hobbit@sunybcs.UUCP (06/27/84)
>>p.s. speaking of continuing characters, will Basil ever return? >> will Brenda ever stop crying? I sure hope so....I miss the black eyepatch.....8-) 8-) Or is she to be seduced by the Frenchman? -- -The Parker Hobbit a.k.a. Thomas R. Pellitieri UUCP: {allegra, seismo}!rochester!rocksvax!sunybcs!hobbit decvax!watmath!sunybcs!hobbit ARPA & CSNET: hobbit.buffalo@rand-relay
dwhitney@uok.UUCP (07/02/84)
#R:sri-arpa:-122300:uok:7600011:000:1531 uok!dwhitney Jul 1 17:08:00 1984 "ST3 reached an end. I hope. The adventure continues. Pah." So says "-steve" Of couse, he also says SW had a story to tell. Right. Good guys blast bad guys (in black, of course). But bad guys not dead. Bad guys come back in next film and beat up good guys. But good guys not all dead, hero of good guys wants to blast baddest bad guy, but decides not to. Bad guy decides hes good guys father. Thats storytelling?? Please. Thats Gunsmoke 2300. Or Bonanza 2001. In my humble opinion, ST has always been head-and-shoulders above the other SF films in characters devleopment. Kirk must make sacrifice; his ship, or his son (and hostages), or Genesis planet. Kirk faces death; (Spock, of course), and deal with his new son (In st2). Spock confesses his humanity (ST1). You see, ST at its (supposed) worst can outtell SW in storytelling ANYDAY, and just because it doesnt spend half its time with aliens-blasting-aliens in an SPFX budget that makes ILM drool, doesn't make SW holy ground. If were lucky, and if SF is lucky, the Trek adventure WiILL continue for at least one more good movie. Its just about the only thing that keeps SF alive in hollywood, or gives it so much as a thread of credibility. Why? Look at the alternatives- Speilberg blows up Gremlins and Grandmothers, while ripping out hearts and beating children in IJTOD, Conan flexes muscle and mumbles monosyllabic English while Grace Jones beats people with a stick. Flame away. David Whitney Star Trek forever !ctvax!uokvax!uok!dwhitney
mwm@ea.UUCP (07/02/84)
#R:sri-arpa:-122300:ea:11700013:000:1590 ea!mwm Jul 2 10:44:00 1984 /***** ea:net.sf-lovers / uok!dwhitney / 5:08 pm Jul 1, 1984 */ >If were lucky, and if SF is lucky, the Trek adventure WILL continue >for at least one more good movie. So, counting that one and the one after that, that would be a total of two good movies, right? The first one was awful. The second one was a good ST episode, meaning it was good for SF done by Hollywood. The third one was laughable - right up there with "The Creature of Crater Lake," only with better effects. >Its just about the only thing that >keeps SF alive in hollywood, or gives it so much as a thread of >credibility. Since when is SF alive in Hollywood? Let's see, lately we've had some *bad* fantasy (Conan & company), a *good* horror film (Alien) and some excellent humor (Galaxina, Ghostbusters) that were at best tolerable SF, and one movie (Bladerunner) that was good SF but a mediocre movie. Star Wars was all right, but the plot line occasionally got in the way of the movie. At first, they didn't have any pretensions: it was Space Opera, pure and simple. It was even good Space Opera, though it was lousy SF. The second one tried to do character development, and it sorta fell apart. Some day, I'm going to see the third one. Next, we have _Have Spacesuit, Will Travel_, uh, excuse me, that's The Last Starfighter. It looks like it could be as good as the first SW movie, *if* they can avoid trying to make it something it isn't. It will still be a good movie that's lousy SF, though. I'll give a full report on it after I see it. >Star Trek forever Probably. Undead are hard to kill. <mike
rcc@imsvax.UUCP (07/12/84)
>Since when is SF alive in Hollywood? Let's see, lately we've had some *bad* >fantasy (Conan & company), a *good* horror film (Alien) and some excellent >humor (Galaxina, Ghostbusters) that were at best tolerable SF, and one >movie (Bladerunner) that was good SF but a mediocre movie. Whoa, back off. Bladerunner is one of the best movies ever made period, IF you ignore the voice-over. The Hollywood movie execs killed it by turning adding the voice-over and turning it into a stupid 1940's style detective movie. They also cut out a scene that should have been left it. Remember that two of the replicants died before getting to Earth? One died in battle (killed in the space station, I believe), the other self-destructed. The scene where the replicant died of "old age" was cut out. In that scene, the replicant dies in front of the others and one of the things he (she, I forget) does is clench and unclench his hand. Makes Roy's clenching and unclenching his hand more significant, no? Next time you get a chance, see Bladerunner and ignore the voice- over. A VERY good movie. -- The preceding message was brought to you by -- Ray Chen UUCP: umcp-cs!eneevax!imsvax!rcc
bllklly@uwmacc.UUCP (07/18/84)
<>
Missed the original message, so I hope I'm not repeating.
Whether Blade Runner was a good movie or not, it's a
typically bad adaptation of a book, Do Androids Dream
of Electric Sheep. It's as if someone reduced the plot
to 3 sentences, then handed it to someone else to expand
back into a full length script. Not only did they leave
out some of the nice things in the book, but the elements
they left in had no relevance to the movie plot. Example:
the empathy test that involves showing photos to the
suspected android. The whole point in the book was that
all the pictures showed death or mistreatment of animals,
and with nearly all animals on the verge of extinction,
any human would have great empathy for the animals. In the
movie, the picture of the nude woman is emphasized, but
not because she's lying on a bearskin rug, as in the book.
If you didn't read the book, the whole scene doesn't make
any sense.
Let's see what they manage to do to Dune.
--
Bill Kelly
{allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!bllklly
1210 West Dayton St/U Wisconsin Madison/Mad WI 53706