2000 Hugo Winners
T. Troy McNemar
show up on the Chicon web page, but I haven't found them yet.
http://www.locusmag.com/2000/News/News09a.html
The fiction awards went to:
Novel: A DEEPNESS IN THE SKY by Vernor Vinge
Novella: "The Winds of Marble Arch" by Connie Willis
Novelette: "10^16 to 1" by James Patrick Kelly
Short Story: "Scherzo with Tyrannosaur" by Michael Swanwick
--
T. Troy McNemar Tr...@McNemar.com
"If you want sense, you'll have to make it yourself."
--The Dodecahedron in Norton Juster's _The Phantom Tollbooth_
http://www.mcnemar.com
T. Troy McNemar
>Novel: A DEEPNESS IN THE SKY by Vernor Vinge
>Novella: "The Winds of Marble Arch" by Connie Willis
>Novelette: "10^16 to 1" by James Patrick Kelly
>Short Story: "Scherzo with Tyrannosaur" by Michael Swanwick
Here's the rest:
Best Related Book: Science Fiction of the 20th Century
by Frank M. Robinson
Best Dramatic Presentation: Galaxy Quest
Best Professional Editor: Gardner Dozois
Best Professional Artist: Michael Whelan
Best Semi-prozine: Locus
Best Fanzine: File 770
Best Fan Writer: Dave Langford
Best Fan Artist: Joe Mayhew
John W. Campbell Memorial Award for Best New Writer [not a Hugo]:
Cory Doctorow
Aaron M. Renn
>>Novel: A DEEPNESS IN THE SKY by Vernor Vinge
Thank goodness.
>Best Dramatic Presentation: Galaxy Quest
Fandom embarrasses itself.
--
Aaron M. Renn (ar...@urbanophile.com) http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/
Elisabeth Carey
> >Best Dramatic Presentation: Galaxy Quest
>
> Fandom embarrasses itself.
Fandom demonstrates good taste and a sense of humor. All the Dramatic
Presentation nominees this year deserved to be, and would have been
respectable winners, but _Galaxy Quest_ has the added advantage of
being the most pure fun.
--
Lis Carey
This post is copyright 2000 by Elisabeth Carey. Permission to
insert links when displaying it is available for $100. Use in
this fashion constitutes acceptance of these terms.
T. Troy McNemar
>T. Troy McNemar wrote:
>> >>>Novella: "The Winds of Marble Arch" by Connie Willis
>> >
>> >Another for Willis. Has she overtaken Harlan Ellison and Poul Anderson yet?
>>
>> I was a little surprised that this story won. I guess she really can't lose.
>>
>I haven't read this, but I know that Marble Arch is in London. Is it
>set in the universe of Fire Watch and To Say Nothing of the Dog?
It's not a time travel story with Dunworthy or a Dunworthy cameo. It's set in
present day and is about a haunting feeling that a tourist feels at the Marble
Arch subway station.
Janet Kegg
McNemar wrote:
>Previously on rec.arts.sf.written, Georgiana Gates <ram...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>>T. Troy McNemar wrote:
>
>>> >>>Novella: "The Winds of Marble Arch" by Connie Willis
>>> >
>>> >Another for Willis. Has she overtaken Harlan Ellison and Poul Anderson yet?
>>>
>>> I was a little surprised that this story won. I guess she really can't lose.
>>>
>>I haven't read this, but I know that Marble Arch is in London. Is it
>>set in the universe of Fire Watch and To Say Nothing of the Dog?
>
>It's not a time travel story with Dunworthy or a Dunworthy cameo. It's set in
>present day and is about a haunting feeling that a tourist feels at the Marble
>Arch subway station.
And it can be read online at
http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_991011/winds.htm
BTW, links to the fulltext of apparently all of the short fiction
nominees are available at http://www.chicon.org/hugos/nominees.htm.
I've read the Willis and Swanwick's "Scherzo with Tyrannosaur" on the
Web and will probably read others.
-- Janet
Freyja
"Elisabeth Carey" <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:39B23910...@mediaone.net...
| Aaron M. Renn wrote:
|
| > >Best Dramatic Presentation: Galaxy Quest
| >
| > Fandom embarrasses itself.
|
| Fandom demonstrates good taste and a sense of humor. All the
Dramatic
| Presentation nominees this year deserved to be, and would have been
| respectable winners, but _Galaxy Quest_ has the added advantage of
| being the most pure fun.
And the parodies of some people were so dead-on. That movie was a
total hoot!
--
Freyja
(de-spam e-mail addy)
T. Troy McNemar
>BTW, links to the fulltext of apparently all of the short fiction
>nominees are available at http://www.chicon.org/hugos/nominees.htm.
>I've read the Willis and Swanwick's "Scherzo with Tyrannosaur" on the
>Web and will probably read others.
Almost all of the nominees are worth reading, but none of them are
grab-fellow-readers-by-the-shirt-and-force-them-to-read standouts like, say,
"Story of Your Life" by Ted Chiang was in last year's contest.
Of course, "Story" didn't win.
Damien Neil
Courtenay Footman <c...@adore.lightlink.com> wrote:
>In another post, someone mentioned that the Hugo covers sf and fantasy,
>and that "Marble Arch" is fantasy. Hmmm. Somewhere on the boundary
>of fantasy and magical realism, I'd say. That may technically qualify
>for the Hugo, but I will note it is _rare_ for fantasy to win the Hugo.
I've always seen "magic realism" as fantasy dressed up in its Sunday
suit for the literary market. Is there really any distinction?
- Damien
Richard Horton
In my opinion, yes. The short version of the distinction: the
fantastic elements in true magic realism are internally inconsistent,
and generally used for symbolic purposes (though they are =real=,
they're not illusions or anything).
(Granted that much bad fantasy is internally inconsistent, it's meant
to be consistent, usually.)
I'd agree that the fantastical element in "The Winds of Marble Arch"
was of a Magical Realist sort.
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.sfsite.com/tangent)
Brenda
Joe Slater wrote:
> av...@bigfoot.com (Avram Grumer) wrote:
> >It was also a rare thing: a dead-on-target but also good-natured parody.
> >Most parodies either are mean or miss the target. (Or both.)
>
> I thought the bit with the kids was a bit overdone, and looked as
> though it was designed to appeal to the young juvenile audience.
>
No. I think the role of the young geeks captured the internal-reality
feeling perfectly. There is a subset of fandom that REALLY BELIEVE, and this
is their accolade. Their True Belief saved the day.
I was at the Hugos, and the guys who accepted the award for GQ were almost
incoherent with surprise and gratitude. We agreed that that was the exact
moment for the alien spaceship to come crashing through the ceiling and land
on the stage.
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough, author of DOORS OF DEATH AND LIFE
From Tor Books in May 2000
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
Andrew Plotkin
> Joe Slater wrote:
>> av...@bigfoot.com (Avram Grumer) wrote:
>> >It was also a rare thing: a dead-on-target but also good-natured parody.
>> >Most parodies either are mean or miss the target. (Or both.)
>>
>> I thought the bit with the kids was a bit overdone, and looked as
>> though it was designed to appeal to the young juvenile audience.
It appealed to *me*.
> No. I think the role of the young geeks captured the internal-reality
> feeling perfectly. There is a subset of fandom that REALLY BELIEVE, and this
> is their accolade. Their True Belief saved the day.
If I were in the situation, I hope I would be given the grace to Truly
Believe. I might not -- I spend a lot of time cynical -- but that's a
tendency I try to fight.
--Z (member, Time Travellers' Aid Society)
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
Joe Slater
>> I thought the bit with the kids was a bit overdone, and looked as
>> though it was designed to appeal to the young juvenile audience.
Brenda <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>No. I think the role of the young geeks captured the internal-reality
>feeling perfectly. There is a subset of fandom that REALLY BELIEVE, and this
>is their accolade. Their True Belief saved the day.
But they were kidlings. Dear little rosy-cheeked cherubs. It should
have been the mocked geeks from the start of the show, who were
primarily adults or late teens.
jds
--
I die. The rasfw posters all ask "Where are Joe's entertaining messages?"
Frustration builds among the posters until they get coronary aneurisms.
All die.
O, the embarrassment.
Joe Slater
>I'd agree that the fantastical element in "The Winds of Marble Arch"
>was of a Magical Realist sort.
Would you call Thorne Smith's novels "Magical Realist"? I think when
the fantastic element is the whole premise of the story, it has to be
called straight fantasy.
Richard Horton
<joeDEL...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>Richard Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>I'd agree that the fantastical element in "The Winds of Marble Arch"
>>was of a Magical Realist sort.
>
>Would you call Thorne Smith's novels "Magical Realist"? I think when
>the fantastic element is the whole premise of the story, it has to be
>called straight fantasy.
Fair point. Let me think about this.
Damien Neil
Richard Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>I've always seen "magic realism" as fantasy dressed up in its Sunday
>>suit for the literary market. Is there really any distinction?
>
>In my opinion, yes. The short version of the distinction: the
>fantastic elements in true magic realism are internally inconsistent,
>and generally used for symbolic purposes (though they are =real=,
>they're not illusions or anything).
Any fantasy that harkens back to the roots of myth isn't going to be
spending too much time on consistent magic systems, however. Is there
any consistency in _The Lord of the Rings_, outside of "Gandalf is
powerful," and "the Ring makes you invisible"?
I do think I see what you're getting at by fantastic elements being
used for symbolic purposes, but it seems like a very slippery
distinction to me. Where on the continuum from _The Fionavar
Tapestry_ to _The Lions of Al-Rassan_ does Kay cross the line from
fantasy to magic realism? (Or does being set in a different world
make it fantasy?)
>(Granted that much bad fantasy is internally inconsistent, it's meant
>to be consistent, usually.)
I read _Dreamweaver's Dilemma_ by Bujold on the flight back from ChiCon.
She has some interesting comments about how modern fantasy readers
expect consistency in the magic, which is really at odds with how magic
was historically perceived. As a result, she considers the (somewhat)
consistent magic in _The Spirit Ring_ to be one of the more anachronistic
elements of the book.
>I'd agree that the fantastical element in "The Winds of Marble Arch"
>was of a Magical Realist sort.
I need to get around to reading that one now. I read "Scherzo with
Tyrannosaur_ last night, which was excellent.
- Damien
Damien Neil
Joe Slater <joeDEL...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>>No. I think the role of the young geeks captured the internal-reality
>>feeling perfectly. There is a subset of fandom that REALLY BELIEVE, and this
>>is their accolade. Their True Belief saved the day.
>
>But they were kidlings. Dear little rosy-cheeked cherubs. It should
>have been the mocked geeks from the start of the show, who were
>primarily adults or late teens.
I think that True Belief is a trait that belongs to children. When
you get older, cynicism sets in, and you can never quite see things
in the same way. You get the older fanboys who act the same way, but
it isn't the same...for a child, this is a part of being a child. For
an adult, this is an attempt to remain a child.
- Damien
Lynn Calvin
>
>
>Joe Slater wrote:
>
>> av...@bigfoot.com (Avram Grumer) wrote:
>> >It was also a rare thing: a dead-on-target but also good-natured parody.
>> >Most parodies either are mean or miss the target. (Or both.)
>>
>> I thought the bit with the kids was a bit overdone, and looked as
>> though it was designed to appeal to the young juvenile audience.
