Fun at the end of 2001
Patrick Flannery
on the block;
Two questions:
In your opinion...
Question #1
A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Question # 2
A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
Me... Best movie- "The Day The Earth Stood Still"
Worst movie- "Message From Space"
Best T.V.- "Babylon 5"
Worst T.V.- Dear God, where do I start? "Buck Rodgers"; as opposing slime
mold, against shit, against dry rot, against leeches, against tapeworms,
against rabies.
Pat
David Findlay
> To all regular contributors; occasional contributors; lurkers; and new kids on the block; Two
> questions:
> In your opinion...
> Question #1
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Any Star Trek movie.
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Armageddon.
> Question # 2
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
Star Trek.
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL
> TIME?
Anything not Star Trek.
David
Patrick Flannery
"David Findlay" <david_j...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:pan.2001.12.15.20...@yahoo.com.au...
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2001 18:50:44 +1000, Patrick Flannery wrote:
> > To all regular contributors; occasional contributors; lurkers; and new
kids on the block; Two
> > questions:
> > In your opinion...
> > Question #1
> > A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
>
> Any Star Trek movie.
Any?! ANY?! Outside of the brilliant Klingon theme from ST-TMP- the whole
thing sucked.. now "Wrath of Khan"..."The Voyage Home"... "The Undiscovered
Country"... here you could make powerful arguments... but... ANY?!
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
>
> Armageddon.
You never saw "The Giant Claw"- do not limit yourself by your age... or good
luck ...in what you have.. or have not, seen.
> > Question # 2
> > A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
>
> Star Trek.
Which one, Number One?
> > B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL
> > TIME?
>
> Anything not Star Trek.
Outside of Babylon 5; Dr.Who;...and possibly Blake's 7... I am in complete
agreement with you.
Pat
David Sander
>
> To all regular contributors; occasional contributors; lurkers; and new kids
> on the block;
> Two questions:
> In your opinion...
> Question #1
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Blade Runner
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Plan 9 From Outer Space
> Question # 2
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
Dr Who (up to and including Tom Baker)
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
That's a toughie - for me, it's a balancing act between Battlestar
Galactica, Highlander, an ill-fated series based loosely on the vision
and stylization of the movie "Tron" that I can't remember the name of,
and a *really* *BAD* series that I saw a few eps of a while ago that was
made in the 1950s, in B&W, and looked like a series version of Plan 9
From Outer Space
Aargh.
David
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Patrick Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:u1m3net...@corp.supernews.com...
> To all regular contributors; occasional contributors; lurkers; and new
kids
> on the block;
Funny, I was just saying last night how I really need to actually write down
my Top 10 list....
> Two questions:
> In your opinion...
> Question #1
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Hard to say... but I'd put Silent Running up there, definitely.
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
There are so many. I'll go with recent memory and select Armageddon.
(Not even internally consistent... close up of both crews on a single
gantry, distance shot showing launchpads 1/2 mile apart...)
> Question # 2
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
Best is tough. I was never a B5 fan, but I've heard good things about
it.
I'm a sentimentalist, so I'll go with Science Fiction TV Series with
greatest impact: Star Trek. Only 3 seasons, but showed that science
fiction could reach the masses.
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
Galactica 2001.
Darren J Longhorn
<fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
>To all regular contributors; occasional contributors; lurkers; and new kids
>on the block;
>Two questions:
>In your opinion...
>Question #1
>A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
2001
>B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Max Q
>Question # 2
>A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
UFO
>B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
Terrahawks
Isn't that four questions?
--
Darren J Longhorn http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/8238
NSRG #005 http://www.northstarrocketry.org.uk/
UKRA #1094 L2 RSO http://www.ukra.org.uk/
"If this is the 21st century, then where's my personal jetpack?"
Patrick Flannery
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <moo...@greenms.com> wrote in message
news:PrHS7.4816$Fu6.2...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> "Patrick Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
> news:u1m3net...@corp.supernews.com...
> > To all regular contributors; occasional contributors; lurkers; and new
> kids
> > on the block;
>
> Funny, I was just saying last night how I really need to actually write
down
> my Top 10 list....
>
>
> > Two questions:
> > In your opinion...
> > Question #1
> > A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
>
> Hard to say... but I'd put Silent Running up there, definitely.
And you, sir, never had to see your six foot long model of the "Valley
Forge"; that you had hand-built over six month's time, be destroyed in
around two seconds... when the the illuminated plywood case's top that you
had built for your Junior class art display- fell, like a guillotine's
blade, on it, in the spring of 1974.
Hurt.....Hurt...... A LOT..
Pat
John Beaderstadt
> Question #1
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Tie: a) "Destination Moon." It holds up, even today. b) "On the Beach."
Allowing for the fact that nuclear winter hadn't been thought of yet, you could
argue that this movie got it right.
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
"Plan 9 from Outer Space" and Ed Wood, its director, both received Golden
Turkey awards as the worst of all time, regardless of genre. I see no reason,
here, to argue with conventional wisdom; I also heartily recommend an Ed Wood
festival to anyone looking for a truly bizarre film-going experience.
> Question # 2
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
Does "Mystery Science Theater 3,000" qualify?
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
How do you pick out the worst-smelling piece of crap from a septic tank?
--
Beady's 2nd Law of Social Harmonics: "All you get from straddling the fence on
an issue is a sore crotch."
Richard Glueck
> Question #1
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
2001 or 2010, with the original nudging out the sequel
>
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Plan 9 from Outer Space, even in an all out run, this is the worst film
ever made.
>
> Question # 2
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
Star Trek TNG or Deep Space 9
>
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
>
Michener's tele-novel adaptation of "Space". A lousy book made even
worse on the small screen.
OM
<glu...@saturn.caps.maine.edu> wrote:
>> Question #1
>> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
>
> 2001 or 2010, with the original nudging out the sequel
...Dick, you know I respect your opinions as much as I do Henry's, but
in this case...
****************************************
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND??
****************************************
..."2001", agreed, but "2010"?? A good film, but 2nd to "2001" as
being the "best science fiction movie of all time"? Sorry, but you've
got to justify this one in more detail, including what medication you
were on at the time.
>> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
>
> Plan 9 from Outer Space, even in an all out run, this is the worst film
>ever made.
...We're in agreement here, although I'm currently debating whether
Kevin Costner's "Waterworld" may be a contender for that title.
>> Question # 2
>> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
>
> Star Trek TNG or Deep Space 9
...To be more quantified, TNG from Season 3 to about midway through
Season 7. As for DS9, I've developed a greater respect for the show
now that I've got about 80% of the episodes in low-Q DiVX format on a
large hard drive, where I can run all the episodes back-to-back and
follow the story arcs without interruptions. The show deserves more
respect than it got, even if it was inarguably a deliberate knockoff
of "Babylon 5".
>> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
>
> Michener's tele-novel adaptation of "Space". A lousy book made even
>worse on the small screen.
...Again, we agree wholeheartedly, although the second season of
"Space: 1999" comes in at a strong second, with the second season of
"Buck Rogers" tying for third with "The Starlost". On the other hand,
if we want to stretch the definition of sci-fi TV a bit, there was one
series that beat "Space" for being the worst ever.
Yep, I speak of "My Mother, The Car". Never thought I'd see Ann
Sothern prostitute herself in that way...
OM
--
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | o...@need-to-know.basis
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
OM
<be...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>How do you pick out the worst-smelling piece of crap from a septic tank?
...There is an answer to this one, according to those involved in
septic tank cleanup. If you can see gasseous emissions, then the
stench is 99% guaranteed to be the most potent possible, as the
particulates are large enough to be airborne *and* visible.
OM
<fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
> And you, sir, never had to see your six foot long model of the "Valley
>Forge"; that you had hand-built over six month's time, be destroyed in
>around two seconds... when the the illuminated plywood case's top that you
>had built for your Junior class art display- fell, like a guillotine's
>blade, on it, in the spring of 1974.
...So, what did you use for domes, Pat?
Kevin Willoughby
>To all regular contributors; occasional contributors; lurkers; and new kids
>on the block;
>Two questions:
>In your opinion...
>Question #1
>A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
2001: A Space Odyssey is the best movie. No need to qualify it with
the "science fiction" adjective.
Kubrick's use of music is masterful - he had an original score
composed for the movie, but when he head the work prints using
Strauss' music, he did what was right. Until I saw 2001 on a big
screen, I had thought that rendezvous and docking was an exercise in
physics, not choreography.
The visual composition of each scene is exactly what you'd expert from
a world-class photographer. (Which, of course, Kubrick was before he
became a moviemaker.)
No other movie, ever, has asked as breathtakingly wide a question:
what is the purpose of Man? He answered it! His answer is at least as
good an answer as anything ever dreamed up by philosophers or any
religion.
No other movie ever had such believable spacecraft, although Apollo 13
comes close.
It is rare for a movie to expect its audience to think. Rarer still
for a science fiction movie to expect its audience to think. When I
see this movie on the big screen, I leave the auditorium on an
intellectual high, with a renewed sense of what we are all about. When
I leave a Star Wars movie, I think "what's for dinner?"
>B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Toss up.
Taken on its face, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes is hard to beat.
Favorite scene: the guy dressed up as a tomato sharing a meal with the
real killer tomatoes, and saying "pass the ketchup."
If you consider what you get for the amount of hype and budget, then
Phantom Menace is clearly the worst. It seems like every major scene
was a rip-off of some other movie. The plot was utterly predictable.
It was clearly a "no thinking required" effort. Visually, I thought
the image was vague and fuzzy. (I later learned Lucas had the entire
movie digitized so that the digital special effects (e.g., the chariot
race - uh, the pod race) wouldn't look cheesy in comparison to the
filmed bits.) Despite hearing the movie in one of the best sounding
theaters on Earth, I wasn't impressed with the sound - yet Lucas made
a big thing of this being the first film presented in 8 channel Dolby
Digital.
>Question # 2
>A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
I may be bending the rules a bit, but I'd nominate The Prisoner.
>B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
Special Unit 2. Talk about derivative, they've ripped-off just about
everything. Heck, even the location of the secret entrance is a
rip-off from The Man from U.N.C.L.E.
>Me... Best movie- "The Day The Earth Stood Still"
Very good movie. I love the opening sequence, as it paints a perfect
picture of life in 1950. Favorite line (from memory): "They're not
people, they're Democrats!" I do wish the movie had followed the
original story a little closer: Gort was supposed to be in charge, and
the movie made it look like Klaatu ruled over Gort.
--
Kevin Willoughby KevinWi...@NoSpamacm.orgXX
I propose we leave math to the machines
and go play outside. -- Calvin
OM
<sur...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>Patrick Flannery wrote:
>>
>> To all regular contributors; occasional contributors; lurkers; and new kids
>> on the block;
>> Two questions:
>> In your opinion...
>> Question #1
>> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
>
>Blade Runner
...Definitely second to "2001", but up there in the top 10. However,
unlike some snotballs, I actually preferred the original version with
Dekkers' VO commentary. Ridley Scott may have been shooting for a
"film noir detective story", but the narration was right out of that
sort of genre.
>> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
>
>Plan 9 From Outer Space
...On the other hand, I'm still convinced that "E.T." was the worst.
Why? Because it was just too kid-oriented for my tastes.
>> Question # 2
>> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
>
>Dr Who (up to and including Tom Baker)
...Actually, that's up to Colon Baker. Davison was always my favorite
doctor, with Pertwee and Tom Baker tying for 2nd really close behind.
Troughton, Hartnell, and McCoy coming in 3rd even closer behind. Colon
Baker was probably the only Doctor that I always hoped would get
killed in each episode so we'd have a regeneration and a new, better
replacement.
>> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
>
>That's a toughie - for me, it's a balancing act between Battlestar
>Galactica, Highlander, an ill-fated series based loosely on the vision
>and stylization of the movie "Tron" that I can't remember the name of,
>and a *really* *BAD* series that I saw a few eps of a while ago that was
>made in the 1950s, in B&W, and looked like a series version of Plan 9
>From Outer Space
...In order:
1) "Battlestar Ponderosa" was a great series despite some serious
flaws that were on the verge of being corrected has the second season
come to pass. What *was* the worst was "Galaxative 1980", which had NO
reason whatsoever to have been filmed.
2) "Highlander" had its points, but not many. It's one saving grace
was that it didn't insult the memory of the first film by one iota as
bad as the second film did.
3) That "Tron" series was "Automan", which started Desi Arnaz Jr. Show
wasn't -that- bad, but it wasn't -that- good either. More than
anything else, it was yet another retooling of "Future Cop", which we
all know was ripped off from Li'l Harlie Ellison and Ben Bova's
"Brillo".
4) Gee, that could have been "Rocky Jones, Space Ranger", or "Captain
Video" or any of the "Commander Cody" serials.
>Aargh.
...I agree. Then again, I'm still surprised nobody's mentioned "My
Living Doll", which starred Bob Cummings and Julie Newmar. Now *that*
was bad, kids.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
No, but I do recall my cat taking out a Klingon D-7 Battle Cruiser. (It was
actually funny).
I had a loft over the rest of my room with a beam that went across. The D-7
was hanging in space. Until the cat thought it would be fun to jump from
the beam to the D-7. This overcame the antigrav device the Klingons were
using to float motionless in space.
Only upside is we avoided a warp core breach.
Once I got over the initial shock, it was sorta funny.
The Klingons of course comitted ritual suicide after learning a common
housecat had attacked and destroyed their craft.
> Hurt.....Hurt...... A LOT..
I can imagine.
Now I want them to do a new remaster of Silent Running on DVD.
> Pat
>
>
>
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"OM" <om@collective_non_grata.org> wrote in message
news:75tm1ushqtbvkhebb...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2001 12:13:47 GMT, David Sander
>
> ...Definitely second to "2001", but up there in the top 10. However,
> unlike some snotballs, I actually preferred the original version with
> Dekkers' VO commentary. Ridley Scott may have been shooting for a
> "film noir detective story", but the narration was right out of that
> sort of genre.
Actually, I always thought that to truly appreciate the movie, you had to
watch BOTH version.
Having said that, I'm not sure if I'll agree with it being the best.
Perhaps in the top 10 best science fiction movies of all times though. I
will say that rightly so the sets deserved all the accolades they received.
(Similar to Brazil. But please, if you're going to see Brazil, see the
original, not the bastardized version they did for TV. The producers of
that version should be shot: slowly.)
(Incidently, in my top 10 favorite movies of all time (sci-fi or otherwise)
I think I'd include:
The Shawshank Redemption
2001
Blade Runner
Silent Running
and my mind is drawing a blank now on others. I will say I recently saw
Three Kings and greatly enjoyed it...)
>
> >> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
> >
> >Plan 9 From Outer Space
>
> ...On the other hand, I'm still convinced that "E.T." was the worst.
> Why? Because it was just too kid-oriented for my tastes.
I enjoyed ET, but I don't look forward to the rerelease. I think if you
hated the original, you'll hate this one more.
Worst is such a hard category. After all, some are SO bad, they are
must sees. Attack of the Killer Tomatoes is one of them.
>
Personally never got into Dr. Who.
Someone mentioned "The Prisoner" I'm not sure I'd count that as science
fiction, but definitely a good show. The final episode still sorta disturbs
me.
>
> >> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
> >
> >
> ...In order:
>
> 1) "Battlestar Ponderosa" was a great series despite some serious
> flaws that were on the verge of being corrected has the second season
> come to pass. What *was* the worst was "Galaxative 1980", which had NO
> reason whatsoever to have been filmed.
Ah, I was wrong on the name of the 2nd one. I actually enjoyed Battlestar
Gallactica. But positively loathed the "sequel". It was SO bad.
>
> 2) "Highlander" had its points, but not many. It's one saving grace
> was that it didn't insult the memory of the first film by one iota as
> bad as the second film did.
>
I've avoided the 2nd movie on general principal.
> OM
Andre Lieven
> To all regular contributors; occasional contributors; lurkers; and new kids
> on the block;
> Two questions:
> In your opinion...
> Question #1
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
> Question # 2
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
>
> Me... Best movie- "The Day The Earth Stood Still"
A good choice... I'd go with 2001, myself. It hit me when I saw
it as a ten-ish year old kid in a way thats never let go...
> Worst movie- "Message From Space"
LOL. Tough call. For on topic to here, the TV film, " Starflight
One, Th Plane That Couldn't Land " comes to mind and retch.
> Best T.V.- "Babylon 5"
Absa-fraggin'-lutely !
> Worst T.V.- Dear God, where do I start? "Buck Rodgers"; as opposing slime
> mold, against shit, against dry rot, against leeches, against tapeworms,
> against rabies.
Got one for that post... " The Starlost ", Glenn Warren Films, 1973.
So bad that Harlan Ellison took his name off of it, to " Cordwainer
Bird. "
His essay on what happened is titled, " Somehow I Don't Think We're
In Kansas, Toto. "
Gads, that show sucked.
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Henry Spencer
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) <moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
>> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
>
> Hard to say... but I'd put Silent Running up there, definitely.
Well, I dunno about that... Marvelous visuals, yes, but the plot was just
a trifle weak in spots, to put it politely. To be considered the best of
all time, I'd say it has to hold up intellectually as well as visually.
--
Many things changed on Sept. 11, but the | Henry Spencer he...@spsystems.net
importance of freedom did not. -SpaceNews| (aka he...@zoo.toronto.edu)
LooseChanj
Oh boy, you aksed for it...
> Question #1
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
2001, can't really argue with that one. Predator for being a really unique
combination of two different genres.
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Another no brainer, Plan 9 From Outer Space or Attack Of The Killer
Tomatoes. Slight nod to Tomatoes for not having a script. And that theme
song...
> Question # 2
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
I'm partial to the X-files mythology. The monsters of the week suck tho'.
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0072499
I was *5* and I rolled my eyes at this one.
--
If $vendor wants to improve the quality of their products, they could
try cutting down their developers' drug dosages, but if that's not
possible they should at least make sure they're all on the same drugs.
--Darren Tucker
Interim Books
>A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Forbidden Planet
>B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
The Forbin Project (But I like it anyhow)
>Question # 2
>A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
ST:TNG
>B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
Space:1999
-------
Visit our search engine! http://www.interimbooks.com/pagescout/
-------
Interim Books | 322 Pacific Ave | Bremerton, WA | 98337
fair...@hurricane.net | (360) 377-4343 | http://www.interimbooks.com/
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Henry Spencer" <he...@spsystems.net> wrote in message
news:GoEBH...@spsystems.net...
> In article <PrHS7.4816$Fu6.2...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com>,
> Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) <moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
> >> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
> >
> > Hard to say... but I'd put Silent Running up there, definitely.
>
> Well, I dunno about that... Marvelous visuals, yes, but the plot was just
> a trifle weak in spots, to put it politely. To be considered the best of
> all time, I'd say it has to hold up intellectually as well as visually.
Arrgh, I hate to have to change my mind, but I sort of agree.
Ok, here's the deal, I was busy explaining the story behind the visuals of
Silent Running to my wife and friends last night. So it was high on my list
of movies.
Yes, the visuals stand out. The plot, though a bit weak, I do think carried
the movie. Hard to say. It's been years.
Btw, if I were to toss in one of the best space movies of all times, Apollo
13, definitely. I still am in awe that Ron Howard could still manage to
pull off the tension and build-up, even though most people knew the ending.
Hearing Lovell's, "Houston, Apollo 13 over" at the end still puts chills up
my back.
BTW, many people put 2001 up there. I definitely think this movie has a lot
going for it, but I'll have to admit, I don't think the impact reaches the
masses as well as one might like. Partly because it's so rarely seen in the
format that Kubrik intended. So for science fiction aficionados, it's gotta
be up there. For the masses, most find it boring or dragging.
Again, I hate "Best of" lists, since the criteria are so nebulous. Harry
Potter definitely isn't the best movie I've ever seen, but I do think it'll
be an instant classic.
So Henry, what are YOUR answers.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"LooseChanj" <Loose...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9_MS7.111467$Ga5.16...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> 2001, can't really argue with that one. Predator for being a really
unique
> combination of two different genres.
Hmm, this reminds me of another set of movies.
Alien and Aliens.
In some ways I don't consider them science fiction, but rather a horror
movie and a war movie respectively.
But still, amazing impact on the audience.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Interim Books" <fair...@hurricane.net> wrote in message
news:6han1uon4qav5l98u...@4ax.com...
> >Question # 2
> >A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
>
> ST:TNG
Ok, I've got to admit.. I disliked ST:TNG a lot.
I'm one of those folks who actually liked most of the ST:V episodes I saw.
Jorge R. Frank
> Question #1
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Any even-numbered Star Trek film.
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Any odd-numbered Star Trek film. :-)
> Question # 2
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam. Too bad it hasn't aired in North America yet
(keep an eye on Cartoon Network next year...).
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
Where to start...? :-)
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Paul Schlyter
LooseChanj <rea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Patrick Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:u1m3net...@corp.supernews.com...
> In your opinion...
>
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
>
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
sci-fi movies or TV series which will be produced in the future,
do we?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se
WWW: http://home.tiscali.se/~pausch/
Kevin Willoughby
>BTW, many people put 2001 up there. I definitely think this movie has a lot
>going for it, but I'll have to admit, I don't think the impact reaches the
>masses as well as one might like. Partly because it's so rarely seen in the
>format that Kubrik intended. So for science fiction aficionados, it's gotta
>be up there. For the masses, most find it boring or dragging.
For a movie that doesn't reach the masses, it has had a lot of
commercial success. It still draws an audience. The first DVD release
sold well enough to justify remastering a second, special edition,
DVD.
How many times have you seen something grand and significant on
display with Also Sprach Zarathustra used as the soundtrack? How many
times have you heard that theme music used to parody pomposity? Most
people know the opening to Also Sprach, but how many people have
listened to the entire half-hour piece? "Open the pod doors please,
HAL" is the way the layman thinks of advanced computers. The movie
worked its way deeply into the popular culture.
As for the pacing, well, yeah, it is slow. Gives you time to
appreciate the visual beauty -- no need to jog through the gallery of
wonderful images. I'm still trying to reverse-engineer the computer
displays - they are a marvel of usability engineering.
As for presentation, I agree completely. Kubrick chose a 65mm negative
because he knows what that can look like. This is the guy who had the
spy-lens adapted to a movie camera for shooting candlelight dinners.
This is the guy who chose high-contrast black and white for Dr.
Strangelove. This is the guy who chose low contrast, grainy color for
Eyes Wide Shut. He chooses his film stock with care. The movie looses
something when presented from a 35mm print. The movie looses a lot
when presented on the best home theaters. The move is unmatchable on
TV. There is a 70mm print now in limited distribution. See it if you
can. (See it as soon as you can, because there is one! 70mm print. The
studio didn't make a backup, so if a careless projectionist damages
the print...)
Kevin Willoughby
>> >
>> >Plan 9 From Outer Space
>
>must sees. Attack of the Killer Tomatoes is one of them.
To my taste, Plan 9 is one of those "So bad, you have to see it"
movies. Attack of the Killer Tomatoes is just bad, but not "you have
to see it" bad.
In the video store today, I noticed there is a sequel to Killer
Tomatoes. Perhaps that one is even worse. Maybe even worse enough to
be worth watching.
> Someone mentioned "The Prisoner" I'm not sure I'd count that as science
>fiction, but definitely a good show. The final episode still sorta disturbs
>me.
I said I might be stretching the rules with that nomination, but one
of the themes of The Prisoner is how a society would use exotic
technology (sleepy gas, omnipresent monitoring, brain alteration
devices), so it meets my personal standards of science fiction.
The final episode was supposed to be disturbing. If it didn't leave
you questioning at least a few things, you didn't get what the series
was all about. Sorta like 2001.
