Conference noted::sf

All right, how about Brainstorm?  I saw the pre-release in Boston,
and I don't know if the quality of the super-70 sequences made it
through in the distributed prints, but it was lovely to look at.

The acting was distinctly odd.
The plot had gaping technical plausibility problems.
I really liked the sufficiently generic as to be relatively
obsolesence-free computer hardware.  I was impressed to see that the
"what if" device actually influences the lives of the characters, in
character-changing ways.  Not common in SF films.

		--Eirikur

Another movie to add to my first list:

Close Encounters of the Third Kind -- I really liked this movie although
     a lot of people seem to consider it a lesser-quality film by Spielburg.
     I thought the acting was first-rate, the pace relentless and the
     music outstanding. Favorite scenes: Opening in the desert, crowds in
     India, final encounter. I did not particularly like the added scenes
     in the 'special edition'; should have left well enough alone.

-- Bill

Two movies that I have enjoyed are Forbidden Planet and Blade Runner. For a
movie shot 20 or so years ago Forbidden Planet has some excellant special 
effects. As for Blade Runner, while the plot wasn't great I enjoyed the acting
and I thought it had some of the best visual imagery I have seen in any movie.

E.T. is a masterpiece, and SHOULD have won "Best Film" at last year's Oscars.

Right on, Steve! But don't hold your breath until a "SF" film comes
close to the Best Picture Oscar...

Regarding 2001 as the only true SF movie:  I've never seen DESTINATION
MOON (but why should that stop me?) but various things I've read make
me think that they tried to be as scientifically accurate as they could
about such a wild idea as going to the moon.  Can anyone comment on this?
I'd like to see it but it's never been at an SF convention that I've been at.

					John Spert
					Corporate Telecom MIS

P.S.  If I speculate about an SF movie, is that SF or Fantasy?

Re : Destination Moon

DESTINATION MOON is a 1950's film starring Heinlein and Woody Woodpecker
if I recall correctly.  It's purpose was to explain some of the physics
of rocketry to the masses.  It was an interesting film, but I don't 
think I could sit through it twice.

					Barbara

NO. Destination Moon was a George Pal classic.
No Woody Woodpecker.

A scene from The Temples of Doom:

   A guy is staked out to a post in the ground. And he has a gaping hole in his
chest. The witch doctor reaches in and rips the guy's heart out...


This I got from a friend who was interviewing at LucasFilm. They were mixing
in all the slurping and gurgling noises you can imagine such behavior would
cause.

I can hardly wait.

Charlie Way

Re .22:
     That scene sounds just like the one that opens "The Jupiter Menace".
I hope the rest of "Temple of Doom" isn't as bad...
				Steve

Some of my favorite science fiction films have already been
mentioned, for example, 2001 and Forbidden Planet.  Forbidden Planet
was done in 1956, which makes it nearly 30 years old, and I think it
had some really great special effects.  My own favorites:

The Lathe of Heaven:

This movie has been shown a couple of times in the past couple years
on PBS.  It was written by Ursula Le Guin and is one of the most
thought-provoking films I have ever seen, 2001 included.  I have
captured this film on videotape and will always regard it as one of
my prized possessions.

The Day the Earth Stood Still:

This movie, done in 1951, didn't have especially great effects, but
it showed how provincial society could be when it is confronted by
something from another world.  You just know that the scene where the
soldier fires his rifle at Michael Rennie is what probably will
happen if we are ever lucky enough to be visited by someone from out
there.

Silent Running:

A highly-underrated film done by Doug Trumball and starring Bruce
Dern, is another story that shows how screwed up our sense of values
can become.

The Incredible Shrinking Man:

Somewhat corny, but still a good movie.  The last scene, where the guy
is shrinking so fast that the world becomes his own small Universe,
has always sent a chill up spine.

RUR:

I have never seen this film, but I would like to.  This film, based
on a story written by the Czech writer Karel Capek in 1921, is
supposed to have given us the term "robot".  It think that I read
somewhere that the Czech word for robot is worker, although I can't
find the reference.  The name of the film, RUR, comes from Rossum's
Universal Robots.  This film also is accused of having caused the
confusion over the terms robot and android.  It seems that Rossum's
robots were played by people that tried acting in a machine-like
manner and ever since, people have thought of robots as being
human-like.  However, you have to keep in mind that this film was
made in 1921, long before the advent of many of our mechanical
and electrical wonders, even before we had "talkies".

A film I would like to see made into a movie is Arthur C. Clarke's
"Rendevous with Rama".  I think this is one of the best science
fiction stories that I have read.

	Mike in Maynard

One of my favorites is going to be broadcast by Channel 38 in Boston
tomorrow (Tuesday, 24-Jan) at 8:00 PM.

It is "Time After Time", a marvelous film in which H.G. Wells chases
Jack the Ripper from Victorian England to San Francisco in the 1970's
via his time machine (and you thought that was just a fiction of his...).

Best part is Wells being confronted by a liberated modern woman (played
by Mary Steenburgen (sp?) in one of her first feature roles). I can't recall
the actor who played Wells (I can visualize him, but the name escapes me);
JtR is played by David Warner.

-- Bill

re: .25

Malcolm MacDowell played H.G. Another of Macdowell's "SF" roles is the 
head "Baddie" in "A Clockwork Orange".

					andrew

My favorites, (with some additional votes for previously mentioned ones)

Silent Running.  The music, written by Peter Schickele and sung by
	Joan Baez, is particularly beautiful.  Yes, the same P.S.
	who does "P.D.Q. Bach".  WIsh I could find these on an album.

Lathe of Heaven.  Best SF TV movie.  Good non-use of special effects.
	The book is good, too (but I like LeGuin anyway).

E.T.  Anyone who doesn't cry at this one isn't human.  A lovely story.

Dark Star.  For laughs.  Occasionaly seen late at night on Ch 38
	in Boston.  A spoof.