>>
>
>
>
>No. I think the role of the young geeks captured the internal-reality
>feeling perfectly. There is a subset of fandom that REALLY BELIEVE, and this
>is their accolade. Their True Belief saved the day.
>
>I was at the Hugos, and the guys who accepted the award for GQ were almost
>incoherent with surprise and gratitude. We agreed that that was the exact
>moment for the alien spaceship to come crashing through the ceiling and land
>on the stage.
>
To me Galaxy Quest was a perfect example of something that draws deeper
meaning from being recursive with five or six levels, just taking the
obvious stuff.
Lynn Calvin
lca...@interaccess.com
UU Discussion also available on:
news://alt.religion.unitarian-univ for unmoderated discussion
UU-Community email list for moderated discussion on uua.org
UUS-L mailing list
Holding Rich Puchalsky in my thoughts.
Freyja
"Lynn Calvin" <lca...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
news:39b7f130....@nntp.interaccess.com...
I've seen it. I bought the tape today so my family can watch it.
Jordan S. Bassior
>It clearly shows that fandom doesn't take film seriously as an art form.
No, it clearly shows that fandom finds a double _Star Trek_ parody (GQ the show
is a ST parody, and the actors are also meant to be parodies of specific ST
actors) more amusing than you do.
--
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
--
"Whoever would be a man must be a non-conformist" (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
--
William December Starr
T. Troy McNemar <Tr...@McNemar.com> said:
> The fiction awards went to:
>
> Novel: A DEEPNESS IN THE SKY by Vernor Vinge
> Novella: "The Winds of Marble Arch" by Connie Willis
You heard it here first, folks, all the way back in April:
-------- [ *begin* ] -------------------------------------------------
Re: Hugo Nominations
Author: William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
Date: 2000/04/21
Forum: rec.arts.sf.written
In article <390048CB...@worldnet.att.net>,
shsi...@sfsite.com said:
> Best Novella (191 nominations for 58 novellas)
>
> "The Astronaut From Wyoming" by Adam-Troy Castro and Jerry Oltion
> (Analog 7-8/99)
> "Forty, Counting Down" by Harry Turtledove (Asimov's 12/99)
> "Hunting the Snark" by Mike Resnick (Asimov's 12/99)
> "Son Observe the Time" by Kage Baker (Asimov's 5/99)
> "The Winds of Marble Arch" by Connie Willis (Asimov's 10-11/99)
Well, another Hugo Award for Ms. Willis it is, then.
(Oh, sure, there still has to be voting, but surely that's just a
formality. Connie Willis always wins. It's in the rules somewhere.)
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
-------- [ *end* ] ---------------------------------------------------
William December Starr
T. Troy McNemar <Tr...@McNemar.com> said:
>>>> Novella: "The Winds of Marble Arch" by Connie Willis
>>
>> Another for Willis. Has she overtaken Harlan Ellison and Poul
>> Anderson yet?
>
> I was a little surprised that this story won. I guess she really
> can't lose.
I told you so, told you so, told you, told you, told you so! :-)
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Lee DeRaud
Starr) wrote:
>In article <o9v4rsge0qeu8fn6n...@4ax.com>,
>T. Troy McNemar <Tr...@McNemar.com> said:
>
>>>>> Novella: "The Winds of Marble Arch" by Connie Willis
>>>
>>> Another for Willis. Has she overtaken Harlan Ellison and Poul
>>> Anderson yet?
>>
>> I was a little surprised that this story won. I guess she really
>> can't lose.
>
>I told you so, told you so, told you, told you, told you so! :-)
Where I come from , they call that a "drive-by gloat" :-)
Lee
P Nielsen Hayden
Aaron M. Renn <ar...@urbanophile.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 00:58:29 GMT, Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>Best Dramatic Presentation: Galaxy Quest
>>>
>>>Fandom embarrasses itself.
>>
>
>It clearly shows that fandom doesn't take film seriously as an art form.
>competition would have won a Hugo. Ask a legitimate film critic to assess
>the films in question and see where Galaxy Quest rates.
I voted for BEING JOHN MALKOVICH. But I'm deeply mistrustful of
arguments that depend on the idea of "legitimate film critics." Is
film criticism licensed now? Does that make the rest of us
"illegitimate film critics"? This sort of talk is nothing more than
a crude grab at unearned cultural privilege.
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
P Nielsen Hayden
>
>>BTW, links to the fulltext of apparently all of the short fiction
>>nominees are available at http://www.chicon.org/hugos/nominees.htm.
>>I've read the Willis and Swanwick's "Scherzo with Tyrannosaur" on the
>>Web and will probably read others.
>
>Almost all of the nominees are worth reading, but none of them are
>grab-fellow-readers-by-the-shirt-and-force-them-to-read standouts like, say,
>"Story of Your Life" by Ted Chiang was in last year's contest.
>
>Of course, "Story" didn't win.
It did win the Nebula. Also the Sturgeon Award, the short-story
companion to the "other" Campbell Award.
Stevie Gamble
Hayden) writes:
>On 4 Sep 2000 01:15:12 GMT,
> Aaron M. Renn <ar...@urbanophile.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 00:58:29 GMT, Pete McCutchen
><p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>>Best Dramatic Presentation: Galaxy Quest
>>>>
>>>>Fandom embarrasses itself.
>>>
>>>I think it's more, "fandom has a sense of humor about itself."
>>
>>It clearly shows that fandom doesn't take film seriously as an art form.
>>I doubt a similar short story or novel up against similar levels of
>>competition would have won a Hugo. Ask a legitimate film critic to assess
>>the films in question and see where Galaxy Quest rates.
>I voted for BEING JOHN MALKOVICH. But I'm deeply mistrustful of
>arguments that depend on the idea of "legitimate film critics." Is
>film criticism licensed now? Does that make the rest of us
>"illegitimate film critics"?
You mean you've never heard the phrase "those b*stard critics" before?
--
Stevie Gamble
"But however entrancing it is to wander
unchecked through a garden of bright images,
are we not enticing your mind from another
subject of almost equal importance?"
Del Cotter
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>T. Troy McNemar <Tr...@McNemar.com> said:
>> Novella: "The Winds of Marble Arch" by Connie Willis
>
>You heard it here first, folks, all the way back in April:
I genuflect in your direction.
--
. . . . Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk . . . .
JustRead:Mars:JohnBarnesApocalypses&ApostrophesMichaelConeyHelloSummerGoodby
e:WalterMMillerJrStLeibowitz&TWHW:IainBanksWhit:DorothyDunnettTheGameOfKings
ToRead:SMStirlingAgainstTheTideOfYears:HBeamPiperSpaceViking:VernorVingeADee
Aaron M. Renn
>I voted for BEING JOHN MALKOVICH. But I'm deeply mistrustful of
>arguments that depend on the idea of "legitimate film critics." Is
>film criticism licensed now? Does that make the rest of us
>"illegitimate film critics"? This sort of talk is nothing more than
>a crude grab at unearned cultural privilege.
I intended the term "legitmate" to refer to critics with actual training
and knowledge of film, as opposed to many newspaper and TV reviewers
who are simply reporters assigned a beat.
I understand your point. Nevertheless, unless we judge that there are
some standards other than personal preference, we're reduced to a pure
popularity contest. In that case, McDonald's is the world's best
restaurant. We can avoid the use of the term "critic" and expand it
to include other film professionals if desired. Say professors in
Film Studies departments. Unfortunately, these aren't generally
available for surveying.
Now the Hugos are a popularity content (albeit one with a shockingly
low participation rate), so I guess it is fair to say that Galaxy
Quest was the most popular film among the very small community of Hugo
voters.
But I can't help but ask myself: why is it that SF has such a bad reputation
outside of its own fan base? What do you think that your average
American movie goer who isn't an SF fan would think of the Hugo results?
What do you think your serious film buffs would think?
I maintain my personal rating: Galaxy Quest was by far the worst of the Hugo
nominees I saw this year, and it speaks poorly of Hugo voters to have picked
it #1.
Nancy Lebovitz
Aaron M. Renn <ar...@urbanophile.com> wrote:
>But I can't help but ask myself: why is it that SF has such a bad reputation
>outside of its own fan base? What do you think that your average
I believe that it being a relatively new genre has a lot to do with that.
There was a time when reading novels was considered a vice, and a somewhat
more recent time when the same was thought about reading mysteries.
>American movie goer who isn't an SF fan would think of the Hugo results?
>What do you think your serious film buffs would think?
>
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
P Nielsen Hayden
>>I voted for BEING JOHN MALKOVICH. But I'm deeply mistrustful of
>>arguments that depend on the idea of "legitimate film critics." Is
>>film criticism licensed now? Does that make the rest of us
>>"illegitimate film critics"? This sort of talk is nothing more than
>>a crude grab at unearned cultural privilege.
>
>I intended the term "legitmate" to refer to critics with actual training
>and knowledge of film, as opposed to many newspaper and TV reviewers
>who are simply reporters assigned a beat.
>
>I understand your point. Nevertheless, unless we judge that there are
>some standards other than personal preference, we're reduced to a pure
>popularity contest. In that case, McDonald's is the world's best
>restaurant. We can avoid the use of the term "critic" and expand it
>to include other film professionals if desired. Say professors in
>Film Studies departments. Unfortunately, these aren't generally
>available for surveying.
You know, you keep citing McDonald's as evidence for the idea that we
must rely on a self-chosen elite to tell us what's what, since
mass taste is so obviously debased.
But in fact most people don't think McDonald's is the best food in the
world. They eat there, when they do, because it's convenient.
I'm not arguing that the masses are always right, and I'm certainly
not arguing against all elitism. I'm paid to be an elitist -- to have
taste. But perhaps because of that, I'm conscious that a lot of
cultural elitism is based on values extraneous to the actual works
under discussion. So what if "legitimate" film critics and film
students sneer at GALAXY QUEST? The Hugo voters gave it the Hugo for
some fairly intelligent reasons. Starting with a quality that's been
repeatedly cited in this thread, and which you've ignored: it's a
kindly film, one that satirizes our foibles while also understanding
them. This is not a quality that "legitimate film critics" or "film
professionals" are rewarded for being sensitive to, but it's important
in understanding the relationship of a lot of SF fans to the movie
GALAXY QUEST. The moral here is that different people put art to
different uses -- and that the highly-trained specialists are
sometimes significantly alienated from the things other folks find
important in art. As a book editor, I try to keep this in mind every
single day.
>But I can't help but ask myself: why is it that SF has such a bad reputation
>outside of its own fan base? What do you think that your average
>American movie goer who isn't an SF fan would think of the Hugo results?
>What do you think your serious film buffs would think?
Why should the Hugo voters care? The point of the Hugo Award isn't
to impress "serious film buffs." Serious film buffs would probably
have voted for BEING JOHN MALKOVICH. So did I. But I'm happy to be
associated with the crowd that voted for GALAXY QUEST (my #2 choice)
and I really could care less whether "serious film buffs" think I'm
below the salt for doing so. The Hugos are about what we like, not
about begging other people to like us.
angela...@my-deja.com
p...@panix.com wrote:
> >the films in question and see where Galaxy Quest rates.
