The List (was Good, recent SF films)
Joan McGalliard
My definition of a "good" SF film: I am talking about films that have science
or speculative fiction as a primary element. They must be intelligent,
imaginative, thought provoking, plausible, innovative. It should have qualities
beyond being a good actioner, comedy, parody. I don't think special effects
are that important, but if they are used they should be of sufficient quality
not to distract from the film.
It should also be a good film in the general sense: good acting, direction,
a believable script with 3D characters. Disbelief should be suspended.
A perfect film would include new ideas, but as it is so much easier write
a book than make a film, that I would settle for an idea that is new to the
medium. An old idea, treated thoughtfully, is sometimes acceptable.
A film can be good, and have SF elements without fitting here. For instance,
Mars Attacks is really a comedy/parody and The City of Lost Children is more
like a fairy tale.
With that in mind, I have gone through the posts up to last night, and put
together this list. It's highly subjective, so flame away.
*Good SF:
Contact
Ghost in the Shell
Gattaca
Strange Days
12:01(the half hour short. )
* Good films, with SF elements, but not a good SF films:
Face/Off
The City of Lost Children
Mars Attacks
Army of Darkness
*Awful films that prove taste is very subjective:
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein
Coneheads
Fortress
Super Mario Bros
Starship Troopers
Tank Girl
The 5th Element.
*Films I haven't seen:
Les Visiteurs
Conceiving Ada
That Eye, the Sky
*Films I haven't seen but have received such bad press it seems unlikely:
The Postman
Event Horizon
Stargate
*Simply failed to make the cut:
Screamers
Virtuosity
The Arrival
Twelve Monkeys
Alien: Resurrection
* Too old:
The Abyss
I Find Myself Smaller and Smaller
*Nice try:
The Lost Highway
-----------
Thanks to :
sn...@careless.netOOPS.au (snail)
cu...@earth.execpc.com (Mark Robinson)
igalb...@ozonline.com.audeletethis (Ian Galbraith)
Chad Millar <c_mi...@hotmail.com>
"Spagnamoli" <spagn...@start.com.au>
tr...@syd.csa.com.au (Trevor Mettam)
rev...@uow.edu.au (Phil Herring)
Disco Dan <da...@tig.com.au>
dwar...@adelaide.on.net[anti-spam-remove] (David Wareing)
Jason Mulligan <ma...@attila.apana.org.au>
joan
--
Posted with Ink Spot (for the Newton) from DejaVu Software, Inc.
Usenet wherever you are - http://www.martnet.com/~dejavu/
Grant Watson
On 13 Jun 1998 02:06:41 GMT, jem*NO-SPAM*@netspace.net.au (Joan
McGalliard) wrote:
>*Awful films that prove taste is very subjective:
>Mary Shelley's Frankenstein
Kenneth Branagh's film of Frankenstein is fantastic - very true to the
novel, for those of you who obsess over such things. It has a keen
visual style, and some great performances.
But then taste is very subjective.
Cheers!
Grant.
Spagnamoli
yep, i actually like de'niros monster because he seemed more like a person
than just some stitched up huge hulk like freak
spagnamoli
Grant Watson wrote in message <35847dda...@news.iinet.net.au>...
snail
Joan McGalliard <jem*NO-SPAM*@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>My definition of a "good" SF film: I am talking about films that have science
>or speculative fiction as a primary element. They must be intelligent,
>imaginative, thought provoking, plausible, innovative. It should have qualities
That's a good definition although I don't really see the need for 'innovative'
as a necssary condition, particularly if the other points are accounted for.
>beyond being a good actioner, comedy, parody. I don't think special effects
Whilst taking your point, I wonder if you included parody here specifically
to avoid hassles with _Starship Troopers- :)
>A film can be good, and have SF elements without fitting here. For instance,
>Mars Attacks is really a comedy/parody and The City of Lost Children is more
>like a fairy tale.
Here I disagree insofar as City is concerned as I don't believe fairy tales
should be excluded from speculative fiction on that criteria alone. City
has more a lot going for it that elevates it above being simply a fairy
tale.
>together this list. It's highly subjective, so flame away.
Noted.
>*Good SF:
>12:01(the half hour short. )
Unfortunately I've only deen the feature length version and thought it
would've been better suited to a shorter format. I also think 12 monkeys
belongs on the good list and I'd be interested in knowing at what point
it deviates from your definition ?
>*Awful films that prove taste is very subjective:
:)
>Mary Shelley's Frankenstein
I think this one of the better tellings of this story around myself.
>*Films I haven't seen:
>Conceiving Ada
I'll have a better idea about this after I see it Tuesday night. I note
that the IMDb has a rating of 5.0 (from 8 votes) for it. Although I tend
not to put too much stock in their ratings.
>That Eye, the Sky
I wouldn't have put this on the good list anyway. Possibly more a
general film with SFnal elements.
>*Films I haven't seen but have received such bad press it seems unlikely:
>The Postman
:) I've found that once you get the hang of where Costner is coming
from and know roughly what to expect from a Costner film they can
be quite good within those terms. Heck I even liked Waterworld :)
>*Simply failed to make the cut:
>Twelve Monkeys
Commented above.
>* Too old:
>The Abyss
>I Find Myself Smaller and Smaller
Now the question is, and I've been thinking about this since I posted
about that last one, is that at which point do we decide a movie fits
into the last five years ? For example that last movie above was shot
in 1992 but didn't screen in Oz until 1993 (and then only at film
festivals), another example is Orlando which did get general release
in 1993 in Oz. I'm still not sure whether to class Orlando as good
SF or a good film with SFnal elements.
Also saw a good movie tonight that fits the fairy tale category better
than Lost Children, called _Twilight of the Ice Nymphs_. Having watched
this I find it harder still to recognise Lost Children as little more
than a fairy tale.
--
snail | sn...@careless.net.au | http://www.careless.net.au/~snail/
I'm a man of my word. In the end, that's all there is. - Avon
Sean Tudor
On Mon, 15 Jun 1998 01:51:29 GMT, nz...@iinet.net.au (Grant Watson)
wrote:
>Kenneth Branagh's film of Frankenstein is fantastic - very true to the
>novel, for those of you who obsess over such things. It has a keen
>visual style, and some great performances.
> But then taste is very subjective.
I thought so too. Although it wasn't very popular with "the masses".
------------------------
Sean Tudor
Sydney, Australia
------------------------
This is my cannon, this is my gun
One is for bandits, and one is for fun
------------------------
vicious at magna dot com dot au
Mark C
>Joan McGalliard wrote in message <6lsmrh$9ap$4...@otis.netspace.net.au>...
>*Awful films that prove taste is very subjective:
> The 5th Element.
Off with your head. One of my favourite films. Way over the top and some
good to look at .
>
>*Films I haven't seen:
Try Hardware - a British film which came out a few years back
>*Films I haven't seen but have received such bad press it seems unlikely:
>Event Horizon
It's more a horror film than a SF - with some yucky moments. Sort of
Hellraiser meets 2001.
Bruce Probst
>*Nice try:
>The Lost Highway
Is this film at all similar to David Lynch's 1997 film "Lost Highway"?
Sorry, just me being pedantic again.
What makes a film "SF" any way? Is it enough to just set it in space
and/or the future? "Outland" is "High Noon" in space; is there
anything *intrinsically* SF about "Outland"? Or is the SF setting
just a gimmick?
For example, the SF elements of "Strange Days" (a film I like a lot)
are a MacGuffin. They're not at all what the story is about (a murder
mystery set against a background of extreme racial tension).
Films like "Event Horizon" aren't SF either (at least, from my
understanding of it; I haven't seen it); they're horror movies set in
space.
And a lot of SF movies use magic with pseudo-scientific names to hide
it. "The Fifth Element" is a prime example. Are they really SF?
I'd like to think that an "SF" film is one that uses an
unreal-but-possible setting to tell a story that couldn't be told in a
"real" setting. Under those conditions, there are very few SF films
*ever* made.
Recent candidates: Ghost In The Shell. Maybe Gattaca too, but I
haven't seen it (yet).
If we delete the "but-possible" clause from the above, we bring in
fantasy films which widens the field somewhat. The important criteria
then remains "telling a story that couldn't be told otherwise". My
first worry with this thought was that it would automatically include
95% of horror films ("monster chases people and eats them") but then
it occurred to me that these films *can* be told in other settings;
cf. "The Ghost And The Darkness", which itself was really just a clone
of "Jaws". Making the monster a supernatural or weird alien instead
of a natural beast doesn't change the nature of the film in any way.
Recent candidates: The City of Lost Children, The Fifth Element, Lost
Highway. ("Lost Highway" is tricky because first we have to work out
what story is being told before we can decide whether it could be told
in a different setting <g>.)
The other extreme would be, an SF film is anything that claims to use
"science/technology" as an excuse to provide an alternate setting for
a traditional film.
Recent candidates: Almost all of them, including "Contact". Many
people have justifiably hailed "Contact" as a great SF film, but is it
really? The story is science vs. faith. The SF setting makes it
*easier* to tell the story, but the essence of the story could be set
in many different periods of history, e.g., Galileo.
I'm not using these categories as any sort of value judgement. I
thought "Fifth Element" was a fantastically enjoyable film, one of my
favourite films of 1997. I also enjoyed "Contact" and many of the
other films on Joan's list. (I must disagree about the worth of
"Face/Off" though, which I found to be profoundly dull. But that's
another topic.)
Should we dismiss films like "Mars Attacks!" because they're parodies?
What, can't a parody be SF too? Should we dismiss monster flix just
because they *are* monster flix? Should we dismiss fantasy films just
because they're not "real" - as if any SF film ever is?
I just think that before we can list the year's best SF films, we
first have to agree on what an SF film *is*. Without such a
definition in place, any list generated is just going to be a list of
"films I liked", in which case we have to ask why we're bothering to
exclude the many "obviously" non-SF films made. As much as I liked
"The Fifth Element" and "Contact", I liked "L.A. Confidential" and
"Chasing Amy" a heck of a lot more.
Bruce Probst Melbourne, Australia
bpr...@vitgbsd3.telstra.com.au MSTie #72759
Opinions expressed are personal, and do not represent the official
views of either IBM GSA or Telstra.
Tyson Dowd
BPr...@vitgbsd3.telstra.com.au (Bruce Probst) writes:
>What makes a film "SF" any way? Is it enough to just set it in space
>and/or the future? "Outland" is "High Noon" in space; is there
>anything *intrinsically* SF about "Outland"? Or is the SF setting
>just a gimmick?
SF:
- non-true setting or elements (futuristic, or fantastic)
(IMHO fantasy (e.g. magic) should really be considered SF too,
it's just a variation on changing some laws of physics).
- SF setting or elements change
- the way the world works socially/politically/etc
(e.g. Gattaca?)
- people think/work/live
(e.g. GiTS)
- the plot (in a fundamental way)
(e.g. any time-travel movie)
(If this doesn't happen, then you've just changed the props
and the costumes, but the characters and most of the script
remains the same).
HARD SF:
- SF that attempts to be realistic and consistent (e.g.
"this could happen", or "this all makes sense").
(e.g. Iain Banks novels, ).
SOFT SF:
- SF that doesn't worry about realism or consistency.
(e.g. Star Trek).
Hard/Soft is of course a debatable continuum.
SF SETTING:
- SF elements only used to give film style.
(e.g. Fifth Element -- although it has a *lot* of style ;-)
>....
>I'd like to think that an "SF" film is one that uses an
>unreal-but-possible setting to tell a story that couldn't be told in a
>"real" setting. Under those conditions, there are very few SF films
>*ever* made.
I think this would be ideal, but it's difficult to say for sure
whether a story could or couldn't be told. Later on you use the
example of Contact being told in Galileo's time. This is, for
example, too simplistic, because for starters no women were scientists
then, and scientists were not so well defined then. In addition,
the whole media spotlight would have to be ignored. The religion
of Galileo's time was quite different to that in the movie, so the
debate would be quite different. And this ignores the other
aspects of the movie -- what if aliens contacted us -- how would they
do it, how would we find them, how would we react, what kind of
message would be sent, etc. And then consider the "size of the
universe" motif, and the "are we alone?" theme. You might
find a "real" substitute for some of these elements (indeed, the film
does and runs them in parallel), but you would be hard up to find
them all.
Contact is clearly "Hard SF" in my book.
>Recent candidates: Ghost In The Shell. Maybe Gattaca too, but I
>haven't seen it (yet).
>If we delete the "but-possible" clause from the above, we bring in
>fantasy films which widens the field somewhat. The important criteria
>then remains "telling a story that couldn't be told otherwise". My
>first worry with this thought was that it would automatically include
>95% of horror films ("monster chases people and eats them") but then
>it occurred to me that these films *can* be told in other settings;
>cf. "The Ghost And The Darkness", which itself was really just a clone
>of "Jaws". Making the monster a supernatural or weird alien instead
>of a natural beast doesn't change the nature of the film in any way.
So long as that is the only difference in the film. If the monster has
interesting abilities that make a difference to the movie (e.g. how you
escape it, how you fight it, how it thinks, etc), then it becomes SF
again. Consider "Predator", which has some interesting SF elements that
make a definite difference to the entire story.
Of course, it might be best to label it a hybrid. I think of Alien
as a SF/Horror hybrid, and Aliens as SF/War.
>I'm not using these categories as any sort of value judgement. I
>thought "Fifth Element" was a fantastically enjoyable film, one of my
>favourite films of 1997. I also enjoyed "Contact" and many of the
>other films on Joan's list. (I must disagree about the worth of
>"Face/Off" though, which I found to be profoundly dull. But that's
>another topic.)
You need to be a fan of John Woo's directing style... Watch the action
scenes closes. Or better still, rent out "The Killer" which is a much
better example.
