cher@ihlpm.UUCP (cherepov) (07/09/85)
-- I have a very hard time understanding how someone who disliked Goonies would be charmed by BTTF. But what do I know... Some of BTTF drawbacks: almost every SF idea in it was recycled in SF books 10000 times at least. Some of the more original ideas lack credibility (hitting 88 miles an hour at exactly proper point, at exactly right moment????!!!!!!!). Also, HOW WOULD PLUTONIUM GENERATE 1000000000000 watt? Did they have nuclear explosion every time? Anyway, disregarding those things I would say that the film provides same sort of entertainment as Goonies - at slightly lower quality. It is oriented for slightly older kids, with character development at definite Porky's level. I liked both flicks as solid summer stuff and would recommend them. For whatever it's worth... Mike Cherepov
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (07/17/85)
>Some of BTTF drawbacks: almost every SF idea in it was >recycled in SF books 10000 times at least. There are all kinds of constraints on films that are not on books. It is a lot more expensive to create a film than a book and it has to appeal to a lot more people than does a book. With this in mind, science fiction on the screen all too often has to be more primitive than science fiction in a book. That is why science fiction films are so much behind the literature. Rare is the film that can really compete with a book for ideas. When you have a kid and he is taking his first steps, are you going to sneer and say, "So what, lot's of people can walk!" How many ideas from STAR WARS were new and perceptive. I only noticed one, that that was sort of a technical necessity. [So as not to break the flow, I explain it at the end of this article.] >Some of the more original ideas lack credibility (hitting 88 >miles an hour at exactly proper point, at exactly right >moment????!!!!!!!). One point for you. That was absurd. >Also, HOW WOULD PLUTONIUM GENERATE 1000000000000 watt? Did >they have nuclear explosion every time? As a viewer I find that a lot more credible than that a Goonie can break his fall and save his life with some plastic teeth on the end of a spring from his belt. I know that that is stupidly implausible. I don't know that generating power directly from plutonium is stupidly implausible. It is unlikely with our current technology, but clearly Lloyd played a rogue scientist who took technology in different directions. I don't know any theoretical reason why it is impossible. If you place the two ideas side by side, frankly I could much more believe BTTF idea. > >Anyway, disregarding those things I would say that the film >provides same sort of entertainment as Goonies - at slightly >lower quality. Frankly, the toilet plumbing scenes of GOONIES seemed to me to be much lower than anything in BTTF. Just about the whole film was, to my mind. BTTF's humor was on a higher level and funnier. Jokes like calling the hero "Calvin" take more thought than shooting someone off a toilet, they also take fewer special effects, and they make a much more interesting point about the hazards of time travel. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper [The idea in STAR WARS? If I speak to a Frenchman either I speak French or he speaks English. That is not the most easy way to do things because it is easier to learn to understand a language than to speak it. If I were holding the conversation with an alien, it might be impossible to speak his language at all. In STAR WARS all conversions between mutual aliens were conducted with each side speaking his own language and only understanding the alien language. That is certainly what would have to be done in an intergalactic civilization, but the idea appeared first in STAR WARS to the best of my knowledge and it wouldn't really have seemed right the other way.]