>
> I voted for BEING JOHN MALKOVICH. But I'm deeply mistrustful of
> arguments that depend on the idea of "legitimate film critics." Is
> film criticism licensed now? Does that make the rest of us
> "illegitimate film critics"? This sort of talk is nothing more than
> a crude grab at unearned cultural privilege.
>
> --
> Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
>
critic's readers. It doesn't matter how 'learned' or erudite the critic
is, it only matters whether he or she is perceived. Sad, but true --
everything's relative.
--
Angela Hadley
"Jungle Queen" new at DeathGrip
"My Alien" still available at DeathGrip
http://www.geocities.com/deathgrip_zine
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Aaron M. Renn
>You know, you keep citing McDonald's as evidence for the idea that we
>must rely on a self-chosen elite to tell us what's what, since
>mass taste is so obviously debased.
>
>But in fact most people don't think McDonald's is the best food in the
>world. They eat there, when they do, because it's convenient.
If you took a vote of SF fans, certainly some chain restaurant would win.
Simply because independents have less exposure. McDonald's serves as a decent
proxy for chains restaurants in this instance.
>I'm not arguing that the masses are always right, and I'm certainly
>not arguing against all elitism. I'm paid to be an elitist -- to have
>taste.
You are an editor for Tor, right? I guess I should mark in my pilot
never to submit a manuscript there! :-)
>But perhaps because of that, I'm conscious that a lot of
>cultural elitism is based on values extraneous to the actual works
>under discussion.
Do works have "values" or do only people have values?
>So what if "legitimate" film critics and film
>students sneer at GALAXY QUEST? The Hugo voters gave it the Hugo for
>some fairly intelligent reasons. Starting with a quality that's been
>repeatedly cited in this thread, and which you've ignored: it's a
>kindly film, one that satirizes our foibles while also understanding
>them. This is not a quality that "legitimate film critics" or "film
>professionals" are rewarded for being sensitive to, but it's important
>in understanding the relationship of a lot of SF fans to the movie
>GALAXY QUEST. The moral here is that different people put art to
>different uses -- and that the highly-trained specialists are
>sometimes significantly alienated from the things other folks find
>important in art. As a book editor, I try to keep this in mind every
>single day.
Well, I confess that I don't understand the standards applied to SF film.
The most frequent criticism I've heard of The Matrix by SF fans for example,
is that the premise of computers using humans as batteries is scientifically
ludircous. If scientific accuracy were a requirement for acceptance,
then 99% of SF would be deemed a failure. Virtually every SF book I read
is ludicrous by that standard.
I'm someone who taped every single episode of Star Trek and TNG on VHS,
taking great pains to edit out commercials. However, I've never been
to a Star Trek con. Perhaps self-selection bias among con goers accounts
for the win of Galaxy Quest. Like many subcultures, fandom is ignored or,
when paid attention to at all, ridiculed. Perhaps anything then that
acknowledges con goers without actively slamning them likely to provoke some
positive response in them. That doesn't necessarily make it good cinema.
Perhaps in a way only an outsider can take a detacted view of what might be
going on.
BTW: I think you sell film scholars short in that most of them are
sensitive to the context in which films are made and the audience for
which they are intended. If film professionals comments aren't relevant
to fans, then I think it is only fair that fans shouldn't be relevant
to film profs. The fact that you implicitly criticize critics for their
failing to consider qualities you value in Galaxy Quest while dismissing
their comments on on that film shows that you don't think this relationship
is symmetrical.
>>But I can't help but ask myself: why is it that SF has such a bad reputation
>>outside of its own fan base? What do you think that your average
>>American movie goer who isn't an SF fan would think of the Hugo results?
>>What do you think your serious film buffs would think?
>Why should the Hugo voters care? The point of the Hugo Award isn't
>to impress "serious film buffs." Serious film buffs would probably
>have voted for BEING JOHN MALKOVICH. So did I. But I'm happy to be
>associated with the crowd that voted for GALAXY QUEST (my #2 choice)
>and I really could care less whether "serious film buffs" think I'm
>below the salt for doing so. The Hugos are about what we like, not
>about begging other people to like us.
I thought Hugos were supposed to be about what fans thought were the best
works of SF in a given year. Thus it is relevant to compare what fans
think of SF films to what non-fans think. I think fans would agree that
they are a unique subculture. As a subculture, different standards or
lifestyle choices from mainstream culture might be expected. I guess in
a sense I am defining embarrassment and quality implicitly in terms of
the mainstream of serious film appreciation. However, defining the best SF
film as simply what SF fans select is pure tautology.
BTW: As a "serious film buff", I thought Being John Malkovitch was the best
film nominated for a Hugo, though I didn't really consider it an SF film.
Aaron M. Renn
>What makes a critic (of any sort) 'legitimate' is a consensus of that
>critic's readers. It doesn't matter how 'learned' or erudite the critic
>is, it only matters whether he or she is perceived. Sad, but true --
>everything's relative.
Do you feel the same way about physicists, chemists, and biologists? Do
you feel the only think that makes someone a legitimate physistic is their
recognition by peers? Or on the contrary do you think that recognition is
an effect?
watkins julia k
>No. I think the role of the young geeks captured the internal-reality
>incoherent with surprise and gratitude. We agreed that that was the exact
>moment for the alien spaceship to come crashing through the ceiling and land
>on the stage.
They were both so excited that they left the hugo on the podium! The
second guy must have thought the first guy grabbed it. Anyway the
camera stayed on the podium for several seconds (there were two big
video screens above the stage so the audience could see better; the
ceremony was also piped internally to hotel rooms of the three major
buildings).
Then the camera zoomed in an out for several more seconds until one
of them ran back up and snatched it. Much laughter. Much cheers.
I was very happy.
Also, agreement on "understandable to non-fans"; I recommended the movie
to a officemate (very mainstream), and then was very nervous that I
might have wasted her money ... but both she and her daughter liked
it. ("That was a sweet story.")
Julie Watkins
:) :) :)
J. B. Moreno
> On 8 Sep 2000 21:31:04 GMT, P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote:
> >You know, you keep citing McDonald's as evidence for the idea that we
> >must rely on a self-chosen elite to tell us what's what, since
> >mass taste is so obviously debased.
> >
> >But in fact most people don't think McDonald's is the best food in the
> >world. They eat there, when they do, because it's convenient.
>
> If you took a vote of SF fans, certainly some chain restaurant would win.
> Simply because independents have less exposure. McDonald's serves as a
> decent proxy for chains restaurants in this instance.
His point (which is quite correct) is that if you get the worlds best
chef and have him fix a nine course meal and then have regular people
participate in a taste test, they aren't going to say McDonald's is the
best. OTOH, when they are driving down the street and want something to
eat, they want it in 3 minutes or less, not 12 hours later. And by that
criteria, MacDonald's beats the chef hands down -- and because of the
number of locations, they probably beat out the others chain restaurants
too.
--
JBM (that's me) a DBDG.
Damien Neil
>Simply because independents have less exposure. McDonald's serves as a decent
>proxy for chains restaurants in this instance.
Not directly comperable, though -- most fans wouldn't have had any
problems in seeing all the candidates for the dramatic presentation
Hugo.
>Well, I confess that I don't understand the standards applied to SF film.
>The most frequent criticism I've heard of The Matrix by SF fans for example,
>is that the premise of computers using humans as batteries is scientifically
>ludircous. If scientific accuracy were a requirement for acceptance,
>then 99% of SF would be deemed a failure. Virtually every SF book I read
>is ludicrous by that standard.
Which fans? I know fans who say this, I know fans who don't care, and I
know fans who handwaved in a more plausible explanation. Be careful about
generalizing from what some fans say to what all fans say.
I do suspect that part of the reason you notice this complaint is that
there really isn't much to complain about in the movie, aside from that.
(With the exception of overarching issues, like quantity of violence.)
>I'm someone who taped every single episode of Star Trek and TNG on VHS,
>taking great pains to edit out commercials. However, I've never been
>to a Star Trek con. Perhaps self-selection bias among con goers accounts
>for the win of Galaxy Quest. Like many subcultures, fandom is ignored or,
>when paid attention to at all, ridiculed. Perhaps anything then that
>acknowledges con goers without actively slamning them likely to provoke some
>positive response in them. That doesn't necessarily make it good cinema.
>Perhaps in a way only an outsider can take a detacted view of what might be
>going on.
Perhaps the people who voted for _Galaxy Quest_ saw something in it you
didn't. Perhaps in a way only an insider can understand what is going on
in the movie.
Or, to put it another way: It is polite to allow for the possiblity that
other people disagree with you for valid and well thought-out reasons,
rather than assuming that some form of mass insanity is the only reason
the Hugo voters would choose _Galaxy Quest_.
>I thought Hugos were supposed to be about what fans thought were the best
>works of SF in a given year. Thus it is relevant to compare what fans
>think of SF films to what non-fans think. I think fans would agree that
>they are a unique subculture. As a subculture, different standards or
>lifestyle choices from mainstream culture might be expected. I guess in
>a sense I am defining embarrassment and quality implicitly in terms of
>the mainstream of serious film appreciation. However, defining the best SF
>film as simply what SF fans select is pure tautology.
I think that there were enough good works in the field this year for me
to have no opinion on which film should have won. I have no objections
to _Galaxy Quest_ winning, though. It plays some very entertaining games
with its subject matter in quite difficult ways.
I do think that its good points are less likely to be realized by anyone
not familiar with media science fiction fandom. If anything, however,
this makes it a more appropriate choice for the Hugo. _The Matrix_ was
an amazingly well done action movie, for example, but _Galaxy Quest_ was
a stunning /science fiction/ movie.
I'm certain that the "mainstream of serious film appreciation" is likely
to disagree. That doesn't matter. The Hugos are fan awards, chosen by
fans. They don't indicate the "best" work (I would argue that it is
impossible to assign a linear ranking of "quality" to fiction, anyway),
they indicate what the fans voted for. If you don't find this to be an
interesting measure, you probably shouldn't spend too much time worrying
about the Hugos -- they aren't targeted at you.
- Damien
Aaron M. Renn
>Perhaps the people who voted for _Galaxy Quest_ saw something in it you
>didn't.
Perhaps they did. However, if you read closely the postings from
people defending Galaxy Quest, you'll see that the defense is based
only partially on the personal value level and that there are plenty
of mentions of "qualities" that the movies ostensibly has. Qualities
that are essentially assumed to exist outside of the opinions of the
people who voted for it. (That is specifically why I asked pnh if
he thought films in and of themselves had values). I have never disputed
that some individuls (such as Hugo voters) can like the film. There's
nothing wrong with liking it. But probably there are subgroups that like
almost any film.
Outside of a tautologic definition of number of votes, nobody has
articulated to me why Galaxy Quest was the best film. People who deny
my appeal to the opinions on one group of people - film professionals -
are happy to appeal to the opinions of a similarly small group, and one
that has no objective qualifications for determining film quality
beyond paying the entry fee.
>Perhaps in a way only an insider can understand what is going on
>in the movie.
"It's a 'fan thing', you wouldn't understand." Is that what I'm hearing?
-
Aaron M. Renn
>His point (which is quite correct) is that if you get the worlds best
>chef and have him fix a nine course meal and then have regular people
>participate in a taste test, they aren't going to say McDonald's is the
>best.
What makes you think the world's "best" chef even got invited to the
competition? After all, there are only five slots.
