Old Sf films
Lee Archer
Lee
============================================================================
Lee Archer "Do not adjust your TV screens...."
le...@mdx.ac.uk "You are going on a journey......."
AI & IT Middlesex University, London, England The Outer Limits...
============================================================================
Kenn Barry
>I quite liked the 40's 50's 60's sci films.
Actually there were virtually no SF films _made_ in the 1940s;
DR. CYCLOPS in 1940, DESTINATION MOON in (I think) 1949... and nothing
in between. I've often wondered why. Anyone have any theories?
Kayembee
mp0...@albnyvms.bitnet
Back then it seems that most of what was considered Sci-fi was mostly mad
scientist and other similar kinds of films. Sci-fi didn't really become the
genre we know today until the 1950's, with the Cold War and McCarthyism. And
it really wasn't until the mid-to-late 60's that the genre really got any
respect. BTW my favs from the 50's are _TDTESS_, _Forbidden_Planet_, and
_Invasion_of_the_Bodysnatchers_. I have a book at home called the
_Encyclopedia_of_Science_Fiction_Films_, which although 10 years out of date
does a good job of describing this phenomenon. >
> Kayembee
Trying to survive in Albany,
Mike P. "Take him to Detroit"- Dr. Quan, KFM.
Coemgen
Gee, I wonder what happened between 1940 and 1949 that could have
kept people's attention off of science fiction.... =)
Coemgen
cj...@virginia.edu
Steven Kaeser
>From: mp0...@albnyvms.bitnet
>Subject: Re: Old Sf films
>Date: 4 Oct 1994 15:24:48 GMT
I will try to follow up on this thread when I have the information in front of
me, but I don't think we can say that science fiction was ignored during this
time period from 1940 to 1949. Unless you're going to limit your definition
of Sci-Fi. I have an Encyclopedia of Science Fiction Movies published in the
late 80's, and it devotes about ten pages to the films that came out during
that time period. None were major films, but there was a war going on during
much of that time period, and advances in science tended to blurr the
difference between science and fiction. There were a number of serials that
had a science fiction angle to them, and numerous "B" movies. Unfortunately,
it was the comic loving post world war II croud that found that genre so
interesting and they didn't dominate the market until the 50's. So, most of
the major films we remember as "old" science fiction came after that time
period.
The actual history of Science Fiction in films is very interesting, and
started much earlier than most realize. Some of the earliest short subjects
were science fiction, by definition, and they were often only two or three
minutes long and created in the late 1800's.
*********************************************************************
Steven W. Kaeser ska...@hr.house.gov (WK)
"I think we're ALL Bozos on this bus" ska...@cais.com (HM)
*********************************************************************
Jim_...@transarc.com
westerns, and so forth? There were lots of other types of films made
during the 40s.
******************************************************************
Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
Transarc Corporation
The Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 338-4442
WWW Homepage:
file://grand.central.org/afs/transarc.com/public/jmann/html/Home.html
Football players, somewhere back in their phylogenic development,
learned how to talk like football coaches. ("Our goals this week were
to contain Dickerson and control the line of scrimmage.") Baseball
players say things like, "This pitcher's so bad that when he comes in,
the grounds crew drags the warning track."
-- Tom Boswell, "99 Reasons Why Baseball Is Better than Football"
Kenn Barry
>ba...@netcom.com writes:
>> In article <36oq3r$n...@beta.qmw.ac.uk> le...@vaxc.mdx.ac.uk writes:
>> >I quite liked the 40's 50's 60's sci films.
>>
>> Actually there were virtually no SF films _made_ in the 1940s;
>> DR. CYCLOPS in 1940, DESTINATION MOON in (I think) 1949... and nothing
>> in between. I've often wondered why. Anyone have any theories?
>
>kept people's attention off of science fiction.... =)
There seems to be an echo in here...
Those like Coemgen who feel I somehow overlooked World War II
are invited to explain why the war would eliminate SF feature films.
If they can.
Kayembee
jac...@sn3.jsc.nasa.gov
>>In article <barryCx...@netcom.com>, ba...@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>>In article <36oq3r$n...@beta.qmw.ac.uk> le...@vaxc.mdx.ac.uk writes:
>>>>I quite liked the 40's 50's 60's sci films.
