@RUTGERS.ARPA:TRUDEL@RU-BLUE.ARPA (04/09/85)
From: Jon Trudel <TRUDEL@RU-BLUE.ARPA> >...He >DESTROYS most of them, just in order to kill off the other crewmen! >This is ridiculous! Well, I could go on about this, but I will condense it for my sake. I made a similar argument about Dr Heywood Floyd in 2010 when he shouted "Hurry!" You must realize, as I eventually did, is that people do not react logically in times of extreme crisis. Apparently, Dern's state of mind was NOT sound, since his "livelyhood" was literally going out the door. How would you react of your boss told you you could NEVER use your computer again? Do you think your resulting reaction would be ridiculous? Extreme perhaps, but not ridiculous. (this is a bad analogy, so no flames about it, please) >... He heads out, away from the sun, so >that the plants die off and the stuff in the remaining dome(s?) >freezes... I will not debate the ethics of this move, because there are none. Consider the 20-whateverth century, when there is only a miniscule smattering of plants and animals. Horticulture is virtually non-existant, and there is only one person who takes care of any plants, Dern. He obviously didn't remember everything there is to know about the subject, and had no idea of the consequences of placing the plants far from sunlight. >Also, there wasn't any reason for Earth to order them destroyed. >... and the ships could have orbited endlessly at no cost to Earth. A good answer, but completely wrong. The ships were cargo vessels that were orbitting idly. The decision to destroy the pods was a business move. It was decided that the ships could be better used for what they were designed, and that was to carry cargo to Earth colonies, and I remember seeing the logo of American Airlines on the side of the ship (Valley Forge?). As for a reason, do you think that the shrewd businessman of the 20-whateverth century would tie up several of his most valuable transport ships by having them hold a 'useless' cargo that brings no monetary gains? Not bloody likely! I still maintain that this is one of the best SF films I have seen, and if you don't read in my personal preference qualifier there, too bad. Like Nyssa of Traken, I too cried at the end. (I was young and gullible once...) Jonathan D. Trudel Lemon Curry? -------
rcb@rti-sel.UUCP (Random) (04/11/85)
Make that three that cried at the end of SR. Random Research Triangle Institute ...!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb
leeper@ahutb.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (04/16/85)
Jonathan D. Trudel has some interesting explanations for SILENT RUNNING's problems. I can accept most of his answers. I think he is wrong about the following: >>Also, there wasn't any reason for Earth to order them destroyed. >>... and the ships could have orbited endlessly at no cost to Earth. > >A good answer, but completely wrong. The ships were cargo >vessels that were orbitting idly. The decision to destroy the >pods was a business move. It was decided that the ships could be >better used for what they were designed, and that was to carry >cargo to Earth colonies, and I remember seeing the logo of >American Airlines on the side of the ship (Valley Forge?). As >for a reason, do you think that the shrewd businessman of the >20-whateverth century would tie up several of his most valuable >transport ships by having them hold a 'useless' cargo that brings >no monetary gains? Not bloody likely! > He is implying that the domes cannot operate by themselves without the transport. That makes the ending really sad. You see, Freeman Lowell dies by blowing up the transport that was connected to his dome. The final scene shows the apparently doomed dome floating by itself. If it has a chance to survive, any of the domes could have without the valuable transports. It is just the part that was planned to be blown up -- the domes -- that Freeman seems to think can run by itself perserving the forests. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!ahutb!leeper