And who defines "best"? That seems to be the fundamental question.
rsn...@swbellnospam.net
> Aaron M. Renn <ar...@urbanophile.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
>
> >I intended the term "legitmate" to refer to critics with actual training
> >and knowledge of film, as opposed to many newspaper and TV reviewers
> >who are simply reporters assigned a beat.
Roger Ebert, probably the most famous and successful movie critic, does not have
a degree in film and IMS was a beat reporter.
--
Nathan Raye
Joe Slater
>But I can't help but ask myself: why is it that SF has such a bad reputation
>outside of its own fan base? What do you think that your average
>American movie goer who isn't an SF fan would think of the Hugo results?
>What do you think your serious film buffs would think?
>
>I maintain my personal rating: Galaxy Quest was by far the worst of the Hugo
>nominees I saw this year, and it speaks poorly of Hugo voters to have picked
>it #1.
I thought it was a pity that _Sliding Doors_ was never even nominated
for a Hugo. I think we are reluctant to recognise SFnal elements
unless they stand up and hit us over the head.
jds
--
And now kind friends, what I have wrote,
I hope you will pass o'er,
And not criticize, as some have done,
Hitherto herebefore. (Julia Moore, "The Author's Early Life")
Ross Smith
>
> I intended the term "legitmate" to refer to critics with actual training
> and knowledge of film, as opposed to many newspaper and TV reviewers
> who are simply reporters assigned a beat.
"A critic tells you whether or not it's Art. A reviewer tells you
whether or not it's any damn good to read." -- Spider Robinson
--
Ross Smith ......... r-s...@ihug.co.nz ......... Auckland, New Zealand
"Well, yes, I was aiming at him, but I've never hit anything with
a rocket launcher before, so I didn't think it mattered." -- Axly
Angela Hadley
Do
> you feel the only think that makes someone a legitimate physistic is
their
> recognition by peers? Or on the contrary do you think that
recognition is
> an effect?
>
'Legitimacy' is only the result of what people in general have agreed.
How do you know your doctor is qualified? Because he has a diploma on
the wall? Because he's on a list of 'qualified' doctors? These things
are accepted as genuine because certain bodies of people -- exam
boards, professional institutions, etc, say they are. But how do you
know the professional institions are themselves legitimate? Mostly,
it's by general consensus.
You can investigate you doctor yourself, but mainly you rely on the
fact that he carries a stethoscope :-)
Holly E. Ordway
>Outside of a tautologic definition of number of votes, nobody has
>articulated to me why Galaxy Quest was the best film.
Maybe you're reading a different thread than I am, but I've noticed a
number of people giving specific reasons for why they felt GQ was the best
film, quite apart from the number of votes. Without going back and re-
reading the thread, I recall people mentioning its handling of satire as
being very adept, in that it managed to poke fun without being cruel, in
fact managed to poke fun *while* being fond of its material; that it was
extremely well-balanced in its appeal to fans and non-fans; and that it
managed to hit on exactly the right elements of Star Trek that were ripe
for a gentle satire. I would add that the acting was pretty good as well -
- a lot of comedies like this sort of degenerate into silliness and
overacting, but this one kept a consistent tone all the way through. (If
that made any sense; not sure I expressed it well.)
Now, you may very well disagree with the importance attached to these
points, or have counter-arguments. But please don't try to claim that the
other participants in this thread haven't, or can't, articulate why they
felt GQ did indeed deserve the Hugo.
--Holly
Chad R. Orzel
wrote:
>On 8 Sep 2000 21:31:04 GMT, P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote:
>>You know, you keep citing McDonald's as evidence for the idea that we
>>must rely on a self-chosen elite to tell us what's what, since
>>mass taste is so obviously debased.
>>
>>But in fact most people don't think McDonald's is the best food in the
>>world. They eat there, when they do, because it's convenient.
>
>If you took a vote of SF fans, certainly some chain restaurant would win.
>Simply because independents have less exposure. McDonald's serves as a decent
>proxy for chains restaurants in this instance.
Sure.
And if you poll a thousand film critics about what the best movie ever
made is, the winner will be something from one of the major studios,
because no matter how brilliant the independent project by the guy
down the block may be, not enough people will have seen it to vote it
on top. If Hearst had succeeded in burying _Citizen Kane_ completely,
there'd be an open slot in everybody's Top Ten.
{...}
>Well, I confess that I don't understand the standards applied to SF film.
>The most frequent criticism I've heard of The Matrix by SF fans for example,
>is that the premise of computers using humans as batteries is scientifically
>ludircous. If scientific accuracy were a requirement for acceptance,
>then 99% of SF would be deemed a failure. Virtually every SF book I read
>is ludicrous by that standard.
And quite a few of them aren't much good _as_ _novels,_ considered
critically. Do you object to the popularity of some of the pulpier
works from the genre's past?
You're attempting to apply standards to film that you don't appear to
apply to books (at least not in the book reviews I've read...). Why do
you insist on treating movies differently?
Later,
OilCan
Del Cotter
>On 8 Sep 2000 21:31:04 GMT, P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote:
>>I'm not arguing that the masses are always right, and I'm certainly
>>not arguing against all elitism. I'm paid to be an elitist -- to have
>>taste.
>
>You are an editor for Tor, right? I guess I should mark in my pilot
>never to submit a manuscript there! :-)
I think you should mark in your pilot never to submit a manuscript there
that you know is a pile of shite. Patrick said he's paid to have taste,
not to have grudges.
--
. . . . Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk . . . .
JustRead:ars:JohnBarnesApocalypses&Apostrophes:MichaelConeyHelloSummerGoodby
Mark Atwood
>
> Do you feel the same way about physicists, chemists, and biologists? Do
> you feel the only think that makes someone a legitimate physistic is their
> recognition by peers? Or on the contrary do you think that recognition is
> an effect?
Despite the private wet dreams of some literary theorists, criticism
is not even remotely a "science", like physics, chemistry, and biology
is.
--
Mark Atwood |
m...@pobox.com |
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Damien Neil
>people defending Galaxy Quest, you'll see that the defense is based
>only partially on the personal value level and that there are plenty
>of mentions of "qualities" that the movies ostensibly has. Qualities
>that are essentially assumed to exist outside of the opinions of the
>people who voted for it. (That is specifically why I asked pnh if
>he thought films in and of themselves had values). I have never disputed
>that some individuls (such as Hugo voters) can like the film. There's
>nothing wrong with liking it. But probably there are subgroups that like
>almost any film.
I've read a number of posts here describing the qualities (no scare
quotes necessary) that _Galaxy Quest_ has. You may feel free to
disagree with these opinions. If you want to claim that they are
invalid, however, I would suggest that you offer a reasoned argument
on why they are wrong, rather than appealing to the authority of
approved film critics.
>Outside of a tautologic definition of number of votes, nobody has
>articulated to me why Galaxy Quest was the best film. People who deny
>my appeal to the opinions on one group of people - film professionals -
>are happy to appeal to the opinions of a similarly small group, and one
>that has no objective qualifications for determining film quality
>beyond paying the entry fee.
The opinions of film professionals are not particularly applicable to
the Hugos. The Hugos are not an award given by or for film professionals;
there are other awards that fill that role. The Hugos are also not an
award given by science fiction professionals; that would be the Nebulas.
The Hugos are a fan award, and as such the opinions of fans is what
counts.
As I said before, you may not find the opinions of fans to be important
or worth considering. That's fine; in that case, you should feel free
to ignore the Hugos. They aren't for you.
>>Perhaps in a way only an insider can understand what is going on
>>in the movie.
>
>"It's a 'fan thing', you wouldn't understand." Is that what I'm hearing?
I said that in response to a comment of yours where you said the exact
same words about outsiders.
"It's a 'non-fan thing', you wouldn't understand."
It doesn't sound very nice either way, does it?
- Damien
Sharon L Sbarsky
Joe Slater <joeDEL...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>
>I thought it was a pity that _Sliding Doors_ was never even nominated
>for a Hugo. I think we are reluctant to recognise SFnal elements
>unless they stand up and hit us over the head.
>
final ballot is *very* competitive and it didn't get enough nominations to
make the top five. IMHO, this was because it had very little theater time
so fans didn't see the movie, not that they didn't recognize the SFnal
elements.
Sharon
J. B. Moreno
> J. B. Moreno <pl...@newsreaders.com> wrote:
> >His point (which is quite correct) is that if you get the worlds best
> >chef and have him fix a nine course meal and then have regular people
> >participate in a taste test, they aren't going to say McDonald's is the
> >best.
>
> What makes you think the world's "best" chef even got invited to the
> competition? After all, there are only five slots.
Because this is a hypothetical scenario.
> And who defines "best"? That seems to be the fundamental question.
A magic spell picked out the worlds best.
It's the taste of the average person that is in question here, is his
taste buds so warped that he finds MacDonald's food taste better than
anything else, or is it barely palatable fuel that you get quickly? The
average person is going to put it much closer to the later than the
former.
Joseph Major
: Brenda <clo...@erols.com> writes:
: >No. I think the role of the young geeks captured the internal-reality
: >incoherent with surprise and gratitude. We agreed that that was the exact
: >moment for the alien spaceship to come crashing through the ceiling and land
: >on the stage.
: They were both so excited that they left the hugo on the podium! The
: second guy must have thought the first guy grabbed it. Anyway the
: camera stayed on the podium for several seconds (there were two big
: video screens above the stage so the audience could see better; the
: ceremony was also piped internally to hotel rooms of the three major
: buildings).
: Then the camera zoomed in an out for several more seconds until one
: of them ran back up and snatched it. Much laughter. Much cheers.
: I was very happy.
This looked very nice, but I wonder how much of a career in
Hollywood people have who take such awards seriously have. We live within
our own sub-set of the world, where the Best Dramatic Presentation Hugo is
a significant thing.
Is it so to Hollywood?
In the general trade, do they refer to "the Hugo-winning 'Babylon
Five'"? "The Hugo-winning 'Star Wars'"?
One wonders. After all, there is the Academy of Science Fiction,
Fantasy, and Horror Films, an industry group, which would be more
seriously regarded -- an award awarded by one's peers is more meaningful.
Indeed, would people who took so seriously an award given out by
someone outside the trade have much of a future in Hollywood?
Joseph T Major
--
Elisabeth Carey
news:39baf2c0$1...@news.iglou.com...
<snip>
> This looked very nice, but I wonder how much of a career in
> Hollywood people have who take such awards seriously have. We live within
> our own sub-set of the world, where the Best Dramatic Presentation Hugo is
> a significant thing.
> Is it so to Hollywood?
> In the general trade, do they refer to "the Hugo-winning 'Babylon
> Five'"? "The Hugo-winning 'Star Wars'"?
> One wonders. After all, there is the Academy of Science Fiction,
> Fantasy, and Horror Films, an industry group, which would be more
> seriously regarded -- an award awarded by one's peers is more meaningful.
> Indeed, would people who took so seriously an award given out by
> someone outside the trade have much of a future in Hollywood?
What Hollywood cares about it is how successful the movies they make are
commercially. Produce commercially successful movies, and far worse
character flaws than being happy about receiving an award most Hollywood
types are at best dimly aware of will be forgiven you.
--
Lis Carey
Copyright 2000 by Elisabeth Carey. Any hyperlinks present in the text of
this message were added without my permission.
