@RUTGERS.ARPA:TRUDEL@RU-BLUE.ARPA (04/03/85)
From: Jon Trudel <TRUDEL@RU-BLUE.ARPA> >.......................If anyone remembers this was a film about >Spaceships that had been sent into space with a sampling of earths >plant life to preserve it from the destruction of a war then being >waged on earth. >..... (No Spoiler)..... The film was indeed Silent Running. It was made at a time when ecology was becoming a national/international issue. The ships were not preserving the plant life, but rather holding it until the Earth decided what to do with it. The Earth's population had grown to such a size that all plant and animal life had to be removed to make way for the people. Humans were in complete control of the environment and its 'resources'. Bruce Dern was one of the astronauts assigned to babysit pods which hold the plants and animals. He is the only one who still cares for the flora and fauna, when the time comes for them to be eliminated...(no spoiler here either)... I too think this is one of the better SF-Films, albeit with the ecological motif. The scientific material was well handled by the production staff, which I think was led by Douglass Trumbull. If you see it in the tv listings, watch it. You won't regret it. Jonathan D. Trudel ps- If you look closely, you can see footage of the Silent Running ships in Battlestar Galaxitive. They're the Agro vessels. -------
krf7527@ritcv.UUCP (Keith Fieldhouse) (04/04/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** Another (perhaps) interesting bit of info about Silent Running. When Battlestar Galactica first came out, 20th Century Fox, the producers of Star Wars, initiated a lawsuit claiming that Galactica was essentially a copy of Star Wars (Or should I say A New Hope?). It seems that the cylons (remember them?) were just a little *too* much like silver Darth Vaders to sit well with Fox. The producers of BG (Paramount, I think) filed a counter suit claiming that Star Wars infringed on their movie, you guessed it, Silent Running. Apparently they felt that R2D2 was an awful lot like Huey, Luey, and Dewy from SR. I seem to recall that somewhere along the line, both suits went up in a puff of irrelevance. Does anybody know for sure what happened? I find the above rather ironic considering what was to become the deluge of SF films that followed the rather spectacular success of Star Wars. Fox wouldn't have had much time for anything if they tried to stop everybody who attempted to cash in on the success of SW. Keith Fieldhouse @ The Rochester Institute of Technology . . .rochester!ritcv!krf7527
wanttaja@ssc-vax.UUCP (Ronald J Wanttaja) (04/04/85)
One interesting point about "Silent Running" is the music... written by a chap named Peter Schickele (sp?). For those music purists out there, (:-) ) he is the "Discoverer" of the music of P.D.Q. Bach. From what I've read, he now writes serious music under a different name to avoid ... contamination??? :-) Ron Wanttaja (ssc-vax!wanttaja) "My bonnie lass, she walketh like a doe, but soundeth like a crow..."
@RUTGERS.ARPA:ALS050%MAINE.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA (04/08/85)
From: ALS050%MAINE.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA (STEVE JOHNSON)
THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO MARK LEEPERS ATTACK ON SILENT RUNNING. THE
WHOLE THING IS ACADEMIC , BUT, I JUST COULDN'T STAND BY AND LET A ARGUMENT
OF THAT LENGTH ,BASED ON AN ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION, OFF SCOTT FREE.
YES MARK, LIFE COULD EXIST ON EARTH WITHOUT LAND PLANT LIFE.
WATER COVERS ABOUT 7/10THS OF THIS PLANET, AND OCEAN PLANT LIFE (MOSTLY
ALGAE I BELIEVE) PRODUCES ABOUT 70 PERCENT OF OUR OXYGEN. WERE IT LEFT AT
THAT OUR PROBLEM WOULDN'T BE LACK OF OXYGEN (A 30 PERCENT DROP IN THE
PARTIAL PRESSURE OF OXYGEN WOULD NOT BE DANGEROUS TO MOST PEOPLE) BUT THE
INCREASE IN THE PARTIAL PRESSURE OF CO2.
WHO COULD SAY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF ALL PLANT LIFE DISAPPEARED? I HAVE
AN IDEA THOUGH THAT THE OCEAN PLANT LIFE WOULD PICK UP THE SLACK. MORE CO2
AVAILABLE, A GENERAL WARMING TREND (BROUGHT ON BY THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT), AND
AN INCREASE IN THE OCEAN SURFACE AREA (CAUSED BY MELTING POLAR ICE CAPS) WOULD
MAKE OCEAN PLANT LIFE MORE ABUNDANT AND EFFECTIVE. THERE WOULD BE A LOT
OF MAJOR CHANGES ON EARTH BUT HOMO S. WOULD STILL HAVE OXYGEN.
I'M A CS/MATH PERSON MYSELF , SO THE ABOVE IS BASED ON COMMON SENSE
RATHER THAN A DEEP BIOLOGICAL BACKGROUND. BUT I'M *SURE* THAT IF I HAVE
OVERLOOKED ANYTHING MAJOR THAT SOMEBODY WILL LET ME KNOW ABOUT IT.
P.S. I ENJOYED SILENT RUNNING DESPITE ITS HEAVY EMOTIONAL APPEAL.@RUTGERS.ARPA:Slocum.CSCDA@HI-MULTICS.ARPA (04/08/85)
From: Slocum@HI-MULTICS.ARPA
In regards to the comments about Silent Running:
60-90% of the oxygen-producing plants on Earth are plankton and algae in
the oceans. The loss of the land-bound plants would be a severe strain on
the ecosystem, but not totally devastating.
Personally, I enjoyed Silent Running, but I feel that it had some
weaknesses that have been explored. I did not think it was totally
unrealistic.