Joan McGalliard
In message <35899ecf...@203.22.213.17>, n...@spam.com (Sean Tudor) wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Jun 1998 01:51:29 GMT, nz...@iinet.net.au (Grant Watson)
> wrote:
>
> >Kenneth Branagh's film of Frankenstein is fantastic - very true to the
> >novel, for those of you who obsess over such things. It has a keen
> >visual style, and some great performances.
> > But then taste is very subjective.
>
> I thought so too. Although it wasn't very popular with "the masses".
>
Hey! I resemble that remark!
My feeling is that the film was less than the sum of it's parts. I found
the characters unengaging, and the story-telling flaccid. It was naughty
of me to put it in " awful" but while watching it I realised that if I was
at
home I would have wandered off to do something else.
Joan McGalliard
In message <35868...@139.134.5.33>, "Mark C"
<Mark_D...@NOSPAM.bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Joan McGalliard wrote in message <6lsmrh$9ap$4...@otis.netspace.net.au>...
>
> >*Awful films that prove taste is very subjective:
> > The 5th Element.
>
> Off with your head. One of my favourite films. Way over the top and some
> good to look at .
[ Draws in breath: this is going to get me in trouble. ]
I found it a fairly unpleasant experience.
Besson expands a theme partially developed in "Leon", of the bond between
a middle aged man and a woman-child. In Leon it was understated, almost
unstated. It was definitely not physical. In The 5th Element, all subtlety
is removed. Apparently by making the man slightly younger and less scuzzy,
and the women post-pubescent, the whole thing becomes acceptable. And the
woman only looks post-pubescent: she is, of course, new born.
Combined with the pneumatic breasts of almost every other female in the film,
the whole thing seemed like a middle aged adolescent male's sexual fantasy.
>
> >
> >*Films I haven't seen:
>
>
> Try Hardware - a British film which came out a few years back
>
Seen it, bought the video. Fun but derivative. And move than 5 years old,
I think. Wait there, I'll check.... yup 1990.
Chris Lawson
t...@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Dowd) wrote:
[snip]
>HARD SF:
> - SF that attempts to be realistic and consistent (e.g.
> "this could happen", or "this all makes sense").
> (e.g. Iain Banks novels, ).
>SOFT SF:
> - SF that doesn't worry about realism or consistency.
> (e.g. Star Trek).
>Hard/Soft is of course a debatable continuum.
[snip]
Beware. You have chosen a definition of hard/soft SF that is both
uncommon and liable to get people angry. Most sf readers I know would
say that:
Hard SF: science fiction based in which the scientific and
technological extrapolations are as rigorous as the author can make
them. Although not strictly necessary to meet this criteria, it is
also assumed that a hard SF story places the science/technology at the
forefront of the narrative. Hence much of Greg Benford's work is hard
SF, but definitely not Iain Banks, who doesn't really care all that
much about the science, he's too busy telling a story.
Soft SF: science fiction in which the scientific and technological
extrapolation is not necessarily rigorous, nor is it expected to be.
Rarely will these stories make plot points or themes hinge on
technology. Iain Banks novels are a good example of this (it looks
like hard SF, but when you come down to it, Banks very rarely mentions
how his future tech works). See also Connie Willis and Mike Resnick.
What you are talking about, when you mention inconsistency, is BAD SF.
Well, bad writing in general really. There is NO excuse for
inconsistency in any form of writing. It is pure laziness or stupidity
on the part of the writers. Writing soft SF does not give them the
right to be stupidly inconsistent. Thus Star Trek can be extremely
irritating, not because it is Soft SF (which it is), but because it is
(i) inconsistent, and (ii) repeatedly solves plot problems with
attempted scientific rationalisation - a big no-no in soft SF. Of
course, at its best, Star Trek can be fantastic...when it is
self-consistent and avoids technical solutions. The City on the Edge
of Forever and The Trouble with Tribbles fit the bill nicely.
regards,
Chris
_____________________
Chris Lawson
cl...@ozemail.com.au
David Golding
In article <35872bbc...@news.cdn.telstra.com.au>, Bruce Probst wrote:
>And a lot of SF movies use magic with pseudo-scientific names to hide
>it. "The Fifth Element" is a prime example. Are they really SF?
'The Fifth Element' is a lovingly reconstructed fairy tale dragged up in
stylish decopunk. :)
[snip]
BTW, great post, Bruce!
higs, Dave
--
david by default ...
'And we scientists are clever - too clever - are you not satisfied? Is
four square miles in one bomb not enough? Men are still thinking. Just
tell us how big you want it!' --Richard Feynman
Paul Dossett
Grant Watson (nz...@iinet.net.au) said:
>On 13 Jun 1998 02:06:41 GMT, jem*NO-SPAM*@netspace.net.au (Joan
>McGalliard) wrote:
>>*Awful films that prove taste is very subjective:
>>Mary Shelley's Frankenstein
>Kenneth Branagh's film of Frankenstein is fantastic - very true to the
>novel, for those of you who obsess over such things. It has a keen
>visual style, and some great performances.
And one terribly overwrought theatrical performance by Branagh ("I am ACTING
now!!") that would have sunk the film for me if the overly DRAMATIC music cues
hadn't done it first. A friend and I saw the SBS preview of Frankenstein and
basically laughed at it all the way through - complete Hollywood by numbers in
my book.
> But then taste is very subjective.
Erm, it appears so.. :)
For example, I 'got' Starship Troopers.. laughed my arse off. Seems others
loath it. Let's not mention Con Air or the Emmerich films though - they make my
head hurt with feelings of injustice ("more people saw 'IQ4' than 'Naked'??").
--
Paul Dossett
Home Theatre homepage - http://www.tangent.com.au/astroboy
Bruce Paris
Bruce Probst wrote :
>What makes a film "SF" any way? Is it enough to just set it in space
>and/or the future? "Outland" is "High Noon" in space; is there
>anything *intrinsically* SF about "Outland"? Or is the SF setting
>just a gimmick?
Harlan Ellison wrote a wonderful article in which he cleverly pointed out
the differences between "Outland" and what he considers "true" SF (I wonder
if you've read it considering you've mentioned this?). His argument was that
"Outland" *is* a western set in outer space. The film does not "speculate"
upon any scientific premise - ie. "what if...". Unfortunately, this also
means that "Star Wars" is also not SF (it's a Traditional Story - ie. a Jedi
myth - set in our (?) future, but the Jedi's past).
>And a lot of SF movies use magic with pseudo-scientific names to hide
>it. "The Fifth Element" is a prime example. Are they really SF?
Mmm...I think "The Fifth Element" spouts some crap at the start which makes
it SF - but, IMHO, crappy SF (good actioner though).
>I'd like to think that an "SF" film is one that uses an
>unreal-but-possible setting to tell a story that couldn't be told in a
>"real" setting. Under those conditions, there are very few SF films
>*ever* made.
OK, but you exclude classic SF like Frankenstein, War Of The Worlds, The
Shape Of Things To Come, and 1984. These novels/films are set in the very
real world of the time in which the novel is set (Frankenstein) or the
supposed not too distant future (on Earth). 1984 is bloody scary because it
is told in a "real" setting (although one slightly skewed).
>If we delete the "but-possible" clause from the above, we bring in
>fantasy films which widens the field somewhat. The important criteria
>then remains "telling a story that couldn't be told otherwise". My
>first worry with this thought was that it would automatically include
>95% of horror films ("monster chases people and eats them") but then
>it occurred to me that these films *can* be told in other settings;
>cf. "The Ghost And The Darkness", which itself was really just a clone
>of "Jaws". Making the monster a supernatural or weird alien instead
>of a natural beast doesn't change the nature of the film in any way.
It depends if the "monster" is speculatively "possible" - ie. X (known
element) + Y (speculative element) = SF monster (ie. Alien). I think this is
what you are saying...
>Recent candidates: Almost all of them, including "Contact". Many
>people have justifiably hailed "Contact" as a great SF film, but is it
>really? The story is science vs. faith. The SF setting makes it
>*easier* to tell the story, but the essence of the story could be set
>in many different periods of history, e.g., Galileo.
I must respectfully disagree here. Perhaps the greatest SF creation,
Frankenstein, is precicely about "science Vs faith". Great SF shakes our
faith in what we think *is* compared with what "might be possible" if we
were to let go of morality and ethics. I think SF is the genre where issues
such as "science Vs faith" can be explored in modern times.
>Should we dismiss films like "Mars Attacks!" because they're parodies?
No. "Mars attacks" is SF. It's just not serious SF, IMHO.
>What, can't a parody be SF too? Should we dismiss monster flix just
>because they *are* monster flix?
Yes, particularly if the monster has no grounding in reality (ie. science);
and that grounding is plausable (rules out Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes,
daam it!).
>Should we dismiss fantasy films just
>because they're not "real"?
Yes, particularly if the fantasy setting has no grounding in reality.
>I just think that before we can list the year's best SF films, we
>first have to agree on what an SF film *is*.
Ask these questions about film/novels you think might be SF :
1. Does the piece speculate upon a scientific premise which is not
possible now, but might be realistically possible; and set up this premise
as a part of the Central Question of the piece? Ie. Act One asks questions
about a possible scientific premise (and it's effect upon characters) which
is answered in the climax (Act Three). Outland and Star Wars fail this test.
2. Is the premise plausibly explained and developed in the piece as a
catalyst for the action (not merely as background). This unfortunately
includes films that "think" they're SF because the writers reckon they've
got that technobabble bullshit down pat. The Fifth Element passes on 2 but
fails on 1. That's why lots of folk think it's SF (along with heaps of other
like flicks).
Monster and horror flicks tend to fail on both counts, IMHO. This doesn't
make them less important genres - only different.
Just my 2c worth. Interesting thread.
Bruce Paris | Cairns, Australia | bpa...@iig.com.au |
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/5839/
*************************************************************
Grant Watson
On 18 Jun 98 18:25:57 +1000, "Paul Dossett" <astr...@nospam.net.au>
wrote:
>For example, I 'got' Starship Troopers.. laughed my arse off. Seems others
>loath it. Let's not mention Con Air or the Emmerich films though - they make my
>head hurt with feelings of injustice ("more people saw 'IQ4' than 'Naked'??").
Con Air is pretty awful, but other Bruckheimer productions (Bad Boys,
The Rock) are pretty enjoyable.
And of *course* more people saw Independence Day than saw Naked!
Independence Day was a PG-rated SF action movie, while Naked was a
low-budget independent R-rated drama. Which do *you* think is going to
appeal to more people?
Cheers!
Grant.
Iain Triffitt
On 17 Jun 1998 22:42:35 GMT, jem*NO-SPAM*@netspace.net.au (Joan
McGalliard) wrote:
<regarding Fifth Element>
>[ Draws in breath: this is going to get me in trouble. ]
>
>I found it a fairly unpleasant experience.
>
>Besson expands a theme partially developed in "Leon", of the bond between
>a middle aged man and a woman-child. In Leon it was understated, almost
>unstated. It was definitely not physical. In The 5th Element, all subtlety
>is removed. Apparently by making the man slightly younger and less scuzzy,
>and the women post-pubescent, the whole thing becomes acceptable. And the
>woman only looks post-pubescent: she is, of course, new born.
>
>Combined with the pneumatic breasts of almost every other female in the film,
>the whole thing seemed like a middle aged adolescent male's sexual fantasy.
>>
Actually it was *just* an adolescent male's sexual fantasy, Besson
wrote the script when he was 18. Personally I can see your objections
to it, but I enjoyed as a translation of a typical Euro-SF comix
story. Nice visuals (that coming from a Euro perspective 'seemed'
original) and it didn't take itself seriously. I can't have been
paying attention to the offensive sexual politics.
Oh yeah, best SF film in recent years? 'Crash' (having not seen
'Gattaca' or 'Contact') Then again, I have a pretty strict definition
of SF. Another SF film, not so recent, that satisfies my stringent
guidelines is 'Friendship's Death'. Should still be out on video, if
you haven't seen it.
Iain
Iain <tr...@viper.net.au>
Tony Calder
On Mon, 22 Jun 1998 18:08:27 GMT, tr...@viper.net.au.no.spam.please
(Iain Triffitt) wrote:
>Actually it was *just* an adolescent male's sexual fantasy, Besson
>wrote the script when he was 18. Personally I can see your objections
>to it, but I enjoyed as a translation of a typical Euro-SF comix
>story. Nice visuals (that coming from a Euro perspective 'seemed'
>original) and it didn't take itself seriously. I can't have been
>paying attention to the offensive sexual politics.
>Oh yeah, best SF film in recent years? 'Crash' (having not seen
>'Gattaca' or 'Contact') Then again, I have a pretty strict definition
>of SF. Another SF film, not so recent, that satisfies my stringent
>guidelines is 'Friendship's Death'. Should still be out on video, if
>you haven't seen it.
Hi Iain, been a long time :)
What are your "stringent guidelines" for SF films? This interests me
as my guidelines are fairly lax I think, and tend to include lots of
films which some others may not.
TC
Iain Triffitt
On Mon, 22 Jun 1998 15:21:16 GMT, t...@zip.com.au (Tony Calder) wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Jun 1998 18:08:27 GMT, tr...@viper.net.au.no.spam.please
>(Iain Triffitt) wrote:
>
>>Oh yeah, best SF film in recent years? 'Crash' (having not seen
>>'Gattaca' or 'Contact') Then again, I have a pretty strict definition
>>of SF. Another SF film, not so recent, that satisfies my stringent
>>guidelines is 'Friendship's Death'. Should still be out on video, if
>>you haven't seen it.
>
>Hi Iain, been a long time :)
Sure has been TC <further private conversation sent to e-mail>
>What are your "stringent guidelines" for SF films? This interests me
>as my guidelines are fairly lax I think, and tend to include lots of
>films which some others may not.
SF to me has to be an extrapolation from established fact, not just
anything with spaceships or aliens in it. Yes, I know that's a wank,
but I'm generally interested in SF films as a genre, and not in the
whole horror/fantasy/sci-fi field in particular.
I hope that makes sense.