Gordon Davie
kids
> on the block;
> Two questions:
> Question #1
2001, no question. My favourite film of all time - having only seen it on TV
for the last few years my loyalty was starting to wane, but earlier this
year I caught the rerelease on the big screen - pristine 70mm print which
blew me away all over again.
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
A little harder to pick just one. But I'd probably go for 'Starflight One',
a TV movie which was released theatrically in the UK. Concerned a planeload
of passengers stranded in orbit being rescued by a Shuttle which made
several round trips.
> Question # 2
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
Trek TNG. 'The Inner Light' in Season 5 is one of the best things I've ever
seen on TV; the closing scenes never fail to bring a lump to my throat.
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
Space: 1999. Effects and modelwork were okay but the premise just sucked.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God"
Chris Eilbeck
> Question #1
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Blade Runner
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
It Conquered The Earth
> Question # 2
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
X-Files
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
Lexx
Chris
--
Chris Eilbeck mailto:ch...@yordas.demon.co.uk
MARS Flight Crew http://www.mars.org.uk/
UKRA #1108 Level 1 BSMR
David Findlay
> "David Findlay" <david_j...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:pan.2001.12.15.20...@yahoo.com.au...
>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2001 18:50:44 +1000, Patrick Flannery wrote:
>> > To all regular contributors; occasional contributors; lurkers; and new
> kids on the block; Two
>> > questions:
>> > In your opinion...
>> > A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
>>
>
> Any?! ANY?! Outside of the brilliant Klingon theme from ST-TMP- the whole thing sucked.. now
> "Wrath of Khan"..."The Voyage Home"... "The Undiscovered Country"... here you could make
> powerful arguments... but... ANY?!
Probably the best one I've seen was Star Trek First Contact.
>> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
>>
>> Armageddon.
>
> You never saw "The Giant Claw"- do not limit yourself by your age... or good luck ...in what
> you have.. or have not, seen.
You mean it can get worse than Armageddon? When our family was watching it I was laughing for
the whole movie - it was the funniest movie I've seen in years.
>> > Question # 2
>> > A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
>>
>> Star Trek.
>
> Which one, Number One?
Original Series, closely followed by ST:ENT.
>> > B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL
>> > TIME?
>>
>> Anything not Star Trek.
>
> Outside of Babylon 5; Dr.Who;...and possibly Blake's 7... I am in complete agreement with you.
> Pat
David
Mike Flugennock
(Andre Lieven) wrote:
> "Patrick Flannery" (fla...@daktel.com) writes:
> > To all regular contributors; occasional contributors; lurkers; and new kids
> > on the block;
> > Two questions:
> > In your opinion...
> > Question #1
> > A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
> > B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
> > Question # 2
> > A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
> > B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
> >
> > Me... Best movie- "The Day The Earth Stood Still"
>
> A good choice... I'd go with 2001, myself. It hit me when I saw
> it as a ten-ish year old kid in a way thats never let go...
>
> > Worst movie- "Message From Space"
>
> LOL. Tough call. For on topic to here, the TV film, " Starflight
> One, Th Plane That Couldn't Land " comes to mind and retch.
Wasn't that some "TV movie" from the early '80s, on NBC or something? What
was the premise of that, anyway. It's been so long. Wasn't it supposed to
be the first paying-passenger Space Shuttle, or something?
>
> > Best T.V.- "Babylon 5"
>
> Absa-fraggin'-lutely !
Actually, I've got a new nominee for "Best Episode" -- not an entire
series, but one particular episode, and that'd be the "Gold Heist Thieves
Try To Escape Through Time In Suspended Animation Capsules" episode of the
"Twilight Zone". If you don't remember the plot, I'll tease you with the
last lines of the play:
"He had a bar of gold in his hand...he held it up to me, as if it were worth
something..."
"...sure, before we learned to synthesize it!"
--
"...you were caught with your hands in the till
but you still got to swallow your pill
as you slip and you slide down the hill
on the blood of the people you killed!" --John Lennon.
_______________________________________________________________
Mike Flugennock, flugennock at sinkers dot org
Mike Flugennock's Mikey'zine, http://www.sinkers.org
Peter Stickney
"Patrick Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> writes:
> To all regular contributors; occasional contributors; lurkers; and new kids
> on the block;
> Two questions:
> In your opinion...
> Question #1
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Gee, I don't have a single best - different ones hit me at different
times. Overall, I'd say "2001: A Space Odyssey". But I'm also partial
to "Forbidden Planet", "The Day the Earth Stood Still", "When Worlds
Collide", and The "War of the Worlds".
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Well, the usual candidates are generally so bad they're worth watching
for that. Offhand, I'd say anything by Dino Delaurentis, unless
you're on painkillers. (Flash Gordon takes on a whole new persective
when viewed through Percocet)
> Question # 2
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
Some may differ as to whether it's SF, but I'd say "The Prisoner".
Not much Hard SF stuff, but it's very much on a D.G. Compton "Society
and People evolving differently" schtick.
(Interestingly enough, whenever I see an Edwardian Jacket at an SF Con,
the button always has number 2 on it. I always wanted #27's (The
Supervisor's) job myself. #2s don't seem to last long.
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
Well, if I had to pick, how 'bout the 2nd season of "Battlestar
Galactica", a.k.a. " "Battleshit Craptica" Even the model kit
sucked. The top of the hull didn't match the bottom, ferinsance. Not
even close.
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
David Findlay
>> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
>
Never seen it.
>> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
>
> There are so many. I'll go with recent memory and select Armageddon.
> (Not even internally consistent... close up of both crews on a single gantry, distance shot
> showing launchpads 1/2 mile apart...)
That's part of the reason I selected it. It's supposed to be dead serious yet it's absolutely
hillarious.
>> Question # 2
>> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
>
> Best is tough. I was never a B5 fan, but I've heard good things about
> it.
It's never screened in Australia, AFAIK.
> I'm a sentimentalist, so I'll go with Science Fiction TV Series with
> greatest impact: Star Trek. Only 3 seasons, but showed that science fiction could reach the
> masses.
Me too.
>> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
>
> Galactica 2001.
Fortunately never seen it.
David
David Findlay
>> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
>
I dunno. Maybe JTM or OM could demonstrate? :-P
David
Patrick Flannery
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <moo...@greenms.com> wrote in message:
>Harry Potter definitely isn't the best movie I've ever seen, but I do think
it'll
> be an instant classic.
Wait till Wednesday- little lightning bolt head's going to get stomped into
the ground by the fell hooves of the Nazgul.
Pat
Jim Davis
>To all regular contributors; occasional contributors; lurkers; and
>new kids on the block;
>Two questions:
>In your opinion...
>Question #1
>A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Two which deserve consideration but haven't been mentioned yet...
The Thing from Outer Space
The Incredible Shrinking Man
>B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
To me, movies like Plan 9 and Killer Tomatoes, which never had any
serious pretentions of being art to begin with, should be excluded
from consideration. We should limit ourselves to big budget movies
with talented casts and crews which still ended up being unwatchable.
By these criteria I would nominate
From Earth to the Moon (1958)
Absolutely horrible either as an adaptation of Verne or on its own.
>Question # 2
>A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
Television is harder to judge because almost every series will vary
wildly in quality but some I haven't seen mentioned
Time tunnel
Quantum Leap
Eerie, Indiana
Sliders
>B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea
Liked it as a kid; doesn't hold up.
Jim Davis
Patrick Flannery
"Darren J Longhorn" <darrenl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message: > >B) WORST
SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
Never even heard of that one....
>Isn't that four questions?
No,only two- the other two apparent questions are their evil twins from an
alternate universe, sent here by a transporter malfunction.
Pat
Tap
Edward Lyons
kids
> on the block;
> Two questions:
> In your opinion...
> Question #1
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
2001: A Space Odyssey
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Too many to choose from.
> Question # 2
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
Star Trek (the original series); and ST: TNG
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
Dr. Who -- ALL of them !!!
Eddie Lyons
Portsmouth, UK
Patrick Flannery
"John Beaderstadt" <be...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3C1B59BC...@mindspring.com...
> Patrick Flannery wrote:
>
> > Question #1
> > A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
>
> Allowing for the fact that nuclear winter hadn't been thought of yet, you
could
> argue that this movie got it right.
>
>
> > B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
>
> Turkey awards as the worst of all time, regardless of genre. I see no
reason,
> here, to argue with conventional wisdom; I also heartily recommend an Ed
Wood
> festival to anyone looking for a truly bizarre film-going experience.
Ever see "Orgy of the Dead" from the same director? Even the Wood purists
are having a hard time deciding which of the two is the most abominable
thing ever done.
Pat
David Sander
>
> In article <3C1B3E7A...@bigpond.net.au>, sur...@bigpond.net.au wrote:
>
> > Patrick Flannery wrote:
> > >
> > > To all regular contributors; occasional contributors; lurkers; and new kids
> > > on the block;
> > > Two questions:
> > > In your opinion...
> > > A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
> >
>
> Man, that picture really ripped ass when I saw the director's cut
> re-release on the 70mm stereo screen at this great old-time restored movie
> palace here in DC.
>
> (Btw, David, have you seen the really excellent book of Syd Mead design
> art and sketches for the urban scenes, skylines, architecture and matte
> paintings for Blade Runner? Yeeow.)
I collect Syd's publications, which are just totally awesome. The man -
alongside Vangelis - *made* Blade Runner, and his industrial design for
ships, cars, buildings, theme parks etc have to be seen to be believed.
Why we're not where he envisages us to be is a sad indictment of the
ever-increasing conservative streak that is slowly and insidiously
strangling our society today ... but I digress...
> Still as much ass as was ripped by Blade Runner, I think I have to go with
> the very-early-age life-changing,
> ultimate-trip-when-I-was-too-young-for-acid, Kubrick's own "2001". I saw
> it again, a year ago, worried a bit that it would suddenly seem dated
> after all this time, but it was still extra sweet. A believable universe,
> with believable people and believable technology. Plot, characters,
> fascination, wonderment, philosophy, no dorky aliens, no war in space, no
> exploding crap, no bullshit. Just "full of stars".
>
> My mind is going, I can feel it,
Look - I loved 2001, I really did. It was a masterpiece. The whole film
- every frame of it - was superbly crafted, and watching it in the
submersive environment of a theatre was an astounding experience. It is,
though, a seriously flawed masterpiece, and both Kubrik and Clarke knew
it. For a significant percentage of the audiences, much of it made
little to no sense, which is sad because many of the pieces to that
puzzle are there for the interpreting. It took Clarke to publish a
novelization for many people to realize and even understand some pretty
fundamental elements and messages in the film. In this regard, Kubrik as
storyteller failed dismally.
2001 is a glory to watch. It fills the visual senses in ways all too few
films do. Its musical score is a perfect compliment, but while we all
know and appreciate Strauss, Khachaturian and Ligeti and associate their
works (almost exclusively) with the film, original audiences -
especially the more mature aged viewers - did not. They had their own
associations, and consequently there was much eyebrow raising and even
confusion in some. Kubrik's choice of pieces to use was masterful, but
in a world of the late 1960s (now very different from our own) it
perhaps did more damage than good in many people's minds (remember:
context is all important).
From a more personal standpoint, I was disappointed in the depictions of
the Earth in the movie. The mattes of Earth were created at a time when
photography of the Earth from space was available courtesy of the Gemini
program, and yet what they ended up with was not all that dissimilar to
earlier depictions of Earth, made without the benefit of LEO photography
- i.e. washed out, greenish, flat, and with a sharp horizon. Kubrik had
an unrivalled opportunity to show the Earth from space in an
unprecedented way - the way it really is - and he blew it.