A few years ago I saw a movie called Phase IV about a takeover by
ants. I believe that it was a B movie, but since I have forgotten the
name of the main feature this obviously impressed me more. Somewhat
reminiscent of "The Birds", it had a memorable scene with the
thousands of ants animating a corpse. 

Since then I have never heard of the movie again, or met anyone who 
has heard of it.


Tim

Seems all my favorites got hit,

    Silent Running - This one just never seemed to catch on
		     a very interseting film all in all

    Lathe of Heaven - Originally supposed to be part of a series of
		      SF novellas that PBS was going to produce.
		      I hope they get back around to making some more
		      that one was spectacular. 

    The Empire Strikes Back - I thought that the characters started to get
			      more depth in this one. also there is alot
			      of forshadowing as well as several other
			      wonderful literary effects. On top of
			      this I've always had a weakness for the
			      bad guys.

Films I'd like to see

     Larry Niven's Ringworld (hollywood would love it, even has a
			built in sequel)

     Joe Haldemans Forever WarOr

Sorry about that, I meant Joe haldeman's Forever War, It would require
few special effects and would be able to carry a message at the same time.

There IS in fact a soundtrack album for SILENT RUNNING, but it
sounds like somebody recorded it onto a cassette from a cheap TV.
If anybody is really interested I will find out the label and number
for this disk.

	Rick Cohen
	DECslide development group

I guess I am not human.

I walked out of E.T. after about 40 minutes.... I've never liked Disney
kids, and dressing up one of the old "Lassie" movies with a boy and a
little mobile what-ever-it-is
didn't seem to qualify as science fiction.

<flame turned down>

Nigel

  hear!hear!  Glad to know I'm not the only non-human in the group.  
I stayed through the whole movie of E.T. and thought it nice.  But that's
it.  (Not high praise in my book.)  I've cried more at "Gone With the Wind."
E.T. just seemed a little too trite for me.  I guess my expectations were too
high. (I try not to pay attention to peolple telling me that X is a "great
movie"  cause then I expect great and am disappointed when it is only good.)

tlh

	The Maxson List - Best Five SF films of all time, IN ORDER
		(no modesty spared here)

	The Day the Earth Stood Still
	BladeRunner (absolutely excellent if you've ever lived in LA/NYC/etc)
	2001: A Space Oddesey
	THX1138 (George Lucas's first film)
	Robinson Carusoe on Mars (Made for TV?)

	Five Worst SF Films of Time
		(much more competition here)
	ET (What was the flying bicycle doing there, anyway? Mary Poppins is
		alive and at work somewhere)
	Something Wicked This Way Comes  (Take Valium, it's faster)
	Plan 9 from Outer Space - (So utterly bad, it's great - do not miss it)
	Silent Running - a paid promotional advertisment of the Sierra Club
	The Day After - a paid promotional advertisment of the NoNukes Cult

	Other fantastic films not in the top five: Wizards, by Ralph Bakshi,
	Lord of the Rings, Part I (may I live to see part II); Altered States,
	and Eraserhead ( A Zen Masterwork ).

		That's the way I see it; that's the way it is -

					Mark

"The Day After" wasn't a bad disaster movie. (Nicholas Meyer is always good!).

What it suffered from was all the hype that abc(?) put out. If enough
people are told that they may need psychiatric help after watching a movie,
then peoples expectations are going to be set long before the movie comes
on.  abc could have shown "Benji goes to Hollywood" at that point, and still
had avogadro's number of people watching.

I saw a portion of a movie at the recent Boskone that has to be very
close to one of the all time worst SF flicks.  The name of the movie
is Liquid Sky.  The idea was that this alien needed some sort of
chemical (I think) to sustain its existence.  The catch was that this
chemical is only produced by humans during sexual orgasm.  For some
reason which I missed the alien would kill the person experiencing the
orgasm.  You never got to see the alien either.  Truly bizarre story.

	Mike

In re 11.39:

I too was really disappointed by "The Day After". I was really expecting
something real. It was funny though that it all looked alot more like the
Ethiopian revolution aftermath then a nuclear war. I saw the revolution
in Ethiopia... I also was shown what nuclear war looks like on film as a
child growing up on an army base in Berlin. What the army showed us kids
didn't look anything like what was in "The Day After"... I only hope that
the army was wrong and that the producers of "The Day After" are right.

		bob wyman

How 'bout Slaughterhouse-Five?

Shoe-string budget, no effects to speak of, really, but damn funny and
really true to Vonnegut's tone and view of the world.

/Ellen

  I was surprised to see Lord of the Rings Part I  mentioned in Maxson's list
as one of the best.  I don't know about you guys, but all the Tolkein fans I
know were sorely disappointed.  What they did was good.  What they did was a 
small subset of the story however.  (For those who did not see it, They 
skipped(!) Tom Bombadill entirely.  There were other omissions but that is
the one I remember the best.)  I think they made a mistake by trying to cram
it all into two movies.  In my (humble?) opinion they should have made a movie
for each of the 6 books. (Books in sense that Tolkien used.)  Even one per
member of the the trilogy would have been better.  I think the thing that is 
so fantastic about Tolkien is the detail and developement that allows you to
really get attached to the characters.  The movie lacked that.

tlh

In re 11.43:

"Disappointed" puts it too lightly. After having read the books, "Lord of
the Rings Part I" was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. 

		bob wyman

	WE have a situation here that is dangerous. We have the "Lord of
	the Rings" trilogy, and we have an animator (Bakshi) known mainly
	for Fritz the Cat and Heavy Traffic - bizzarre and amusing cult
	films. The trilogy is revered by millions as a sacred work, but it
	is thousands of full pages long. By full, I mean, there's something
	subtle and magical on each page.