Lynn Calvin
>"It's a 'fan thing', you wouldn't understand." Is that what I'm hearing?
Not from me.
The word of the day is recursive. Now, not everyone likes recursive
material, but it is real (given various values of real <grin>).
Lynn Calvin
lca...@interaccess.com
UU Discussion also available on:
news://alt.religion.unitarian-univ for unmoderated discussion
UU-Community email list for moderated discussion on uua.org
UUS-L mailing list
Holding Rich Puchalsky in my thoughts.
J.B. Moreno
> Aaron M. Renn <ar...@urbanophile.com> wrote:
-snip-
> >Well, I confess that I don't understand the standards applied to SF film.
> >The most frequent criticism I've heard of The Matrix by SF fans for
> >example, is that the premise of computers using humans as batteries is
> >scientifically ludircous. [...]
-snip-
> I do suspect that part of the reason you notice this complaint is that
> there really isn't much to complain about in the movie, aside from that.
> (With the exception of overarching issues, like quantity of violence.)
No, there's also the fact that it has apparently taken quite a while for
someone to take the fact that they aren't limited by real life rules to
the next logical step.
rsn...@swbellnospam.net
> Aaron M. Renn <ar...@urbanophile.com> wrote:
<snip>
> >>>Fandom embarrasses itself.
That sentence is the funniest thing I have read all day. Never have I seen a fan
embarassed about his choice of media.
--
Nathan Raye
Andrew Plotkin
> "Aaron M. Renn" wrote:
>>
>> I intended the term "legitmate" to refer to critics with actual training
>> and knowledge of film, as opposed to many newspaper and TV reviewers
>> who are simply reporters assigned a beat.
> "A critic tells you whether or not it's Art. A reviewer tells you
> whether or not it's any damn good to read." -- Spider Robinson
I remember that quote as ending "...whether or not he liked the damn
thing." Which makes more sense.
Note that a reviewer should also keep on reviewing books, so that he
builds up a body of published opinion, so that you can decide whether
his tastes correlate with yours. And how. (Positively or negatively.)
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
Andrew Plotkin
> The most frequent criticism I've heard of The Matrix by SF fans for example,
> is that the premise of computers using humans as batteries is scientifically
> ludircous.
Okay, I hold that criticism of _The Matrix_. (It's not my biggest
criticism, and I did enjoy the movie overall.)
> If scientific accuracy were a requirement for acceptance,
> then 99% of SF would be deemed a failure. Virtually every SF book I read
> is ludicrous by that standard.
You are not understanding the criticism correctly.
First: Humans-as-batteries is *unnecessarily* ludicrous. It is not a
presmise of the film. It adds nothing to the film of itself; it's
present to fill out the plot structure of "humans are exploited". It
could have been replaced by any number of exploitation mechanisms --
the obvious one being humans-as-networked-processors -- with no change
to the plot and only tiny changes to the dialogue.
(Although I admit that "coppertop" as a slang name for the slaves is
hard to replace. "pentium", maybe...)
Second: Not all violations of physics are tolerated equally in SF. FTL
is a proud and ancient trope. Violations of conservation of energy are
much hairier. There are *reasons* for this; it's not mindless
prejudice. (A lot of stories want to be about people like us, but who
travel between the stars on timescales comparable to a real-life ocean
voyage. FTL was invented for this. Contrariwise, a story about people
like us, but who can violate conservation of energy, tends to explode.
It calls into question every assumption about scarcity, and
competition for limited resources, that underlie our culture.)
(Obviously a story can *deliberately* call that assumptions into
question; cf Iain M. Banks.)
Side point: some stories *accidentally* violate conservation of energy
(or, of course, lots of other scientific principles of varying degrees
of slipperiness in the SF tradition). Antigravity mechanisms sometimes
do this, for example. This doesn't have to be a great flaw; it can be
overlooked. It depends on how relevant the flaw is to the idea's
function in the story. In _The Matrix_, it's front and center. "Humans
provide energy!"
The violation of scientific law in SF is a big and interesting
subject, not a one-bit yes-or-no flag.
Aaron M. Renn
>And if you poll a thousand film critics about what the best movie ever
>made is, the winner will be something from one of the major studios,
>because no matter how brilliant the independent project by the guy
>down the block may be, not enough people will have seen it to vote it
>on top. If Hearst had succeeded in burying _Citizen Kane_ completely,
>there'd be an open slot in everybody's Top Ten.
True, but certainly everyone had an opportunity to see the Hugo nominees.
>You're attempting to apply standards to film that you don't appear to
>apply to books (at least not in the book reviews I've read...). Why do
>you insist on treating movies differently?
What standards are those? I think I rate movies the same way I rate books.
It is just that in books the one I thought was the best won.
Aaron M. Renn
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 15:40:08 GMT, Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>First: Humans-as-batteries is *unnecessarily* ludicrous. It is not a
>presmise of the film. It adds nothing to the film of itself; it's
>present to fill out the plot structure of "humans are exploited". It
>could have been replaced by any number of exploitation mechanisms --
>the obvious one being humans-as-networked-processors -- with no change
>to the plot and only tiny changes to the dialogue.
The fact that the stupidity of the idea is superfluous I guess is one
way to justify such a criticism. However, there are two "outs" for the
Wachowskis here:
1. Morpheus could be wrong about what the machines are using people for.
They don't know what year it is, so perhaps there are some things they
think they know that they don't know.
2. It's almost an axiom that among humans, stupidity knows no bounds.
Since we invented the machines, maybe they inhereted that train from
us. Remember, using humans for power is not physically impossible,
only really dumb.
OTOH, the other nominated films I saw had far more ludicrous premises:
-- In Galaxy Quest an alien race constructs a replica of a space ship
from a TV series that just happens to actually function, and which the
cast of said show can actually operate. This includes constructing a
device called the Omega 13 (?) which even the show's producers don't
know the fuction of. Floor plans of the ship from technical specs on
the web (presumably never broadcast as part of the TV show) are
nevertheless accurate.
-- In Being John Malkovitch, crawling into a dirt tunnel on the 7 1/2
floor of an office building leads you into John Malkovitch's brain, where
you can experience what he does and control his body.
Which of these three films has the most ridiculous premise? Clearly it
isn't the Matrix. As you say, the coppertop concept isn't actually
integral to the Matrix plot, which is a valid point. And BTW: I certainly
don't ding Galaxy Quest or BJM for their impossible premises.
Doug Palmer
ar...@urbanophile.com (Aaron M. Renn) wrote:
<Being John Malkovitch, Galaxy Quest, The Matrix>
> Which of these three films has the most ridiculous premise? Clearly it
> isn't the Matrix. As you say, the coppertop concept isn't actually
> integral to the Matrix plot, which is a valid point. And BTW: I
> certainly don't ding Galaxy Quest or BJM for their impossible premises.
"Being John Malkovitch" and "Galaxy Quest" are comedies. A certain amount
of absurdity in premise goes with the territory. While you could argue
that "The Matrix" is a comedy, I doubt that the producers would thank you
for it.
--
Doug Palmer "I've got that certain nothing,
mailto:do...@charvolantSPAMUNOT.org No one can do without."
http://www.charvolantSPAMUNOT.org/~doug
P Nielsen Hayden
angela...@my-deja.com <angela...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn8rhp5...@panix6.panix.com>,
> p...@panix.com wrote:
>> >the films in question and see where Galaxy Quest rates.
>>
>> I voted for BEING JOHN MALKOVICH. But I'm deeply mistrustful of
>> arguments that depend on the idea of "legitimate film critics." Is
>> film criticism licensed now? Does that make the rest of us
>> "illegitimate film critics"? This sort of talk is nothing more than
>> a crude grab at unearned cultural privilege.
>>
>> --
>> Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
>>
>What makes a critic (of any sort) 'legitimate' is a consensus of that
>critic's readers. It doesn't matter how 'learned' or erudite the critic
>is, it only matters whether he or she is perceived. Sad, but true --
>everything's relative.
Not "sad" at all, in my view.
I mean, if you _want_ cultural power to be allocated for entirely
arbitrary reasons, I guess it's "sad." But I have this wacky notion
that wisdom and righteousness may be found in places other than the
self-perpetuating academy, and that everyday people ought to have a
voice in the overall cultural discourse. I'm sure this makes me a
political unreliable. Gosh, oh dear.
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
P Nielsen Hayden
>ar...@urbanophile.com (Aaron M. Renn) writes:
>>
>> Do you feel the same way about physicists, chemists, and biologists? Do
>> you feel the only think that makes someone a legitimate physistic is their
>> recognition by peers? Or on the contrary do you think that recognition is
>> an effect?
>
>Despite the private wet dreams of some literary theorists, criticism
>is not even remotely a "science", like physics, chemistry, and biology
>is.
As the smarter sort of critics know in their bones.
Well said.
P Nielsen Hayden
>On 8 Sep 2000 21:31:04 GMT, P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote:
>>I'm not arguing that the masses are always right, and I'm certainly
>>not arguing against all elitism. I'm paid to be an elitist -- to have
>>taste.
>
>You are an editor for Tor, right? I guess I should mark in my pilot
>never to submit a manuscript there! :-)
Well, this certainly looks like the usual lame Usenet routine of
making a really offensive remark and then hoping a smiley will deflect
any criticism. Sorry, no sale.
>BTW: I think you sell film scholars short in that most of them are
>sensitive to the context in which films are made and the audience for
>which they are intended. If film professionals comments aren't relevant
>to fans, then I think it is only fair that fans shouldn't be relevant
>to film profs.
Suits me. Is there some reason I, or anyone else in fandom, should
care?
>The fact that you implicitly criticize critics for their
>failing to consider qualities you value in Galaxy Quest while dismissing
>their comments on on that film shows that you don't think this relationship
>is symmetrical.
No, it just shows that I've been doing you the courtesy of taking your
rather silly arguments seriously. If you're going to take this as
evidence that I'm all worried about the opinions of a bunch of film
critics, I can stop.
>BTW: As a "serious film buff", I thought Being John Malkovitch was the best
>film nominated for a Hugo, though I didn't really consider it an SF film.
If I were a "serious film buff," I'd be just a little embarrassed to
be unable to spell BEING JOHN MALKOVICH correctly, particularly if I
were extolling its virtues at the expense of the Hugo winner. But
that's just me being a literal-minded SF fan, all concerned with facts
and stuff, unlike the very nuanced and sensitive art folks whose
opinion you appear to want us to care about.
P Nielsen Hayden
>Outside of a tautologic definition of number of votes, nobody has
>articulated to me why Galaxy Quest was the best film.
Well, actually, Aaron M. Renn, that's not true. You may not agree
with the views in question, but I think I articulated jolly well why
some people might think this; and I didn't even vote for the film in
question.
Once upon a time we had this notion that there was something less than
wonderful about bearing false witness against one's neighbor. I guess
you're much too advanced for that.
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnhc
James Nicoll
>
>On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 15:40:08 GMT, Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>>First: Humans-as-batteries is *unnecessarily* ludicrous. It is not a
>>presmise of the film. It adds nothing to the film of itself; it's
>>present to fill out the plot structure of "humans are exploited". It
>>could have been replaced by any number of exploitation mechanisms --
>>the obvious one being humans-as-networked-processors -- with no change
>>to the plot and only tiny changes to the dialogue.
