Conference noted::sf

    Is this a real movie or a 'made for TV'?  Either way I wanna see
    it!
    
    Willie

    Apparently, it had very limited theatrical release. I remember
    seeing a review of it in SF-LOVERS a couple of months ago, and
    from the description (which, of course, one cannot always trust)
    it looked really, seriously bad.
    
    --- jerry

    		     -<Warning, Warning, Danger, Danger>-

    While we were in DC for Disclave, we saw a review in the paper about
    this movie.  The only phrase that stays with me now is, "Although
    this movie was filmed in English, it had the feel of a dubbed film."
    
    The review was literate, with a good grasp of SF themes and a
    familiarity with Asimov's work.  But it basically summed up to:
    
    	BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD!

    
    			Merryl
    			(new around here...)
    

    I had the misfortune of seeing it in Chicago last summer.  It was indeed
    really bad.  The only elements were kept from the original story
    (that I can remember) were the title and the "night".  Everything else
    was different.  It looked like it was filmed in Arizona at Soleri's
    arcosanti or whatever he calls it.  The cast was unknowns who did the
    best they could.  It was mostly about a political/social/religious
    clash between the members of some kind of semi-primitive tribe.  Some
    of them tried to ignore the catastrophe, others wanted to exploit it
    for their own personal gain etc.  It you had never read the story you
    would have thought it was merely mediorce.  During the film, several 
    people in the theater got up, yelled expletives, and walked out slamming
    the doors behind them.  As far as I know, only two people in the theater
    liked it.  One of them being the person I was with.  I really do not
    recommend anyone wasting their money on this one.  

    Mike

    IT WAS A WASTE OF FILM!
    
    JIM

    It's out on video now, and yeah it's pretty terrible.  The theme 
    is supposed to be facing-the-apocalypse, and it's too heavy for 
    the dialogue.  The actors must mouth windy profundities.  Weird
    extra plot lines are thrown into the story, like a mysterious 
    woman who appears out of the desert and seduces both Atun, the 
    astronomer protagonist, and his son-in-law.
    
    I will give it credit, though, for trying to portray an alien 
    world.  As .4 mentioned, it was filmed at Arcosanti, a utopian 
    community in the Southwest founded by a visionary architect, Paolo Soleri.
    Everything is curved - walls, window frames, and doors.  
    Everything opens to the outside (as would befit a culture afraid 
    of the dark).  Everything is made of wooden beams and 
    sand-colored concrete.  Imagine an Arab village designed by Frank 
    Lloyd Wright and you've got it.  
    
    The technical level was nicely thought out.  None of the 
    villagers use iron artifacts, only copper.  The telescope is 
    auditory, not optical.  Energy is supplied by bobbing kites, 
    light by fluorescent crystals.

    The real problem comes in trying to portray alien behavior.  
    "Star Wars" also did a great job in showing an alien desert 
    world, but they sidestepped the behavior question by populating 
    it with Iowan farmers.  Aliens will do things for strange 
    reasons, which will look merely stupid if not done right.  The writer
    choose to use stylized dialogue and ritual motions, and it just 
    doesn't come off.
    
    I suspect that this was a student film project that got 
    over-funded.  Many of the characters and settings are 
    unexplained, as if hastily spliced together.  Maybe if it had 
    been cut down to a half-hour, its visual strengths could have won 
    over its literary weaknesses.  
    
    /jlr
    
    PS "Light Years", the other recent movie version of an Asimov 
    piece, was also visually inventive with really inane dialogue.  A trend?

    I just found this topic.  The movie was an INCREDIBLE stinker. 
    How they could hose Asimov that badly is beyond me.
    
    However, it DID motivate me to visit Arcosanti on my way back from
    the north rim of the Grand Canyon last fall.  Arcosanti is.. well,
    I wanted to like it very much.  And indeed so much conventional
    architecture is boxes, that my eyes WERE soothed.
    
    However, Soleri is so adamant that this is the architecture and
    social setting of the future that it made me look at it differently.
    If you saw the film you know it's built on the side of a valley..
    lots of up-and-down walkways.  Lots of concrete, not much grass
    (desert environment) thus not good for children.. lots of narrow,
    steep concrete stairs with no handrails, thus not good for seniors.
    
    Sort of a Nazi view of the future.. only the physically fit seem
    welcome.
    
    karl

    In the back cover of some book I read recently (I'll have to check when
    I get home) was a little blurb about "This author's collaboration with
    Isaac Asimov on a novelization of Nightfall is one of this year's most
    eagerly awaited books."  Anyone else have any input?
    
    Willie

    I had not come across this note before the weekend - if I had I'd
    have spared myself and hour and a half of utter boredom.
    
    I am glad that .4 states that it had little to do with Asimov's
    story other than the title and 'night'.
    
    I really felt that the story led nowhere - and the ending was a
    major let down - what a waste of time and money....

    This month's IASFM (August 1990) has an editorial by Asimov in which he
    discusses shared universes, and specifically talks about the
    novelization of "Nightfall". The author of the book is Robert
    Silverberg.
    
    - Richard

I finished last night, the novellisation of Nightfall.  Basically, I would say
it's a pretty good cut at a novel length version of the original novella.
There isn't *that* much new material, as such.  More of an expansion of the
existing framework, time to increase the plots, weave the characterisations,
expand the cultural background, etc.
	I *would* recommend a read, although don't expect it to be as good as
the first time you read the novella !  I would rate it 7/10 - "Nice try guys,
now can we see something -original- ?"
	Cheers,
		hazza :*]

    Picked up the paperback of the Asimov/Silverberg collaboration on
    Nightfall.  OK, I guess, but what's the point?  If you read the
    original, the expansion is useless. Just another "Let's see if we
    can squeeze out a few more bucks from this old idea" project.
    Read it if you don't have something better to do.