	How do you possibly make this into a movie? Consider "Rollerball"
	- it was a fine short story, and made a pretty fair movie all by
	itself. It was twenty-five pages of story. "War and Peace" - 1400-odd
	pages, made into an 8 hour movie: do you think it was faithful to the
	book? The majority of the book ended up on the cutting room floor
	or was never even shot. Impossible. And the plot? Can you follow it?
	The characters? There is an endless parade of characters - from the
	book, each a facinating entirety; in the movie, a confusing series
	of cameos and a sea of blurred faces. Was that Pierre? No, Nikolai -
	or was it Andrie? Wait - it was Natasha! You need a scorecard to keep
	track of the players. What I'm saying is, you can get away with that
	in a book, because people can read it at their own pace, and maybe
	even page back to remember who Eomer was. Or was it Saruman? No -
	Sauron.

	Now add to that the fact that animation is EXPENSIVE. Half an hour
	or more of an artist per frame, 8 or 12 frames a second - a lot of
	Disney was more. Woops - my numbers are off, it's a lot more than
	8 a second.

	So Bakshi chose an achieveable goal - half the saga. Question is, was
	he able to capture the spirit of the book? Was Gandalf scary? Did
	Frodo seem meek, but getting tougher? Did the Balrog make your pulse
	run?

	I wanted more, like everyone. I wanted especially the second half.
	Where did Tom Bombadil go? That was the only thing I really missed.

	But I applaud Bakshi for trying the impossible. I especially am
	grateful to him for making it realistic. It reminded me of Disney's
	"Night on Bald Mountain" from Fantasia.

	There was some other animation company - Baskin-Ross or something like
	that, which made "The Hobbit" for TV. I remember, Orson Bean did the
	voice of Bilbo. It was genuinely pathetic.]

	Use that achievement as a yardstick, and Bakshi shines. We will always
	want more, but we should learn to accept the limitations of a real
	world and appreciate the years that went into "Lord of the Rings, Part
	I". One man's opinion.

Note that Bakshi uses rotoscoping.  The "Lord of the Rings" movie
was a bit more obvious about it.

For those unfamiliar with the term, rotoscoping involves filming
an actor, then rear-projecting the film and tracing each frame.
The human figure supplies the "skeleton" for the figure.  The
result is very accurate movements without every artist having
to know a lot of anatomy.

The rotoscoping showed through badly in a few spots... Particularly in
the battle scenes. I think they assumed that the action would be so fast
that you wouldn't notice... 

		bob wyman

I thought it was quite striking, where "pure" animation and "nearly real"
characters merged - particularly in the tavern and in battle.  I think
it's at least as likely that he did it that way for effect, as that he was
simply lazy and "didn't think you would notice".  If he didn't expect
intensive scrutiny of the film from book fans, then he would have to have
been a lot dumber than is likely.

I thought the movie did really well - I just wish Bakshi had done part 2.
There was a traditional animation movie done by the same people who screwed
Hobbit, which more or less took up where Bakshi left off - but it was
really poor.  

	/dave

RE: .45 THRU .48

You are actually pretty close on frames-per-sec for animation. Sound speed
on commercial films is 24 fps., but animators cheat and shoot 2 frames per
cel whenever action is slow enough to not "stobe", which is pretty much
all the time, I suspect. So 12 fps is probably a good guess.

I've never read any of the Lord of the Rings, don't want to, but, frankly,
Bakshi's animation is artisticly the pits in this movie. Don't know why,
his "Wizards" seems pretty good. Didn't like the violence, muddy colors,
choppiness in "LotR". He used a lot of "Xerox animation", which I dislike,
in "LotR": live action film made very high contrast (possibly by actually
running it through photocopy process) then hand-colored or pasted up. 
Very obvious to watch, and not very creative in "LotR", much better in
"Wizards".

Favorite film so far is probably "Blade Runner". Complaint is that it's
too violent, and I agree. Videotape hyped the violence further, which
does nothing except pause the story. Atmosphere, plot, story, characters
I think are excellent. Photography outstanding- best stylistic photos
I've seen in SF. Best of all, Deckert (sp? - main char.) *learns* some-
thing about himself in the story. 

More to come- later. Hi NESFAns!

re .38

Part II was sold to Rankin and Bass and turned into a kiddie show.
Boy was it poor.  It aired on TV several years ago.  Things like
the poetry and songs got chopped to threads and Samwise looked like the
biggest moron in the world.  Such a one could never survive as part
of such a troup.  Does any one know why that happened to part two?

As to my favorite SF movies (I won't include the fantasy):
	
	Star Wars series
	Star Trek series
	Heavy Metal

plus some spoof with a police craft (starts out behind a planet
and chases a speeder- anyone know the name?  Had a female android
and a human male in love as well as the ALIEN spoof creature who
thought the captain was daddy) and many previously mentioned
movies.

Re .50: sounds like Galaxina. I thought it was funny, but not as good
as Dark Star.

"The Blue Star!!" 

-b

		I know I'm getting into this discussion late, but what the
hell
	   ^...
		Re: 40.	Liquid Sky was only peripherally a SF flick.  It was
really a black (really black) satire of NY punk culture.  If you looked
at as a SF picture, you were missing the whole point.  You didn't get
to see the alien, but you saw his spaceship, which looked like two
saucers glued together.  The sheer cheesiness of the effects should have
tipped you off to the satirical nature of the film.  The scientist in
the film was a take-off of the typical scientist role in most SF films.
His scenes with the protagonist's mother in the mother's apartment are
hilarious.  Will he abandon his scientific quest and give in to his
libido?

	The real tipoff that the movie is a satire is the central plot device.
The alien kills people who are having orgasms, the pseudo-SF explanation
is beside the point, what matters is that the sex that takes place in the
movie (not explicit sex either) is sex utterly without joy or love or
thrills.  It is sex as anger or violence or revenge, and the perpetrators
of this vicious sex get their just desserts.  Satire, good satire anway,
always has a moral center.

	I'm not trying to make an argument for Liquid Sky as an Oscar winner.
For one thing, it is far too 'outside' for the general public.  But as
far as I'm concerned it was more thought provoking than the entire film
output of the Spielberg-Lucas consortium.  At least it was about real
people, as ugly in spirit as they may have been, and not cartoon characters.