To me, Blade Runner has its many flaws too, but so many of those are
read into the film by people trying to find meaning where there is none
(or is one but is ignored). Ridley Scott crafted his film on a multitude
of levels that guaranteed it as important a place in film history as
Kubrik's magnum opus, IMHO, but its impact was lessened somewhat by the
plethora of sf material bombarding audiences by that time (compare with
the quantity of sf films around when 2001 was presented). While it can
be argued BR is less a science fiction film than a detective story set
in a futuristic environment, its level of *science* is arguably well on
par with that presented by 2001.
It actually annoys me trying to compare these films, just as it annoys
me trying to compare other films. Answering the question "what's your
favourite film of all time?" really gives me the screaming shits,
because I don't want to compare - say - Blade Runner with 2001, or
Legend (European version) with Excalibur, or Shrek with Toy Story. They
are their own entities with their own qualities and their own faults;
their own empathetic devices and their own messages, their own
uniqueness. How I feel about any film is often affected by my own mood
when I see it and what happens around it (there's that 'context' issue
coming up again). I can't re-watch some films because of their
association with events that have happened in my own life at that time,
and I imagine this applies to most people out there *regardless of how
good that film might be*.
So for me, 2001 is a brilliant film, yes, but I feel more for Blade Runner.
David
OM
Stickney) wrote:
>Well, if I had to pick, how 'bout the 2nd season of "Battlestar
>Galactica", a.k.a. " "Battleshit Craptica" Even the model kit
>sucked. The top of the hull didn't match the bottom, ferinsance. Not
>even close.
...Actually, the kit's a fairly accurate representation of a
small-scale prototype of the 6' filming model. The only parts that
aren't fully accurate are the sides of the "belly" and the middle arm
supports for the landing bays. That's because the planograph couldn't
get in close enough on that 18" model to get good scans.
OM
--
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | o...@need-to-know.basis
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
OM
wrote:
>In article <PrHS7.4816$Fu6.2...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com>,
>Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) <moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
>>> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
>>
>> Hard to say... but I'd put Silent Running up there, definitely.
>
>Well, I dunno about that... Marvelous visuals, yes, but the plot was just
>a trifle weak in spots, to put it politely. To be considered the best of
>all time, I'd say it has to hold up intellectually as well as visually.
...It still holds up visually even in today's CG-dominated fx
industry. The plot, on the other hand...well, let's just say that even
for the treehugging hippie-dominated early 70's the message was a bit
overbearing.
Either that, or it was Joan Baez' squawkings...
OM
...I'd be glad to. However, you decided to expose yourself before I
could get the chance.
Patrick Flannery
"Kevin Willoughby" <KevinWi...@NoSpamacm.org> wrote in message:
> If you consider what you get for the amount of hype and budget, then
> Phantom Menace is clearly the worst. It seems like every major scene
> was a rip-off of some other movie.
Yup; for what you were hoping for vs. what you got, that had too be the
worst- how would you have liked to be one of those theater owners who agreed
to play it for twelve weeks? I saw Phantom Menace merchandise remaindered
within one week of it's opening.
>- yet Lucas made
> a big thing of this being the first film presented in 8 channel Dolby
> Digital.
A big "thing" is a very accurate description of both the movie, and the
whole P.M. experience. On this one you don't have to ask yourself: "what's
for dinner?".. you just pray you don't get to see today's lunch again.
>
> >Question # 2
> >A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
>
> I may be bending the rules a bit, but I'd nominate The Prisoner.
It's the one that you could spend days trying to fully understand each
episode of, and I loved it. I think that it could be called science fiction,
in the same way that 1984 could be called sci-fi- and if anyone quibbles
with that judgment, I've got an 8 foot diameter roaring white
"whatever-it-is" that would like to have a word with you...
> >B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
> >Me... Best movie- "The Day The Earth Stood Still"
>
> Very good movie. I love the opening sequence, as it paints a perfect
> picture of life in 1950. Favorite line (from memory): "They're not
> people, they're Democrats!" I do wish the movie had followed the
> original story a little closer: Gort was supposed to be in charge, and
> the movie made it look like Klaatu ruled over Gort.
Although, at the end, he does point out that the "Gort's" are pretty much
in charge of their civilization- a tough cop- but an eminently fair one.
Darren J Longhorn
Flugennock) wrote:
>
>At a distant third in my personal All-Time Piss-Awful TV SciFi list is a
>British series -- from one of the independent channels, I think -- called
>"UFO", which aired in the mid-70s and expected me to believe that by 1980
>we not only would have made contact with intelligent extraterrestrials,
>and have an entire military force of pilots and support groups based on
>the moon (SHADO), but that _all_ the women would be 5 feet 9, long-legged,
>lithe, with those cool-ass outer-space page-boy haircuts and rocking
>little miniskirt uniform outfits suspiciously inspired by William Ware
>Thiess.
>
But that's _why_ it was good!
--
Darren J Longhorn http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/8238
NSRG #005 http://www.northstarrocketry.org.uk/
UKRA #1094 L2 RSO http://www.ukra.org.uk/
"If this is the 21st century, then where's my personal jetpack?"
Darren J Longhorn
Oooh, sounds good, I may have to revise my answers ;-)
Patrick Flannery
"Mike Flugennock" <flv43...@sinkers.org> wrote in message:
> Wasn't that some "TV movie" from the early '80s, on NBC or something? What
> was the premise of that, anyway. It's been so long. Wasn't it supposed to
> be the first paying-passenger Space Shuttle, or something?
It was a sub-orbital "Orient Express" type vehicle that.... accidentally
goes into orbit! They've got to send the shuttle up to save it! It's a pile
of crap!
Pat
Julian
"David Sander" wrote in message news:3C1BEBF1...@bigpond.net.au...
6KB of answer to a question which wanted 4 film/TV series titles. Boy is
this group verbose or what??????
--
Regards
Julian
Melbourne, Australia
"The Spirit that guides you, follow it through,
To the Spirit inside you, always be true,
You know you'll despair, if the Spirit inside you is used without care." -
The Spirit, by Magnum
Patrick Flannery
"Chris Eilbeck" <ch...@yordas.demon.co.uk> wrote in message: >
> > B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
>
> It Conquered The Earth
Isn't that "It Conquered the World"? We talkin' the six foot angry asparagus
here? The one the paint keeps falling off of when it moves, and sends the
flying midget stingrays at the back your neck? Nahhh..."Giant Claw"- giant
rubber vulture time.
Pat
Julian
> > B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
> > Terrahawks
> Never even heard of that one....
It's a Gerry Anderson 1980s attempt to get back into the supermarionation
genre, which failed. But then he did 'Space Precinct' which was more than
marginally worse.
Kevin Willoughby
>> There is a 70mm print now in limited distribution. See it if you
>> can. (See it as soon as you can, because there is one! 70mm print. The
>> studio didn't make a backup, so if a careless projectionist damages
>> the print...)
>
Probably not. The new 70mm print did play at the Uptown quite
recently, i.e., in the last month or so. Too recently to be a "25th
Anniversary" presenation of a movie released in 1968.
>I remember at the time being a bit miffed that, on the Big-Ass Silver
>Anniversary Of Stanley Kubrick's "2001", they couldn't have sent around
>some really nice, fresh, clean, schweet stereo prints to show us for our
>eight bucks.
I feel the same way about the studio not doing something special for
"2001 in 2001".
Kevin Willoughby
>In article <3c1b6e3c....@news.rcn.com>,
>KevinWi...@NoSpamacm.org wrote:
>> Until I saw 2001 on a big
>> screen, I had thought that rendezvous and docking was an exercise in
>> physics, not choreography.
>
>Interesting, your mention of rendezvous and choreography; in a lot of
>texts I've read describing the development and evolution of rendezvous and
>docking technique and physics often invoke a dance to describe what
>happens -- especially when you consider the moves a Shuttle has to make on
>approach to Mir or ISS.
Thinking of it as choreography finally made it clear to my why pilots
like McDivitt and Young had such trouble with rendezvous in Gemini.
(uh oh, an on-topic reference - is that another 10 yard penalty?) They
flew as pilots, knowing that if you thrust towards the thing, you get
closer to thing. The idea of backing off to get closer is not
elementary physics, but dance.
>> >B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
>>
>> If you consider what you get for the amount of hype and budget, then
>> Phantom Menace is clearly the worst.
>
>Haven't you heard? There are _no_writers_left_ in Hollywood anymore. None.
>This was confirmed after they started making re-makes of pictures that had
>no business being re-made, pictures which I'd totally forgotten about and
>deserved to stay forgotten.
Don't forget the TV shows which had no business being made, much less
re-made into movies. When I walked I walked out of Charlie's Angels,
my only comment was "well, it was loud". It is only a matter of time
before we see "My Mother the Car: The Movie".
>> >Question # 2
>> >A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
>>
>> I may be bending the rules a bit, but I'd nominate The Prisoner...
>
>What's really interesting about that series is that it's a really really
>_out_there_ spinoff from the old "Secret Agent" series, which was its
>total opposite in feel, shot in black&white and with a very dry film noir
>feeling.
For what it is worth, Patrick McGoohan has consistently claimed that
Secret Agent (the real one, not the brief UPN show of the same name)
and The Prisoner are totally separate, and that Number 6 is not John
Drake.
Julian
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Lots of enjoyable ones, but none have leaped out to claim this title. ST 2,
4 & 6 were excellent with only minor nit-picks.
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
2001 - from reading all the other posts here, I still believe it's a
classic example of the Emperor's New Clothes. Perhaps if they'd cut down the
20 minutes each (I timed it) of "apes doing nothing"/"star ship moving
through star field"/"psychedelic coloured patterns", I might change my mind
that it's the worst.
The only people I have ever met who said this was a good film were those who
had read the book - not a good sign.
Independence Day was really only saved by Brent Spiner imo.
> Question # 2
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
The Prisoner
Thunderbirds
The BBC's 80s version of "The Day Of The Triffids"
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
I probably never bothered to watch after the first 5 minutes & promptly
forgot about it.
Lexx was corny, crap but oh sooo watchable nevertheless.
Kevin Willoughby
> For a significant percentage of the audiences, much of it made
>little to no sense, which is sad because many of the pieces to that
>puzzle are there for the interpreting. It took Clarke to publish a
>novelization for many people to realize and even understand some pretty
>fundamental elements and messages in the film.
That is the first time I've heard that explanation. The official party
line is that Kubrick asked Clarke to write a novel rather than a
script because writing a script is a mind-numbing, tedious activity.
The novel was ready before the movie, in fact, Clarke grumbled about
trying to keep the novel up to date with all of Kubrick's last minute
changes to the script. The fact that the novel was available when the
movie premiered, rather than brought out after the reviews were
printed also suggests the novel was written concurrent with the
filming rather than an after-the-fact explaination.
Kubrick is quite willing to make his audience think. Eyes Wide Shut is
another example of a Kubrick film that takes repeated viewings to
fully understand.
>From a more personal standpoint, I was disappointed in the depictions of
>the Earth in the movie. The mattes of Earth were created at a time when
>photography of the Earth from space was available courtesy of the Gemini
>program, and yet what they ended up with was not all that dissimilar to
>earlier depictions of Earth, made without the benefit of LEO photography
>- i.e. washed out, greenish, flat, and with a sharp horizon. Kubrik had
>an unrivalled opportunity to show the Earth from space in an
>unprecedented way - the way it really is - and he blew it.
Work on 2001 was well underway by the time the Gemini missions were
being flown. It is also worth noting that it wasn't until Apollo 8
Earthrise photo that we realized just how vividly blue the Earth
really is - the Gemini photos don't do full justice to our planet.
But, yes, this is one of the few ways that 2001 hasn't aged well;
Kubrick could have done better.
Patrick Flannery
I never could understand why the aliens couldn't figure out the idea of
landing gear- every time one of those tops tried to land, it was basically a
controlled crash- one flew into a house for no apparent reason- I imagine
the pilot was a little dizzy from spinning around at several hundred RPM,
while breathing lime Kool-aid.
Pat
Patrick Flannery
"Kevin Willoughby" <KevinWi...@NoSpamacm.org> wrote in message:
> trying to keep the novel up to date with all of Kubrick's last minute
> changes to the script.