>>>
>>> Actually there were virtually no SF films _made_ in the 1940s;
>>>DR. CYCLOPS in 1940, DESTINATION MOON in (I think) 1949... and nothing
>>>in between. I've often wondered why. Anyone have any theories?
>>
>>Back then it seems that most of what was considered Sci-fi was mostly mad
>>scientist and other similar kinds of films.
>
>mold.
>
>> Sci-fi didn't really become the
>>genre we know today until the 1950's, with the Cold War and McCarthyism. And
>>it really wasn't until the mid-to-late 60's that the genre really got any
>>respect.
>
>well-established in America by the 1930s, in the written forms. You've
>described the situation, but you haven't explained it. Consider it two
>questions, if you like: 1) why didn't film SF in the 1950s style happen
>sooner? 2) Why didn't the Gothic style of the 1930s continue? Those old
>films like FRANKENSTEIN and KING KONG were very successful; why did
>Hollywood neither continue to make them, nor expand into a more diverse
>kind of SF sooner?
>
> Kayembee
My answer to that is film SF has >never< , and I mean > never< been as
diverse as prose SF. Especially the top prose SF as it developed in the
40's and 50's. Tho there was indeed sophisticated SF before 1940, H.G.
Wells being a good example, still most of that kind came in the 40's
and 50's. But alas I think most it will still have the appeal of say
jazz, even a big audience for the prose is still not a big audience
compared to the film audience. I dont think most of the classic prose
SF from Asimov to Sturgeon will ever be successfully transfered to film
at least with same level of sophistication and intellegence.
After nearly 40 years of SF reading and film going I have seen only two
films that seemed to capture exactly the spirit of modern SF prose,
2001 and Blade Runner. (There are about a dozen or so very good also
rans, but all with flaws.)
Steven Kaeser
>From: ba...@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
>Subject: Re: Old Sf films
> If they can.
> Kayembee
Actually, there were quite a few science fiction features created in the 40's.
I have found a few to list here, but they are not high on the "classic"
listing, which could explain out reluctance to remember them:
***************************************************
1940
Dr. Cyclops (PAR) 75 min.
Flast Gorden Conquers the Universe (U) 12 Chaps.
The Invisible Man Returns (U) 81 min.
The Invisible Woman (U) 72 min.
The Mysterious Dr. Satan (REP) 15 Chaps.
The Sky Bandits (Criterion/Mon 62 min.
1941
The Adventures of Captain Marvel (REP) 12 Chaps.
The Body Disappears (WB) 72 min.
Croisieres Siderales (FR) 80 min.
The Devil Commands (COL) 66 min.
Dick Tracy versus Crime, Inc. (REP) 15 Chaps.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (MGM) 127 min.
Tainstvenni Ostrov (Mysterious Island) (USSR) 75 min.
1942
The Boogie Man Will Get You (COL) 66 min.
Captain Midnight (COL) 15 Chaps.
Doctor Renault's Secret (FOX) 58 min.
The Ghost of Frankenstein (U) 68 min.
The Invisible Agent (U) 81 min.
King of the Mounties (REP) 12 Chaps.
1943
Batman (COL) 15 Chaps
Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (U) 74 min.
1944
The Big Noise (FOX) 74 min.
Captain America (REP) 15 Chaps
Give Us The Moon (GB) 95 min.
The Great Alaskan Mystery (U) 13 Chaps.
House of Frankenstein (U) 71 min.
The Invisible Man's Revenge (U) 78min.
The Lady and the Monster (REP) 86 min.
Return of the Ape Man (MON) 60 min.
Time Flies (GB) 88 min.
1945
House of Dracula (U) 67 min.
Manhunt of Mystery Island (REP) 15 Chaps
The Monster and the Ape (COL) 15 Chaps
The Purple Monster Strikes (REP) 15 Chaps
Strange Holiday (The Day After Tomorrow) (Sound Masters, Inc.) 61 min.
The Crimson Ghost (REP) 12 Chaps
1947
Brick Bradford (COL) 15 Chaps.
Jack Armstrong (COL) 15 Chaps.
1948
Abbot and costello Meet Frankenstein (U) 83 min.
Bruce Gentry-Daredevil of the Skies (COL) 15 Chaps
Counterblast (The Devil's Plot) (GB) 100 min.
Dick Barton-Special Agent (GB) 70 min.
Krakatit (Czech) 106 min.