Peter O.

Well, I'm hopping into this one late, too.

re:.28,.33
	Yes, there was a soundtrack album for SILENT RUNNING, and I have
it on tape. The thing is as rare as chicken lips, though, and it goes for
big bucks in the collector's market.

re:.29
	Ah, yes, PHASE IV. I remember seeing that one. My girlfriend walked
out on it. I stayed while she window shopped around the mall (I *never* walk
out on movies). It was pretty bad, but it had its moments.

re:.31,.32
	Yeah, I think THE FOREVER WAR would make a neat movie, especially if
they do the opening scene right as it is in the book. Imagine, if you will,
a couple tritzling down to their local moviehouse to see the latest big-bud-
get skiffy flick. The find their seats, the house lights dim, the curtain
opens, light flickers from the projector. Suddenly, the screen is filled with
the face of a grizzled old sergeant, who speaks, as if to the movie audience,
the words, "Tonight we're going to show you eight silent ways to kill a man."

re:.51
	Doo-wah!

As for my 5 favorite sf/fantasy/horror/monster flicks, well, in order:

KING KONG	The original. The best. 'Nuff said.
THE WIZARD OF OZ	Again, 'nuff said.
A CLOCKWORK ORANGE	In my opinion, one of the few nearly flawless films
			ever made.
FORBIDDEN PLANET	A timeless classic (It was written by Shakespeare,
			after all).
STAR WARS	For skiffy nonsense, it had panache.

--- jerry

On what Shakespearean play was "Forbidden Planet" based???

	Mike

	If that's a trivia question, you're in the wrong NOTESfile. However,
	the answer is "The Tempest".

That's-a-right. With Walter Pigeon as Prospero, Robby the Robot as
Ariel, and the Monster from the Id as Caliban.

--- jerry

    	LET US UPDATE THIS SF MOVIE FILE!
    
    	What does anyone think about how Ray Bradbury's "Martian
    Chronicles" were done as a TV movie a few years back?
    
    	Larry
    

    re: THE MARTIAN CHRONICLES
    
    I thought some of the segments were brilliantly done, and others
    were very hokey. Overall, I thought it was better than most people
    seem to think it was.
    
    --- jerry

    	The main problem with trying to transform Bradbury's works to
    the screen is that he writes in an almost poetic form which is hard
    to translate in pictures, believe it or not.  That's why I found
    the Martian Chronicles on TV to be lacking Bradbury's touch.
    It's "modernising" almost gave it a soap opera feel, nor did I find
    it "focusing" on the characters and plot elements the way Bradbury
    does.
    	I wish I knew what his thoughts were on the movie.
    
    	Larry
    

    Actually, one of the early segments (based on "Ylla" --- about the
    jealous Martian husband and the First Expedition) had just that
    touch of poetry that Bradbury's writing does.
    
    As I understand it, Bradbury hates the production.
    
    --- jerry

    
    		(If anybody is still reading this topic) A good movie
    to see is H.Ellison's  A Boy and his Dog.  I guess it's considered
    sf with it taking place in the future.  The best about the movie
    is that it's really hilarious (not like b-movie).  You also get
    to see Don Johnson in his earlier years.
    
    
    
    						Bob Ho

    a precursor to "Mad Max". 
    
    I'm still trying to find a copy of my very own.
    
    Dwight

    RE: .62  Don Johnson
    
    A lot more of vintage Don Johnson was seen in a late '60s movie
    called "The Magic Garden of Stanley Sweetheart". X-rated as I recall,
    was a big hit on the drive-in circuit.  Also starred with more clothes
    on but less talent in "The Harrad Experiment".  Neither of these
    was Sci-Fi
     

    re "Boy and his Dog":
    
    don't tell Ellison you're watching it. The director really screwed
    the ending in order to get a cheap, tasteless laugh. Ellison said
    that he almost put his Cordwainer Bird pseudonym on it because of
    the ending.
    
    I didn't really like it either, as with most movies, the book (novella)
    was better. 
    
    sm

    It shows up on the cable now & then.  Video rental stores have it.
    
    					     Don
    
    P.S.  D. Gerrold did a similar thing with his ending of DEATHBEAST.
    	

    	Since I have yet to see "A Boy and His Dog", could someone tell
    me what part Don Johnson played in the film?  And were there any
    other "big" stars (or stars-to-be) in it?
    
    	Larry
    
    

    Don Johnson played Vic, the "boy" of the title. The only other
    "big" star (then or now) that appeared in the film was Jason
    Robards, who played the leader of the Underground.
    
    --- jerry

    its available at Lechmere in Framingham.  Unless the new copies
    have also been stolen.
    
    Dwight

    re: .72  "Lost Horizon" trivia
    
    What do you mean by "original version" of the movie "Lost Horizon"?
    Was there ever another one?
    
    Sorry for the digression.

    Maximum Overdrive- interesting flick.
    	
    Sort of science fiction- if Mad Max is science fiction, then so
    is MO.  
    	
    Martin Sheen's kid has one of the leads (and he plays it well).
    This is the same actor who played "Repo Man" (heh heh)


                                                          

    RE .74  New Lost Horizon

    Sure there was a second version.  Believe it or not, the second one was
    a musical.  I don't remember too much about it other than it was so bad
    I changed the channel part way through and tried to forget I'd ever 
    tuned in.  The part that does stick in my mind was Sally Kellerman 
    singing.  It was bad beyond description.  Believe me, you haven't 
    missed anything.

    Mike

    AS FOR "A BOY AND HIS DOG", my husaband raved about this really
    great movie, so we reanted it (in Colorado Springs, sorry). I was
    bored to tears throughout the whole thing, until they came up with
    the cheap shot at the end................ as far as I am concerned
    that cheap shot made the whole movie worth while. Now I recommend
    it to everyone who is out for a chuckle.