Brett Slocum
(ARPA : Slocum@HI-MULTICS )
(UUCP : ...ihnp4!umn-cs!hi-csc!slocum )ajlill@watrose.UUCP (Tony Lill) (04/08/85)
>It seems that the cylons (remember them?) were just a little *too* >much like silver Darth Vaders to sit well with Fox. The producers >of BG (Paramount, I think) filed a counter suit claiming that >Star Wars infringed on their movie, you guessed it, Silent Running. >Apparently they felt that R2D2 was an awful lot like Huey, Luey, >and Dewy from SR. No wonder that BG used the ships from Silent running as part of the fleet. I also noticed that the interior of the Vipers and the interior of the Starfighter from Buck Rogers (yes I still watch that show every weekend) are very similar. Same producers no doubt. Hmmm, maybe Fox was justified.... -- "If you make the world fool-proof it will be populated by fools" -author unknown Tony Lill 539 Grand Valley Dr. Cambridge, Ont., Canada 1-519-653-9735 {allegra,linus,decvax,utzoo}!watmath!watrose!ajlill Enlightened opinions such as these could never be shared by this institution.
@RUTGERS.ARPA:milne@uci-icse (04/09/85)
From: Alastair Milne <milne@uci-icse> > The recent mention of Silent Running prompts me to post some > comments about the film -- I get annoyed about these elements in the > plot every time I see it. First off, Dern (I don't recall the > character's name, so I'll use the actor's) is very concerned with > the fate of the plants and animals in the eco-domes. He goes > berserk when Earth orders them destroyed. So what does he do? He > DESTROYS most of them, just in order to kill off the other crewmen! > This is ridiculous! He does *not* go berserk (and the character's name is Freeman Lowell). He is deeply hurt; but his response is suppressed anger (he is introverted anyway), even withdrawal. He is in one of the last domes, furiously working, as most of the others are destroyed. What is going to do? Argue all of Earth into recanting? He would sooner be alone. But when it comes time to destroy the dome he's in, his temper breaks, and he fights back. He kills one of the other 3 men in a fight with a shovel, and he traps the remaining 2 in one of the other domes before it is blown up. But he is bady disturbed by having done so, and never gets over it. Destroys "MOST" of them??? He personally destroys *ONE*, among all that the others have destroyed. It is true that, in the end, only one dome survives. But that is because he has only one drone he can program to care for it. Perhaps he might have jettisoned all the others, to give them a chance, before he destroyed the ship; but again, perhaps the thought of leaving all the animals untended, unfed in their park environment seems more cruel to him than giving them the quickest, cleanest end possible. > Secondly, then what does he do? He heads out, away from the sun, so > that the plants die off and the stuff in the remaining dome(s?) > freezes. He could have selected an orbit that put him on the > opposite side of the sun from earth, still shielded from them but > allowing the sunlight to keep the dome contents alive. He doesn't. The heading of the ships was no doing of his. That was preset. He was part of a fleet that was already well under way. Nor could he take any massive evasive action, because most of the fleet was still there, and they would pursue him (thinking he needed help, of course). The ships were equipped to provide light and heat for the forests will beyond the range where the sun would do any good. But in his anger over Earth's decision, and guilt over killing his companions (to mention just a couple), he forgot this until his memory was jogged, thinking rather about blights and diseases. And how would you do, essentially alone on a huge ship, out beyond Saturn? And, although it really doesn't matter, it seems to me you haven't thought about the mind-boggling distances involved. To get to the other side of Earth's orbit, just from Earth, never mind near Saturn, is 192 million miles. Care to think about how long it would take him to get there, and what the other ships in the fleet (who would be watching him all the time) would be doing? Besides, he would probably have made the same final choice that he did whether he was opposite Earth or beyond Saturn. > Also, there wasn't any reason for Earth to order them destroyed. > They could have called back the crew, and Dern could have chosen to > stay as a hermit or whatever, and the ships could have orbited > endlessly at no cost to Earth. The reason was that they (the forests) simply weren't wanted: nobody gave a damn about them, except for Lowell, and maybe some few like him. Nor do I think Lowell wanted to be a hermit. He just wanted to keep away from his loud, devil-may-care, who-gives-a-damn companions on the ship. And even if the ships could have orbited endlessly at no cost (and I'll believe that when I see it), the reason for the decision to dump the forests was that they wanted the ships back, to do something "useful" (one assumes this means "profitable"). It's not that they wanted to put the forestry somewhere else: it's that they didn't want it at all. > This sort of basic plot failure spoils what could otherwise be a > really enjoyable movie. I certainly agree that basic plot failures do spoil potentially good movies: you sit there thinking: "there's no reason for this story to have happened". But I hardly think the complaint applies to "Silent Running". Alastair Milne
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (04/09/85)
[]
Just want to add my 'no' vote to M.R. Leeper's on SILENT RUNNING.
Yes, I thought the robots were adorable; yes, the SFX were good, and
pretty; yes, Joan Baez is a great singer and a fine lady; yes, forests
and cuddly animals are very nice; but I find myself unable to like any
movie whose story makes as little sense as did SR. I doubt if Watt, himself,
could trivialize the need for protection of our environment as thoroughly
as the film did. Fatuous and stupid.
- From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry
NASA-Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barryderek@uwvax.UUCP (Derek Zahn) (04/10/85)
I cast a 'yea' vote for 'Silent Running' as one of the best SF movies I've
seen. What impressed me was not the robots or the special effects or any
of that stuff. What impressed me was the simple, thoughtful, and meaningful
theme (overdone? perhaps). It is for the same reason that I liked
Rollerball (sue me) -- it differed from the standard 'shoot-em-up'
western ripoffs.
--
Derek Zahn @ wisconsin
...!{allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo,sfwin,ucbvax,uwm-evax}!uwvax!derek
derek@wisc-rsch.arpa