is being paid off accordingly. > I'd like to see more constructive comments; remove the clothespins >from your noses and point out the good parts, the creative >and original ideas, the novel approaches. I think I try to, but it is good advice, nonetheless. >Don't be in such >a hurry to jump on the bandwagon of critics that recognition >is forgotten. Support for what the industry does right may >create more progress and generate more creative ideas than >continuous, boring and tiresome criticisms. Most of who I consider the better critics on the net have a fair share of positive reviews and do try to write the kind of review you want. Peter Reiher is my personal choice for the best of us and he certainly does. (But then he says so much in a film to talk about, some of it would have to be good.) I don't think you are entirely wrong, but I don't think you are entirely right either. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
York@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA (05/20/85)
From: William M. York <York@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Date: 9 May 85 19:03:45 GMT
From: ames!barry@topaz.arpa (Kenn Barry)
No, not really true. An example: STAR WARS was at first seen
by Fox as middle-weight Summer fare which would at best turn a small
profit. It originally had a small promotional budget, and opened at
minor locations. It was only because Lucas had Charlie Lippincott
running around to all the SF cons for a year before it opened that
the movie took off as it did, in my opinion. SF fans were waiting
for that film with their mouths watering because of the
presentations at the cons, and this was why the lines ran around the
block when the film quietly opened. It was only after the studios
saw this initial enthusiastic reception that the film was given a
big "premiere" at the Chinese, and a big promo budget.
You may consider this picking nits, but Star Wars didn't exactly open
"quietly". If I remember correctly, the preceeding week's issue of Time
magazine featured an article about Star Wars as the cover story, and in
the article they claimed that Star Wars would be the best movie of the
year (a strong prediction for May).