    Re: -1  Don't ever be sorry you were in the Springs.  Unless it
    was during rush hour.  AB&HD needs to be viewed a few times.  The
    make up threw me the first time I saw it, but I liked the "devastation"
    scenes & the bartering centers.  It was as if we saw the movie as
    Vic was experiencing it; not much got explained.  There are, of
    course, those of us who like post-holocaust stories, like DAMNATION
    ALLEY (not the movie [as he ducks rocks & bottles], the 1969 version.
    
    RE: LOST HORIZON remake:  I took a date to it, else I doubt if I'd
    have gone.  George Kennedy looked embarassed through the whole thing.
    
    						Don

    re: LOST HORIZON
    
    I'd (mercifully) forgotten about the musical. On the other hand,
    there's the original version of the original version. When Capra's
    movie was released, there had been about 20 minutes cut from it.
    Just recently, the complete version was restored and exhibited
    (it was showing in Cooolidge Corner the other week, and I managed
    to miss it. sigh).
    
    re: MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE
    
    Yes, Sheen's son (one of them, anyway --- the other appeared in
    FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF), Emilio Estevez, was in REPO MAN.
    
    re: A BOY AND HIS DOG
    
    I'm surprised. That cheap shot usually gets women (as well as
    male feminists) royally pissed. I must admit that I thought it
    was funny, but I prefer the more serious ending of the story.
    I liked ABAHD (the movie), especially the scenes Underground.
    
    --- jerry

    re A Boy and His Dog - having read the story but not seen the movie
    - is the ending the same as in the original story? If it was, it
    was perfectly logical given where his higher loyalties lay - he
    took care of the one who meant most to him (tho it was  a GROSS
    ending I do not deny.)
    (and I say this as a woman and a feminist.)
    
                          

    It wasn't that the end was different in concept, but in execution.
    Rather than a tacky one-liner, Ellison gave us the following:
    
    "It took a long time before I stopped hearing her calling in
    my head. Asking me, asking me: *do you know what love is?*
    
    "Sure I know.
    
    "A boy loves his dog."
    
    --- jerry
    

    Well, here I am in 1987.  Where is everyone?
    
    I'll assume you're there and make some comments.  
    
    RE:11.52 Liquid Sky - Peter Omalley
       I saw that also.  You did a very good critique of the film and
    a great commentary on the plot and moral.  Some people seem to have
    missed that.  Possibly exposure to PUNK SCENE may be required to
    have a point of reference.
    
    RE:11.58 Martian Chronicles - Larry
        I read the book 2 years before seeing the film.  The film can't
    compare with my imagination or the author's skill.  But, the film
    was still a very good one over all.  I particularly liked the
    dream-like quality I felt while watching.  The feeling you get seeing
    a dying culture- the message within about the problems when to cultures
    meet- and for my taste, the fact that at the end those dead Martians
    may not be so dead after all.
    
    RE:11.62 A Boy and His Dog - 
        Due to bad timing, I waited 2 years to see this film.  I suggest
    it as a "midnight movie" of high quality and humor.  Don't bother
    getting offended- it's just for fun.
    
    
                      MY FAVORITE MOVIE LIST
    
    Forbidden Planet			Plan 9
    Star Wars				Laserblast
    A Boy and His Dog			Killer Tomatoes
    Blade Runner			Labyrinth
    Alien				The Blob(old and new)
    Repo Man				Body Snatchers (old and new)
    Martian Chronicles			Damnation Alley(book is better)
    Liquid Sky				(maybe it should be over here)
    				
    
    
    Books are More Interesting-
    
    Has anyone read Ursula K. Le Guin's new novel-ALWAYS COMING HOME?
    
    For those of you who already love her work, she has written a work
    of great beauty, spirit, understanding and skill.  It's story, poem,
    fable, artwork and music all rolled into one.
    
    The setting is the future/past in North America along the Pacific
    coast in a Valley.  The story is told as a translation from another
    language by the author.     READ IT you'll LOVE IT...
                              
    
    
    and ......... a BIG  PPPPP    SSS
                         P    P  S   S
                         P    P  S 
                         PPPP     SSS
                         P           S
                         P       S   S
                         P        SSS
    
    
    
    DOES THE UPCOMING FILE   "AMERIKA"   COUNT AS SCI FI?
    
    
    
    
    

    P.S. to the BIG p.s.
         I meant to say , does the FILM "AMERIKA" count as SCI FI?

    It's set in 1997, and deals with a Russian-occupied America.
    Sounds like science fiction to me. The general premise has
    been put to use before in sf. One that comes immediately to
    mind is John Hersey's WHITE LOTUS (1965), in which the US was
    occupied by communist China.
    
    --- jerry

    Can anyone help me recall the title of a movie I saw back in the
    (early?) fifties?  It was in color and I seem to remember them landing
    a tall pointy rocket ship on some planet, or maybe the moon, but
    the scene that sticks in my mind is the recovery of a body floating
    in space.  When they look through the faceplate of the helmet they
    see a sort of mummified skull.
    
    

    First guess is DESTINATION MOON.  It's been too long since I've
    seen it to remember the mummy scene, but it was color and was 1950.

    It is availble in videotape; further research is neccessary.
    
    				Don ICEMAN::Rudman

    	Definetely NOT.  DESTINATION MOON did have an astronaut
    accidentally float away from his spaceship, but he was recovered
    alive and well - and besides, DM was one of those rare "hard science"
    SF movies, which avoided as much as possible all the gimmicky horror
    tricks of later, cliched SF films.
              
    	Larry
                            

    After giving it some thought, I would say that it's possibly
    CONQUEST OF SPACE, though I can't be sure, since I haven't
    seen it in some time.
    
    --- jerry

    re: -.1  Well, it was '55, and they did land on Mars.  Same
             producer (George Pal) as DM; can I say I wuz close?
             I still don't recall the "mummy in space".  Not a
             big success, it may not show up real soon on late night
             movies.  ('Course, KING DINOSAUR (also '55) is worse & 
             it shows up at least once a year...)