>
>The fact that the stupidity of the idea is superfluous I guess is one
>way to justify such a criticism. However, there are two "outs" for the
>Wachowskis here:
>
>1. Morpheus could be wrong about what the machines are using people for.
>They don't know what year it is, so perhaps there are some things they
>think they know that they don't know.
>
>2. It's almost an axiom that among humans, stupidity knows no bounds.
>Since we invented the machines, maybe they inhereted that train from
>us. Remember, using humans for power is not physically impossible,
>only really dumb.
snip of rest of discussion
Assuming 'using people for power' = net power production,
it isn't dumb but impossible. They have to feed those people and
the food will have more energy in it than can be harvested from
the people. I am afraid it is a 'windmills heat Mars' moment.
--
Much apologies but my return path is temporarily broken. Please
use jdni...@home.com instead.
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 00:58:29 GMT, Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>Best Dramatic Presentation: Galaxy Quest
>>>
>>>Fandom embarrasses itself.
>>
>>I think it's more, "fandom has a sense of humor about itself."
>
>It clearly shows that fandom doesn't take film seriously as an art form.
You needed the Hugo to tell us that?
>I doubt a similar short story or novel up against similar levels of
>competition would have won a Hugo. Ask a legitimate film critic to assess
>the films in question and see where Galaxy Quest rates. That's not to
>say I don't think comedies can be great, but I enjoy comedies. But this
>one was even middle of the roads by the standards of that genre. (I'd
>say in the SF comedy arena, Austin Powers was better just in 1999).
Comedy is _hard_; a comedy that misses is dreadful, while a drama or
action film that comes close can be pretty good. There's far less
margin for error. And I completely disagree about Austin Powers being
better -- I thought it was funny, but not nearly so good as the
original, or, for that matter, as good as GQ.
What I liked about GQ is that it managed to poke gentle fun at a
Trek-like phenomenon, while at the same time ultimately affirming the
values underlying the fictional show. In that sense, I'd compare it
to _Ed Wood_, which made a comedy about the life of Ed Wood, while at
the same time making us like the poor guy.
>
>Personally, I enjoyed Galaxy Quest. I was super bored one night and
>got it as a pay per view that beat my expectations. But I didn't think it
>was a great film by any means. I only saw two of the other nominees.
>Of those, Being John Malkovich was clearly the best film, though I voted
Well, I thought BJM was incredible, and it counted for me, because I
think that "sf" can legitimately include fantasy or surrealism or
whatever you call it.
>for the Matrix because I didn't really consider BJM an SF film. The Matrix
>has its faults (Keanu, bad allegory, excessive copying from other films,
>preposterous science) but is highly enjoyable as an action flick and
>doesn the best job I've ever seen of capturing cyberpunk on the big
>screen. And with one exception - the Agent Smith explosion - had nearly
>perfect special effects.
I realize comedy is subjective and all, and I can see how you might
vote for a great action film over what you perceived to be a mediocre
comedy. What I can't see is why you think it was an "embarrassment"
to fandom that some folks voted for what they thought to be a superior
comedy over what they saw as a mediocre action film.
Oh, and, so far as I was concerned, the main value of the Matrix was
that it looked really, really good. Which it did. Visually, it was a
treat to watch. But I just couldn't see giving the Hugo to a film
with that preposterous nonsense about humans as batteries.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>On 8 Sep 2000 13:07:53 GMT, P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote:
>>I voted for BEING JOHN MALKOVICH. But I'm deeply mistrustful of
>>arguments that depend on the idea of "legitimate film critics." Is
>>film criticism licensed now? Does that make the rest of us
>>"illegitimate film critics"? This sort of talk is nothing more than
>>a crude grab at unearned cultural privilege.
>
>I intended the term "legitmate" to refer to critics with actual training
>and knowledge of film, as opposed to many newspaper and TV reviewers
>who are simply reporters assigned a beat.
I think that Patrick is right about this one, that claims of
specialized expertise, and this sort of appeal to authority, really is
just a claim to some sort of "unearned cultural privilege." Sure, a
critic may notice certain filmmaking techniques that the average Joe
doesn't notice, or may be able to explain his reaction in more detail,
but I don't think that's ultimately any reason to privilege what a
Certified Film Critic has to say about the matter.
Besides, even if it's true that film critics have some real body of
knowledge and expertise about film, _we_ certainly have a similar body
of knowledge and expertise about speculative fiction as a genre. Even
if you're right that a FILM CRITIC can tell you whether BJM, the
Matrix, or GQ was a better film qua film, _we're_ the experts on which
was a better piece of speculative fiction.
That is, if you really believe in "specialized knowledge," I see
little or no reason to privilege the specialized knowledge of film
critics about film to that of speculative fiction fans about
speculative fiction.
Besides, most film critics are morons.
>
>I understand your point. Nevertheless, unless we judge that there are
>some standards other than personal preference, we're reduced to a pure
>popularity contest. In that case, McDonald's is the world's best
Not true. Even most of the folks who eat at McDonalds would probably
tell you that it's not the world's best restaurant. I eat at
McDonalds, sometimes, though I generally prefer Wendy's and Burger
King, but I will happily concede that none of these are the world's
best. I eat such fare because it's fast, cheap, and convenient, while
also being good enough to eat.
>restaurant. We can avoid the use of the term "critic" and expand it
>to include other film professionals if desired. Say professors in
>Film Studies departments. Unfortunately, these aren't generally
>available for surveying.
Great Ghu, that's absurd. Professors in Film Studies departments
will, in all likelihood, tell you that some nine hour black and white
film about a guy sleeping is the Best Film Ever Made.
>
>Now the Hugos are a popularity content (albeit one with a shockingly
>low participation rate), so I guess it is fair to say that Galaxy
>Quest was the most popular film among the very small community of Hugo
>voters.
>
>But I can't help but ask myself: why is it that SF has such a bad reputation
>outside of its own fan base? What do you think that your average
Honestly, I don't think that it does. I've known more than a few
English professors who liked science fiction, or at least saw how
somebody might like it. Granted, there are a few lit snobs out there
who claim that realism is all and that the only legitimate sort of
fantastical theme can be one that isn't real (hence the notion that
the Oz movie "improved" the book), but such folks are idiots.
>American movie goer who isn't an SF fan would think of the Hugo results?
>What do you think your serious film buffs would think?
More to the point, why should I care what such an individual thinks?
>
>I maintain my personal rating: Galaxy Quest was by far the worst of the Hugo
>nominees I saw this year, and it speaks poorly of Hugo voters to have picked
>it #1.
Since you've been, in an offhand way, rather insulting to those who
have aesthetic judgments which differ from yours, I'd point out that
it's also possible that there were depths to GQ which you simply
failed to appreciate. Several people have noted, for example, that GQ
managed to be a parody that was both dead on and not malicious.
I liked the way that GQ ultimately affirmed certain values, even as it
poked gentle fun at a show which sought to exemplify them.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
>I was at the Hugos, and the guys who accepted the award for GQ were almost
>incoherent with surprise and gratitude. We agreed that that was the exact
>moment for the alien spaceship to come crashing through the ceiling and land
>on the stage.
Who accepted for _GQ_?
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 23:48:57 GMT, angela...@my-deja.com <angela...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>What makes a critic (of any sort) 'legitimate' is a consensus of that
>>critic's readers. It doesn't matter how 'learned' or erudite the critic
>>is, it only matters whether he or she is perceived. Sad, but true --
>>everything's relative.
>
>Do you feel the same way about physicists, chemists, and biologists? Do
>you feel the only think that makes someone a legitimate physistic is their
>recognition by peers? Or on the contrary do you think that recognition is
>an effect?
Physicists, chemists, and biologists make testable predictions about
the real world, which can be, and sometimes are, falsified. They
design nuclear bombs which explode, or don't, and nuclear power
plants, which produce electricity, or don't, or they mix certain
chemicals together in a certain way to produce another chemical, which
will have certain properties.
At the end of the day, scientists have the scientific method, and a
proven track record of producing results which demonstrably work.
Using the fruits of the scientific method, we humans have built
microprocessors, flown to moon, built nuclear power plants, and so
forth.
Film critics may say interesting or thoughtful things about films, but
they don't make predictions about the real world which can be tested.
--
Pete McCutchen
Jim Mann
Pete McCutchen wrote in message
<07qprs0mi59oeu78m...@4ax.com>...
The writer and the director. And they -- especially the writer -- were
clearly delighted to have won the award.
---
Jim Mann
Simon van Dongen
>Film critics may say interesting or thoughtful things about films, but
>they don't make predictions about the real world which can be tested.
Oh, I don't know. I've seen reviews that, in effect, said: "This is a
very bad movie. I'm sure it'll do well at the box office."
--
Simon van Dongen <sg...@xs4all.nl> Rotterdam, The Netherlands
'My doctor says I have a malformed public duty gland and a
natural deficiency in moral fibre,' he muttered to himself,
'and that I am therefore excused from saving Universes.'
Life, the universe and everything
Michael Caldwell
> ne...@centauri.org (Damien Neil) wrote:
>>Courtenay Footman wrote:
>>>In another post, someone mentioned that the Hugo covers sf and fantasy,
>>>and that "Marble Arch" is fantasy. Hmmm. Somewhere on the boundary
>>>of fantasy and magical realism, I'd say. That may technically qualify
>>>for the Hugo, but I will note it is _rare_ for fantasy to win the Hugo.
>>I've always seen "magic realism" as fantasy dressed up in its Sunday
>>suit for the literary market. Is there really any distinction?
IMHO, not really. "Fantasy by people in foreign countries" sounds right
to me, though I've forgotten who it is that said that.
>In my opinion, yes. The short version of the distinction: the
>fantastic elements in true magic realism are internally inconsistent,
>and generally used for symbolic purposes (though they are =real=,
>they're not illusions or anything).
Then, by your own definition, "The Winds of Marble arch" is fantasy
rather than magic realism. The fantastic elements are internally
consistant, and not entirely used for "symbolic purposes". Ask yourself
what the winds are symbols of? They *are* all the feelings etc trapped
in the underground, they aren't symbolic of them. Note also that if
you discount fantastic elements used for "symbolic purposes" you
turn an awful lot of fantasy into magic realism. Just about all of Aldis'
work would qualify as magical realism, just for a start (and it's at least
arguable that the fantastic elements there aren't always consistant
either).
>(Granted that much bad fantasy is internally inconsistent, it's meant
>to be consistent, usually.)
>I'd agree that the fantastical element in "The Winds of Marble Arch"
>was of a Magical Realist sort.
I wouldn't agree, under your definitions, and wouldn't agree that there's
a difference, or that that difference shoudl matter for the purposes of
disqualifying the story from consideration.
--
Kevin J. Maroney
>Great Ghu, that's absurd. Professors in Film Studies departments
>will, in all likelihood, tell you that some nine hour black and white
>film about a guy sleeping is the Best Film Ever Made.
Actually, such films do exist (there's at least one Warhol Factory
film that is *exactly* that), and I've never come across anyone who
named one of those as the Best Film Ever Made, or even praised such.