For example, "Star Wars" to my mind is more fantasy with SF trappings
(magic=force, monsters=aliens, wizards=Jedi) than strictly SF. "Alien"
is a monster movie with SF trappings. If the speculation based on
established fact is not crucial to the successful interpretation of
the film (as entertainment or otherwise) then I tend to consider it as
part of another genre than SF. "Crash" is an extrapolation from
psychological studies and therefore qualifies as SF (more than any
other genre) than say "Starship Troopers". "Gattaca", "Contact" and
"Deep Impact" all sound like they would fit my criteria, but I haven't
seen them yet.
BTW by SF I mean in the above post -science- fiction. I'm much less
formal with my criteria for -speculative- fiction films, so I'm really
just splitting hairs.
Iain
>TC
Shane
On Mon, 22 Jun 1998 18:08:27 GMT, tr...@viper.net.au.no.spam.please
(Iain Triffitt) wrote:
<snip>
>
>Actually it was *just* an adolescent male's sexual fantasy, Besson
>wrote the script when he was 18. Personally I can see your objections
>to it, but I enjoyed as a translation of a typical Euro-SF comix
>story. Nice visuals (that coming from a Euro perspective 'seemed'
>original) and it didn't take itself seriously. I can't have been
>paying attention to the offensive sexual politics.
>
>Oh yeah, best SF film in recent years? 'Crash' (having not seen
>'Gattaca' or 'Contact') Then again, I have a pretty strict definition
>of SF. Another SF film, not so recent, that satisfies my stringent
>guidelines is 'Friendship's Death'. Should still be out on video, if
>you haven't seen it.
CRASH? Do you mean the Ballard thing? If so, why is it SF?
I don't recall any SF'al elements. I may be wrong of course.
Good flick though.
--
- Shane
Sig? I don't need no steenkin' sig.
Bruce Probst
>And one terribly overwrought theatrical performance by Branagh ("I am ACTING
>now!!") that would have sunk the film for me if the overly DRAMATIC music cues
>hadn't done it first. A friend and I saw the SBS preview of Frankenstein and
>basically laughed at it all the way through - complete Hollywood by numbers in
>my book.
You forget the omnipresent "I'm DIRECTING now!" theme. Also known as
"I have a Steadicam and I'm going to use it in every single scene,
dammit. Preferably with lots of sudden zooms and/or pullbacks."
"MS's Frankenstein" made me dizzy just watching it. About half-way
through it I was beginning to wonder if anyone ever just sat down and
stayed still for more than 30 seconds at a time.
Bruce Probst
>Besson expands a theme partially developed in "Leon", of the bond between
>a middle aged man and a woman-child. In Leon it was understated, almost
>unstated. It was definitely not physical. In The 5th Element, all subtlety
>is removed. Apparently by making the man slightly younger and less scuzzy,
>and the women post-pubescent, the whole thing becomes acceptable. And the
>woman only looks post-pubescent: she is, of course, new born.
Stretching, aren't you? I wasn't aware that older men dating younger
women was an "issue". The Lelu character was clearly an adult; what
exactly is the problem here?
>Combined with the pneumatic breasts of almost every other female in the film,
>the whole thing seemed like a middle aged adolescent male's sexual fantasy.
Yes, of course it was. If that's your complaint, then I'm afraid
you've entirely missed the "point" of the film.
Bruce Probst
On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 23:07:03 +1000, "Bruce Paris" <bpa...@iig.com.au>
wrote:
>Harlan Ellison wrote a wonderful article in which he cleverly pointed out
>the differences between "Outland" and what he considers "true" SF (I wonder
>if you've read it considering you've mentioned this?).
No; I avoid reading Ellison, mostly on principle.
>>I'd like to think that an "SF" film is one that uses an
>>unreal-but-possible setting to tell a story that couldn't be told in a
>>"real" setting. Under those conditions, there are very few SF films
>>*ever* made.
>
>OK, but you exclude classic SF like Frankenstein, War Of The Worlds, The
>Shape Of Things To Come, and 1984. These novels/films are set in the very
>real world of the time in which the novel is set (Frankenstein) or the
>supposed not too distant future (on Earth). 1984 is bloody scary because it
>is told in a "real" setting (although one slightly skewed).
Umm ... I think you may be using a different definition of "setting"
than I am. I have no problems classifying stories like Frankenstein
and Things To Come as SF. War of the Worlds I'm not so sure of ...
it's as much a cautionary tale about modern warfare as anything else.
1984 is a classic example of the non-SF SF tale: it uses SF trappings
(a future society, video surveillance, etc.) to tell a story about one
man's (doomed) struggle against a totalitarian regime. It's not SF at
all if we use the "couldn't be told in a 'real' setting" definition.
>It depends if the "monster" is speculatively "possible" - ie. X (known
>element) + Y (speculative element) = SF monster (ie. Alien). I think this is
>what you are saying...
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Whether the monster is an
alien horror or a Cthulhoid spawn or a bloody big shark is pretty much
irrelevant. The movies remain the same, usually.
>I must respectfully disagree here. Perhaps the greatest SF creation,
>Frankenstein, is precicely about "science Vs faith".
Hummm. I'm not at all sure that that is what Frankenstein is about.
I intepret it as being about Man meddling in things He shouldn't, not
because it's against God to do so, but because it's just bloody
stupid.
> Great SF shakes our
>faith in what we think *is* compared with what "might be possible" if we
>were to let go of morality and ethics. I think SF is the genre where issues
>such as "science Vs faith" can be explored in modern times.
I agree that great SF *can* do these things, but I don't think these
things are *required* for great SF, nor does a story *need* to be SF
to achieve these ends.
Bruce Probst
On 17 Jun 1998 18:27:20 +1000, t...@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Dowd) wrote:
>Contact is clearly "Hard SF" in my book.
I don't completely disagree with you; however I do disagree that it
would be impossible to tell a story like "Contact" in a "real"
setting. Certain elements of the story are already appearing in real
life (should or shouldn't we clone human beings?). A few years ago
this topic was clearly (potentially) Hard SF. Now it's Real Life.
Basically, there's not a lot that's "fantastic" (in the generic
definition of the term, not the value judgement) in "Contact". Would
you call "Apollo 13" an SF film? Hopefully not, but I've known some
who would (and it was up for a Hugo award, wasn't it?). Yet you would
only have to tweak with the setting a little bit - say, set it in the
future and make the problem occur on a "routine" flight to Mars - and
Zap! it becomes SF.
>So long as that is the only difference in the film. If the monster has
>interesting abilities that make a difference to the movie (e.g. how you
>escape it, how you fight it, how it thinks, etc), then it becomes SF
>again. Consider "Predator", which has some interesting SF elements that
>make a definite difference to the entire story.
I *strongly* disagree. "Predator" is merely an updated version of
"Most Dangerous Game" with flashy special effects. I'm not saying
it's a bad film, I *am* saying that it doesn't fit my criteria for
"true" SF. My favouritist film ever is "Alien", honestly, but I
wouldn't call it a "true" SF film either. It's "just" a monster
movie. (It just happens to be particularly cleverly done.)
>You need to be a fan of John Woo's directing style... Watch the action
>scenes closes. Or better still, rent out "The Killer" which is a much
>better example.
I've come to the conclusion that I don't like John Woo's style at all,
although I have been advised to see "The Killer" by a surprisingly
large number of people, so I will probably give it a try one day.
Paulius Stepanas
In article <358ef3e7...@news.cdn.telstra.com.au>, BPr...@vitgbsd3.telstra.com.au (Bruce Probst) writes:
>On 17 Jun 1998 18:27:20 +1000, t...@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Dowd) wrote:
>
>>Contact is clearly "Hard SF" in my book.
>
>I don't completely disagree with you; however I do disagree that it
>would be impossible to tell a story like "Contact" in a "real"
>setting. Certain elements of the story are already appearing in real
>life (should or shouldn't we clone human beings?). A few years ago
>this topic was clearly (potentially) Hard SF. Now it's Real Life.
>
>Basically, there's not a lot that's "fantastic" (in the generic
>definition of the term, not the value judgement) in "Contact". Would
>you call "Apollo 13" an SF film? Hopefully not, but I've known some
>who would (and it was up for a Hugo award, wasn't it?). Yet you would
>only have to tweak with the setting a little bit - say, set it in the
>future and make the problem occur on a "routine" flight to Mars - and
>Zap! it becomes SF.
Yet that is an element of true science fiction, as opposed to "blast
the aliens" SF. In my view, SF is defined by the examination of
social issues, current or future, in a future fantasy setting. The
issues themselves do not necessarily need to arise from the progress
of science, nor does the future necessarily have to be based on
scientific extrapolation (eg: the further you go into the future,
the more fantastic it generally becomes). In this sense, SF is more
vehicle than genre.
The vehicle expands our thinking, using rational tools to do examine
the consequences.
Of course, Hollywood has successfully subverted this function in
most people's consciousness.
Paulius
--
~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~ These musings from:
~|~ It's a mistake trying to cheer up camels. ~|~ Paulius G Stepanas
~|~ You may as well drop meringues into a ~|~ Melbourne, Australia.
~|~ black hole. ~|~
~|~ Terry Pratchett (Pyramids) ~|~ p.ste...@trl.oz.au
~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~
~|~ Maintainer of The Simpsons Australian Broadcast Info website: ~|~
~|~ http://www.sofcom.com.au/TV/simpsons/ ~|~
Tyson Dowd
BPr...@vitgbsd3.telstra.com.au (Bruce Probst) writes:
>On 17 Jun 1998 18:27:20 +1000, t...@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Dowd) wrote:
>>Contact is clearly "Hard SF" in my book.
>I don't completely disagree with you; however I do disagree that it
>would be impossible to tell a story like "Contact" in a "real"
>setting. Certain elements of the story are already appearing in real
>life (should or shouldn't we clone human beings?). A few years ago
>this topic was clearly (potentially) Hard SF. Now it's Real Life.
This is where Science Fiction becomes Science Fact, or alternate
history (which is a form of science fiction if centered on technology).
>Basically, there's not a lot that's "fantastic" (in the generic
>definition of the term, not the value judgement) in "Contact". Would
>you call "Apollo 13" an SF film? Hopefully not, but I've known some
>who would (and it was up for a Hugo award, wasn't it?). Yet you would
>only have to tweak with the setting a little bit - say, set it in the
>future and make the problem occur on a "routine" flight to Mars - and
>Zap! it becomes SF.
I don't think of Apollo 13 as SF at all. Unless SF == science fact.
If the new "Pathfinder 13" mission has new technological aspects,
then I think the basic "what if something goes wrong in space" is
going to be Science Fiction. Apollo 13 was almost all about science
engineering and technology (with particular emphasis on engineering,
which I thought was very well done). It was just factual, that's all.
Otherwise it would have been a wonderful SF movie.
>>So long as that is the only difference in the film. If the monster has
>>interesting abilities that make a difference to the movie (e.g. how you
>>escape it, how you fight it, how it thinks, etc), then it becomes SF
>>again. Consider "Predator", which has some interesting SF elements that
>>make a definite difference to the entire story.
>I *strongly* disagree. "Predator" is merely an updated version of
>"Most Dangerous Game" with flashy special effects. I'm not saying
>it's a bad film, I *am* saying that it doesn't fit my criteria for
>"true" SF. My favouritist film ever is "Alien", honestly, but I
>wouldn't call it a "true" SF film either. It's "just" a monster
>movie. (It just happens to be particularly cleverly done.)
I haven't seen "Most Dangerous Game". Did it give you a glimpse into an
alien culture (the sequences showing skulls of other kills). Did it
give unknown technological advantages to the hunter (blending, infra-red
scope) that the hunted had to first understand, then beat? Admittedly,
these things were pretty crude in Predator, but they were present.
These are the things that put it into SF in my book. There is a level
of explanation. It explores technology and science.
I believe you with Alien -- there simply isn't enough technology/science
involved to make it true SF. They just ran around the ship hiding and
screaming. There was no attempt to understand the creature and beat it
on its own terms (such as in Predator). It was a horror/SF hybrid at
best.
>>You need to be a fan of John Woo's directing style... Watch the action
>>scenes closes. Or better still, rent out "The Killer" which is a much
>>better example.
>I've come to the conclusion that I don't like John Woo's style at all,
>although I have been advised to see "The Killer" by a surprisingly
>large number of people, so I will probably give it a try one day.
If you don't like "The Killer" then you'll know for sure. Some of the
Hollywood/Woo hybrids are pretty poor (Broken Arrow). "The Killer" and
"Hard Boiled" are good ones. Beware, however, that VHS copies can be
*really* bad quality. If you liked "Reservoir Dogs" you might try
"Bullet in the Head" (I think that's the one) which inspired it.
But "The Killer" seems to be clearly the best of them.
Paul Dossett
Grant Watson (nz...@iinet.net.au) said:
>On 18 Jun 98 18:25:57 +1000, "Paul Dossett" <astr...@nospam.net.au>
>wrote:
>>For example, I 'got' Starship Troopers.. laughed my arse off. Seems others
>>loath it. Let's not mention Con Air or the Emmerich films though - they
>>make my head hurt with feelings of injustice ("more people saw 'IQ4' than
>>'Naked'??").
>Con Air is pretty awful, but other Bruckheimer productions (Bad Boys,
>The Rock) are pretty enjoyable.
> And of *course* more people saw Independence Day than saw Naked!
>Independence Day was a PG-rated SF action movie, while Naked was a
>low-budget independent R-rated drama. Which do *you* think is going to
>appeal to more people?
But that's my point - crap sells, and it makes me wonder why artists even bother
trying when the great unwashed go for anything with blinking lights and
explosions.
Paul Dossett
Bruce Probst (BPr...@vitgbsd3.telstra.com.au) said:
>On 18 Jun 98 18:25:57 +1000, "Paul Dossett" <astr...@nospam.net.au>
>wrote:
>>And one terribly overwrought theatrical performance by Branagh ("I am ACTING
>>now!!") that would have sunk the film for me if the overly DRAMATIC music
>>cues hadn't done it first. A friend and I saw the SBS preview of
>>Frankenstein and basically laughed at it all the way through - complete
>>Hollywood by numbers in my book.