    				Don ICEMAN::Rudman

    I remember (not too clearly) seeing a film called _Red_Planet_Mars_
    circa 1954.  The clearest memory is the image of a tall, pointy space
    ship rising up from a Martian desert. 
    
    Anyone have any more details?

    Are you sure it wasn't "The Angry Red Planet" I think it very late
    fifties or more likely 1960-61. It was in color.
    
    Steve

    It was definitely prior to May, 1957 (I moved away from the theatre
    I remember seeing it in) and was probably prior to February of 1955
    (younger sibling born).

	Well not being in the true sense of the words a Si-Fi buff ....

	Films I have enjoyed, but then ...


	STAR WARS IV, V VI: Top of the list, good (clean !) adventure,
	special effects good (as I have come to expect from Spielburg).
	Best seen on the big screen, but OK on video, the video version
	in England has been chopped and quite a few bits are missing from
	all three films.

	RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK/TEMPLE OF DOOM: These fight for the 'Top
	of the list' place.  More rip-roaring adventure from Harrison Ford
	Raiders is the better of the two films.

	LORD OF THE RINGS: I loved this, despite having read the books !
	Although the film misses out chunks, I felt that the Semi-Animation
	effects were excellent and added to rather than detracted from the
	mood.  I look forward to the second, third etc if they are ever
	made !  Any-one know anything about 'sequels' ?  PS I "loved" the
	Golom - just right !!

	BLADE RUNNER: I missed this in the cinemas, so have only seen it
	on video but great film.

	SILENT RUNNING: I saw this one by mistake - it is the film/book
	responsible for my being hooked on Si-Fi/Fantasy !!  The film I
	thought I was watching was 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, you can
	imagine how confused I was !! (I had missed the titles) I did 
	later see 20,000 L.U.T.S - not a patch on S.R. - someone really
	used their immagination with that squid !!

	NEVER ENDING STORY: A bit unbelievable in parts but fun nevertheless.
	A good fairy story. (Love that flying 'hearth-rug' !)

	You may have gathered by now that my taste in films runs to fun,
	adventure and being entertained, not being scared sh**less.

	Opinions on E.T. OK but a bit too juvenile - that will get a few 
	going.

	PS never did see 1984 - any recommendations ?

	CJA

    	Please, say either Science Fiction or SF, but DON'T say Si-Fi
    or Sci-Fi!
    
    	Larry
    

    The name "sci-fi" has the connotation of badly-written space operas
    and stories of slimy horrors, published in pulp magazines and
    illustrated with pictures of implausible aliens ravishing almost
    equally implausible women.  It probably has this connotation more
    in the minds of SF readers than in the minds of the people who
    innocently call SF sci-fi.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Re .97:
    
    Earl, for whom I have the greatest respect, please permit me to
    disagree.  "Sci-Fi" was a term hung not on the pulps (some of whose
    BEM-menaced women may have been implausible, but were _delightfully_
    so, like those creations of George Petty in another publication),
    but on schlocky films that pretended to represent science siction.
    I cite for example _The Beginning of the End_, _Robot Monster_,
    and _Cat Women of the Moon_.  In short, it was/is a showbiz term
    not related, save by inductive resonance, to real science fiction.
    
    The term SF comes about in an unusual way.  Prior to the _formal_
    development of the genre, what we now call SF was referred to as
    something like "A romance of science," to quote a subtitle I saw
    once.  Then, when good old Hugo Gernsback forced it as a separate
    literart form by publishing the initial incarnation of _Amazing
    Stories_, he coined the term "Scientifiction," which early fans
    ["fen" to the fannish] abbreviated to STF (once in a while you'll
    still see this surface).  However "scientifiction" was awkward to
    pronounce, and "science fiction" evolved, helped along mightily
    by John W. Campbell, Jr., who favored the term.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re:.98
    
    And I'm afraid I have to disagree with *you*, Steve. "Sci-fi"
    was coined decades ago by Forry Ackerman as a nickname for
    science fiction of *any* medium. Fans started reacting against
    it when mainstream critics started using it in an effort to
    sound "hip" (or perhaps "hep" would be more appropiate).
    
    It was only within the last 10 years or so that fans began
    using "sci-fi" again to refer to schlocky science fiction
    (mostly movies and tv).
    
    By the way, "scientific romance" was indeed the generally-
    accepted term for that genre of fiction prior to Gernsback's
    coinage of "scientifiction".
    
    The general preference of "sf" even above "science fiction"
    is a result of the movement in the late 60's to rename the
    genre "speculative fiction". At the time there was a relative
    new literary sensibility forming (referred to as the New Wave)
    that started downplaying the role of Science in sf in favor
    of style and structure. Many people feel, and rightly so, that
    a lot of sf has little to do with science per se, and thus
    should not be called "science fiction". "SF" has the ambiguity
    of standing for "science fiction" or "speculative fiction".
    
    --- jerry
    and thus should

    Re: .94
    
    >NEVER ENDING STORY: A bit unbelievable in parts but fun nevertheless.
    >	A good fairy story. (Love that flying 'hearth-rug' !)
    
    It is a fairy tale.  The movie covers only half (if that much) of
    the book - the *really* interesting things happen after the movie
    ends.  Book by Michael Ende, translated from German, I think.
    
    The special effects were *very* good.

    Re .99:
    
    Okay, Jerry -- I'll certainly defer to you in the origin (I always
    considered Forry [aka 4SJ] Ackerman somewhat showbiz anyway, but
    that's a rationalization), but it's something _I_ never used during
    that period, excvept as a parody.
    