--
Kevin Maroney | kmar...@ungames.com
Kitchen Staff Supervisor, New York Review of Science Fiction
<http://www.nyrsf.com>
Andrew Plotkin
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 15:40:08 GMT, Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>>First: Humans-as-batteries is *unnecessarily* ludicrous. It is not a
>>presmise of the film. It adds nothing to the film of itself; it's
>>present to fill out the plot structure of "humans are exploited". It
>>could have been replaced by any number of exploitation mechanisms --
>>the obvious one being humans-as-networked-processors -- with no change
>>to the plot and only tiny changes to the dialogue.
> The fact that the stupidity of the idea is superfluous I guess is one
> way to justify such a criticism. However, there are two "outs" for the
> Wachowskis here:
> 1. Morpheus could be wrong about what the machines are using people
> for.
Agreed. I'd like at least a hint of textual evidence before I give
this much consideration, though.
> 2. It's almost an axiom that among humans, stupidity knows no bounds.
> Since we invented the machines, maybe they inhereted that train from
> us. Remember, using humans for power is not physically impossible,
> only really dumb.
It is physically impossible. They are using humans because there isn't
enough solar energy, because the humans did something to the sky. But
humans *eat* solar energy.
> OTOH, the other nominated films I saw had far more ludicrous premises:
> -- In Galaxy Quest an alien race constructs a replica of a space ship
> from a TV series that just happens to actually function, and which the
> cast of said show can actually operate.
Yes, that's ludicrous. As a parody/pastiche, _GQ_ benefitted greatly
from it.
> -- In Being John Malkovitch, crawling into a dirt tunnel on the 7 1/2
> floor of an office building leads you into John Malkovitch's brain, where
> you can experience what he does and control his body.
Yes, that's ludicrous. I haven't seen the movie, but I've seen many
surreal-premise fantasies that worked very well, and I'm told that
_BJM_ was one of them.
> Which of these three films has the most ridiculous premise? Clearly it
> isn't the Matrix.
You're right. _TM_ was the one of the three in which that was a flaw,
rather than a strength.
Pete McCutchen
<kmar...@ungames.com> wrote:
>Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Great Ghu, that's absurd. Professors in Film Studies departments
>>will, in all likelihood, tell you that some nine hour black and white
>>film about a guy sleeping is the Best Film Ever Made.
>
>Actually, such films do exist (there's at least one Warhol Factory
>film that is *exactly* that), and I've never come across anyone who
>named one of those as the Best Film Ever Made, or even praised such.
As it happens, I did know that Warhol had made such a film, and I'm
exaggerating somewhat.
Of course, by my standards, _Citizen Kane_ is the rough equivalent of
a black and white film about people sleeping. I have admittedly
lowbrow tastes; I'd much prefer _Terminator 2_ or _Cutthroat Island_
to _Gone With the Wind_, _Citizen Kane_, or most other plausible
candidates for such a position. By the same token, I'd rather read an
Honor Harrington novel than _Ulysses_.
--
Pete McCutchen
Mark Atwood
>
> Yes, that's ludicrous. I haven't seen the movie, but I've seen many
> surreal-premise fantasies that worked very well, and I'm told that
> _BJM_ was one of them.
_Groundhog Day_ being one of the best of the genre, IMO.
Question. Is _Groundhog Day_ a SF flick?
--
Mark Atwood |
m...@pobox.com |
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
James Nicoll
Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> writes:
>>
>> Yes, that's ludicrous. I haven't seen the movie, but I've seen many
>> surreal-premise fantasies that worked very well, and I'm told that
>> _BJM_ was one of them.
>
>_Groundhog Day_ being one of the best of the genre, IMO.
>
>Question. Is _Groundhog Day_ a SF flick?
Some days.
James Nicoll
rsn...@swbellnospam.net
Mark Atwood wrote:
> Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> writes:
> >
> > Yes, that's ludicrous. I haven't seen the movie, but I've seen many
> > surreal-premise fantasies that worked very well, and I'm told that
> > _BJM_ was one of them.
>
> _Groundhog Day_ being one of the best of the genre, IMO.
>
> Question. Is _Groundhog Day_ a SF flick?
It does have some of that SFnal feel. Maybe it is slipstream.
--
Nathan Raye
Joe Slater
>Question. Is _Groundhog Day_ a SF flick?
How could it not be? If it was a book, which genre would it be?
jds
--
It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the juice of sapho that thoughts acquire speed,
The lips acquire stains. The stains become a warning.
It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. - [_Dune_, David Lynch]
Richard Horton
>I wouldn't agree, under your definitions, and wouldn't agree that there's
>a difference, or that that difference shoudl matter for the purposes of
>disqualifying the story from consideration.
Let me note right now that I never ever ever ever said, and will not,
that an MR story is disqualified from consideration for Hugo Awards.
MR is, to my mind, a branch of Fantasy, and as such eligible for the
Hugo. It's just a branch of Fantasy which is distinguishable, in that
I can point to it and say MR (at any rate), from other Fantasy.
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.sfsite.com/tangent)
Del Cotter
James Nicoll <jam...@nyquist.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> writes:
>>> Yes, that's ludicrous. I haven't seen the movie, but I've seen many
>>> surreal-premise fantasies that worked very well, and I'm told that
>>> _BJM_ was one of them.
>>
>>_Groundhog Day_ being one of the best of the genre, IMO.
>>
>>Question. Is _Groundhog Day_ a SF flick?
>
> Some days.
My answer: no, it's a fantasy. If the Event in :Groundhog Day: were
random, like the Event in _Island in the Sea of Time_, it could be SF.
But because, like :A Christmas Carol:, :It's a Wonderful Life:, and :A
Matter of Life and Death:, it involves an intelligent supernatural
agency with a moral agenda, it's fantasy.
(Some days, I'm prepared to think :Defending Your Life: is an SF flick)
--
. . . . Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk . . . .
JustRead:ars:JohnBarnesApocalypses&Apostrophes:MichaelConeyHelloSummerGoodby
e:WalterMMillerJrStLeibowitz&TWHW:IainBanksWhit:DorothyDunnettTheGameOfKings
ToRead:SMStirlingAgainstTheTideOfYears:HBeamPiperSpaceViking:VernorVingeADee
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>us. Remember, using humans for power is not physically impossible,
>only really dumb.
No, it is physically impossible, unless they have an inexhaustible
source of energy for their greenhouse, in which case, they might as
well use it, since a lot will undoubtedly be wasted on the way from
grow lamp to food to human, to energy collection.
>
>OTOH, the other nominated films I saw had far more ludicrous premises:
>
>-- In Galaxy Quest an alien race constructs a replica of a space ship
>from a TV series that just happens to actually function, and which the
>cast of said show can actually operate. This includes constructing a
>device called the Omega 13 (?) which even the show's producers don't
>know the fuction of. Floor plans of the ship from technical specs on
>the web (presumably never broadcast as part of the TV show) are
>nevertheless accurate.
>
>-- In Being John Malkovitch, crawling into a dirt tunnel on the 7 1/2
>floor of an office building leads you into John Malkovitch's brain, where
>you can experience what he does and control his body.
>
>Which of these three films has the most ridiculous premise? Clearly it
>isn't the Matrix. As you say, the coppertop concept isn't actually
>integral to the Matrix plot, which is a valid point. And BTW: I certainly
>don't ding Galaxy Quest or BJM for their impossible premises.
I agree that the premises are about as silly, though they're not
"windmills heat Mars" silly, which the premise of _The Matrix_ is.
I can't put my finger on it, but for some reason the silliness of _The
Matrix_ bothers me, while the silliness of GQ and BJM doesn't. BJM
struck me as being surreal, which is why I accepted the premise. GQ
is a tougher situation, but, in that case, the idea that a spaceship
constructed by aliens based on a TV show would actually work strikes
me as being part of the joke.
--
Pete McCutchen
k...@removethesetsoft.net
> Now the Hugos are a popularity content (albeit one with a shockingly
> low participation rate), so I guess it is fair to say that Galaxy
> Quest was the most popular film among the very small community of Hugo
> voters.
Allow me to ask an embarassingly ignorant question -- how does one go
about voting for the Hugos?
I had the impression that one had to attend a certain convention in order
to vote.
--
KarlHiller [] Systems Librarian, axolotl trainer, ne'er-do-well
"The Partnership For a Drug-Free America really isn't for a drug-free
America. It's a lobbying arm for the liquor and prescription drug
industries. It's for an America free of the drugs that are in competition
with those that are being protected legally." - Bill Maher
Michael S. Schiffer
>On 10 Sep 2000 22:36:22 GMT, ar...@urbanophile.com (Aaron M. Renn)
>>Which of these three films has the most ridiculous premise? Clearly it
>>isn't the Matrix. As you say, the coppertop concept isn't actually
>>integral to the Matrix plot, which is a valid point. And BTW: I certainly
>>don't ding Galaxy Quest or BJM for their impossible premises.
>I agree that the premises are about as silly, though they're not
>"windmills heat Mars" silly, which the premise of _The Matrix_ is.
>I can't put my finger on it, but for some reason the silliness of _The
>Matrix_ bothers me, while the silliness of GQ and BJM doesn't. BJM
>struck me as being surreal, which is why I accepted the premise. GQ
>is a tougher situation, but, in that case, the idea that a spaceship
>constructed by aliens based on a TV show would actually work strikes
>me as being part of the joke.
I think that's exactly it. Bad science on Star Trek or B5 similarly
bothers me in a way that bad science on Futurama doesn't. I think the
same thing applies to characterization-- most of us would complain if
a hunter in a drama behaved as foolishly as Elmer Fudd. If the
President in a political thriller behaved like Rufus T. Firefly in
"Duck Soup", we'd ask why he wasn't removed from office. Comedy is
permitted a level of unreality for the sake of the joke, but drama
doesn't automatically get cut the same slack. (I think comedy still
can get slammed for lack of realism if it _isn't_ part of the joke,
though I can't think of any examples off the top of my head.)
Similarly, there's a distinction between a deliberate fantasy element
and a mistake. If a story has cavemen and dinosaurs as
contemporaries, that's going to come across as an error unless there's
a setup that indicates that the author knows better. If it has
medieval knights and unicorns as contemporaries, we'll assume that the
author knows that unicorns are myths and is using them deliberately.
If a movie takes place in the mountains just outside Chicago, that's
probably an error rather than a conceit. If it takes place in the
Duchy of Grand Fenwick, it's not a mistake even if one can't find said
duchy on the map of Europe.
It's reasonable to assume that the makers of "Being John Malkovich"
are aware that tunnels from office buildings to the inside of people's
heads aren't real, and that they chose it as the premise of the movie
deliberately. On the other hand, there's no reason to assume that the
writers of "The Matrix" knew why the humans-as-batteries idea is
stupid, it could easily have been replaced with minimal effect if
anyone had cared, and it remains a flaw (at least to some viewers) in
what was otherwise a good action movie with a decent built-in
justification for superhuman fight scenes.
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS If reading in an archive, please do
ms...@mediaone.net not click on words highlighted as links
msch...@condor.depaul.edu by Deja or other archives. They violate
the author's copyright and his wishes.
Del Cotter
Nancy Lebovitz <na...@unix3.netaxs.com> wrote:
>Del Cotter <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>it's a fantasy. If the Event in :Groundhog Day: were
>>random, like the Event in _Island in the Sea of Time_, it could be SF.