>You forget the omnipresent "I'm DIRECTING now!" theme. Also known as
>"I have a Steadicam and I'm going to use it in every single scene,
>dammit. Preferably with lots of sudden zooms and/or pullbacks."
Yes, I'm afraid that had slipped my memory..
>"MS's Frankenstein" made me dizzy just watching it. About half-way
>through it I was beginning to wonder if anyone ever just sat down and
>stayed still for more than 30 seconds at a time.
I think my friend and I were too busy rolling our eyes and laughing to think
about what was going through Branagh's head.
Tony Calder
Yes, I agree to an extent - I've always considered Star Wars a western
in space, and Alien is ceratinly monster movie in space, but I would
consider them both SF movies.
>BTW by SF I mean in the above post -science- fiction. I'm much less
>formal with my criteria for -speculative- fiction films, so I'm really
>just splitting hairs.
It would seem that you're considering science fiction films as a sort
of sub-genre of speculative fiction films, whereas I would just lump
them all in as science fiction. As you say, a matter of semantics :)
TC
Leechboy
>>*Nice try:
>>The Lost Highway
>
>Is this film at all similar to David Lynch's 1997 film "Lost Highway"?
Where was the sci-fi element in Lost Highway? Trying to class what it is, is
about at pointless as to explain what it was about or what happened in it.
Lost Highway isn't so much a movie as an experiment in how to confused and
for want of a better phrase creep out an audience so much that they enjoy
it, or if they don't enjoy it, affect them so much that they can't say it
wasn't successful at what was doing. (And what that was is anyone's guess,
including Lynch's). You see? I can't classify it properly either, and I
liked the film.
>Sorry, just me being pedantic again.
>
>What makes a film "SF" any way? Is it enough to just set it in space
>and/or the future? "Outland" is "High Noon" in space; is there
>anything *intrinsically* SF about "Outland"? Or is the SF setting
>just a gimmick?
>For example, the SF elements of "Strange Days" (a film I like a lot)
>are a MacGuffin. They're not at all what the story is about (a murder
>mystery set against a background of extreme racial tension).
>
>Films like "Event Horizon" aren't SF either (at least, from my
>understanding of it; I haven't seen it); they're horror movies set in
>space.
Yes, event hroizon is a horror movie, as is Alien
>And a lot of SF movies use magic with pseudo-scientific names to hide
>it. "The Fifth Element" is a prime example. Are they really SF?
>
I like to think of the Fifth Element as a futuristic andventure movie
>I'd like to think that an "SF" film is one that uses an
>unreal-but-possible setting to tell a story that couldn't be told in a
>"real" setting. Under those conditions, there are very few SF films
>*ever* made.
>
>Recent candidates: Ghost In The Shell. Maybe Gattaca too, but I
>haven't seen it (yet).
>
My brother says, Gattaca and Contact are really the only true sci-fi films
of the last couple of years. ie where the science element(DNA, debate over
the existance of aliens) is as ingetral as the characters to the story, not
just an incedental part of the story.
I think the main problem is that people class Sci-fi as something set in
space or the future with some kind of unusual technology involved.
>If we delete the "but-possible" clause from the above, we bring in
>fantasy films which widens the field somewhat. The important criteria
>then remains "telling a story that couldn't be told otherwise". My
>first worry with this thought was that it would automatically include
>95% of horror films ("monster chases people and eats them") but then
>it occurred to me that these films *can* be told in other settings;
>cf. "The Ghost And The Darkness", which itself was really just a clone
>of "Jaws". Making the monster a supernatural or weird alien instead
>of a natural beast doesn't change the nature of the film in any way.
Here's the difference -
Sci-fi - Seeks to engage you on an intellectual level
Horror - Seeks to engage you on an emotional level(Ie scared)
>Recent candidates: The City of Lost Children, The Fifth Element, Lost
>Highway. ("Lost Highway" is tricky because first we have to work out
>what story is being told before we can decide whether it could be told
>in a different setting <g>.)
Amen to that.
>The other extreme would be, an SF film is anything that claims to use
>"science/technology" as an excuse to provide an alternate setting for
>a traditional film.
What like Lifepod being the sci-fi version of Hitchcock's Lifeboat?
>Recent candidates: Almost all of them, including "Contact". Many
>people have justifiably hailed "Contact" as a great SF film, but is it
>really? The story is science vs. faith. The SF setting makes it
>*easier* to tell the story, but the essence of the story could be set
>in many different periods of history, e.g., Galileo.
Would a period setting make it not a sci-fi film? Are all science ficition
films supposed to be set in the present or future to make them valid sci-fi?
If we remade the Day the Earth stood still and kept it set in the 50's would
it cease to be a science fiction movie?
I thought Science V. Faith would ba sci-fi theme. Hell Gattaca could be put
down to being Science Vs Nature.
>I'm not using these categories as any sort of value judgement. I
>thought "Fifth Element" was a fantastically enjoyable film, one of my
>favourite films of 1997. I also enjoyed "Contact" and many of the
>other films on Joan's list. (I must disagree about the worth of
>"Face/Off" though, which I found to be profoundly dull. But that's
>another topic.)
In a way Face/Off is more sci-fi than the Fifth Element, because the
techonology of changing the faces is integral to the plot. It just doesn'tt
have the look or feel we've come to expect of a sci-fi film. I liked it
though.
>Should we dismiss films like "Mars Attacks!" because they're parodies?
>What, can't a parody be SF too? Should we dismiss monster flix just
>because they *are* monster flix? Should we dismiss fantasy films just
>because they're not "real" - as if any SF film ever is?
Usually we dissmiss them because they are badly made. Why did people believe
in Jaw's rubber shark and not in Anaconda's rubber snake, because of the
director's ability to keep our suspension of disbelief. Which is why so many
big monster, fantasy or sci-fi flicks are unsuccessful, because the
storylines are much more fanciful, the onus is more on the director and the
writers to be able to keep us believing in what we see, and that is a talent
that unfortunately few have.
>I just think that before we can list the year's best SF films, we
>first have to agree on what an SF film *is*. Without such a
>definition in place, any list generated is just going to be a list of
>"films I liked", in which case we have to ask why we're bothering to
>exclude the many "obviously" non-SF films made. As much as I liked
>"The Fifth Element" and "Contact", I liked "L.A. Confidential" and
>"Chasing Amy" a heck of a lot more.
Can't argue with you there.
Leechboy
****************************************************************************
"I'm tired of this back-slapping "aren't humanity neat" shit, We're a virus
with shoes...that's all we are" - Bill Hicks
****************************************************************************
>Bruce Probst Melbourne, Australia
>bpr...@vitgbsd3.telstra.com.au MSTie #72759
Hey, how'd you become an MSTie in Oz, I've been trying to find episodes
everywhere with no luck.
Iain Triffitt
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 02:51:50 GMT, shanen@*NOSPAM*accsoft.com.au
(Shane) wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Jun 1998 18:08:27 GMT, tr...@viper.net.au.no.spam.please
>(Iain Triffitt) wrote:
>>Oh yeah, best SF film in recent years? 'Crash' (having not seen
>>'Gattaca' or 'Contact') Then again, I have a pretty strict definition
>>of SF. Another SF film, not so recent, that satisfies my stringent
>>guidelines is 'Friendship's Death'. Should still be out on video, if
>>you haven't seen it.
>
>CRASH? Do you mean the Ballard thing? If so, why is it SF?
>I don't recall any SF'al elements. I may be wrong of course.
>Good flick though.
Knew 'Crash' would be a controversial choice. The plot is based on an
extrapolation of received ideas regarding sexual identity, and the
film spends it's time exploring the ramifications of the
extrapolation. To my mind that makes it a 'purer' SF (science fiction)
film than ID4, despite having no starships, no aliens and not being
set in the future. To pour more gasoline on the discussion, 'Crash'
has the internal dynamics of science fiction without the external
trappings.
I did say I had stringent guidelines.
>
>
>--
>- Shane
>
>Sig? I don't need no steenkin' sig.
Iain <tr...@viper.net.au>
Iain Triffitt
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 18:27:54 GMT, t...@zip.com.au (Tony Calder) wrote:
>
>It would seem that you're considering science fiction films as a sort
>of sub-genre of speculative fiction films, whereas I would just lump
>them all in as science fiction. As you say, a matter of semantics :)
>
though, is that I am interested in science fiction films (with an
internal consistency and a story dynamic or plot engine that stems
from extrapolation) more than speculative fiction films as a *genre*.
I want to know what other films out there are based on the dynamics of
science fiction, rather then just using its trappings to re-tell an
old story. The test for me, I guess, is whether you can replace the SF
trappings with motifs from another genre and still have a film. I
don't think you can do that with 'Blade Runner', I do think you can do
that with 'ID4'.
Iain <tr...@viper.net.au>
Iain Triffitt
On 23 Jun 1998 16:23:47 +1000, t...@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Dowd) wrote:
>BPr...@vitgbsd3.telstra.com.au (Bruce Probst) writes:
>>I've come to the conclusion that I don't like John Woo's style at all,
>>although I have been advised to see "The Killer" by a surprisingly
>>large number of people, so I will probably give it a try one day.
>
>If you don't like "The Killer" then you'll know for sure. Some of the
>Hollywood/Woo hybrids are pretty poor (Broken Arrow). "The Killer" and
>"Hard Boiled" are good ones. Beware, however, that VHS copies can be
>*really* bad quality. If you liked "Reservoir Dogs" you might try
>"Bullet in the Head" (I think that's the one) which inspired it.
>But "The Killer" seems to be clearly the best of them.
You can't have seen "Bullet in the Head", Tyson, if you think it bares
any similarity to "Reservoir Dogs". RD was "supposed" to be a direct
rip-off of Ringo Lam's "City on Fire". The only things both films have
in common is that Tarantino lifted a couple of images from it, and the
basic situation (undercover cop infiltrating ring of jewel thieves.)
Otherwise they're very different.
I'd recommend "Bullet in the Head" as Woo's masterpiece. In a way it's
his version of "Apocalypse Now" but from an Asian perspective. I found
it a very powerful film, much more intense than "The Killer" or
"Hardboiled".
That being said, I think Woo (and HK action cinema in general) is an
acquired taste. The melodramatic nature of most of the films can
certainly seem risible to Western audiences, and some friends of mine
that I took to a late night showing of "Hardboiled" couldn't stomach
the violence.
BTW because this Tarantino ripped off Lam thing seems to be a very
common misconception amongst Usenet people, I recommend they see both
films before accusing Tarantino of plagiarism. I know you didn't,
Tyson, but alt.cult.movies is full of people who constantly expouse
this criticism of Tarantino, and its one of the few criticisms of
Tarantino that are unjustified. (IMO)
Iain <tr...@viper.net.au>
Bruce Probst
On 23 Jun 1998 05:57:50 GMT, step...@newsserver.trl.oz.au (Paulius
Stepanas) wrote:
>Yet that is an element of true science fiction, as opposed to "blast
>the aliens" SF. In my view, SF is defined by the examination of
>social issues, current or future, in a future fantasy setting.
I'd accept that as *a* definition of SF, but it's not satisfactory to
me as *the* definition. For one thing, the "future" part of your
definition excludes almost all "parallel universe/alternate history"
stories (which could be set in the present or the past). It also
excludes "science gone wrong" stories set in the present day.
Which just highlights how hard it is to pin "SF" down as a genre.
(Personally, I much prefer "speculative fiction" as an alternative
term to "science fiction", because "speculative fiction" is a lot
easier to define satisfactorily. Stories about what-might-be-if. The
"if" can be anything "not possible in the real world as we know it".
If this were a hundred years from now ... if magic was real ... if
Hitler had won WW2 ... etc.)
If we take this definition to the beginning of the thread, and ask the
question "what have been the best 'speculative fiction' films in
recent years?", would it change peoples' answers any? It certainly
makes the question easier to answer IMO.
Bruce Probst Melbourne, Australia
bpr...@vitgbsd3.telstra.com.au MSTie #72759
Tyson Dowd
tr...@viper.net.au.no.spam.please (Iain Triffitt) writes:
>On 23 Jun 1998 16:23:47 +1000, t...@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Dowd) wrote:
>>If you don't like "The Killer" then you'll know for sure. Some of the
>>Hollywood/Woo hybrids are pretty poor (Broken Arrow). "The Killer" and
>>"Hard Boiled" are good ones. Beware, however, that VHS copies can be
>>*really* bad quality. If you liked "Reservoir Dogs" you might try
>>"Bullet in the Head" (I think that's the one) which inspired it.
>>But "The Killer" seems to be clearly the best of them.
>You can't have seen "Bullet in the Head", Tyson, if you think it bares
>any similarity to "Reservoir Dogs". RD was "supposed" to be a direct
>rip-off of Ringo Lam's "City on Fire". The only things both films have
>in common is that Tarantino lifted a couple of images from it, and the
>basic situation (undercover cop infiltrating ring of jewel thieves.)
>Otherwise they're very different.
You're completely right. Sorry about that, got mixed up between the
titles *and* the director -- I haven't actually seen "Bullet in the
Head" yet (saving up for HK DVDs). I think there are quite a few
similarities, but agree that it's not a rip-off.
>I'd recommend "Bullet in the Head" as Woo's masterpiece. In a way it's
>his version of "Apocalypse Now" but from an Asian perspective. I found
>it a very powerful film, much more intense than "The Killer" or
>"Hardboiled".
>That being said, I think Woo (and HK action cinema in general) is an
>acquired taste. The melodramatic nature of most of the films can
>certainly seem risible to Western audiences, and some friends of mine
>that I took to a late night showing of "Hardboiled" couldn't stomach
>the violence.