    "Hep" would indeed be more approprite, as per _The Prisoner_ ...
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Another reason sf fans reject the term sci-fi (except for really bad
    films) is that that media types and others who aren't a part of the
    subculture of sf fans use the term.  Many years ago, I was doing pr 
    for a midwestern con.  I wrote up a nice release for the local
    papers that used the terms sf and science fiction exclusively.
    At the con I showed the reporters a copy of a headline from a
    big city newspaper from several years prior.  The headline read:
    "Sci-Fi Fans Invade City."  Indicating that this was not the kind of
    publicity we were looking for.  Naturally the headlines the next
    day read "Sci-Fi Fans Meet" or something close to that along with the
    usual picture of someone costumed as an alien monster.  The tv people
    were about the same.  Also at the convention were some peculiar 
    individuals who began conversations in the con suites with the line 
    "Yeah, I'm really into this sci-fi stuff."  Upon closer questioning,
    the only sf book they could remember reading was "Stranger in a Strange 
    Land."  (This was before Star Wars and before Star Trek folks had their
    own cons.)  They were however, very experienced in drinking and being 
    generally obnoxious.  Nowadays a lot of people who haven't been exposed 
    to fandom use the term sci-fi without realizing why some people cringe
    when they hear the word.  The story about Forry is true according to
    every account I've heard.

    Mike

    RE:	.94; STAR WARS

    >	special effects good (as I have come to expect from Spielburg).

    George Lucas, who directed the original and produced all three,
    might have something to say about this. As might the three different
    special effects directors that worked on one each. This is not
    to say that Spielburg shouldn't be expected to do good special
    effects you understand.
    
    Paul ;-)

>Well not being in the true sense of the words a Si-Fi buff ....

	Re: .95

	I did warn you, but I will consider my wrist firmly slapped.
	In future I shall refer to any matters to do with Scientifiction
	as "SF".

	Re: .-1

>special effects good (as I have come to expect from Spielburg).

	I think that should have read "from a Spielburg film" - it's 
	what I meant anyway, using Spielburg as a blanket 'description'
	rather than listing the names of all those remarkable people
	who actually were responsible for the effects etc.

	I can even stretch that to a "Lucas/Spielburg film" if you 
	prefer.

	CJA

    re:.104
    
    I think the major point is that Spielberg (note spelling) had
    nothing to do with any of the STAR WARS films. They are Lucas'
    babies.
    
    --- jerry

         
                 I hate  to  tantalize  people,  but  I  talked to Joe
         Haldeman recently (well,  half a year ago) and he was working
         on a script for  the  film  version of one of his novels.  He
         was dissatisfied with the original  script and was editing it
         to his taste.  It was  only  barely mentioned in passing, and
         he didn't say which novel it was  based  on,  so I'm not sure
         what it's going to be (_Forever_War_ perhaps?).   I'll try to
         find out for sure if and when I see  him  again.    Any other
         info out there?
         
         Curt
         

    
    Let me put in a good word for a fine Science Fiction Movie made
    in 1951, The Day the Earth Stood Still. It had a good story line,
    was economically crafted and it had Patricia Neal (for whom I still
    have the warms).
    
    This movie made a succinct and powerful statement about the value
    of limited government. This took place in the closing scene where
    Klaatu (Michael Renee) explains the functions of the Robots as
    policemen.  

    The technical effects were not bad considering the year the movie
    was made.
    

    re:.108
    
    If you think the "powerful statement" made at the end of THE DAY
    THE EARTH STOOD STILL was something, you'll be amazed by the end
    of the story upon which it is based, "Farewell to the Master", by
    Harry Bates.
    
    --- jerry

    re .109
    
    Could you guide me to an anthology where "Farewell to the Master"
    may be found, or if it is full length the year and publisher of
    the book. I would very much like to read it.
    
    Could you precise the farewell speech of Klaatu as it was in the
    book?  I had no idea the movie was was based on a book, so I leaped
    to the conclusion that the movie makers were closet Libertarians.
    I am an easy mark for Libertarian Messages.
    
    While I have you here, I understand there was a recent novel by
    Hogan with a libertarian theme.  It involved human embryos sent
    to a distant start, with intelligent robots to nurture them. When
    they grow up they found a completely Libertarian Society which is
    later threatened by colonists from Earth.  If you know the title
    I would be happy if you could share it with me. Thank you.
    

    Re .110:
    
    One of the best anthologies of science fiction, _Adventures in Space
    and Time_, by Healy and McComas, contains the story.  this book
    was _so_ good it eventually became a Modern Library reprint (title
    change, but the new title eludes me)!
    
    >Could you precise the farewell speech of Klaatu as it was in the
    >book?  I had no idea the movie was was based on a book, so I leaped
    >to the conclusion that the movie makers were closet Libertarians.
    
    The story is a novella, and I think the best thing Harry Bates ever
    wrote.  However, without giving away the story, I will merely say
    that Klaatu made no farewell speech in the novella.
    
    By the way: in the movie, the robot was named Gort.  In the novella,
    the robot was named Gnut, which I suppose the movie scripters thought
    would be too funny-sounding.
    
    Great story, though...
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re:.110
    
    I second Steve's recommendation for ADVENTURES IN SPACE AND TIME.
    If you hunt around, you might even be able to find it in trade
    paperback on remainder tables. It is arguably the best science
    fiction anthology ever published (I say arguably only because
    of Groff Conklin's THE BEST OF SCIENCE FICTION).
    
    Another good anthology with "Farewell to the Master", especially
    if you like sf films is THEY CAME FROM OUTER SPACE, edited by Jim
    Wynorski. It reprints short fiction upon which a number of classic
    sf films are based. Among the contents are Don A. Stuart's (John
    W. Campbell, Jr.'s) "Who Goes There?" [THE THING], Ray Bradbury's
    "The Fog Horn" [THE BEAST FROM 20,000 FATHOMS], George Langelaan's
    "The Fly", Arthur C. Clarke's "The Sentinel" [2001: A SPACE
    ODYSSEY], Harlan Ellison's "A Boy and His Dog", and Raymond Jones's
    "The Alien Machine" [THIS ISLAND EARTH]. Now if Wynorski was
    *really* clever, he would've included William Shakespeare's "The
    Tempest" :-)
    
    Unfortunately, THEY CAME FROM OUTER SPACE is not currently in
    print in a trade edition. It may still be available from the
    Science Fiction Book Club (that's where I got my copy).
    
