gnome@oliveb.UUCP (Gary Traveis) (07/09/85)
Just saw EXPLORERS (7/8/85)... From Joe Dante (Gremlins) comes a cute, fun, science fantasy about a three kids who are given the key to interplanetary travel. After some local mischief, the three (a street-kid, a sf-type, and a student brainiac) head off to discover the answers to life, the universe, and everything from an unseen all-knowing alien race. What they expect is far from what they find. I liked it, but I'm not sure it's worth the $5-$6 that most of the bigger theaters normally ask. I give it a 7 out of 10. Good family fare. Looks like they are already thinking-up the script to EXPLORERS II. "Tell them what they've won! - It's a BRAND NEW CAR!!" -- Wak
bright@dataio.UUCP (Walter Bright) (07/13/85)
In article <494@oliveb.UUCP> gnome@oliveb.UUCP (Gary Traveis) writes: >From Joe Dante (Gremlins) comes a cute, fun, science fantasy >about a three kids who are given the key to interplanetary travel. >After some local mischief, the three (a street-kid, a sf-type, and >a student brainiac) head off to discover the answers to life, the universe, >and everything from an unseen all-knowing alien race. I thought the second half was totally stupid and dull. By the way, where does a 9-volt battery get the energy required to dig 5' diameter holes in the ground? I wish some of these sci-fi movie directors would take a basic course in physics, or hire a consultant to help them avoid the more obvious screwups. And don't wave the 'but it's supposed to be fun' at me, I think these glaring problems are due to laziness on the part of the director, and are not necessary to the plot. A good sci-fi plot is one that takes ONE assumption (such as aliens beaming technology into a kid's brain) and logically builds on that assumption. Continually trotting out absurdities out of convenience shows a lack of imagination on the part of the director, and is insulting to watch. Good sci-fi is not necessarilly preposterous, as an example take a look at Arthur Clarke's novels (BTW, he holds a doctorate in physics), and the novels that Niven and Pournelle collaborated on.
boyajian@akov68.DEC (JERRY BOYAJIAN) (07/19/85)
> From: dataio!bright > Good sci-fi is not necessarilly preposterous, as an example take a look > at Arthur Clarke's novels (BTW, he holds a doctorate in physics), and > the novels that Niven and Pournelle collaborated on. Not to put a damper on your remarks, but Clarke does *not* have a PhD in in physics, only a BSc. Pournelle has a PhD, but it's in philosophy and political science, with an undergraduate degree in engineering. The only currently practicing writers I can think of offhand that have PhD's in a scientific field are Greg Benford and (I believe) Charles Sheffield. Possibly David Brin, too. Oh, and Isaac Asimov, of course. I'm sure there are others, but I can't think of them off-hand. --- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, Acton-Nagog, MA) UUCP: {decvax|ihnp4|allegra|ucbvax|...}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-akov68!boyajian ARPA: boyajian%akov68.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA
gnome@olivee.UUCP (Gary Traveis) (07/19/85)
> In article <494@oliveb.UUCP> gnome@oliveb.UUCP (Gary Traveis) writes: > >From Joe Dante (Gremlins) comes a cute, fun, science fantasy > >about a three kids who are given the key to interplanetary travel. > >After some local mischief, the three (a street-kid, a sf-type, and > >a student brainiac) head off to discover the answers to life, the universe, > >and everything from an unseen all-knowing alien race. > > I thought the second half was totally stupid and dull. > By the way, where does a 9-volt battery get the energy required to dig > 5' diameter holes in the ground? I wish some of these sci-fi movie > directors would take a basic course in physics, or hire a consultant > to help them avoid the more obvious screwups. And don't wave the > 'but it's supposed to be fun' at me, I think these glaring problems > Good sci-fi is not necessarilly preposterous, as an example take a look > at Arthur Clarke's novels (BTW, he holds a doctorate in physics), and > the novels that Niven and Pournelle collaborated on. Your wonderful analysis of my statement overlooked one thing. I called EXPLORERS a "science fantasy". It's ok to pan a film, any film, but you don't have to be so righteously indignant! It tends to waste everyone's time. Any other comments to net.flame.
ix241@sdcc6.UUCP (ix241) (07/25/85)
D. Brin, PhD Physics UCSD J. Pournelle, PhD Psychology UofW(i think) John Testa UCSD Chemistry sdcsvax!sdcc6!ix241
mink@cfa.UUCP (Doug Mink) (07/26/85)
> Good sci-fi is not necessarilly preposterous, as an example take a look > at Arthur Clarke's novels (BTW, he holds a doctorate in physics), and > the novels that Niven and Pournelle collaborated on. I believe that Arthur C. Clarke has only a Bachelor's degree, although he probably has quite a few *honorary* doctorates. His scientific and scientific writings show a good grasp of *engineering*, which is what he got sidetracked into during the war. I'm not disagreeing with your point about believable science fiction, though. -Doug Mink