>>
>>But because, like :A Christmas Carol:, :It's a Wonderful Life:, and :A
>>Matter of Life and Death:, it involves an intelligent supernatural
>>agency with a moral agenda, it's fantasy.
>
>What if it involved an intelligent natural agency with a moral agenda?
Science fiction, hence my reservations about :Defending Your Life:.
:12:01: is science fiction without a doubt, not just because the agency
for the :Groundhog Day: effect was a mad scientist, but because the
solution didn't involve reforming anybody's character or making a moral
point.
:Trading Places:, :Brewster's Million: and :The Million Pound Note: are
*this close* to being fantasy, but the god-like agencies in those films
are only fabulously rich men.
Del Cotter
>Del Cotter <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> read from the teleprompter:
>>it's a fantasy. If the Event in :Groundhog Day: were
>>random, like the Event in _Island in the Sea of Time_, it could be SF.
>>
>>But because, like :A Christmas Carol:, :It's a Wonderful Life:, and :A
>>Matter of Life and Death:, it involves an intelligent supernatural
>>agency with a moral agenda, it's fantasy.
>
>I dunno -- I think you can read "Groundho Day" either way -- that god/etc. is
>trying to make him a better person and therefore sets up the time-loop, or
>that it's a random inexplicable event that incidentally gives the character
>the opportunity to improve himself. Being of a more science fictional
>persuasion I have always thought of it as the latter.
But look what happens at the end. When he finally learns to treat
people as if how he treated people mattered, *even when it doesn't*
["You little bastard, you have *never* thanked me... see you tomorrow."]
then and only then, does the loop break. The point made, the gods
relent.
Del Cotter
>Aaron M. Renn wrote:
>> Now the Hugos are a popularity content (albeit one with a shockingly
>> low participation rate), so I guess it is fair to say that Galaxy
>> Quest was the most popular film among the very small community of Hugo
>> voters.
>
>Allow me to ask an embarassingly ignorant question -- how does one go
>about voting for the Hugos?
>
>I had the impression that one had to attend a certain convention in order
>to vote.
Correct. The World Science Fiction Convention (Worldcon), which next
year is Millennium Philcon.
To be exact, you don't have to buy an attending membership: you can buy
a supporting membership which gets you some of the benefits, but which
costs less (though still around $40).
Jonathan W Hendry
>>Del Cotter <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> read from the teleprompter:
>>>it's a fantasy. If the Event in :Groundhog Day: were
>>>random, like the Event in _Island in the Sea of Time_, it could be SF.
>>>
>>>But because, like :A Christmas Carol:, :It's a Wonderful Life:, and :A
>>>Matter of Life and Death:, it involves an intelligent supernatural
>>>agency with a moral agenda, it's fantasy.
>>
>>I dunno -- I think you can read "Groundho Day" either way -- that god/etc. is
>>trying to make him a better person and therefore sets up the time-loop, or
>>that it's a random inexplicable event that incidentally gives the character
>>the opportunity to improve himself. Being of a more science fictional
>>persuasion I have always thought of it as the latter.
> But look what happens at the end. When he finally learns to treat
> people as if how he treated people mattered, *even when it doesn't*
> ["You little bastard, you have *never* thanked me... see you tomorrow."]
> then and only then, does the loop break. The point made, the gods
> relent.
Unless it's all in his head, and the repeating day was an
unusual form of rumination.
J Greely
>Unless it's all in his head, and the repeating day was an
>unusual form of rumination.
I always thought that the lesson from the film was that God was a
woman, and wanted to make sure that men understood that the way to win
a woman was to turn yourself into exactly what she's looking for.
A revenge flick, in other words.
-j
Jonathan W Hendry
Actually, the movie suggests that God is a marmot.
Mark Atwood
> permitted a level of unreality for the sake of the joke, but drama
> doesn't automatically get cut the same slack. (I think comedy still
> can get slammed for lack of realism if it _isn't_ part of the joke,
> though I can't think of any examples off the top of my head.)
The TV show /The Critic/ springs to mind.
Bill Woods
> Del Cotter <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> read from the teleprompter:
> >On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, in rec.arts.sf.written,
> >James Nicoll <jam...@nyquist.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> >
> >>Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>>Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> writes:
> >>>> Yes, that's ludicrous. I haven't seen the movie, but I've seen many
> >>>> surreal-premise fantasies that worked very well, and I'm told that
> >>>> _BJM_ was one of them.
> >>>
> >>>_Groundhog Day_ being one of the best of the genre, IMO.
> >>>
> >>>Question. Is _Groundhog Day_ a SF flick?
> >>
> >> Some days.
> >
> >My answer: no, it's a fantasy. If the Event in :Groundhog Day: were
> >random, like the Event in _Island in the Sea of Time_, it could be SF.
> >
> >But because, like :A Christmas Carol:, :It's a Wonderful Life:, and :A
> >Matter of Life and Death:, it involves an intelligent supernatural
> >agency with a moral agenda, it's fantasy.
>
> I dunno -- I think you can read "Groundhog Day" either way -- that
> god/etc. is trying to make him a better person and therefore sets up
> the time-loop, or that it's a random inexplicable event that incidentally
> gives the character the opportunity to improve himself. Being of a more
> science fictional persuasion I have always thought of it as the latter.
But the time loop ends when Bill Murray gets Andie MacDowell
to fall in love with him without lying to her, so it looks
like there's some sort of moral agenda involved.
By contrast, in "12:01", the time loop ends when the hero
shuts off the machine causing the problem. Similarly in the
Star Trek time loop episode.
--
Bill Woods
"Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair
for the future of the human race."
--H.G.Wells
Joe Slater
>If the Event in :Groundhog Day: were
>random, like the Event in _Island in the Sea of Time_, it could be SF.
>
>But because, like :A Christmas Carol:, :It's a Wonderful Life:, and :A
>Matter of Life and Death:, it involves an intelligent supernatural
>agency with a moral agenda, it's fantasy.
I don't think we're told who's playing with his life. What if it were
the character himself, subconsciously seeking true love? Furthermore,
if a moral agenda makes SF become fantasy then half of Trek is ... um,
never mind.
Nancy Lebovitz
Del Cotter <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, in rec.arts.sf.written,
>James Nicoll <jam...@nyquist.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
>>Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> writes:
>>>> Yes, that's ludicrous. I haven't seen the movie, but I've seen many
>>>> surreal-premise fantasies that worked very well, and I'm told that
>>>> _BJM_ was one of them.
>>>
>>>_Groundhog Day_ being one of the best of the genre, IMO.
>>>
>>>Question. Is _Groundhog Day_ a SF flick?
>>
>> Some days.
>
>My answer: no, it's a fantasy. If the Event in :Groundhog Day: were
>random, like the Event in _Island in the Sea of Time_, it could be SF.
>
>But because, like :A Christmas Carol:, :It's a Wonderful Life:, and :A
>Matter of Life and Death:, it involves an intelligent supernatural
>agency with a moral agenda, it's fantasy.
What if it involved an intelligent natural agency with a moral agenda?
>
>(Some days, I'm prepared to think :Defending Your Life: is an SF flick)
>
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Ron Henry
>James Nicoll <jam...@nyquist.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
>>Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> writes:
>>>> Yes, that's ludicrous. I haven't seen the movie, but I've seen many
>>>> surreal-premise fantasies that worked very well, and I'm told that
>>>> _BJM_ was one of them.
>>>
>>>_Groundhog Day_ being one of the best of the genre, IMO.
>>>
>>>Question. Is _Groundhog Day_ a SF flick?
>>
>> Some days.
>
>My answer: no, it's a fantasy. If the Event in :Groundhog Day: were
>random, like the Event in _Island in the Sea of Time_, it could be SF.
>
>But because, like :A Christmas Carol:, :It's a Wonderful Life:, and :A
>Matter of Life and Death:, it involves an intelligent supernatural
>agency with a moral agenda, it's fantasy.
I dunno -- I think you can read "Groundho Day" either way -- that god/etc. is
trying to make him a better person and therefore sets up the time-loop, or
that it's a random inexplicable event that incidentally gives the character
the opportunity to improve himself. Being of a more science fictional
persuasion I have always thought of it as the latter.
Ron
--
Ron Henry ronh...@clarityconnect.com
http://people2.clarityconnect.com/webpages6/ronhenry/
Brad Templeton
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>Aaron M. Renn <ar...@urbanophile.com> wrote:
>First: Humans-as-batteries is *unnecessarily* ludicrous. It is not a
>presmise of the film. It adds nothing to the film of itself; it's
>present to fill out the plot structure of "humans are exploited". It
>could have been replaced by any number of exploitation mechanisms --
>the obvious one being humans-as-networked-processors -- with no change
>to the plot and only tiny changes to the dialogue.
I give people who are capable of writing a film like The Matrix the
benefit of the doubt. I expect (hope) in part 2 that they will reveal
that Morpheus is either lying when he tells the battery story, or is
himself deceived.
--
Brad Templeton http://www.templetons.com/brad/
Brad Templeton
Joe Slater <joeDEL...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>Question. Is _Groundhog Day_ a SF flick?
>
>How could it not be? If it was a book, which genre would it be?
>
It's fantasy. The novel Replay, which was not the source of the film but
is based on a very similar theme, won the World Fantasy Award.
And I also highly recommend Replay to those who haven't read it.
Joe Slater
>I always thought that the lesson from the film was that God was a
>woman, and wanted to make sure that men understood that the way to win
>a woman was to turn yourself into exactly what she's looking for.
In that book by Rebecca Ore whose title I forget, she has one of her
characters say that women try to woo men by acting masculine; and men
try to woo women by acting feminine. That is, women will pretend to an
interest in sports and men will have meaningful conversations and
recite poetry. I think it's an interesting observation with a great
deal of merit to it.
Joe "woo" Slater
Joe Slater
>>>Question. Is _Groundhog Day_ a SF flick?
>Joe Slater <joeDEL...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>>How could it not be? If it was a book, which genre would it be?
b...@templetons.com (Brad Templeton) wrote:
>It's fantasy. The novel Replay, which was not the source of the film but
>is based on a very similar theme, won the World Fantasy Award.
The boundary between SF and fantasy can be vague. In any event, just
because a book wins a fantasy award doesn't mean that it isn't SF.
Pete McCutchen
<joeDEL...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>ar...@urbanophile.com (Aaron M. Renn) wrote:
>>But I can't help but ask myself: why is it that SF has such a bad reputation
>>outside of its own fan base? What do you think that your average
>>American movie goer who isn't an SF fan would think of the Hugo results?
>>What do you think your serious film buffs would think?
>>
>>I maintain my personal rating: Galaxy Quest was by far the worst of the Hugo
>>nominees I saw this year, and it speaks poorly of Hugo voters to have picked
>>it #1.
>
>I thought it was a pity that _Sliding Doors_ was never even nominated
>for a Hugo. I think we are reluctant to recognise SFnal elements
>unless they stand up and hit us over the head.
I suspect that _Sliding Doors_ simply didn't get sufficient exposure
to get a nomination.
--
Pete McCutchen
Joe Slater
>>I thought it was a pity that _Sliding Doors_ was never even nominated
>>for a Hugo. I think we are reluctant to recognise SFnal elements
>>unless they stand up and hit us over the head.
Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I suspect that _Sliding Doors_ simply didn't get sufficient exposure
>to get a nomination.
Really? I think it did quite well in Australia.