Indeed. And not just action cinema -- HK comedies are also hard to
enjoy at first, because there are some fundamental differences in
sense of humour. I think it's a taste worth trying to acquire, however,
because there are some great HK movies. I think anyone who genuinely
enjoys film will find at least some interest in their films.
But it certainly takes perseverance for the first few.
>BTW because this Tarantino ripped off Lam thing seems to be a very
>common misconception amongst Usenet people, I recommend they see both
>films before accusing Tarantino of plagiarism. I know you didn't,
>Tyson, but alt.cult.movies is full of people who constantly expouse
>this criticism of Tarantino, and its one of the few criticisms of
>Tarantino that are unjustified. (IMO)
I agree. I believe "partly inspired" is the best way to describe the
relationship between the films.
Paulius Stepanas
In article <35906209...@news.cdn.telstra.com.au>, BPr...@vitgbsd3.telstra.com.au (Bruce Probst) writes:
>On 23 Jun 1998 05:57:50 GMT, step...@newsserver.trl.oz.au (Paulius
>Stepanas) wrote:
>
>>Yet that is an element of true science fiction, as opposed to "blast
>>the aliens" SF. In my view, SF is defined by the examination of
>>social issues, current or future, in a future fantasy setting.
>
>I'd accept that as *a* definition of SF, but it's not satisfactory to
>me as *the* definition. For one thing, the "future" part of your
>definition excludes almost all "parallel universe/alternate history"
>stories (which could be set in the present or the past). It also
>excludes "science gone wrong" stories set in the present day.
>
>Which just highlights how hard it is to pin "SF" down as a genre.
>(Personally, I much prefer "speculative fiction" as an alternative
>term to "science fiction", because "speculative fiction" is a lot
>easier to define satisfactorily. Stories about what-might-be-if. The
>"if" can be anything "not possible in the real world as we know it".
>If this were a hundred years from now ... if magic was real ... if
>Hitler had won WW2 ... etc.)
Your idea of speculative fiction sounds good. The trouble is, I
don't like to think of things such as "Face/Off" as SF. For one
thing, it only superficially examines the implications of face-swapping
technology. Traditionally, SF has been narrower than your definition
of speculative fiction, and I'm not sure SF fans would enjoy much of
what new include under the new banner.
I think you're right, though, that SF can be hard to pin down.
Bruce Probst
On 24 Jun 1998 06:29:52 GMT, step...@newsserver.trl.oz.au (Paulius
Stepanas) wrote:
>Your idea of speculative fiction sounds good. The trouble is, I
>don't like to think of things such as "Face/Off" as SF. For one
>thing, it only superficially examines the implications of face-swapping
>technology. Traditionally, SF has been narrower than your definition
>of speculative fiction, and I'm not sure SF fans would enjoy much of
>what new include under the new banner.
I don't know that it's "my" idea. I'm sure it's been kicking around a
while.
As far as "Face/Off" being only "superficially" SF, I agree. However,
when you think about it, the vast majority of SF films produced by
Hollywood are "superficially" SF. Which was kind of the point I was
trying to make several posts ago.
As far as what "SF fans" enjoy or don't enjoy, that category is even
broader than "SF"! I consider myself an SF fan (and have been for as
long as I can remember) but I'm not a Fan. There's plenty of SF I
won't touch with a barge pole, and I know there's SF I like that a lot
of other folk turn their nose up at. So personally, I don't care what
"SF fans" like or don't like; if someone wants to disagree with me
that a given movie is or isn't SF, fine. As long as we can keep the
discussion civilised it's of no concern to me <g>.
Bruce Probst
On 23 Jun 1998 16:23:47 +1000, t...@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Dowd) wrote:
>I haven't seen "Most Dangerous Game". Did it give you a glimpse into an
>alien culture (the sequences showing skulls of other kills). Did it
>give unknown technological advantages to the hunter (blending, infra-red
>scope) that the hunted had to first understand, then beat? Admittedly,
>these things were pretty crude in Predator, but they were present.
>These are the things that put it into SF in my book. There is a level
>of explanation. It explores technology and science.
<snort> Let's just say you obviously are reading a *lot* more into
"Predator" than I do. In fact I suspect you're reading a lot more
into it than the people who created it ....
(On a minor point: the alien skulls were from "Predator 2".)
The presence of "alien technology" does NOT make a film - or any media
- SF. That's just wallpaper. The issue is what the story *does* with
the alien technology. IMO, "Predator" doesn't "do" anything with it,
it's just there to make the alien a tougher monster. In this respect
it's NO DIFFERENT to "Alien", where the monster was a tough monster
because it was, well, alien. In "Jaws", the shark is a tough monster
because it's big. All sorts of monster films find different ways to
make their monsters "tougher", but they all boil down to being the
same thing. What distinguishes a "good" monster film from a "bad"
monster film is how the story is told. It's got nothing to do with
whether the monster uses laser beams or sharp pointy sticks.
IF "Predator" made any exploration of "alien culture" I'd agree with
you that it could be classed as "true SF" (by my definitions, any
way). But it doesn't; it's simply a classic "adventure/monster"
movie, with "man as prey".
Please note that I'm not referring to, and don't give a tinker's cuss
for, whatever may be told or added or extrapolated from "Predator 2"
or the comics series or whatever. A movie has to stand alone.
>If you don't like "The Killer" then you'll know for sure. Some of the
>Hollywood/Woo hybrids are pretty poor (Broken Arrow). "The Killer" and
>"Hard Boiled" are good ones. Beware, however, that VHS copies can be
>*really* bad quality. If you liked "Reservoir Dogs" you might try
>"Bullet in the Head" (I think that's the one) which inspired it.
>But "The Killer" seems to be clearly the best of them.
"The Killer" is available on LD and DVD; if I see it it will be on one
of those formats. (And it was "City on Fire" that inspired "Reservoir
Dogs"; so far as I know "City on Fire" wasn't a Woo film, was it?)
William Ferguson
Bruce Probst wrote in message <35930032...@news.cdn.telstra.com.au>...
><snort> Let's just say you obviously are reading a *lot* more into
>"Predator" than I do. In fact I suspect you're reading a lot more
>into it than the people who created it ....
<snip>
>IF "Predator" made any exploration of "alien culture" I'd agree with
>you that it could be classed as "true SF" (by my definitions, any
>way). But it doesn't; it's simply a classic "adventure/monster"
>movie, with "man as prey".
IMO you're being a bit harsh on Predator. In regards to alien culture I
think you'll find that the creature was only prepared to hunt something that
could defend itself. As noted by Arnie's character stopping the woman from
picking up a gun.
And on a minor point: the bomb at the end was counting down not only in an
alien alphabet but it wasn't a decimal (base 10) system.
Just my 2 cents(like this thread)
William Ferguson
Application Engineer - Mincom
william....@mincom.com
Tyson Dowd
BPr...@vitgbsd3.telstra.com.au (Bruce Probst) writes:
>On 23 Jun 1998 16:23:47 +1000, t...@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Dowd) wrote:
>>I haven't seen "Most Dangerous Game". Did it give you a glimpse into an
>>alien culture (the sequences showing skulls of other kills). Did it
>>give unknown technological advantages to the hunter (blending, infra-red
>>scope) that the hunted had to first understand, then beat? Admittedly,
>>these things were pretty crude in Predator, but they were present.
>>These are the things that put it into SF in my book. There is a level
>>of explanation. It explores technology and science.
><snort> Let's just say you obviously are reading a *lot* more into
>"Predator" than I do. In fact I suspect you're reading a lot more
>into it than the people who created it ....
>(On a minor point: the alien skulls were from "Predator 2".)
Oops, maybe I've merged two films together ;-) Would explain why
I see more in it than you... In that case I'll retract my argument.
Leechboy
Bruce Probst wrote in message <35930032...@news.cdn.telstra.com.au>...
>On 23 Jun 1998 16:23:47 +1000, t...@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Dowd) wrote:
>
>>I haven't seen "Most Dangerous Game". Did it give you a glimpse into an
>>alien culture (the sequences showing skulls of other kills). Did it
>>give unknown technological advantages to the hunter (blending, infra-red
>>scope) that the hunted had to first understand, then beat? Admittedly,
>>these things were pretty crude in Predator, but they were present.
>>These are the things that put it into SF in my book. There is a level
>>of explanation. It explores technology and science.
>
><snort> Let's just say you obviously are reading a *lot* more into
>"Predator" than I do. In fact I suspect you're reading a lot more
>into it than the people who created it ....
>
>(On a minor point: the alien skulls were from "Predator 2".)
>
>The presence of "alien technology" does NOT make a film - or any media
>- SF. That's just wallpaper. The issue is what the story *does* with
>the alien technology. IMO, "Predator" doesn't "do" anything with it,
>it's just there to make the alien a tougher monster. In this respect
>it's NO DIFFERENT to "Alien", where the monster was a tough monster
>because it was, well, alien. In "Jaws", the shark is a tough monster
>because it's big. All sorts of monster films find different ways to
>make their monsters "tougher", but they all boil down to being the
>same thing. What distinguishes a "good" monster film from a "bad"
>monster film is how the story is told. It's got nothing to do with
>whether the monster uses laser beams or sharp pointy sticks.
>
>IF "Predator" made any exploration of "alien culture" I'd agree with
>you that it could be classed as "true SF" (by my definitions, any
>way). But it doesn't; it's simply a classic "adventure/monster"
>movie, with "man as prey".
>
>Please note that I'm not referring to, and don't give a tinker's cuss
>for, whatever may be told or added or extrapolated from "Predator 2"
>or the comics series or whatever. A movie has to stand alone.
>
>>If you don't like "The Killer" then you'll know for sure. Some of the
>>Hollywood/Woo hybrids are pretty poor (Broken Arrow). "The Killer" and
>>"Hard Boiled" are good ones. Beware, however, that VHS copies can be
>>*really* bad quality. If you liked "Reservoir Dogs" you might try
>>"Bullet in the Head" (I think that's the one) which inspired it.
>>But "The Killer" seems to be clearly the best of them.
>
>"The Killer" is available on LD and DVD; if I see it it will be on one
>of those formats. (And it was "City on Fire" that inspired "Reservoir
>Dogs"; so far as I know "City on Fire" wasn't a Woo film, was it?)
>
City on fire was a Ringo Lam film, and part of his "On Fire" trilogy, which
includes City On Fire, Prison On Fire(1 & 2) and School On Fire. The latter
being a little controversial, and far as I know hasn't been shown in Oz yet.
Joan McGalliard
In message <358eedfa...@news.cdn.telstra.com.au>,
BPr...@vitgbsd3.telstra.com.au (Bruce Probst) wrote:
>
> On 17 Jun 1998 22:42:35 GMT, jem*NO-SPAM*@netspace.net.au (Joan
> McGalliard) wrote:
>
> >Besson expands a theme partially developed in "Leon", of the bond between
> >a middle aged man and a woman-child. In Leon it was understated, almost
> >unstated. It was definitely not physical. In The 5th Element, all subtlety
> >is removed. Apparently by making the man slightly younger and less scuzzy,
> >and the women post-pubescent, the whole thing becomes acceptable. And
the
> >woman only looks post-pubescent: she is, of course, new born.
>
> Stretching, aren't you? I wasn't aware that older men dating younger
> women was an "issue". The Lelu character was clearly an adult; what
> exactly is the problem here?
>
her character was newborn, and completely naive and untouched. Her manner
and interaction with the world were without guile and child-like. That's
just
how I saw it, but I believe that's how Besson saw it too.
> >Combined with the pneumatic breasts of almost every other female in the
film,
> >the whole thing seemed like a middle aged adolescent male's sexual fantasy.
>
> Yes, of course it was. If that's your complaint, then I'm afraid
> you've entirely missed the "point" of the film.
>
Hey, I'm on the internet: what need have I for any other middle aged
adolescent males' sexual fantasies?
joan
--
Posted with Ink Spot (for the Newton) from DejaVu Software, Inc.
Usenet wherever you are - http://www.martnet.com/~dejavu/
Grant Watson
On 23 Jun 1998 16:23:47 +1000, t...@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Dowd) wrote:
>If you don't like "The Killer" then you'll know for sure. Some of the
>Hollywood/Woo hybrids are pretty poor (Broken Arrow).
There haven't been that many US John Woo films.
As director:
"Hard Target" - Van Damme is awful but Lance Henriksen makes a
sensational villain.
"Broken Arrow" - fun popcorn movie, with Woo deliberately trying to
make an American action movie rather than a Hong Kong one.
"Face/Off" - a stylish, high budget remix of John Woo's Hong Kong
movies with brilliant acting.
As producer:
"The Replacement Killers" - enjoyable film, again with very good
acting and a similar look to Woo.
"The Big Hit" - very surprising and extremely funny.
>"The Killer" and "Hard Boiled" are good ones. Beware, however,
>that VHS copies can be *really* bad quality. If you liked
>"Reservoir Dogs" you might try "Bullet in the Head" (I think
>that's the one) which inspired it. But "The Killer" seems to be
>clearly the best of them.
"Bullet In The Head" is Woo's Vietnam movie, but the inspiration for
"Reservoir Dogs" (that was Ringo Lam).
Hard Boiled is my personal favourite out of the HK productions, but
I've yet to see a subtitled version of "The Killer" (the dubbed
version is horribly distracting).
Cheers!
Grant.
Joan McGalliard
In message <35951c3c...@news.iinet.net.au>, nz...@iinet.net.au (Grant
Watson) wrote:
>
> "Bullet In The Head" is Woo's Vietnam movie, but the inspiration for
> "Reservoir Dogs" (that was Ringo Lam).
> Hard Boiled is my personal favourite out of the HK productions, but
> I've yet to see a subtitled version of "The Killer" (the dubbed
> version is horribly distracting).
"Mickey Mouse"
"Dumbo"
There is of course a subtitled version on LD & SBS have shown The Killer
twice with their own subtitles. It's great to "hear" it in the vernacular:
"Piss off, you loser."
