Re: Syfy- goodbye scifi - has James Bond marathon instead (Thanksgiving)
David E. Powell
> On Nov 25, 8:32 am, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > What does *any* of this have to do with science fiction or fantasy
> > fiction? James Bond is not scientifically accurate, and it certainly
> > isn't the classic swords-and-sorcerers of fantasy fiction. It's part
> > of the spy/mystery genre.
>
> Hmm, well let's put that to the test :
>
> > THURSDAY
> > Dr. No
>
> Villain with metal hands using radiation beams to throw rockets off
> course? Sci-fi!
True. The Cape Canaveral rocketry and nuclear technology, both big new
technologies at the time.
> > Licence to Kill
>
> Bond after the head of a drug cartel for revenge : Not sci-fi.
Agreed.
> > Live and Let Die
>
> Bond taking down a Carribbean voodoo practicing drug lord. Not sci-fi.
There was the shark killing inflato-pellet though. The mechanical arm
wasn't totally robotic, but there's an argument given some of the
stuff the one guy could do with it. But, yeah. Most Bond movies have
SF-ish gadgets, but I would think "Moonraker" would be the big Sci-Fi-
ish one.
> > The Spy Who Loved Me
>
> A ship that opens up to swallow submarines? Let's say partial credit
> on that one.
Agreed, and wasn't there an underwater base intended to survive a
nuclear exchange as well?
> > Tomorrow Never Dies
>
> Bond driving a talking car via remote control, an invisible stealth
> ship? Sci-fi!
Yes!
> > Casino Royale
>
> Bond playing cards. Not sci-fi.
Was it the Niven one or the new one?
> > For Your Eyes Only
>
> Bond trying to find a sunken ship. Not sci-fi.
Yeah. Has one of my favorite Roger Moore scenes too, when he kicks a
car off a cliff with a bad guy in it.
> > Man With Golden Gun
>
> Solar technology probably was sci-fi when it was made, not so much
> these days.
True. Similar ot the early "collector" type arrays, with a bit of SF
elements thrown in.
> > FRIDAY
> > Thunderball
>
> Bond looking for stolen nuclear warheads. Not sci-fi.
However, the diving scenes and minisubs were pretty huge for the time,
and the underwater sequences still hold up pretty well.
> > From Russia With Love
>
> Bond chasing after a Russian decoding computer. Not sci-fi.
The briefcase was pretty cool!
> > You Only Live Twice
>
> A spaceship that swallows other ships controlled by a villain from a
> hollowed-out Japanese volcano lair? Sci-fi, baby!
Definitely. Much like Dr. No, it was huge on the Space Age stuff. The
Gyrojet guns, new at the time, were pretty neat too. Also they had a
Gyrojet cigarettre! If you google "Gyrojet" you'll see some pretty
cool stuff!
> > Diamonds Are Forever
>
> Villain who has perfect clones of himself using a diamond-powered
> laser beam satellite? Sci-fi.
Most definitely! I love that the computer codes were on cassete tapes
too! Ah memories!
> > Casino Royale
>
> More cards. No sci-fi.
Niven's or the new one? I guess they are showing both versions!
> > GoldenEye
>
> EMP satellite weapon. Hmm. Partial credit.
Nod, and the big Arecibo antenna array!
> > Goldfinger
>
> Villain wants to blow up Fort Knox. Gadget-laden car. Partial credit.
Plus the flying hat of doom! This one is a classic!
> > Never Say Never Again
>
> Puffing, wheezing, out of shape Connery pretending he's still James
> Bond = sci-fi.
There was the 3-D video game sequence with electric shock feedback, as
I recall. Pretty advanced stuff for 1983!
Connery rules btw ;)
> Of course, others have mentioned Moonraker, and Die Another Day would
> certain qualify as sci-fi, with its gene therapy appearance-changing
> villain, a laser satellite, and virtual reality.
Agreed on both of those! Moonraker may get the all time prize for all
of the elements it has. 1979 was heavily influenced by the success of
"Star Wars" a couple of years earlier. Alien, etc. too.
The genetic playing around in Die Another Day, the big laser gun, lots
of stuff there.
David
Michael Black
>>> The Spy Who Loved Me
>>
>> A ship that opens up to swallow submarines? Let's say partial credit
>> on that one.
>
> Agreed, and wasn't there an underwater base intended to survive a
> nuclear exchange as well?
>
I thought of it more as a mansion on the high seas, that could sink
into the ocean as needed. We never see anything in there but the shark
tank and the luxurious office or meeting room (whichever it was). That
is certainly futuristic.
One thing about the Bond films in the old days is that they had
significant underwater scenes, which certainly reflected what science
was doing at the time. National Geographic was full of articles about
diving for treasure or living in underwater domes (the real kind), and
either that's faded with time or like the space program it's become too
commonplace to cover anymore. Jacques Cousteau was on network tv
regularly too.
I see later you mention the underwater scenes in reference to another
of the films.
Michael
David E. Powell
Yes, they pushed the tech of the day as far as it could go and took
plausible "next steps." So there is definitely a SF element there. Tom
Clancy has done some similar things.
I agree about the underwater stuff, Bond really did a lot of that
stuff. Thunderball's scenes still haven't been topped by anyone in my
book.
Gavin Christie
'Syfy'
What the fuck are they thinking? do we really need to have our intelligence
insulted like this?
Seems like yet another bunch of boardroom idiots justifying their existances
by lifting the bonnet when there isnt a problem.
"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:e044aec8-638e-4fdf...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...