I can imagine Clarke's reaction to that small detail change from Saturn to
Jupiter as the destination.
Pat
Patrick Flannery
"Kevin Willoughby" <KevinWi...@NoSpamacm.org> wrote in message:
> elementary physics, but dance.
And if it's a Progress trying to dock with Mir, then sometimes it's slam
dancing.
> For what it is worth, Patrick McGoohan has consistently claimed that
> Secret Agent (the real one, not the brief UPN show of the same name)
> and The Prisoner are totally separate, and that Number 6 is not John
> Drake.
But that would be telling...
Andre Lieven
> Patrick Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
> news:u1m3net...@corp.supernews.com...
> kids
>> on the block;
>> Two questions:
>> In your opinion...
>> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
>
> on TV for the last few years my loyalty was starting to wane, but
> earlier this year I caught the rerelease on the big screen - pristine
> 70mm print which blew me away all over again.
Any word from the gang about where this is playing ? Anywhere in the NYC
area, perhaps ?
>> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
>
> A little harder to pick just one. But I'd probably go for 'Starflight
> One', a TV movie which was released theatrically in the UK. Concerned
> a planeload of passengers stranded in orbit being rescued by a Shuttle
> which made several round trips.
Oh lord, they did that to you folks over the Pond ? That was a TV
movie this side, and boy did it blow goats !
Consider... a hypersonic LA-to-Tokyo plane whose engines stick
open and put it into a low orbit.... east to west !
They did an EVA transfer of a passenger with said passenger in a
*coffin* !
And, they did re-entry with an unmanned shuttle shaped thing
flying just ahead, so that Starflight One could ride in the
wake of the shuttle thingy's heat shield.
Oiy !
>> Question # 2
>> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
>
> Trek TNG. 'The Inner Light' in Season 5 is one of the best things
> I've ever
> seen on TV; the closing scenes never fail to bring a lump to my throat.
That episode won a Hugo Award. Then again, Babylon 5 took two... <g>
>> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
>
> Space: 1999. Effects and modelwork were okay but the premise just sucked.
I have to repeat one of my answers... The Starlost. The effects,
modelwork *and* interior premise *all* sucked.
Thats more suck points....
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Andre Lieven
> In article <9vfv5p$anj$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
> (Andre Lieven) wrote:
>
>> "Patrick Flannery" (fla...@daktel.com) writes:
>> > To all regular contributors; occasional contributors; lurkers; and
>> > new kids on the block;
>> > Two questions:
>> > In your opinion...
>> > Question #1
>> > A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
>> > A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
>> >
>>
>> it as a ten-ish year old kid in a way thats never let go...
>>
>> > Worst movie- "Message From Space"
>>
>> LOL. Tough call. For on topic to here, the TV film, " Starflight
>> One, Th Plane That Couldn't Land " comes to mind and retch.
>
> Wasn't that some "TV movie" from the early '80s, on NBC or something?
> What was the premise of that, anyway. It's been so long. Wasn't it
> supposed to be the first paying-passenger Space Shuttle, or something?
hypersonic LA-to-Tokyo plane whose engines " stuck open " and placed
it into low orbit, get this, in a east to west retrograde orbit !
Some highlights were several rendezvous' with shuttle Columbia
( whihc had one day or less turnarounds ), orbital refueling, a
passenger transferred by way of riding inside of a coffin from
the baggage section, and re entry with the aid of a shuttle sized
and shaped unmanned craft who rode just ahead of S1, who rode in the
heat shield wake ( I kid you not ! ) of said unmanned craft.
Aside from that, it was a poor man's Airport ripoff.
>> > Best T.V.- "Babylon 5"
>>
>> Absa-fraggin'-lutely !
>
> Actually, I've got a new nominee for "Best Episode" -- not an entire
> series, but one particular episode, and that'd be the "Gold Heist
> Thieves Try To Escape Through Time In Suspended Animation Capsules"
> episode of the "Twilight Zone". If you don't remember the plot, I'll
> tease you with the last lines of the play:
>
> "He had a bar of gold in his hand...he held it up to me, as if it were
> worth something..."
> "...sure, before we learned to synthesize it!"
Ah yes, the classic Twilight Zone catch. I loved that story
telling approach so.
Still, I have to say that watching the final episode of B5,
" Sleeping In Light " every time just makes a wreck of me.
And, its been three years.
It was just an amazing trip to follow that story of B5, right
from the start to the very end of it. Such a journey doesn't
come along very often, and it was well worth the trip.
I'm still in awe.
Andre Lieven
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2001 22:34:55 +1000, Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote:
>>> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
>>
>
>
>>> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
>>
>> Armageddon. (Not even internally consistent... close up of both crews
>> on a single gantry, distance shot showing launchpads 1/2 mile apart...)
>
> That's part of the reason I selected it. It's supposed to be dead
> serious yet it's absolutely hillarious.
In that category of worst film, I'd then nominate Independence Day.
Intended as serious and hysterically funny.
>>> Question # 2
>>> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
>>
>> Best is tough. I was never a B5 fan, but I've heard good things
>> about it.
>
> It's never screened in Australia, AFAIK.
Oh man. get someone to send you tapes, and *watch them in strict order*.
Your brain will thank you. Really.
>> I'm a sentimentalist, so I'll go with Science Fiction TV Series with
>> greatest impact: Star Trek. Only 3 seasons, but showed that science
>> fiction could reach the masses.
>
> Me too.
On that level, yes. For sheer story its B5 for me.
>>> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
>>
>> Galactica 2001.
Actually G 1980. Reeked.
> Fortunately never seen it.
*Very* fortunately. Though, the episode with Starbuck stranded
with one Cylon made for some really good lines for the Cylon.
That one was on here ten hours ago.
David Higgins
Peter Stickney wrote:
>
> for that. Offhand, I'd say anything by Dino Delaurentis, unless
> you're on painkillers. (Flash Gordon takes on a whole new persective
> when viewed through Percocet)
While this is OT, try drifting in and out of sleep at 0 dark 30
in the AM, TV blaring in an intensive care room a few hours after
major surgery, and viewing "C'era una volta il West / Once Upon
a Time in the West" for the first time. Major strangeness.
Henry Fonda is the bad guy? I thought I was hallucinating...
My favorite movies don't seem to involve traditional science
fiction. I'm more of a Princess Bride - Anything by Nick Park -
The Usual Suspects - Hudsucker Proxy kind of guy. Whatever pigeon
hole that is. :-)
Christopher M. Jones
> Question #1
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Blade Runner.
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Species 2. If there was a machine that could erase a
memory from your brain, I would use it.
> Question # 2
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
Star Trek: Deep Space 9. This is a really tough desicion
though (aren't they all). Babylon 5 was a bit better as a
whole, but the average episode quality of DS9 was superior.
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
There were so very very many. Luckily I have forgotten most
of them.
--
You want the truth? You can't handle the truth. No truth-handler, you. I deride
your truth-handling abilities!
GOnz
kids
> on the block;
> Two questions:
> In your opinion...
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Contact
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
either Santa Claus meets the Martians or They Saved Hitler's brain
> Question # 2
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
Red Dwarf, without a doubt
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
Buck Rogers
GOnz
OM
wrote:
>It was just an amazing trip to follow that story of B5, right
>from the start to the very end of it. Such a journey doesn't
>come along very often, and it was well worth the trip.
...Except that there's one final part to the last story that JMS
hasn't told yet, and that's how Delenn and Sheridan finally reunite
beyond the Rim. That's a story that deserves to be told.
OM
<fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
>> For what it is worth, Patrick McGoohan has consistently claimed that
>> Secret Agent (the real one, not the brief UPN show of the same name)
>> and The Prisoner are totally separate, and that Number 6 is not John
>> Drake.
>
>But that would be telling...
...On the other hand, quite a number of people on the show's
production and creative staff claim the opposite. It really depends on
how you look at the show, and whether you take certain elements
presented in the various episodes as either clues or coincedences.
OM
...Sir Art actually understood the reason behind the decision. Doug
Trumbull's SFX team at that time couldn't get the rings and Saturn
itself to look good composited on film. What worked for Saturn didn't
work for the rings, and vice versa. Trumbull actually managed to get
things worked out on Saturn, which led to the effects being used on
"Silent Running".
Darren J Longhorn
ROTFL! I gues it's been a long time since I saw it, but it seemed so
cool when I was a kid.
uray
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2001 22:34:55 +1000, Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote:
>>> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
>>
>> Hard to say... but I'd put Silent Running up there, definitely.
>
> Never seen it.
>
>>> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
>>
>> There are so many. I'll go with recent memory and select
>> Armageddon.
>> (Not even internally consistent... close up of both crews on a single
>> gantry, distance shot showing launchpads 1/2 mile apart...)
>
> That's part of the reason I selected it. It's supposed to be dead
> serious yet it's absolutely hillarious.
From the very first scene I viewed Armageddon as a comedy/drama. From
that perspective I found the movie quite entertaining. When told it was
really just a drama and was not meant to be funny I was flabbergasted.
The movie is *filled* with humorous moments. It's got to be a comedy!
uray
Simon Bradshaw
(Patrick Flannery) wrote:
> To all regular contributors; occasional contributors; lurkers; and new
> kids
> on the block;
> Two questions:
> In your opinion...
> Question #1
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Very hard to answer. 2001 is definitely one of the best *attempts* to make
a Really Good SF Movie, although YMMV on how well it succeeds. I very much
like ALIENS as a film that did an unusually competent job of looking and
feeling like decent hard SF.
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Oh, which one to pick from the Turkey Nights we put on at the SF society
when I was a student? ("Warning: Viewing this film before the consumption
of alcohol is strongly inadvisable!") I'd probably have to plump for
either GALAXY OF TERROR, a truly dire sub-ALIEN rip-off, or the infamously
bad LIFEFORCE.
> Question # 2
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
BABYLON 5, as long as you get a bit amnesiac about the fifth season. I'd
also like to put in some honourable mentions, though:
MOONBASE 3 - flawed, but a good effort from 1973 to do 'realistic' drama
with an SF setting.
DR WHO - cursed with a fandom that consider it heresy to even suggest this
series was other than perfect from beginning to end, it was - if you
accept its shortcomings - hugely fun and at times very good indeed.
THE PRISONER - could you imagine this getting made today?
and a special mention for...
REBOOT - watch the episode 'Number 7' and try and tell me that this was
even *pretending* to be a kiddies' programme any more. And you can forget
Lara Croft, Dot Matrix is definitely the Thinking Man's Digital Pin-Up.
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
COME BACK MRS NOAH, a little-known BBC sitcom from the 1970s starring
Mollie Sugden (Mrs Slocombe in ARE YOU BEING SERVED?). Only six 30-minute
episodes, for which we are eternally grateful.
--
*** Simon Bradshaw ***
To avoid my spam-bucket replace 'filter' with 'simon'
John Beaderstadt
> In the video store today, I noticed there is a sequel to Killer
> Tomatoes. Perhaps that one is even worse. Maybe even worse enough to
> be worth watching.
No, it's not. "Attack" was fun, "Return" is just plain ridiculous. It's been
about 10 years since I saw it (a present from Mrs. Beady's mother, if you believe
it), but the general plot was that the tomatoes want to infiltrate the humans so
they genetically engineer one of themselves into a Valley Girl, who promptly
offers Our Hero a blow job (that's the point where Mom left the room). Of
course, true love blooms by the end of the movie, and we have our first
trans-kingdom mating.
--
Beady's 2nd Law of Social Harmonics: "All you get from straddling the fence on an
issue is a sore crotch."
John Beaderstadt
> This is the guy who had the
> spy-lens adapted to a movie camera for shooting candlelight dinners.
Yeah, and it didn't work (at least, not in "Barry Lyndon," my nominee for the
most boring of all movies). The depth-of-field was almost non-existent, so people
would keep going in and out of focus as they leaned forward or back.
