Re: [mythsoc] RotK Theory
- Original Message:
From: David S. Bratman dbratman@...
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 10:02:20 -0700
Subject: Re: [mythsoc] RotK Theory
><< What's so amazing today about "2001" is how _little_ it has dated. OK,
>Don't remember the last one. "Dark Star" was a comedy, right? Or am I
>remembering wrong? "2001" was indeed a great SF film, though the
>hallucinogenic interlude at the end feels dated for me, now---not the
>events that happen, but all the colors and "psychedelic" FX. I suppose
>that can't be helped.
the psychedelic "look at the colors, man" scene flunks out, but the rest of
the movie is amazing: the sfx are as good as anything done today, and the
cool approach Kubrick brings to his storytelling is even more utterly
refreshing, in today's action-flick environment, than it was then.>>
I agree; the set furniture (on the Moonbase) looks modern even now and
those stark colors are visually striking. An example of the way Kubrick
brings in personal relationships and small moments---one reason I enjoy the
film so much. The collegial atmosphere between the Russian and American
scientists is brilliantly rendered, and the awkward silence punctuating
that dialogue is riveting; says all that needs to be said. Amother small
moment: the floating pen; the way the stewardess (which she is, though
it's a space-going vessel) matter-of-factly tucks it in. These are not the
only moments---only a few among a long string which makes this film both
SFnal and fine storytelling on realistic grounds.
<< "Dark Star" was an early 1970s comedy about four guys who'd been living
a spaceship together for 20 years. The sfx were terrible, but unlike
"2001" this film wasn't about that. What I liked about it was its
ruthlessly funny evocation of what life in space would really be like. One
of the Gemini astronauts described his spacecraft as "an orbiting men's
room": "Dark Star" captures that, and the tensions of communal living. And
oh, that pet alien. >>
I really should see that one again; I remember liking it very much when I
saw it long ago, but details have grown fuzzy. I did remember the
essentials, though! Reassurring to know my memory's working!
<< "The Man in the White Suit" was an Ealing comedy of the early 1950s,
starring Alec Guinness as a mild-mannered scientist who invents an
indestructable fabric. The film is not about the science, it's about the
social changes and distresses caused by the invention. That's what real SF
is about: the social effect of technological change. This film is
outstanding because it's one of the few SF films ever made that could have
been published as a cutting-edge story in one of the top SF magazines of
I know I haven't seen that one. Must look it up.
<< Most SF films are about 40 years behind the times in subject and
fictional technique. "Star Wars", for instance, as a story would have been
laughably retro any time after about 1935. "Star Trek" the original series
was considered very up-to-date because its stories were only about 15 years
behind the times in those terms. >>
You're right; that's because Hollywood in general plays it safe,
especially now, when film budgets are so huge. They have to make back so
much money on the first weekend or the suits aren't happy. I expect that
trend will continue. ---djb
The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
- At 07:09 PM 5/16/2003 , Ernest wrote:
>It hardly matters anyway, because the plot of _Forbidden Planet_,Yes.
>although obviously derivative from _The Tempest_, is not the same as that
>of _The Tempest_ except in its broadest outlines.
>Yes, E. E. Smith's prose was preciously purple, but is it really _bad_?Bad can still be enjoyable. I know people who enjoy this stuff, but mostly
>I think it's quite enjoyable, in truth.
because they read it in impressionable youth. That doesn't make it any
>I honestly prefer Doc Smith's heavily stylized but exciting pulp styleThat might be in large part because it would be shorter and punchier if Doc
>to the styles that are in vogue today. I think I might have actually
>finished (say) _Moving Mars_ if Doc Smith had written it.
Smith wrote it. Not for the quality of the prose. SF prose today may well
be, as you say, largely mediocre: but mediocre is still much better than bad.
>If you want bad writing, try rereading _Foundation_ or its successorsI've re-read the Foundation books, and I've re-read SF from the 30s. The
>again. Oy! Asimov at his best was top-notch--I'll put "The Dead Past"
>on the list of best short stories I've read, SF or no--but he was rarely
>at his best.
Foundation books' prose, while still pulpish, is a significant advance over
the typical 30s product. I agree that it's hardly worth holding up to
praise, either, and Asimov himself in later life would not have done so.
How to identify Asimov's better fictional prose: 1) he wrote it after 1950
[that eliminates the original Foundation books, which despite their
copyright dates were written & published in the 1940s]; 2) he did not write
it at the behest of his publishers [that eliminates the dreadful late
novels, which were all written because the publishers wanted new novels
from him, as well as various lame series fiction]. His best fiction was
some (not all) of his 1950s novels, and much of his stand-alone short
fiction from circa 1950 onwards.
The Niven piece on teleportion is "The Theory and Practice of
Teleportation", in his 1971 paperback collection _All the Myriad Ways_, but
probably not elsewhere. The ideas he discusses in this essay he put to use
in a story a couple years later titled "Flash Crowd" (in his 1973 pb
collection _The Flight of the Horse_, and probably elsewhere). This story
is now considered somewhat prescient, as "flash crowd" is now an
established term for crowds of people who form on extremely short notice,
through word of mouth (spread not by teleporter but cell phone) where
something interesting is happening.
- David Bratman