Superman (COL) 15 Chaps.
El Supersabio (MEX) 100 min.
1949
Batman and Robin (The Return of Batman) (COL) 15 Chaps.
A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (PAR) 107 min.
Dick Barton Strikes Back (GB) 73 min.
It Happens Every Spring (FOX) 89 min.
King of the Rocket Men (REP) 12 Chaps.
The Perfect Woman (GB) 89 min.
Siren of Atlantis (UA) 75 min
*************************************
This partial listing of the films produced during that time period includes
any film that could be considered to be Science Fiction in the broad sense of
the term. It includes a number of serials, which were very popular among
theater goers of that time period, who tended to be very young. As that
generation grew, Sci-Fi films gained in sophistication. But these are the
films that helped to spark the imagination of those who would produce such
classics as the Quartermass Series in Great Britain, War of the Worlds in the
U.S., and the original Godzilla (Gigantis) in Japan.
Kenn Barry
>>In article <36oq3r$n...@beta.qmw.ac.uk> le...@vaxc.mdx.ac.uk writes:
>>>I quite liked the 40's 50's 60's sci films.
>>
>> Actually there were virtually no SF films _made_ in the 1940s;
>>DR. CYCLOPS in 1940, DESTINATION MOON in (I think) 1949... and nothing
>>in between. I've often wondered why. Anyone have any theories?
>
>Back then it seems that most of what was considered Sci-fi was mostly mad
>scientist and other similar kinds of films.
True, nearly all screen SF in the 1930s was in the Gothic/Horror
mold.
> Sci-fi didn't really become the
>genre we know today until the 1950's, with the Cold War and McCarthyism. And
>it really wasn't until the mid-to-late 60's that the genre really got any
>respect.
True on film, but not in writing. The SF genre was
al jackson
>Date: 4 Oct 1994 15:24:48 GMT
>In article <barryCx...@netcom.com>, ba...@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
Are talking about SF film are SF in general?
SF as literature , in at least the more sophisticated H.G. Wells form
since ... well.. H.G. Wells! That would be before the end of the last
century.
There was a big change in pulp fiction SF round bout 1938 when John
Campbell became editor at Astounding.
I am afraid even with a few good SF films behind us at this date ...
still the vast majority of ideas and spirit of modern SF prose has
>not< been translated to the cinema.
Jim Jones -- Pubs contractor
>
>Actually, there were quite a few science fiction features created in the 40's.
>I have found a few to list here, but they are not high on the "classic"
>listing, which could explain out reluctance to remember them:
(long list deleted)
I'm glad somebody posted this. There were plenty of SF movies in the
'40s, but many were monster flicks or gothic horror flicks, "mad doctor"
movies, superhero serials, or secret-weapon-against-the-Nazis movies.
And then there were jungle-man movies, lost-treasure movies, and many
others with sf or fantasy elements. Finally, there were quite a lot
of fantasy films from mainstream studios in the 40s -- heavenly-intervention
films like "Here Comes Mr. Jordan" (Remade into "Heaven Can Wait" with
Warren Beatty) and "Stairway to Heaven" were very popular, and a number of
A- and B- melodramas had fantastic elements.
These films aren't thought of much today because, indeed, most aren't
classics. They're also, many of them, pretty cheaply made, and many
were topical; they date badly. And the mainstream movies with fantasy
elements aren't grouped with sf/fantasy films by most people.
Sara L. Wagner
>From: le...@vaxc.mdx.ac.uk (Lee Archer)
>Subject: Old Sf films
>Date: 3 Oct 1994 11:32:11 GMT
>I quite liked the 40's 50's 60's sci films.. 50;s in particular, e.g. This island earth and The Day the Earth stood stiloll....
I LOVE "When Worlds Collide". That is a classic!
Kenn Barry
>>>> Actually there were virtually no SF films _made_ in the 1940s;
>>>> DR. CYCLOPS in 1940, DESTINATION MOON in (I think) 1949... and nothing
>>>> in between. I've often wondered why. Anyone have any theories?
>
>I have found a few to list here, but they are not high on the "classic"
>listing, which could explain out reluctance to remember them:
First, thanks for an interesting response to my question.