Chris Eilbeck
Yeah, the one with Lee Van Cleef where you don't see the monster until
right at the end of the movie and it's a 6ft upturned ice cream cone
with teeth at the bottom on a length of 2x4. It's the movie that
Zappa goes on about in Cheepnis which was the only reason I watched
it. A truly, truly awful movie.
Chris
--
Chris Eilbeck mailto:ch...@yordas.demon.co.uk
MARS Flight Crew http://www.mars.org.uk/
UKRA #1108 Level 1 BSMR
Chris Eilbeck
> > B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
>
> 2001 - from reading all the other posts here, I still believe it's a
> classic example of the Emperor's New Clothes. Perhaps if they'd cut
> down the 20 minutes each (I timed it) of "apes doing nothing"/"star
> ship moving through star field"/"psychedelic coloured patterns", I
> might change my mind that it's the worst.
I never liked 2001 for the reasons you state but it's far from being
the worst scifi ever.
Mike Flugennock
> Mike Flugennock wrote:
> >
> > In article <3C1B3E7A...@bigpond.net.au>, sur...@bigpond.net.au wrote:
> >
> > > Patrick Flannery wrote:
> > > >
> > > > To all regular contributors; occasional contributors; lurkers; and
new kids
> > > > on the block;
> > > > Two questions:
> > > > In your opinion...
> > > > Question #1
> > > > A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
> > >
> > > Blade Runner
> >
> > Man, that picture really ripped ass when I saw the director's cut
> > re-release on the 70mm stereo screen at this great old-time restored movie
> > palace here in DC.
> >
> > (Btw, David, have you seen the really excellent book of Syd Mead design
> > art and sketches for the urban scenes, skylines, architecture and matte
> > paintings for Blade Runner? Yeeow.)
>
> I collect Syd's publications, which are just totally awesome. The man -
> alongside Vangelis - *made* Blade Runner, and his industrial design for
> ships, cars, buildings, theme parks etc have to be seen to be believed.
> Why we're not where he envisages us to be is a sad indictment of the
> ever-increasing conservative streak that is slowly and insidiously
> strangling our society today ... but I digress...
>
> > Still as much ass as was ripped by Blade Runner, I think I have to go with
> > the very-early-age life-changing,
> > ultimate-trip-when-I-was-too-young-for-acid, Kubrick's own "2001". I saw
> > it again, a year ago, worried a bit that it would suddenly seem dated
> > after all this time, but it was still extra sweet. A believable universe,
> > with believable people and believable technology. Plot, characters,
> > fascination, wonderment, philosophy, no dorky aliens, no war in space, no
> > exploding crap, no bullshit. Just "full of stars".
> >
> > My mind is going, I can feel it,
>
> Look - I loved 2001, I really did. It was a masterpiece. The whole film
> - every frame of it - was superbly crafted, and watching it in the
> submersive environment of a theatre was an astounding experience. It is,
> though, a seriously flawed masterpiece, and both Kubrik and Clarke knew
> it. For a significant percentage of the audiences, much of it made
> little to no sense, which is sad because many of the pieces to that
> puzzle are there for the interpreting. It took Clarke to publish a
> novelization for many people to realize and even understand some pretty
> fundamental elements and messages in the film. In this regard, Kubrik as
> storyteller failed dismally...
Hmm, welllll, yes and no. Guess it depends who you are and what
expectations you go in with.
My wife isn't impressed with "2001" at all, and constantly needles me
about my enthusiasm for it, scoffing over what she calls "...yeah, yeah,
birth, life, death, rebirth, consciousness, yeah, yeah..." She's also more
of a stickler for traditional linear storytelling in a film. From a rather
young age, however, _I've_ always been fascinated with films that tell
their stories in something other than a "normal" fashion.
When I first saw "2001", at the age of 11, it was in the context of a
"cool space movie" (I'd flipped over all the pre-release stuff in Life
Magazine, and had spent the previous 4 or 5 years watching Gemini missions
on TV, and Apollo 8 was still fresh in my brain), and the fact that the
story was told in a really really weird fashion was something I had to
struggle with, a bit, but I got _enough_ of it to sort of "get" it, and
besides, what really held me that first time was the _imagery_.
It took repeated viewings throughout adolescence to understand the plot
more and, at a ST Con in DC in the mid'70s, at the traditional all-night
film screenings at the hotel's auditorium, the plot finally "clicked".
> From a more personal standpoint, I was disappointed in the depictions of
> the Earth in the movie. The mattes of Earth were created at a time when
> photography of the Earth from space was available courtesy of the Gemini
> program, and yet what they ended up with was not all that dissimilar to
> earlier depictions of Earth, made without the benefit of LEO photography
> - i.e. washed out, greenish, flat, and with a sharp horizon. Kubrik had
> an unrivalled opportunity to show the Earth from space in an
> unprecedented way - the way it really is - and he blew it...
What you may want to consider, though, is how much lead time Kubrick had
to create things like matte art and such. Iirc, he began work on that
picture in 1964 or so -- possibly even before the first Gemini mission --
and he may well have experimented with fotos in the portrayal of the Earth
from orbit; given the attention he showed to things like "look and feel"
and types of film stock, he may have found the appearance of the LEO fotos
too grainy or too flat or just looking too much like a photograph than the
Earth itself.
>
> To me, Blade Runner has its many flaws too, but so many of those are
> read into the film by people trying to find meaning where there is none
> (or is one but is ignored). Ridley Scott crafted his film on a multitude
> of levels that guaranteed it as important a place in film history as
> Kubrik's magnum opus, IMHO, but its impact was lessened somewhat by the
> plethora of sf material bombarding audiences by that time (compare with
> the quantity of sf films around when 2001 was presented)...
Good point. "Blade Runner" came out at a time when our brains were being
pounded to death with Star Wars and Return Of The Jedi and Clash Of The
Titans and Battlestar Galactica and Space:1999.
...And, this sort of leads me back to Kubrick, and his dystopian sci-fi of
"Clockwork Orange". Iirc it takes place roughly in the same time-frame as
the "2001" story, and almost seems to me a companion piece of sorts to
"2001", almost like a "meanwhile, back on Earth" story, what's going on
back home while Cdr. Bowman is eating his fresh hot scrambled-egg paste
and watching 18-minute-delayed telecasts of the morning news.
>
> ...How I feel about any film is often affected by my own mood
> when I see it and what happens around it (there's that 'context' issue
> coming up again). I can't re-watch some films because of their
> association with events that have happened in my own life at that time,
> and I imagine this applies to most people out there *regardless of how
> good that film might be*...
I really had to drag my ass out reluctantly to see "Blade Runner" as, it
being the early '80s, life around me was beginning to appear as if it were
all-too-solidly headed in the direction of the stinking, polluted,
miserable-ass vision of Ridley Scott, and the last thing I felt I needed
was several hours of stinking, polluted, oppressive, dystopic sci-fi. Glad
I saw it, though, really really glad. Going back again to see the
Director's Cut re-release 6 or 7 years ago made me even gladder.
--
"...you were caught with your hands in the till
but you still got to swallow your pill
as you slip and you slide down the hill
on the blood of the people you killed!" --John Lennon.
_______________________________________________________________
Mike Flugennock, flugennock at sinkers dot org
Mike Flugennock's Mikey'zine, http://www.sinkers.org
Mike Flugennock
KevinWi...@NoSpamacm.org wrote:
> Mike Flugennock wrote:
>
> >In article <3c1b6e3c....@news.rcn.com>,
> >KevinWi...@NoSpamacm.org wrote:
> >> Until I saw 2001 on a big
> >> screen, I had thought that rendezvous and docking was an exercise in
> >> physics, not choreography.
> >
> >Interesting, your mention of rendezvous and choreography; in a lot of
> >texts I've read describing the development and evolution of rendezvous and
> >docking technique and physics often invoke a dance to describe what
> >happens -- especially when you consider the moves a Shuttle has to make on
> >approach to Mir or ISS.
>
> Thinking of it as choreography finally made it clear to my why pilots
> like McDivitt and Young had such trouble with rendezvous in Gemini.
> (uh oh, an on-topic reference - is that another 10 yard penalty?) They
> flew as pilots, knowing that if you thrust towards the thing, you get
> closer to thing. The idea of backing off to get closer is not
> elementary physics, but dance...
I had a hard time grokking that one, too, until I went backward to launch,
and noted that the faster you left, the higher orbit you could reach --
and so, the more you step on the gas in orbit, the closer you get to
escape velocity, and the harder you brake, the closer you get to Earth.
Then, of course, there's that line you cross when you're close enough to
your target that things revert back to the old "go faster, get closer"
conditions.
> >> >B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
> >>
> >> If you consider what you get for the amount of hype and budget, then
> >> Phantom Menace is clearly the worst.
> >
> >Haven't you heard? There are _no_writers_left_ in Hollywood anymore. None.
> >This was confirmed after they started making re-makes of pictures that had
> >no business being re-made, pictures which I'd totally forgotten about and
> >deserved to stay forgotten.
>
> Don't forget the TV shows which had no business being made, much less
> re-made into movies. When I walked I walked out of Charlie's Angels,
> my only comment was "well, it was loud". It is only a matter of time
> before we see "My Mother the Car: The Movie".
Shhhh, don't even _think_ that. In 1975, when the disco plague first broke
out, disco covers of old pop songs all over the place, nothing sacred it
seemed, I joked with a friend that the next thing would be a disco version
of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. Hah, dumb-ass me.
I often wish I were in a position to write/direct a film of my own
choosing, so that I could do a vicious parody of cheesy-assed lame movie
re-makes of equally cheesy-assed lame old TV shows. I'm thinking "Leave It
To Beaver, TNG".
> For what it is worth, Patrick McGoohan has consistently claimed that
> Secret Agent (the real one, not the brief UPN show of the same name)
> and The Prisoner are totally separate, and that Number 6 is not John
> Drake.
Hah, interesting. In those opening scenes over the theme, iirc, we see
McGoohan resigning from the MI6, or MI5, or whatever number England was
calling it then, and we also see him driving the same model of car (some
open-wheel custom British hot-rod I recall from a late episode of "Secret
Agent").
Mike Flugennock
<gle...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> > Question # 2
>
> > A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
>
> Red Dwarf, without a doubt
Damn, I've heard so much about that, and _still_ haven't caught it. They
carried it on the BBC America channel over here for a while, but I'm not
sure it's in the schedule right now. I really should've pried my wife away
from the TV for that. I remember the trailers were a hoot...
..."Go to Red Alert!"
"Did you say 'Red Alert'? That would necessitate
changing the bulbs, sir."
Mike Flugennock
uray <ur...@remove-att.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2001 17:28:59 -0600, David Findlay wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 15 Dec 2001 22:34:55 +1000, Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote:
> >>> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
> >>
> >> Hard to say... but I'd put Silent Running up there, definitely.
> >
> > Never seen it...
Excellent. Really, really excellent. First "dystopian" sci-fi I'd seen,
and still loved it.
Mike Flugennock
fil...@sjbradshaw.cix.co.uk wrote:
>
> > B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
>
> Oh, which one to pick from the Turkey Nights we put on at the SF society
> when I was a student? ("Warning: Viewing this film before the consumption
> of alcohol is strongly inadvisable!")
Actually, I could almost introduce a sub-category here, and that is
Best Bad Sci-Fi Of All Time To View Under The Influence, and in this
category, I'd have to nominate Edward D. Wood Jr.'s "Plan Nine From Outer
Space" as an absolute must-see with a fat joint and an ice-cold beer.
And, as a runner-up in this category, I'd like to offer "Mars Needs
Women", also a delight after a drag or two.
> > B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
>
> COME BACK MRS NOAH, a little-known BBC sitcom from the 1970s starring
> Mollie Sugden (Mrs Slocombe in ARE YOU BEING SERVED?). Only six 30-minute
> episodes, for which we are eternally grateful...