Joan McGalliard
In message <358eef26...@news.cdn.telstra.com.au>,
BPr...@vitgbsd3.telstra.com.au (Bruce Probst) wrote:
>
> No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Whether the monster is an
> alien horror or a Cthulhoid spawn or a bloody big shark is pretty much
> irrelevant. The movies remain the same, usually.
A good illustration of this is the film Duel, Spielberg's practice for Jaws.
The monster in Duel is a big truck (a Semi ?) but well filmed it is a totally
convincing movie monster.
Joan McGalliard
In message <3592f5a3...@news.viper.net.au>,
tr...@viper.net.au.no.spam.please (Iain Triffitt) wrote:
>
> On 23 Jun 1998 16:23:47 +1000, t...@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Dowd) wrote:
>
>
> You can't have seen "Bullet in the Head", Tyson, if you think it bares
> any similarity to "Reservoir Dogs". RD was "supposed" to be a direct
> rip-off of Ringo Lam's "City on Fire". The only things both films have
> in common is that Tarantino lifted a couple of images from it, and the
> basic situation (undercover cop infiltrating ring of jewel thieves.)
> Otherwise they're very different.,
>
I think these two films are similar and that Reservoir Dogs was based on
City On Fire, but that is not a necessarily bad thing. I'd compare the two
films to The Seven Samurai and The Magnificent Seven. The same basic plot,
but both films are very good, and excellent examples of their genres.
Remember, there are only seven basic plots in western literature. Well, that
may not be true, but no film has a totally original plot. So the issue should
be not where the story comes from, but what is done with it. It is really
quite frightening how Hollywood can take a good film and make a mediocre
one.
Surely the worst case scenario would be a shot-for-shot remake. Tarantino
has taken an interesting plot and made it his own.
> I'd recommend "Bullet in the Head" as Woo's masterpiece. In a way it's
> his version of "Apocalypse Now" but from an Asian perspective. I found
> it a very powerful film, much more intense than "The Killer" or
> "Hardboiled".
>
Note: there are at least two
distinct versions of this film. the one that ends (no spoilers) with a chase
sequence and the one with the more abrupt, shocking ending. The latter is
a better film, the former is Woo's preferred ending, I believe. Unfortunately,
the chase ending is the one on LD.
> That being said, I think Woo (and HK action cinema in general) is an
> acquired taste. The melodramatic nature of most of the films can
> certainly seem risible to Western audiences, and some friends of mine
> that I took to a late night showing of "Hardboiled" couldn't stomach
> the violence.
>
Another voice of dissent: I "acquired" the taste for Hong Kong action films
by sitting for 10 minutes in a darkened cinema watching Hardboiled.
Joan McGalliard
In message <3591f33b...@news.viper.net.au>,
tr...@viper.net.au.no.spam.please (Iain Triffitt) wrote:
>
> I want to know what other films out there are based on the dynamics of
> science fiction, rather then just using its trappings to re-tell an
> old story. The test for me, I guess, is whether you can replace the SF
> trappings with motifs from another genre and still have a film. I
> don't think you can do that with 'Blade Runner', I do think you can do
> that with 'ID4'.
Blade Runner could easily be made without the SF trappings. You need a
professional hunter. You need prey who look human superficially, but our
hero
"knows" is not. Over the course of the film he comes to respect them, love
one of their number, and realise they are more human than him.
Say, make them native Americans 100 years ago. They could be in the city
to reclaim some treasure of their tribe.
etc etc.
Bruce Probst
On Wed, 24 Jun 1998 12:59:44 GMT, tr...@viper.net.au.no.spam.please
(Iain Triffitt) wrote:
>That being said, I think Woo (and HK action cinema in general) is an
>acquired taste. The melodramatic nature of most of the films can
>certainly seem risible to Western audiences, and some friends of mine
>that I took to a late night showing of "Hardboiled" couldn't stomach
>the violence.
I have seen several HK movies (action and otherwise) and have enjoyed
(to varying degrees) most of them. I haven't yet seen any Woo HK
films, though (at least, not that I know of). I have seen both of his
Hollywood films ("Face/Off" and "Broken Arrow") and I can say that
Woo's directing style alternately irritated and bored me immensely.
It had nothing to do with the violence or the absurdity of the plots.
So my objection to Woo is just that: an objection to Woo. I don't
object to HK films in general, at all.
Pablo
Joan McGalliard wrote:
> In message <3591f33b...@news.viper.net.au>,
> tr...@viper.net.au.no.spam.please (Iain Triffitt) wrote:
>
> >
> > I want to know what other films out there are based on the dynamics
> of
> > science fiction, rather then just using its trappings to re-tell an
> > old story. The test for me, I guess, is whether you can replace the
> SF
> > trappings with motifs from another genre and still have a film. I
> > don't think you can do that with 'Blade Runner', I do think you can
> do
> > that with 'ID4'.
>
> Blade Runner could easily be made without the SF trappings. You need a
>
> professional hunter. You need prey who look human superficially, but
> our
> hero
> "knows" is not. Over the course of the film he comes to respect them,
> love
> one of their number, and realise they are more human than him.
My vote would be a "yes and no" vote. An american indian parallel film
to Blade Runner would be exploring some of the same issues but would be
not be of the same genre of film. SF more easily opens doors to
exploring ideas than other areas simply because it lacks realities or
necessary baggage of these other areas. Otherwise, what would be left to
distinguish SF from other films would be purely the technical
considerations. I would say there is more to SF than this, that
technical considerations are more tools to exploit the issues wishing to
be pursued. The two camps that can form in SF can be represented by say
Blade Runner v's Star Trek.
Pablo
Pablo
Dark City.
Any personal reviews would be welcomed.
Pablo
Iain Triffitt
On Mon, 29 Jun 1998 22:13:17 GMT, BPr...@vitgbsd3.telstra.com.au
(Bruce Probst) wrote:
>So my objection to Woo is just that: an objection to Woo. I don't
>object to HK films in general, at all.
Okay. I enjoyed Face/Off as perhaps the closest Hollywood could get to
allowing Woo the expression of the themes of his HK work. Because he
wouldn't be able to get away with the nihilistic endings of most of
his action films, he's had to severly compromise his vision until he's
really just another Hollywood action director.
I think his style works well in films like "The Killer" where he is
juxtaposing the oppositional stances of his protagonists, slowing down
the image to give it iconic significance, using editing to indicate
the inner relationships of his two main characters. In films such as
"Broken Arrow" and "Face/Off" it can appear too florid.
BTW even if you don't like Woo's style, I'd recommend "Full Contact",
a Ringo Lam film that seems to me a pisstake of Woo's worst excesses.
Iain <tr...@viper.net.au>
Iain Triffitt
On 29 Jun 1998 14:25:29 GMT, jem*NO-SPAM*@netspace.net.au (Joan
McGalliard) wrote:
>Blade Runner could easily be made without the SF trappings. You need a
>professional hunter. You need prey who look human superficially, but our
>hero
>"knows" is not. Over the course of the film he comes to respect them, love
>one of their number, and realise they are more human than him.
>
>to reclaim some treasure of their tribe.
>
replicant?) would not exist. Is Deckard a native American? I think
he'd know...
It is a good point, but I think the intent of the film would be
changed dramatically if it occurred in a historical context. I think
the central questions of human identity (which come across more
clearly in the director's cut IMO) are better dealt with in an
ahistorical setting. Giving it a historical context would skew the
film towards an analysis of colonialism.
The "historicised" version of Blade Runner does sound familiar though.
Is there a western were the main character found themself related to
the "primitive savages" they were hunting?
Iain <tr...@viper.net.au>
C.Innes
>>Besson expands a theme partially developed in "Leon", of the bond between
>>a middle aged man and a woman-child. In Leon it was understated, almost
>>unstated. It was definitely not physical. In The 5th Element, all subtlety
>>is removed. Apparently by making the man slightly younger and less scuzzy,
>>and the women post-pubescent, the whole thing becomes acceptable. And the
>>woman only looks post-pubescent: she is, of course, new born.
>>
Let's not forget the inherent ageism directed against female actors in
hollywood. By the twisted logic of hollywood:
Any actress aged 18-21 is considered youngish. Just right to be teamed up
with any male actor under the age of 30.
21-25 prime acting age for actresses. Just right to be teamed up with any
male actor in the age group 30-45 (ever noticed how young all the women
Jerry's character went out with in "Seinfield"?).
25-30. Middle-age for actresses. However, they are now the perfect age to
be teamed up with male leads aged 45-75 (witness "Seven Days, Seven Days"),
although they are getting too old for many roles (unless they are very
famous).
30-50. Elderly. Once an actress hits 30, she's generally considered too
old to play the female lead, unless she's extremely famous. However they
are just the right age to play the mother of the female lead (provided they
have an excellent figure and are reasonably youthful looking.
50-> Ancient. Far too old to play any role except the comical/loveable
grandmother.
These definitions are grossly unfair, but seem to be the ones Hollywood
generally follow.
Grant Watson
wrote:
>25-30. Middle-age for actresses. However, they are now the perfect age to
>be teamed up with male leads aged 45-75 (witness "Seven Days, Seven Days"),
>although they are getting too old for many roles (unless they are very
>famous).
Also note Halle Berry opposite Warren Beatty in Bulworth.
Also note Gwyneth Paltrow opposite Michael Douglas in A Perfect
Murder.
Cheers!
Grant.
Joan McGalliard
In message <35a629ac.0@dns2>, "C.Innes" <cin...@www.ats.com.au> wrote:
>
> Let's not forget the inherent ageism directed against female actors in
> hollywood. By the twisted logic of hollywood:
>
up
> with any male actor under the age of 30.
[ Great summary of women in films deleted.]
This is true, and not at all a recent innovation. The silent film actress
& star Lillian Gish is quoted in HalliWell's saying:
"You know, when I first went into movies Lionel Barrymore played my
grandfather. Later he played my father and finally he played my husband. If
he had lived I am sure I would have played his mother. That's the way it is
Hollywood. The men get younger and the women get older."
Peter McMillan
the thread. I saw The Horse Whisperer last weekend, and thought the
ageism issue was quite obvious there. Robert Redford, these days,
looks like an old man. My wife tells me he is still very appealing,
and I have no doubt he is, but I wonder if it would still have been a
candidate for Hollywood if the female lead was more his age than the
20-odd years younger (just a guess) that Kristin Scott Thomas appears
to be. (Btw, did I get her name right?)
Oh, another minor point ...... some people have great mastery of the
art of sex appeal, without the need for dramatic cleavage shots or
whatever. I thought she was an excellent choice for such a role. For
my money, she really had "it" ... whatever exactly it is.
Cheers,
Peter.
To email me, change .com in my address to .au
Trevor Mettam
>This isn't a direct response to Joan's post - just another comment in
>the thread. I saw The Horse Whisperer last weekend, and thought the
>ageism issue was quite obvious there. Robert Redford, these days,
>looks like an old man. My wife tells me he is still very appealing,
>and I have no doubt he is, but I wonder if it would still have been a
>candidate for Hollywood if the female lead was more his age than the
>20-odd years younger (just a guess) that Kristin Scott Thomas appears
>to be. (Btw, did I get her name right?)
Yes, you did.
>Oh, another minor point ...... some people have great mastery of the
>art of sex appeal, without the need for dramatic cleavage shots or
>whatever. I thought she was an excellent choice for such a role. For
>my money, she really had "it" ... whatever exactly it is.
"it" is one of the great mysteries of life. I have noticed many plain
people that have "it", and no-one can figure out why.
I think "it" is beyond definition, and should remain so.
If anyone ever clearly defines "it", the universe will fold in on itself.
--
===---------------------------+---------------------------------------------===
Trevor Mettam |"In India, 'cold weather' is merely a
Software Engineering Group | conventional phrase and has come into use
CSC Australia | through the necessity of having some way to
| distinguish between weather which will melt a
E-Mail: tr...@syd.csa.com.au | brass door-knob and weather which will only
Mobile: +61-41-1491139 | make it squishy."
| -- Mark Twain
Richard William Miller
Here Here!
Not enough is written about this weird Hollywood thing. Until there are
more women in top positions of power this situation will not change. What
is so distasteful about older women and the younger man? I have read Susan
Sarandon and Sigourney Weaver commenting on this situation and suggesting
pairings with Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio. Why not? Why does
Hollywood find it alright for women to date, smooch, bonk men old enough to
be their father, yet not the other way round? All I can say is GO GIRL
POWER - let's change the situation when we are in positions of power.
Here's to more women in Hollywood.
Nicole.
Shane
Pairing Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio? That's an entirely different
topic... :-)
--
- Shane
Sig? I don't need no steenkin' sig.
Chad Millar
Leonardo DiCaprio looks like he should be one of Ellen Degenress'
girlfriends
<starts running from the murderous hoards of DiCaprio lovers>
---
Chad Millar
c_mi...@bigpond.com
Joan McGalliard
In message <35ADD383...@bigpond.com>, Chad Millar <c_mi...@bigpond.com>
wrote:
>
> Leonardo DiCaprio looks like he should be one of Ellen Degenress'
> girlfriends
I am not a fan, but I find this interesting. Women are supposed to accept
the impossibly young & impossibly pretty women who are in almost every film.
Yet the reaction by a lot of men to diCaprio is really enlightening. Hostility,
anger, even fear. "He looks like a girl." "He looks like a child." etc etc.
For a man to be seen as hyper-attractive but possessing looks that most men
cannot achieve is a real threat to many men.
Bruce Fountain
>
> In message <35ADD383...@bigpond.com>, Chad Millar <c_mi...@bigpond.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Leonardo DiCaprio looks like he should be one of Ellen Degenress'
> > girlfriends
>
> I am not a fan, but I find this interesting. Women are supposed to accept
> the impossibly young & impossibly pretty women who are in almost every film.
> Yet the reaction by a lot of men to diCaprio is really enlightening. Hostility,
> anger, even fear. "He looks like a girl." "He looks like a child." etc etc.