I have a few nits to pick with your list, though. The serials
aren't feature films, for one thing. And you mixed a few fantasy
films in with the SF. And, finally (this one's my fault), I was
speaking of Hollywood, since I have little familiarity with SF
films of the 40's from other lands, and no idea if they were
inexplicably rare, as were the Hollywood variety. Indeed, that's
another good question: how was SF on film doing elsewhere in the
1940s?
Let's see what happens to your list when some of the dubious
inclusions are removed; I've removed foreign films, fantasies,
and serials:
>1940
[Note that I implied the gap extended from 1941-1948, rather than
throughout the decade.]
>Dr. Cyclops (PAR) 75 min.
>The Invisible Man Returns (U) 81 min.
>The Invisible Woman (U) 72 min.
>The Sky Bandits (Criterion/Mon 62 min.
>
>1941
>The Body Disappears (WB) 72 min.
>Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (MGM) 127 min.
>
>1942
>The Boogie Man Will Get You (COL) 66 min.
>Doctor Renault's Secret (FOX) 58 min.
>The Ghost of Frankenstein (U) 68 min.
>The Invisible Agent (U) 81 min.
>
>1943
>Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (U) 74 min.
>
>1944
>House of Frankenstein (U) 71 min.
>The Invisible Man's Revenge (U) 78min.
>The Lady and the Monster (REP) 86 min.
>Return of the Ape Man (MON) 60 min.
>
>1945
>Strange Holiday (The Day After Tomorrow) (Sound Masters, Inc.) 61 min.
>
>1947
>
>1948
>Abbot and costello Meet Frankenstein (U) 83 min.
>
>1949
>A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (PAR) 107 min.
>It Happens Every Spring (FOX) 89 min.
>
Seems to me that's a pretty short list; I could make a
much longer one from the prior decade. And it's dominated by
forgettable (and forgotten :-) comedies. But you make your point.
I probably should have asked why no _good_ SF came from Hollywood
in that decade, unlike the decades before and after.
In that vein, maybe I _can_ offer a theory, after all,
inspired by your list. One could argue that there was a general
trend toward realism in films of the 1940s, with comedy
(unsurprisingly) the one exception. There were all the great
films revolving around the war (e.g., CASABLANCA, BEST YEARS OF
OUR LIVES, MRS. MINIVER, etc.), plus the then-new film noir
style, used so much in crime films.
Then again, perhaps that just refines the question, to
why there was a trend to realism. The war? If so, why did the
Great Depression not have the same effect?
- Nothing fails like success - Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE: ba...@netcom.com
Mike P.
A possible explanation is that most hollywood executives looked at sci-fi
in a negative light, seeing it as only good enough for B-pictures and serials.
While I'm sure there were directors working in Hoolywood at the time who could
produce quality science fiction films, these weren't made because the execs
didn't trust these films. As to why they didn't continue movies like King
Kong and Frankenstein, they did. Universal made at least five or six sequels
to Frank. in the 1940's ending w/Abbot & Costello meet..., as time went on,
the public lost interest. They didn't continue on in the style of these
movies they reduced them to their simplest elements to make easy money. Just
part of the old hollywood studio system I guess. I probably still haven't
explained this extremely well, but I'm trying. Anyone else have some ideas?
>
> Kayembee
Just surviving in Albany,
Mike P. "Take him to Detroit" - Dr. Quan KFM.
P.S. On a completely different thread, I'm taking a science fiction literature
class this semester, and we had to watch _Blade Runner_ for class today and
read _Do Androids..._ for class on Monday. It's bad enough that I'm one of
about five sci-fi fans in the class, but I was like the only one who liked the
movie at all. Unbelievable. I did my best to explain the greatness of this
movie, but noone listened. What a waste. Why would you take an elective
about something you have absolutely no interest in anyway? These people must
be masochists.
al jackson
>From: mp0...@albnyvms.bitnet (Mike P.)
>Subject: Re: Old Sf films
Kayembee
I think this is true. The reason we have been aflicted with so much
crap SF film is because hollywood based most SF film on >'SF film'<.
Unlike mysteries and westerns which sometimes used prose as source
material... SF prose just seemed beyond them for the mos part.