Actually, not to be heretical here, but here I want to nominate a Worst
Individual Episode, and that would have to be ST:TOS's "Assignment:
Earth". Once again, as I'd been spoiled with several years of viewing
actual Gemini launches, and Apollo 7, "Assignment: Earth" turned out to be
a total lamer for its portrayal of 20th-century space technology. I don't
recall _anything_ looking really "right" in that one, let alone the fact
that it was obviously an episode shot late in the season when the effex
budget was tight.
Christopher M. Jones
> From the very first scene I viewed Armageddon as a comedy/drama. From
> that perspective I found the movie quite entertaining. When told it was
> really just a drama and was not meant to be funny I was flabbergasted.
>
> The movie is *filled* with humorous moments. It's got to be a comedy!
Ugh, don't get me started on Armageddon. It's not even really a
movie until the last 40 minutes. And that despite it being
nearly 2 and a half farking hours long. Excruciating in its
banality of lameness doesn't even begin to describe it.
--
"And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.
davebananna
> Question #1
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Blade Runner - just incredibly cool. 'Nuff said.
Contact- Wasn't dumbed down too badly for the masses.
Planet of the Apes (original) - still gives me chills.
Rollerball - Very flawed (the parts between the games), but also very good (the
games themselves)
Silent Running - A childhood favorite, and the "Valley Forge" is still one of
my favorite spaceships.
2001 - just is..
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Anybody remember "Saturn 3", a late 70s piece of crap with Kirk Douglas and
Farrah Fawcett?
Planet of the Apes (Tim Burton version) - a let down in every sense of the
word.
> Question # 2
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
Star Trek(s).... TNG, DS9 are faves....never cared much for
Voyager....Enterprise is looking promising.
X-Files - hate the mythology episodes now, however, when they did comedy
episodes, it was the best.
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
Just about everything else.
Richard Glueck
I yield on all accounts, and particularly endorse "My mother the car", which was
among the lowest television experiences ever embraced by the public. Pure
crappola.
What's your take on the original series of "Lost in Space"? I found it
endearing at the time, advanced above the usual junk, and kitschy to a fault. I
particualrly like how each week, they let Dr. Smith back on the spacecraft even
though he tried to kill them all, sell the children, prostitute the eldest
daughter, destroy the robot, etc. Somehow it was always in their good hearts to
take him back. "Oh, the pain!"
Richard Glueck
> >> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
> >
> >ever made.
Wait a second, I just remembered "Nudest Colony of the Dead". Theme song is
a regular on Dr. Demento, and qualifies for that alone.
Christopher M. Jones
duplicates)
"Patrick Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
> Question #1
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Blade Runner.
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Species 2. If there was a machine that could erase a
memory from your brain, I would use it.
> Question # 2
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
Star Trek: Deep Space 9. This is a really tough desicion
though (aren't they all). Babylon 5 was a bit better as a
whole, but the average episode quality of DS9 was superior.
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
There were so very very many. Luckily I have forgotten most
OM
<glu...@saturn.caps.maine.edu> wrote:
>I yield on all accounts, and particularly endorse "My mother the car", which was
>among the lowest television experiences ever embraced by the public. Pure
>crappola.
...However, the scary part about that show was that the demographics
were *perfect* if your target audience was between the ages of 5 and
13. Had "My Mother, The Car" been aimed at kids, it would have stayed
on for years.
>What's your take on the original series of "Lost in Space"? I found it
>endearing at the time, advanced above the usual junk, and kitschy to a fault. I
>particualrly like how each week, they let Dr. Smith back on the spacecraft even
>though he tried to kill them all, sell the children, prostitute the eldest
>daughter, destroy the robot, etc. Somehow it was always in their good hearts to
>take him back. "Oh, the pain!"
...The first half of the first season was closer to the original
premise - a family lost in an alien environment, struggling to
survive. The problem there was twofold: one, the title of the show
wasn't exactly being true to itself, as the Robinsons were not lost in
space, but stuck on a planet. It might as well have been "Gilligan's
Island in Space". The other was that somewhere along the line Irwin
Allen got this notion that the show was too serious, and that it
should gain a lot more humor. This became further compounded by March
of 1966, halfway through the show's first season, when "Batman"
premeried and every show on TV suddenly had to have a camp humor
element of some sort.
...From those departure points, a good, serious sci-fi series became
"As you last recall, we left Will, Smith and the Robot...", and with a
few exceptions that's the way it stayed until the show suffocated on
itself. Irwin teased us with the first couple of shows in season two,
when the first planet they landed on blew up and the ship *almost*
returned to Earth, but by the third episode they were stuck back on
another planet for the rest of the season. By the third season they
were doing a bit more travelling, and some of the scripts actually
improved, but the majority of the plots were more concentrated on the
"Will-Smith-Robot" formula than ever. Had See-BS renewed the series
for a fourth season(*), Irwin went on record before his death that
said concentration would have increased even moreso.
...One other side note about the character of Smith: Irwin, at a
convention he attended not long before his death in 1991 - ironically
a month after Gene Roddenberry, and all but unnoted by the press -
admitted that he had one rational explanation as to why Smith went
from being a murderous slimebag to a chickenshit poofter. Remember
when the J2 lifted off the first time with Smith on board? Remember
that the ship was glowing? Seems that the drive systems gave off some
harmful side effects that, while not harmful to the Robinsons' in
their freezing tubes, sort of fried Smith's brain. It simply took a
few episodes for the damage to take effect, and in the meantime Dr.
Robinson found the drive problem and fixed it so the entire crew
didn't get fried as well. This also explains why they never let Don
West just simply void Smith into space and be done with him - he was
now a cripple, and you're supposed to show mercy unto the infirm.
(*) There's been some speculation behind See-BS' cancellation of the
show. Although lower-than-desired ratings were the given reason, there
have been rumors that some execs wanted the series to go back to its
roots and be more serious, while Irwin flatly refused. Go figure.
Cheryl Martin
Andre Lieven <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
[SNIP]
>It was just an amazing trip to follow that story of B5, right
>from the start to the very end of it. Such a journey doesn't
>come along very often, and it was well worth the trip.
>
>I'm still in awe.
But wait, there's more. Make sure you catch the movie/pilot "B5
Legend of the Rangers". With any luck we'll get another great
series. It airs in the US on January 19. I have no idea when it'll be
shown elsewhere.
Cheryl
--
% This post brought to you by the letter "Z" and the number 42 %
% Cheryl L Martin %
% Moderator: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, soc.personals %
% http://www.grumpywitch.org %
OM
<be...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Kevin Willoughby wrote:
>
>> This is the guy who had the
>> spy-lens adapted to a movie camera for shooting candlelight dinners.
>
>Yeah, and it didn't work (at least, not in "Barry Lyndon," my nominee for the
>most boring of all movies). The depth-of-field was almost non-existent, so people
>would keep going in and out of focus as they leaned forward or back.
...Ah, "Borey Lyndon". Kubrick did admit that his use of that spy lens
wasn't one of his better ideas. Looked good on paper, but as Beady
states the depth-of-field was almost totally lost. The technique's
good for spy photography in low light, but as most espionage footage
isn't going to be presented in 70mm WS format, quality isn't of the
most importance.
Doug...
kids
> on the block;
> Two questions:
> In your opinion...
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Hmmm... there are sub-categories:
Best SF/Comedy Film: "Back to the Future"
Best Alternate Time Lines SF Film: "Sliding Doors"
Best Space Opera: "Star Wars Episode Four: A New Hope"
Best Film Adaptation of a Book: "Lathe of Heaven"
...and many others I'm sure I will think of later.
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
Worst SF Film of All Time: "Plan Nine from Outer Space" Nothing else comes
close.
> Question # 2
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
Again, there are categories:
Best Socio-Political SF: "Babylon 5"
Best Space Opera/General SF: "Star Trek: The Next Generation"
Most Innovative Time-Travel SF: "Quantum Leap"
> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
There are a few:
Worst Overall SF TV Series: "Space: 1999"
Worst TV Space Opera: Tie between "Battlestar Galactica" and "Buck Rogers"
Worst TV SF Comedy: "Quark"
Worst TV SF Producer: Irwin Allen (none of his efforts, including "Voyage
to the Bottom of the Sea," "Land of the Giants" or "The Time Tunnel" were
the overall worst, but they all vie for next-worst).
Doug
Kevin Willoughby
>> 2001, no question. My favourite film of all time - having only seen it
>> on TV for the last few years my loyalty was starting to wane, but
>> earlier this year I caught the rerelease on the big screen - pristine
>> 70mm print which blew me away all over again.
>
>Any word from the gang about where this is playing ? Anywhere in the NYC
>area, perhaps ?
Probably, but the location hasn't been nailed down yet. Lurk in
rec.arts.movies.tech. Those guys are keeping a close eye on this
print, its location and its condition. When the NYC schedule is known,
those guys will let you know.
--
Kevin Willoughby KevinWi...@NoSpamacm.orgXX
I propose we leave math to the machines
and go play outside. -- Calvin
Kevin Willoughby
>> For what it is worth, Patrick McGoohan has consistently claimed that
>> Secret Agent (the real one, not the brief UPN show of the same name)
>> and The Prisoner are totally separate, and that Number 6 is not John
>> Drake.
>
>Hah, interesting. In those opening scenes over the theme, iirc, we see
>McGoohan resigning from the MI6, or MI5, or whatever number England was
>calling it then, and we also see him driving the same model of car (some
>open-wheel custom British hot-rod I recall from a late episode of "Secret
>Agent").
The car was a Lotus-7, a cheap, leathly fast little car. There is
still a version of it available today, as a kit.
In the resignation scene, the ID badge that is X'ed out and filed is
John Drake's.
They cynic says the reason McGoohan has consistently insisted that
Number 6 isn't John Drake is to avoid paying royalities to the owners
of Secret Agent / Danger Man.
Doug...
news:3C1BEBF1...@bigpond.net.au...
>
>
>
> Look - I loved 2001, I really did. It was a masterpiece. The whole film
> - every frame of it - was superbly crafted, and watching it in the
> submersive environment of a theatre was an astounding experience. It is,
> though, a seriously flawed masterpiece, and both Kubrik and Clarke knew
> it. For a significant percentage of the audiences, much of it made
> little to no sense, which is sad because many of the pieces to that
> puzzle are there for the interpreting. It took Clarke to publish a
> novelization for many people to realize and even understand some pretty
> fundamental elements and messages in the film. In this regard, Kubrik as
> storyteller failed dismally.
I've had this argument many, many times with a few people who worship 2001.
My final statement on it is that 2001 is a truly beautiful piece of work,
but fails miserably as narrative film.
To my mind, though, Kubrick never aspired to be a great storyteller. I
think "A.I." is probably a perfect example of Kubrick's view of film as an
art form (even though Spielberg had to actually make the film, he did it as
a loving homage to everything Kubrick would have wanted to do with it). It
does not really tell or resolve a story; it simply paints a picture of
fleeting human joy and its overarching misery.
Doug
Gordon Davie
news:9vhhej$lpr$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> "Gordon Davie" (g.d...@btinternet.com) writes:
> > Patrick Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
> >> B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME?
> >
> > A little harder to pick just one. But I'd probably go for 'Starflight
> > One', a TV movie which was released theatrically in the UK. Concerned
> > a planeload of passengers stranded in orbit being rescued by a Shuttle
> > which made several round trips.
>
> Oh lord, they did that to you folks over the Pond ? That was a TV
> movie this side, and boy did it blow goats !
I saw it during a trip to London - there were literally three other people
in the audience. Later the same day I saw 'Airplane II', which I thought was
extremely realistic in comparison!
> Consider... a hypersonic LA-to-Tokyo plane whose engines stick
> open and put it into a low orbit.... east to west !
>
> They did an EVA transfer of a passenger with said passenger in a
> *coffin* !
>
> And, they did re-entry with an unmanned shuttle shaped thing
> flying just ahead, so that Starflight One could ride in the
> wake of the shuttle thingy's heat shield.
>
> Oiy !