> For a man to be seen as hyper-attractive but possessing looks that most men
> cannot achieve is a real threat to many men.
>
I don't think that anyone said anything about impossibly young/pretty
female actors. The issue was inter-generational relationships. And even
then, the problem is not so much that young women are frequently paired
with older men (hey, Sean Connery is frequently voted sexiest man on
earth, so it is hardly unlikely). The problem is that we don't get to
see young men paired with older women. Or maybe that the age disparity
is not explained or justified.
And I think you are reading too much into Chad's statement if you
think it demonstrates hostility, anger or fear. DiCaprio *does* look
girlish. I don't think that is a bad thing.
Regards,
Bruce
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bruce Fountain NEC Australia - New Product Development |
| bruce_f...@neca.nec.com.au Tel: +612 9930 2238 Fax: +612 9930 2233 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
David Wareing
jem*NO-SPAM*@netspace.net.au (Joan McGalliard) wrote:
> In message <35ADD383...@bigpond.com>, Chad Millar <c_mi...@bigpond.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Leonardo DiCaprio looks like he should be one of Ellen Degenress'
> > girlfriends
>
> I am not a fan, but I find this interesting. Women are supposed to
> accept the impossibly young & impossibly pretty women who are in
> almost every film.
Well, I'm sure the film makers would want women to accept this
sort of flim flam, but many (most?) women aren't helping themselves
either when they go to see 'Romeo and Juliet' or even the latest
Harrison Ford flick. Any woman who seriously thinks she can attain
anything close to the style, beauty and sophistication shown by
the average starlet on screen, is deluding herself. But, as sales
of women's vanity products show, there's a lot of deluding going on.
Film makers aren't the problem -- they're only supplying an eager
market. Any woman (or man) who "accepts" the reality distortion
of Hollywood deserves everything s/he gets.
> Yet the reaction by a lot of men to diCaprio is really enlightening.
> Hostility, anger, even fear. "He looks like a girl." "He looks like
> a child." etc etc. For a man to be seen as hyper-attractive but
> possessing looks that most men cannot achieve is a real threat
> to many men.
You have a point, but it must be remembered that in real life, even Leonardo
cannot achieve the possessing looks that are shown on the silver screen.
What you see on screen is the Perfect Image -- a distillation of all the
best camera angles, perfect lighting and perfect makeup. Any
footage that doesn't portray Leonardo as "hyper-attractive" is
automatically cut -- it's like it never existed in the first place.
So, it's no wonder Leonardo is seen as threatening to some men -- it's
pretty hard to compete against something that is manufactured and
impossible to attain in real life. Relationships with the other sex
can be hard enough at times already without having to also measure
up to insipid, mindless and impossible expectations of Hollywood "beauty".
:
a bit girlish.
Any guy who fells threatened by him isn't much of a guy anyway.
He's been pushed by the hollywood fame position as a sex symbol and like a
lot of advertised products the reality is rather disappointing. He acted
fairly in Titanic but was terribly miscast in the Man in the Iron Mask.
Most girls grow up worshipping the latest cute guy band (duran duran, etc)
but then they grow up and see through the hype (hopefully).
Thats not to say that guys are perfect either vis a vis supermodels etc.
As for hollywoods use and portrayals of women. Well it is a bit of a joke
isn't it but thats the way it is.
You could always start making your own movies and try break into hollywood
and change the system
Macca
Joan McGalliard <jem*NO-SPAM*@netspace.net.au> wrote in article
<6orhps$euf$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>...
>
> In message <35ADD383...@bigpond.com>, Chad Millar
<c_mi...@bigpond.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Leonardo DiCaprio looks like he should be one of Ellen Degenress'
> > girlfriends
>
> I am not a fan, but I find this interesting. Women are supposed to
accept
> the impossibly young & impossibly pretty women who are in almost every
film.
> Yet the reaction by a lot of men to diCaprio is really enlightening.
Hostility,
> anger, even fear. "He looks like a girl." "He looks like a child." etc
etc.
> For a man to be seen as hyper-attractive but possessing looks that most
men
> cannot achieve is a real threat to many men.
>
> joan
Phil Herring
jem*NO-SPAM*@netspace.net.au (Joan McGalliard) wrote:
> Yet the reaction by a lot of men to diCaprio is really enlightening.Hostility,
> anger, even fear. "He looks like a girl." "He looks like a child." etc etc.
> For a man to be seen as hyper-attractive but possessing looks that most men
> cannot achieve is a real threat to many men.
Just to muddy the waters even further, I'm not sure that the men of whom
you speak (I'm taking care to avoid generalising here) are that threatened
by his looks per se; however, I can see how some men may react in that
way, if one or more of the women in their lives swoons over the mention of
his name. Okay, the swooning is an exaggeration, but my point is: in
explaining their reaction, don't rule out jealousy -- even simple jealousy
over the guy's fame.
ObAgeism: a scan of personal ads reveals the following tidbit: in general,
women, favour men who are both taller and older than themselves. Men tend
to favour women who are younger and shorter than themselves. Just how far
do we go in accepting a reflection of this bias in the movies? After all,
if an age bias in the movies reflects reality, what's the harm?
Brief aside: Catherine Lumby's column in a recent SMH discussed the matter
of beauty, and how we react to it -- she rightly pointed out that it's
usually something that you're born with, and therefore don't earn; which,
in our supposedly egalitarian society, tends to provoke resentment. After
all, whether we like it or not, looks matter to a lot of people, which is
why the media tends to pay more attention to pretty people rather than
ugly old bald guys like me :)
I'd only qualify Ms Lumby's comments with the observation that the
technology exists to scrub up quite plain people, and in fact, that's what
invariably happens. I'm sure if a lot of Mr DiCaprio's fans saw him after
a night on the town, they might not think so highly of him. (Of course,
the same could be said of any Hollywood actor; I'm just citing him as an
example.)
-- Phil (Devil's advocate for hire)
Mike Williamson
**Snipped
> ObAgeism: a scan of personal ads reveals the following tidbit: in general,
> women, favour men who are both taller and older than themselves. Men tend
> to favour women who are younger and shorter than themselves. Just how far
> do we go in accepting a reflection of this bias in the movies? After all,
> if an age bias in the movies reflects reality, what's the harm?
**Snipped
> -- Phil (Devil's advocate for hire)
A problem occurs when people are influenced and take what they see on
the screen as the norm. Is the movie industry reflecting reality or is
it influencing reality?. for example How many couples do you know where
the female is older than the male, the movies show a very high
percentage wheras From my own group of friends I know quite a few withe
the older female,(including my own parents which is possibly why I am
aware of them) I admit that for a lot of my friends I do not know the
relative ages, usually the female is unknown, but of the ones I do there
is sufficient to question the idea of the 'normal'age grouping.
--
Mike Williamson
I think therefore I think, .....am I?
Katharine Maxwell
<snip->
>Any woman (or man) who "accepts" the reality distortion
>of Hollywood deserves everything s/he gets.
>So, it's no wonder Leonardo is seen as threatening to some men -- it's
>pretty hard to compete against something that is manufactured and
>impossible to attain in real life. Relationships with the other sex
>can be hard enough at times already without having to also measure
>up to insipid, mindless and impossible expectations of Hollywood "beauty".
I found it interesting that you commented that people deserve what they get
if they accept the reality distortion, then go on to say how difficult it is
to measure up to these expectations. Fair enough, the majority of people
accepting the reality distortion have only set themselves up to fail when
trying to measure up, but then again, when we are bombarded with images day
and night about how we should appear (especially women), it is unfair to
expect anyone to escape unscathed.
I consider myself a very realistic person, and having some knowledge of the
entertainment industry, plus a major in psychology, I can see the
manipulation going on. However, as I don't look like what the media portrays
as an 'average' woman (size 6-8 and about 5 foot 10, I'm closer to the
'real' average) it is a continual effort to negate these images with my own
internal commentary (eg only 5% of the population are that skinny... who'd
want to be skin and bones and eat like a sparrow... she's just spent 2 hours
having her hair and makeup done...... I might look close to that good if I
spent three hours a day in a gym, but who's got time for that if they're not
getting paid for it... I'm sure any guy I'd be interested in wouldn't be
attracted to a woman whose body dimensions are the same as theirs... and so
on.) It takes its toll, and it takes a very strong sense of self to get
through life without some self-criticism as a result of the constant
bombardment.
And for the aus.sf people who've got this far through the post - it's
interesting that in sci fi series set in the future, particularly in Star
Trek, it seems that it is possible for people to control their weight -
women only, that is. There have been many "older" males protrayed, eg
admirals (and Scotty), with a rather wide girth. However, I don't remember
seeing anything but a slender female, no matter what the age. And the funny
thing is, they don't seem to have cured baldness for the guys, either!
(gotta get your priorities straight...)
Katharine Maxwell (remove 'spamsux' from my e-mail address to reply)
Editor - Frontier, the Australian Science Fiction Media Magazine
Committee Member - Force Three, the Third National Star Wars Saga Convention
of Australia
Daniel Frankham
>
>In message <35ADD383...@bigpond.com>, Chad Millar <c_mi...@bigpond.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> Leonardo DiCaprio looks like he should be one of Ellen Degenress'
>> girlfriends
>
>I am not a fan, but I find this interesting. Women are supposed to accept
>the impossibly young & impossibly pretty women who are in almost every film.
>anger, even fear. "He looks like a girl." "He looks like a child." etc etc.
>For a man to be seen as hyper-attractive but possessing looks that most men
>cannot achieve is a real threat to many men.
Looking at him objectively, and without feeling particularly
threatened (but I suppose we *all* say that, eh?), I can say that, to
me, Leonardo looks considerably more female than most men (and,
indeed, many women). And so do the members of Hanson. They'd been
famous for about 12 months before I even discovered they were male. (I
saw a poster in TV Week, I think, with their first names on, and I
thought it must be a misprint...)
I think it's an interesting phenomenon that teenage girls these days
are mostly interested in boys who look like teenage girls. This
doesn't threaten me because I'm not particularly interested in teenage
girls of that age.
(And if we really said Leo looked like a girl because we were
threatened by him, wouldn't we say the same of Sean Connery and
Harrison Ford and Bruce Willis et al?)
=====================================================================
"We have now come to what is known as a station break: a rent in the
fabric of television entertainment" (_The Alfred Hitchcock Hour_)
Joan McGalliard
In message <35B3DD...@dana.wanet.com.au>, Mike Williamson
<mwil...@dana.wanet.com.au> wrote:
>
> A problem occurs when people are influenced and take what they see on
> the screen as the norm. Is the movie industry reflecting reality or is
> it influencing reality?. for example How many couples do you know where
> the female is older than the male, the movies show a very high
> percentage wheras From my own group of friends I know quite a few withe
> the older female,(including my own parents which is possibly why I am
> aware of them) I admit that for a lot of my friends I do not know the
> relative ages, usually the female is unknown, but of the ones I do there
> is sufficient to question the idea of the 'normal'age grouping.
This is true amongst my friends, too. However, while most of the women I
know are in relationships with men one to four years their junior, I don't
know any where the man is more than 10 years younger, but I know several
where
he is more than 10 years older. Of course, same age couples are as rare in
movies as the younger man .
My personal theory is that movie executives chose men like themselves and
women that they fancy. The fact that they never fancy anyone who looks over
30 is an interesting point.
Chad Millar
>
> In message <35ADD383...@bigpond.com>, Chad Millar <c_mi...@bigpond.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Leonardo DiCaprio looks like he should be one of Ellen Degenress'
> > girlfriends
>
> I am not a fan, but I find this interesting. Women are supposed to accept
> the impossibly young & impossibly pretty women who are in almost every film.
It is an unfortunate thing. As well as being a case of more mature
actresses being picked for roles, many just seem as though they are written
for the attractive young woman now.
> Yet the reaction by a lot of men to diCaprio is really enlightening. Hostility,
> anger, even fear. "He looks like a girl." "He looks like a child." etc etc.
Fear, anger? Nooo.. mearly a light hearted taunting. I do find DiCaprio's
popularity puzzling though.. I don't understand exactly *why* he has so
much appeal. I know 11 year old's who swoon over him.
> For a man to be seen as hyper-attractive but possessing looks that most men
> cannot achieve is a real threat to many men.
*shrug* Thats life. I may never be a DiCaprio, but it doesn't bother me.
(and I still think, at times, he looks a tad girlish)
---
Chad Millar
c_mi...@bigpond.com
Fred Pribac
> I am not a fan, but I find this interesting. Women are supposed to
> accept
> the impossibly young & impossibly pretty women who are in almost every
> film.
> Yet the reaction by a lot of men to diCaprio is really enlightening.
> Hostility,
> anger, even fear. "He looks like a girl." "He looks like a child."
> etc etc.
> For a man to be seen as hyper-attractive but possessing looks that
> most men
> cannot achieve is a real threat to many men.
My perspective is that most of the younger stars look like girls - male
or female. The current fashion is to try to convince us that people who
still
look pre-pubescent are powerful adults fully in control of their
situation.
This is usually totally unconvincing! Even worse are the sex scenes.
Watching a couple of inexperienced teenagers pretending that what they
are doing is sexy is boring, no matter how many gymnastic gyrations they
can manage or how tight their buns!
Don't think it's only women that are getting brain washed! Modern cinema
is absolutely jam packed with unhealthy stereotyping - science fiction
is
no exception. It's much, much, simpler to serve up a cliched movie that
relies primarily on special effects or violence than it is to make
something
truly creative or insightful that relies on plot or dialogue. Besides
the good
stuff seldom makes as much money as the predictable crap.
Focussing on diCapprio for a second. He's boring, and he looks like he's
12 years old - give him another decade or two and he might develop some
character!