Jim Jones -- Pubs contractor
>
>P.S. On a completely different thread, I'm taking a science fiction literature
>class this semester, and we had to watch _Blade Runner_ for class today and
>read _Do Androids..._ for class on Monday. It's bad enough that I'm one of
>about five sci-fi fans in the class, but I was like the only one who liked the
>movie at all. Unbelievable. I did my best to explain the greatness of this
>movie, but noone listened. What a waste. Why would you take an elective
>about something you have absolutely no interest in anyway? These people must
>be masochists.
Nah, they probably just thought it was an easy class. SF is Star Wars,
right? Can't be hard. The class probably includes a lot of non-English
majors who have to take one or two literature electives, and this looked
easier than standard American lit class with Faulkner, Fitzgerald,
Hemingway, and the rest. I hope your instructor makes them all read
"Dhalgren" and "A Canticle for Leibowitz." That'll learn 'em :-).
rs...@pitvax.xx.rmit.edu.au
fo the new technologies that were being revealed at the time.
Atomic power, rockets and plans for manned satellites, all tickled the
imaginations of people and made them think of developments that might
come from them.
Remember the 1930's film "Shape of Things to Come"? It showed all the fears
that the technology of the time... aircraft and poison gas... might
develop into. I think that in the 1940's the 'future' was seen as winning
the war. That was what people were working towards.
greg
Mike P.
well as _Neuromancer_ by the end of the semester, both of which don't fall into
the typical easy-reading sci-fi these people think they're getting. It is an
easy class however, but only if they can get through the reading.
BTW me and this other true science fiction fan dominate the class discussions
(even when we don't read the stuff for class). Just knowing stuff about
sci-fi means you're an expert in the class.
Mike P.>
Michael Martin
>right? Can't be hard. The class probably includes a lot of non-English
>majors who have to take one or two literature electives, and this looked
>easier than standard American lit class with Faulkner, Fitzgerald,
>Hemingway, and the rest. I hope your instructor makes them all read
>"Dhalgren" and "A Canticle for Leibowitz." That'll learn 'em :-).
>
see some literary snobs try to look down on SF after this incredibly dense
classic. I still haven't figured out if it was actually good or not. I grew
up with English profs for parents, and even they were daunted when they tried
to read the monster. Canticle is much lighter reading (not that that's
particularly difficult). I'm making my girlfriend (who is a reformed
Catholic) read it just for context... Still a wonderful read, even after all
these years.
--
Michael Martin | Internet:mpma...@ocean.washington.edu
University of Washington | Phone: (206)685-2806
School of Oceanography, WB-10 |
270 Marine Sci. Building |
Seattle, WA 98105 | "Building tomorrow's oceans today."
al jackson
>From: rs...@pitvax.xx.rmit.edu.au
>Subject: Re: Old Sf films
>greg
This true there did come to be more interest in technology....
but one is mindful too that >written< SF in the form of magazines
became more popular. On the other hand Hollywood , tho influenced, did
not adapt much if any of new and more sophosticated SF that had now
become more popular.
There is a goofy mix were pseud0-quasi-SF films of the 30's and 40's,
older gee-wiz SF and a tiny dab of modern SF are all mixed together.
(I might note that during the 50's modern SF prose fiction >was< adapted
as drama for the radio (X-1 as an example) and TV (Tales of Tommorow and
Out There as examples)... and these were quite good.
Doug6118
> Actually there were virtually no SF films _made_ in the 1940s;
>DR. CYCLOPS in 1940, DESTINATION MOON in (I think) 1949... and nothing
>in between. I've often wondered why. Anyone have any theories?
DESTINATION MOON made in 1950
Jim Gifford
>It showed all the fears
>that the technology of the time... aircraft and poison gas... might
>develop into. I think that in the 1940's the 'future'
>was seen as winning
>the war. That was what people were working towards.
novel ca. 1937.
Flash Sheridan
>In article <e8d_941...@wmeonlin.sacbbx.com> Jim.G...@ubik.wmeonlin.sacbbx.com (Jim Gifford) writes:
>>Heinlein's first (never published, now lost)
>>novel ca. 1937.
>
>more do you know about this lost novel?
Definitely. Note corrected Subject field.
--
<LI><a href="ftp://ftp.rahul.net/pub/flasheridn/snug/">Snug</a>
<LI><a href="ftp://ftp.rahul.net/pub/flasheridn/">Flash Sheridan</a>
Kenn Barry
Well, don't stop there! RAH fans everywhere want DETAILS! What
more do you know about this lost novel?
Kayembee