    --- jerry

My copy of ADVENTURES IN SPACE AND TIME is a Modern Library Giant 
called Famous Science-Fiction Stories [their hyphen]. It is subtitled 
Adventures in Time and Space. The Modern Library was published by 
Random House (at least when my copy was published, copyright '46, 
'57). Library of Congress number 57-11402.

Glenn

    	As for the Hogan novel about embryos...
                         
        I belive that was Starburst.  Iread it a few years ago and
    can't remember much about it except that I had mixed feelings about
    it.  (Maybe the message was too heavy-handed...)
    
    tlh
    

    RE: .109
    
    The Hogan book you're refering to is "Voyage to Yesteryear" (voyage
    from yesteryear?).  It's not particularly recent, as I have a SFBC
    edition from 1984, but it is on e of Hogans best.  Highly Recommended.
    
    Steve-in-Colorado
    

    
    
    
    	As an avid reader of Frank Herberts' novels I think Dune
    was the best adaptation of a novel series I've ever seen.
    It is in fact my all time favorite sci-fi movie.
    
    
    
    				Joe Lore

    re:.116
    
    Unfortunately, you seem to be the only one with that opinion.
    
    DUNE was an OK movie. I saw it once when it was released, and
    I saw the expanded version on tv only because I had nothing
    better to do at the time and my nephew turned it on. I have no
    urge to see it again.
    
    But as an adaptation of the novel, I thought it was dreadful.
    
    --- jerry

    re:.116
    
    What other SF movies have you seen?
    
    							Don

	I'm going to resurect this one...

	I also liked DUNE, but then I saw the film before reading the book.
	I liked it so much I went out and bought the book, and then discovered
	the shortcommings of the film, definitely the best way round; no
	disappointments.  I liked the book so much I bought and read all the
	others in the series !!

	CJA

    If you want to see a really good film version of DUNE, there's
    one available. They've changed the setting to Earth, the names
    of the characters, and all of the other particulars. And the
    title. The basic story is pretty much intact, though.
    
    The new title is...
    
    LAWRENCE OF ARABIA
    
    :-)
    
    But seriously, folks, from the moment about 20 minutes into the
    film, where Lawrence (O'Toole) blows out the match right through
    the next 3+ hours, this movie is, essentially, DUNE.
    
    I never thought about it until someone on a film panel at an sf
    con a couple of months ago mentioned it, but as soon as he said
    it, I knew he was right. Seeing the restored version of LOA a few
    weeks confirmed it.
    
    --- jerry

    
    Did you notice that the natives of Dune speak Arabic? And that 
    their religion is "Zen-Sunni?"
                           ^^^^^

    Did you also notice that most of the Arabic words that do get used are
    hideously mispronounced (e.g., KWI-satz HAD-erach in lieu of kwi-SATZ
    ha-DER-ach)? 

    
    No _wonder_ I couldn't understand a word they said!
    
    (Actually, I was going by the gloss in the back of the book--I recog-
    nized a few words that looked familiar.)

    re:.122
    
    Has it maybe occurred to you that there's no reason to expect that
    the Arabic words would be pronounced the same way as they are today,
    given that DUNE is set thousands of years in the future?
    
    Consider how much English pronunciation has changed in just a few
    hundred years.
    
    --- jerry

    Their English seems to have survived intact ;^)
    
    -dave

I saw a lot of films mentioned that are favorites of mine.  One that was
missing was "Them".  It was a "beast created by atomic bombs" movie from the
Fifties but more classy.  Had a touch of a murder mystery at the beginning.
Pretty good special effects for the time.

						Mike

>I saw a lot of films mentioned that are favorites of mine.  One that was
>missing was "Them".  It was a "beast created by atomic bombs" movie from the
>Fifties but more classy.  Had a touch of a murder mystery at the beginning.
>Pretty good special effects for the time.

I remember "THEM" as being a movie about an army of giant ants from an
nuclear explosion.  I can still remember the scene with the little in shock
staring blankly ahead then all of a sudden screaming wildly and looking in 
all directions yelling "THEM, "THEM"!

Mike_L

    _Them_ was fun, but it was Sci-Fi, not Science Fiction.  Anyone
    who doesn't know why should have to write "square-cube law" a thousand
    times on an old-fashioned school blackboard.
    
    However, what made the movie really good was that the basic story
    was a police-procedural one.  Whether it had been monster ants of
    terrorists, the good guys would have to have acted about the same
    way.  For this reason, it had what the promotional writers call
    a "gritty realism" not often found in Sci-Fi films.
    
    (Another film with that level of realism was the original version
    of _The Thing_.  The overlapping dialogue, etc., gave it a versimilitude
    rare in such flicks.)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

re .127

I didn't consider "hard core vs soft core" when I entered .126.  I agree
that THEM was not Science Fiction under the definition given elsewhere
in this conference.  Watch out for me though.  I tend to lump hard and
soft together and then separate them into "I Like" vs "I Don't Like".
Feel free to keep me honest though!

					:-)

						Mike

PS. The original THING was quite good.  I liked the 80's remake but not as
much.  Ditto on INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS and INVADERS FROM MARS.

    One of my personal favorites is the silent film "Metropolis". I've
    always thought there were several Pink Floyd songs (such as Welcome
    to machine - can't remember now if that's the song name or the album
    name) that would have been great as music for it. My fav scene is
    watching the wheels turn. liesl

    re:.129
    
    	� I didn't consider "hard core vs soft core" when I
    	entered .126. �
    
    I'll say. The only "hard core" SF films I've seen were FLESH GORDON
    (the original, X-rated version) and CAF� FLESH. Both were quite
    good, too. :-)
    
    --- jerry

    re .130:
    
    "Welcome to the Machine" was on the album _Wish_You_Were_Here_.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

                
                re:.132
                
                funny, my node says that when you log on :')
                
                re: them
                
                my old band was called 'formicide' and one of the
                songs we did  was  based on the movie 'them' with
                the appropriate title of 'them' :').