I'd forgotten the retrograde orbit but remembered the coffin transfer. There
was also a scene with passengers crossing to the rescue craft through a long
flexible tube - clearly under gravity at the time as they were *walking*
along!
And while I remembered the shuttle flying ahead so the airliner could ride
in its wake, I'd forgotten that it was unmanned - I couldn't work out why it
couldn't take the passengers back to Earth. That makes more sense, if I can
use that phrase in connection with this film.
BTW, anybody who thinks we should have posted a spoiler warning before
discussing so many of the plot points - forget it; nothing could spoil this
film as much as the script did!
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God"
Gordon Davie
news:flv43nn0zk-15...@paste.sinkers.org...> > 2001: A Space Odyssey is the best movie. No need to qualify it with
> > the "science fiction" adjective.
> >
> > Kubrick's use of music is masterful - he had an original score
> > composed for the movie, but when he head the work prints using
> > Strauss' music, he did what was right. Until I saw 2001 on a big
> > screen, I had thought that rendezvous and docking was an exercise in
> > physics, not choreography.
>
> that's a new one on me.
By Alexander North, who also did 'Spartacus', among others. It came out on
CD a few years back - it's interesting to watch 2001 with the sound off
while playing the appropriate track on the CD (the tracks aren't in the
order that the scenes appear in the film).
uray
> "uray" <ur...@remove-att.net> wrote:
>> From the very first scene I viewed Armageddon as a comedy/drama. From
>> that perspective I found the movie quite entertaining. When told it was
>> really just a drama and was not meant to be funny I was flabbergasted.
>>
>> The movie is *filled* with humorous moments. It's got to be a comedy!
>
> Ugh, don't get me started on Armageddon. It's not even really a movie
> until the last 40 minutes. And that despite it being nearly 2 and a
> half farking hours long. Excruciating in its banality of lameness
> doesn't even begin to describe it.
>
You had the wrong perspective, should've watched it as a comedy/drama
like I did. If I had watched it as a Sci-Fi/Drama I would probally have
flicked it off within a half hour.
uray
Mike Flugennock
KevinWi...@NoSpamacm.org wrote:
> Mike Flugennock wrote:
> >> For what it is worth, Patrick McGoohan has consistently claimed that
> >> Secret Agent (the real one, not the brief UPN show of the same name)
> >> and The Prisoner are totally separate, and that Number 6 is not John
> >> Drake.
> >
> >Hah, interesting. In those opening scenes over the theme, iirc, we see
> >McGoohan resigning from the MI6, or MI5, or whatever number England was
> >calling it then, and we also see him driving the same model of car (some
> >open-wheel custom British hot-rod I recall from a late episode of "Secret
> >Agent").
>
> The car was a Lotus-7, a cheap, leathly fast little car. There is
> still a version of it available today, as a kit...
Ah, so _that's_ what the hell that was. Thanks.
uray
> To all regular contributors; occasional contributors; lurkers; and new
> kids on the block;
> Two questions:
> In your opinion...
> Question #1
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE OF ALL TIME? B) WORST SCIENCE FICTION
> MOVIE OF ALL TIME? Question # 2
> A) BEST SCIENCE FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME? B) WORST SCIENCE
> FICTION T.V. SERIES OF ALL TIME?
Considering all the changes in technology those can be hard questions to
answer. Do I judge movies by the movie tech available at the time or by
today's standards?
Compensating for technology and genre changes I would say:
Best movie: Forbidden Planet
Worst movie: (The comment about septic tanks is appropriate)
Best Series: Star Trek (original)
Worst Series: (the septic tank again) Space 1999
Not compensating:
Best Movie: 2010
Worst Movie: (Still in the septic tank)
Best Series: Star Trek the Next Generation
Worst Series: Space 1999 (still)
I'm not into war movies or
Henry Spencer
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) <moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
>So Henry, what are YOUR answers.
I'm actually not the best person to ask, since I'm not much of a moviegoer
and haven't owned a TV for a decade now (and didn't watch the one I had
before that).
So instead I'm going to be difficult and suggest some changes in rules.
The issue should be *space* movies and TV, not general SF. This is
sci.space, after all, not rec.arts.sf. And space should be significant to
the plot -- if it's set on Mars, it should *matter* that the background is
Mars. For example, "Alien" and "Aliens" are good, but they are monster
movies, with only very incidental space elements; you could set them on
cargo ships in the Pacific, and the airlock scene in Aliens would be about
the only thing that would need substantial revision.
I don't insist on rigorous adherence to all known facts, but I do insist
that people actually make an effort to learn the basics and avoid
*gratuitously* getting things wrong. Some suspension of disbelief may
well be needed, but aside from a halfway-plausible new assumption or
three, the story should be set in this universe, not an imaginary one
where the astronomy and physics change to suit the whims of the director.
Ignorance is pardonable, but only so long as it's not the result of gross
stupidity. I'll buy a breathable atmosphere on Mars only if the movie is
old enough that we didn't know for sure then.
As I noted in the discussion of "Silent Running", I think we should insist
that the stories hold up as stories, not just as sequences of visuals.
They shouldn't be idiot plots (idiot plot, n: a plot which works only if
all the characters are idiots); I'm afraid that does disqualify Silent
Running.
And I'm also going to be a bit of a Philistine and insist that a story is
supposed to entertain. That doesn't necessarily mean a happy ending; the
audience might come out concerned or thoughtful rather than smiling. But
they shouldn't be baffled or muttering about being ripped off... and yes,
I'm talking about "2001: A Space Odyssey", which would have been
immeasurably improved (especially for the folks who hadn't read the book)
by a few sentences of voice-over commentary in the final scenes.
For best movie, I think I'd nominate either "Forbidden Planet" or
"Apollo 13". For TV, I haven't seen much "Babylon 5" but I've been
impressed by what I have seen.
No specific nominations for worst movie. For worst TV, "Space 1999"
has to be near the top of the list.
--
Many things changed on Sept. 11, but the | Henry Spencer he...@spsystems.net
importance of freedom did not. -SpaceNews| (aka he...@zoo.toronto.edu)
uray
Oops... Wrong button. As I was saying...
I'm not into war movies or political action dramas, which many of the rest
of the movies/shows are, therefore they don't rank high with me.
uray
Mike Flugennock
While we're on the subject of Kubrick's vision of Earth viewed by the
Space Station in "2001", I suggest y'all cast your eyeballs on
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-108/lores/s108e5624.jpg
and cue up the Strauss.
It's a digital foto downlinked from STS108 just yesterday, after undocking
from ISS. All you folks out there, who, like myself, _still_ have our
paperback novel version of "2001" by Clarke lying around, why not pull
that sucker out right now and take a good look at that back cover art, and
the first image on the first page of stills from the film.
Now, it's probably due to the "time of day" on Earth in the STS108 image,
but I thought the color and texture of clouds, water and shadow came
remarkably close to the Earth in the back cover art, and at least matches
in tonality the still inside (even though they're reproduced in b&w).
David Sander
>
> In article <w4OS7.5515$Fu6.2...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com>,
> Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) <moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
> >So Henry, what are YOUR answers.
>
> I'm actually not the best person to ask, since I'm not much of a moviegoer
> and haven't owned a TV for a decade now (and didn't watch the one I had
> before that).
So *that* explains it.
Folks: here's the secret to success, intelligence and having time enough
on your hands to read books that actually elucidate: TURN OFF YOUR TVs :-)
David
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Henry Spencer" <he...@spsystems.net> wrote in message
news:GoGF2...@spsystems.net...
> In article <w4OS7.5515$Fu6.2...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com>,
> Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) <moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
> >So Henry, what are YOUR answers.
>
> I'm actually not the best person to ask, since I'm not much of a moviegoer
> and haven't owned a TV for a decade now (and didn't watch the one I had
> before that).
>
That explains why he has so much time on his tentacles.
> So instead I'm going to be difficult and suggest some changes in rules.
>
> The issue should be *space* movies and TV, not general SF.
Agreed, that tends to narrow things down dramactically.
> This is
> sci.space, after all, not rec.arts.sf. And space should be significant to
> the plot -- if it's set on Mars, it should *matter* that the background is
> Mars. For example, "Alien" and "Aliens" are good, but they are monster
> movies, with only very incidental space elements; you could set them on
> cargo ships in the Pacific, and the airlock scene in Aliens would be about
> the only thing that would need substantial revision.
This is why I didn't include them on my original list. And you're
right.
>
> I don't insist on rigorous adherence to all known facts, but I do insist
> that people actually make an effort to learn the basics and avoid
> *gratuitously* getting things wrong. Some suspension of disbelief may
> well be needed, but aside from a halfway-plausible new assumption or
> three, the story should be set in this universe, not an imaginary one
> where the astronomy and physics change to suit the whims of the director.
I disagree here. I'm willing to watch "alternate" physics as long as
they remain consistent with in the movie. On reason I'm not a big fan of
Star Trek any more. They keep setting up rules, and then breaking them.
And it's one reason I couldn't stand Armageddon. Within the movie itself it
didn't make sense. (See my rant about the gantry.)
> Ignorance is pardonable, but only so long as it's not the result of gross
> stupidity. I'll buy a breathable atmosphere on Mars only if the movie is
> old enough that we didn't know for sure then.
I think you're being too nitpicky. I'll buy one if it's set in the far
future when it's apparent terraforming is a possibility. Again, it has to
be internally consistent. If the movie is assuming a voyage to Mars
today... then yes, I'd agree.
>
> As I noted in the discussion of "Silent Running", I think we should insist
> that the stories hold up as stories, not just as sequences of visuals.
> They shouldn't be idiot plots (idiot plot, n: a plot which works only if
> all the characters are idiots); I'm afraid that does disqualify Silent
> Running.
I'm not sure I agree here regarding Silent Running. As for idiot plot,
there's also what my friends and I call "D&D player character mode". I.e.
the characters should be resourceful. Nothing is more frustrating when
seeing characters act stupid just to advance the plot. One reason I
actually stopped watching "The Rock" on tape. It was obvious that the Woo
had gotten himself into a dilemma and had to get rid of the special forces
team. I mean, during the fire fight in the shower, you never once see them
try to actually go for the door and get OUT of there. And this is one
reason I DID like Aliens (science-fiction or otherwise). The characters
acted as you'd expect. They were obvious trained Marines. They knew
teamwork, leadership, etc. (Heck, I always thought they should have made a
prequel or two that showed the team on a few bug hunts BEFORE they met
Riply.)
>
> And I'm also going to be a bit of a Philistine and insist that a story is
> supposed to entertain. That doesn't necessarily mean a happy ending; the
> audience might come out concerned or thoughtful rather than smiling. But
> they shouldn't be baffled or muttering about being ripped off... and yes,
> I'm talking about "2001: A Space Odyssey", which would have been
> immeasurably improved (especially for the folks who hadn't read the book)
> by a few sentences of voice-over commentary in the final scenes.
I'm not sure what sort of voice-over would have made sense. But yes,
here I definitely agree that it just wan't fulfilling to the masses.
I note no one has mentioned Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
Definitely on my list. And again, a "wonderous" ending, but no one I know
really left complaining.
>
> For best movie, I think I'd nominate either "Forbidden Planet" or
> "Apollo 13". For TV, I haven't seen much "Babylon 5" but I've been
> impressed by what I have seen.
I just can't agree with Apollo 13 as it's not really fiction. If you
simply leave it as a "space related movie" category, then yes. One of those
that I still get chills watching... between the direction and James Horner's
music (the launch sequence is amazing) and the ending. Sure, we all know
how it's going to turn out. But we DO feel the tension of Mission Control,
right up until we here Lovell's, "Houston, Apollo 13, over."
(Actually the moment that does it for me is the final line from the CM:
"Houston, Apollo 13 signging off.)
But, it's not fiction (granted a few scenes may be.)
>
> No specific nominations for worst movie. For worst TV, "Space 1999"
> has to be near the top of the list.
I think I'm glad I was born a few years too late. ;-)