Off-course you are quite right to suggest that there is a double
standard
and that women are expected to put up with more crap. Men feel
threatened by "real" demanding women hence the prevalent fashion for
the dependent barbie doll stereotypes- to see a man in similar "barbie
doll" roles disturbs us because we are not used to being disempowered
in this way.
yours sweepingly,
fred
C.S.Innes
>interesting that in sci fi series set in the future, particularly in Star
>Trek, it seems that it is possible for people to control their weight -
>women only, that is. There have been many "older" males protrayed, eg
>admirals (and Scotty), with a rather wide girth. However, I don't remember
>seeing anything but a slender female, no matter what the age. And the funny
>thing is, they don't seem to have cured baldness for the guys, either!
>(gotta get your priorities straight...)
As far as I can tell, the Federation in Star Trek frowns on purely cosmetic
treatments, especially genetic treatments. So no hair-loss treatment. But
this also implies no treatments for weight-gain either. This is odd,
considering how slender nearly every female star fleet recruit or officer
is, regardless of age or rank. Clearly slimness must be a vital
pre-requisite for female star fleet recruits. And as soon as any female
Star Fleet worker starts putting on any excess weight (and it would be
pretty hard to hide, given the almost skin-tight uniforms they wear) they're
turfed out on the ass, even if they're an admiral. I'm almost tempted to
send this post off to the producers of Star Trek. Perhaps then they'll
introduce a metabolism-adjustment weight-control pill, or fat-scavanging
nanites, or something similar into the Star-Trek franchise.
Regarding Leo DiCaprio, I've seen pictures of him in some women's magazine
from a couple of months back, and he's got a little pot gut and very little
muscle definition. Apparently he likes eating and dislikes exercises. So
it's quite likely he could go the way of Marc Hunter or Marlon Brandon soon
and put on a lot of weight. Remember too that the mid-twenties is the age
when many men start to lose their hair, and Leo, at 23, is pretty close to
that age. Ageing -- happens to all of us, even mega-famous movie stars.
Joan McGalliard
In message <35B53393...@marine.csiro.au>, Fred Pribac
<Fred....@marine.csiro.au> wrote:
>
> Watching a couple of inexperienced teenagers pretending that what they
> are doing is sexy is boring, no matter how many gymnastic gyrations they
> can manage or how tight their buns!
Just a data point: while not fancying diCaprio, I'd much rather watch him
having sex than, say, Michael Douglas.
dima
--- posted using Sofcom WebNews at the Sofcom TV Guide
--- http://www.sofcom.com.au/TV/ ---
Joan McGalliard
In message <6p5ifh$htv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, skra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Leonardo diCaprio is an insult to our masculinity.
This is what I mean: he is a pretty young man. What impact does he have on
your masculinity?
Fred Pribac
> <Fred....@marine.csiro.au> wrote:
>
> > Watching a couple of inexperienced teenagers pretending that what
> they
> > are doing is sexy is boring, no matter how many gymnastic gyrations
> they
> > can manage or how tight their buns!
>
> Just a data point: while not fancying diCaprio, I'd much rather watch
> him
> having sex than, say, Michael Douglas.
Oh, gross out! You're right - I'd rather fall asleep than spew up!
Still it "is" interesting how vehemently many guys oppose di Capprio -
envy is so uncool!
As an aside I've been trying to think of an intelligent female role
model/actor who doesn't also bank on youth and/or stunning
appearance. I can't! Can you?
fred
Sisko Kid
Fred Pribac wrote:
> As an aside I've been trying to think of an intelligent female role
> model/actor who doesn't also bank on youth and/or stunning
> appearance. I can't! Can you?
>
>
Yes:Jodie Foster
Meryl Streep
Mare Winningham
Ruth Cracknell
Kathy Bates
Helen Hunt
Rosie O'Donnell
Ellen DeGeneres.....
The Kid
Joan McGalliard
In message <35B92BA6...@marine.csiro.au>, Fred Pribac
<Fred....@marine.csiro.au> wrote:
>
> Joan McGalliard wrote:
>
!
> >
> > Just a data point: while not fancying diCaprio, I'd much rather watch
> > him
> > having sex than, say, Michael Douglas.
>
> Oh, gross out! You're right - I'd rather fall asleep than spew up!
>
get Sharon Stone, Jeanne Triplehorn and the other chick. We get MD and his
flabby, pocky arse. He didn' even have the courtesy to use a stunt bum.
>
> As an aside I've been trying to think of an intelligent female role
> model/actor who doesn't also bank on youth and/or stunning
> appearance. I can't! Can you?
Helen Mirren? Meryl Streep?
mattbe...@hotmail.com
read in this thread, I do find it distasteful that so many movies are
centered around children pretending to be adults. If you look at old
movies, you see that the main characters were much older.
Daniel Frankham
It probably has a lot to do with the way mainstream movies these days
are aimed more at young people than adults. Before the 80s, kids and
teenagers didn't have that much money, and so weren't a very
significant source of income for movie makers. Now that kids and teens
have lots of disposeable income, without actually having to work
(meaning they have more time for leisure activities) pop movies and
music are largely aimed at them.
So remember, folks: cut down on your kids' allowances and maybe,
someday, the movies wll be good again :)
===========================================================================
Nunawading Messiah: Andrew Fisher of Nunawading, Victoria, Australia, who
declared himself to be the Messiah in 1871. His hundred followers were
polygamous, he himself having three wives.
--Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable--
Martin Livings
: Watch Basic Instinct from a male homosexual or female heterosexual POV. Others
: get Sharon Stone, Jeanne Triplehorn and the other chick. We get MD and his
: flabby, pocky arse. He didn' even have the courtesy to use a stunt bum.
He did, however, use a prosthetic penis, designed by Rob Bottin (I kid
thee not!).
yt MJL98
Trevor Mettam
>
>Fred Pribac wrote:
>
>> As an aside I've been trying to think of an intelligent female role
>> model/actor who doesn't also bank on youth and/or stunning
>> appearance. I can't! Can you?
>
>Meryl Streep
>Mare Winningham
>Ruth Cracknell
>Kathy Bates
>Helen Hunt
>Rosie O'Donnell
>Ellen DeGeneres.....
Err, dunno about Ms Foster and Hunt. Both those ladies are stunning IMO.
Anyhow, I'd include:
Whoopi Goldberg
Helen Mirren
--
===---------------------------+---------------------------------------------===
Trevor Mettam |"The growing use of e-mail, not to mention Web-
Software Engineering Group | page publishing, threatens to reverse the trend
CSC Australia | towards illiteracy among the supposedly
| educated without, at the same time, improving
E-Mail: tr...@syd.csa.com.au | their spelling."
Mobile: +61-41-1491139 | -- Michael Swaine, Dr. Dobb's Journal
Annette Fraser
jem*NO-SPAM*@netspace.net.au (Joan McGalliard) wrote:
>
[snip]
>>
>> As an aside I've been trying to think of an intelligent female role
>> model/actor who doesn't also bank on youth and/or stunning
>> appearance. I can't! Can you?
>
>
Judi Dench? Kathy Bates?
Annette
===+===+===+===+===+===+ am.f...@qut.edu.au +===+===+===+===+===+===
==+ The Merchandise Queen | Kheldarian | Stark raving mad Pterryist+==
===+===+===+===+===+= Annette's Word of the Week =+===+===+===+===+===
feague - eighteenth century verb meaning to administer a suppository
of raw ginger to a horse. From "Forgotten English" by Jeffrey Kacirk
===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+==+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===
"I will Taunt the happy penguin" - MegaHal
peeby
> In article <6pctb3$qf8$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>,
> jem*NO-SPAM*@netspace.net.au (Joan McGalliard) wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >>
> >> As an aside I've been trying to think of an intelligent female role
> >> model/actor who doesn't also bank on youth and/or stunning
> >> appearance. I can't! Can you?
> >
> >Helen Mirren? Meryl Streep?
> >
> Judi Dench? Kathy Bates?
>
> Annette
Vanessa Redgrave? Julie Christie? Brenda Blethyn?
>
> ===+===+===+===+===+===+ am.f...@qut.edu.au +===+===+===+===+===+===
> ==+ The Merchandise Queen | Kheldarian | Stark raving mad Pterryist+==
> ===+===+===+===+===+= Annette's Word of the Week =+===+===+===+===+===
> feague - eighteenth century verb meaning to administer a suppository
> of raw ginger to a horse. From "Forgotten English" by Jeffrey Kacirk
> ===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+==+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===
> "I will Taunt the happy penguin" - MegaHal
--
peeby
Joan McGalliard
In message <35bc356f...@news.erols.com>, mattbe...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> While I've no reaction to the gender-specific opinions I've so far
> read in this thread, I do find it distasteful that so many movies are
> centered around children pretending to be adults. If you look at old
> movies, you see that the main characters were much older.
>
Can you give an example of a recent film when a male actor has been playing
a character much older than his age? Females are no good, as girls having
been playing women since the Lumieres.
Certainly in older movies, men have been playing much younger characters.
I'd be interested to compare the average age of the actors in The Longest
Day with the average age of soldiers landing at Dunkirk (with apologies to
Kurt Vonnegut ).
Joan McGalliard
In message <6ph2s027 Jul 1998 05:23:12 GMTph$1...@news.iinet.net.au>, Martin
Livings <m...@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote:
[ Michael Douglas ]
> He did, however, use a prosthetic penis, designed by Rob Bottin (I kid
> thee not!).
>
I wish you hadn't told me that!
mattbe...@hotmail.com
>In message <35bc356f...@news.erols.com>, mattbe...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> While I've no reaction to the gender-specific opinions I've so far
>> read in this thread, I do find it distasteful that so many movies are
>> centered around children pretending to be adults. If you look at old
>> movies, you see that the main characters were much older.
>Can you give an example of a recent film when a male actor has been playing
>a character much older than his age?
That's not what I meant by "pretending to be adults". What gets me is
movies where the protagonist is a mature, accomplished professional,
perhaps even the leader in his field, and is played by a boy.
Martin Livings
:>Can you give an example of a recent film when a male actor has been playing
:>a character much older than his age?
: That's not what I meant by "pretending to be adults". What gets me is
: movies where the protagonist is a mature, accomplished professional,
: perhaps even the leader in his field, and is played by a boy.
Define "boy"? Now you're starting to sound agist yourself. After all,
Eisntein was only 26 when he published his papers on Brownian motion and
special relativity. Hemingway had "The Sun Also Rises" published when he
was 27. When does one cease to be a "boy" and become a man? When he puts
away childish things? In that case, we're all boys and girls in the
aus.sf newsgroup! B-)
yt MJL98
Joan McGalliard
In message <Ews1L...@syd.csa.com.au>, tr...@syd.csa.com.au (Trevor Mettam)
wrote:
>
> In article <35B96773...@hotmail.com>, Sisko Kid <sisk...@hotmail.com>
writes:
> >
> >Fred Pribac wrote:
> >
> >> model/actor who doesn't also bank on youth and/or stunning
> >> appearance. I can't! Can you?
IMO.
>
> Anyhow, I'd include:
>
> Whoopi Goldberg
At last: the female equivalent of Danny DeVito!
Joan McGalliard
In message <35be8b94...@news.erols.com>, mattbe...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> That's not what I meant by "pretending to be adults". What gets me is
> movies where the protagonist is a mature, accomplished professional,
> perhaps even the leader in his field, and is played by a boy.
I'd still like an example. I can't think of one myself. There are, and have
always been, plenty of examples with women. My favourite is Nicole Kidman
playing a brain surgeon (Days Of Thunder) a year _before_ she played a high
school prefect (Flirting).
peeby
> In message <35be8b94...@news.erols.com>, mattbe...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > That's not what I meant by "pretending to be adults". What gets me is
> > movies where the protagonist is a mature, accomplished professional,
> > perhaps even the leader in his field, and is played by a boy.
What about Lachlan Murdoch playing the part of CEO of a global media
empire?
> I'd still like an example. I can't think of one myself. There are, and have
> always been, plenty of examples with women. My favourite is Nicole Kidman
> playing a brain surgeon (Days Of Thunder) a year _before_ she played a high
> school prefect (Flirting).
> joan
--
peeby
Bruce Fountain
>
> In message <Ews1L...@syd.csa.com.au>, tr...@syd.csa.com.au (Trevor Mettam)
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Anyhow, I'd include:
> >
> > Whoopi Goldberg
>
> At last: the female equivalent of Danny DeVito!
>
Hey, I have always thought that Whoopi Goldberg was a damn sexy
woman. I may be on my own here.
There are heaps of female actors around who are not conventionally
attractive, the lack is in leading roles. For most leading roles the
actor (male or female) must be either attractive or have some sort
of charismatic appeal. I guess that the problem with female leads
is that there are less who depend upon charisma. Is this the fault
of the casting executives? Maybe it is the fault of the writers.
Regards,
Bruce
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bruce Fountain NEC Australia - New Product Development |
| bruce_f...@neca.nec.com.au Tel: +612 9930 2238 Fax: +612 9930 2233 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
mattbe...@hotmail.com
>Define "boy"? Now you're starting to sound agist yourself. After all,
>Eisntein was only 26 when he published his papers on Brownian motion and
>special relativity. Hemingway had "The Sun Also Rises" published when he
>was 27. When does one cease to be a "boy" and become a man? When he puts
>away childish things? In that case, we're all boys and girls in the
>aus.sf newsgroup! B-)
Younger than the actors that played those roles years ago, anyway.
It's relative, of course. I suppose they wouldn't seem young if I
were 23.
Is that what you mean by "ageism"? I guess I'm ageist, then.
Chad Millar
>
> Joan McGalliard <jem*NO-SPAM*@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>
> > In message <35be8b94...@news.erols.com>, mattbe...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > That's not what I meant by "pretending to be adults". What gets me is
> > > movies where the protagonist is a mature, accomplished professional,
> > > perhaps even the leader in his field, and is played by a boy.
>
> What about Lachlan Murdoch playing the part of CEO of a global media
> empire?
Yes, but he is the son of Satan, he can get away with anything.
--
Chad Millar
c_mi...@bigpond.com