70's Sci Fi films (1 Viewer)

[Jack Briggs]

You know, Walter, it's interesting that it was Ellison himself who made those changes from his novella for the film. I saw the world premier of it at the 1974 World Science Fiction Convention in Washington D.C. -- and it was the only work print in existence at that particular time. Ellison did a raucous, noisy Q&A with the audience of several thousand after the screening. But I headed for the hotel bar before he was done massaging his ego. (Ellison's writing can be exciting and perky, but, in person, his ego is something of a bummer. And he always must be the center of attention at an SF convention.)

 

[Lew Crippen]

To Walter’s very excellent list (I’m a big fan of Harlan Ellison too) I would add

Solaris, Tarkovsky’s adaptaion of the Stanislaw Lem book.

 

[Bill Williams]

Let us be wise to point out that in referring to "Star Wars", we're talking about the pure, original release from 1977, with none of the "Episode IV: A New Hope" subtitle stuff or CGI re-do's, when special effects were just being invented and tried out, when no one ever heard of CGI or Hayden Christensen or Jar-Jar. Oh yeah, there's also one thing that makes the pure, unadulterated "Star Wars" the classic that it is... drum roll, please...

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

HAN SHOOTS FIRST!!!!!

 

[Walter Kittel]

Zen - While I've enjoyed the films adapted from Dick's work for their entertainment value; almost none of them have been able to capture the tone or aesthetic that typifies his work. I hope someday to see an adaptation of The Man In the High Castle that will do justice to the book, but remain skeptical given the emphasis on action and FX that seemingly are de rigueur in today's SF film environment. I do wonder how a filmmaker like Darren Aronofsky would handle a P.K. Dick work?

In terms of Ellison adaptations, the ones I've mentioned are the most memorable ones for me. I believe that Shatterday was one of the new Twilight Zone ( '80s ) episodes and other short stories by Ellison may have found their way to that series.


Jack - Please pardon me if I'm being overly dense, but... Are you saying that Ellison collaborated with L.Q. Jones on the film? I remember an interview with Ellison where he eviscerated Jones for the final dialog sequence in the film. (??) ( Obviously, I prefer Ellison's dialog from the novella. )


Lew - Good call on Solaris.

- Walter.

 

[Zen Butler]

Bill, lack of mention or notice might be attributed to reasons stated in post #7. Respectfully, it just doesn't fit here in this thread.

As a side note, Zardoz will be viewed tonight in the Zen den. This film went swoooosh!, over my head as a youngster. Let's see how I've progressed.

 

[Jack Briggs]

I'm more than sure that you have, Zen. "Read" the film; look at John Boorman's use of the cinematic vocabulary. Then marvel at how he so effortlessly creates a fully realized future without resorting to Hollywood's typical need to "explain" that future world in blunt speech; it's all assumed in the film (well, with one exception: where The Tabernacle explains how the the Eternals transcended the need for sleep). Otherwise, the film, like 2001 before it, is a cinematic equivalent of literary/print SF.

Also, agree tremendously with Lew vis. Solaris.

And, Walter, I believe you are correct about the dialogue change in Dog. My error!

 

[Dennis Pagoulatos]

Solaris is my second favorite sci-fi film behind 2001. There are no other "real" science fiction films, IMO. Or maybe I just pretend to prefer the rest don't exist.

-Dennis

 

[Zen Butler]

Walter, you certainly hit a soft spot there. I cringe at the thought of a The Man in the High Castle adaptation woven into a hyperactive Playstation game. This novel is quite sacred to me, and one of my first exposures to Dick. In the case of Dick, I see now what my mother felt when her childhood literary favorites hit the screen. Mostly disappointment.

 

[Peter M Fitzgerald]

Don't forget:

PHASE IV (1973, the "2001" of ant movies)
NO BLADE OF GRASS (1970)

 

[Jack Briggs]

Yes, Phase IV is a quite good film -- "real" SF, story-intensive, literate, and intelligent.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Yes, Phase IV is a quite good film -- "real" SF, story-intensive, literate, and intelligent.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I've got a three-day, nine film Science Fiction festival planned for September 10-11-12 at the Lafayette Theatre. One of the titles in this thread is the closing night feature. A big one. Jack should be pleased...

The rest of the titles will be announcing soon, we are concentrating mostly on 50s and 60s pictures. It's going to be fun!

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I've got a three-day, nine film Science Fiction festival planned for September 10-11-12 at the Lafayette Theatre. One of the titles in this thread is the closing night feature. A big one. Jack should be pleased...

The rest of the titles will be announcing soon, we are concentrating mostly on 50s and 60s pictures. It's going to be fun!

 

[Kevin Hewell]

What is everyone's definition of what constitutes "real" SF? I've seen some films criticized for being on the list as not being "real" SF but many people seem to have a different definition of what it is.

 

[Kevin Hewell]

What is everyone's definition of what constitutes "real" SF? I've seen some films criticized for being on the list as not being "real" SF but many people seem to have a different definition of what it is.

 

[Lew Crippen]

The defination of what constitutes Science Fiction sort of depends on the degree of purity of the definer.

Many serious fans (and some writers) hold that that in order for something to be ‘science fiction’, the work must conform to natural law as we understand it, or what might pass for natural law given a different understanding of the universe.

Therefore someone may dream up an invention or a device or concept that might be possible given what we know or could be possible given a set of reasonable postulates set forth by the writer and which conform to whatever internal logic that the writer sets up. Set up a proposition and follow it—especially the consequences of the proposition.

Most serious fans, demand that Science Fiction examine the social consequences of the proposition (but see some quotes further down)

Fantasy involves much less rigor in its realization. Of course the line between the two is blurred—John W. Campbell made one of the best distinctions: “…science fiction uses one, or a very, very few new postulates, and develops the rigidly consistent logical consequences of these limited postulates. Fantasy makes its rules as it goes along...The basic nature of fantasy is "The only rule is, make up a new rule any time you need one!"

This is why most Science Fiction fans don’t consider Star Wars to be true (or real) Science Fiction.

Isaac Asimov, who was a master of considering the consequences of his ideas said, “science fiction is the only form of literature that consistently considers the nature of the changes that face us, the possible consequences, and the possible solutions.”

And Ray Bradbury who was not so rigorous in the ‘science’ area said, “Science fiction is really sociological studies of the future, things that the writer believes are going to happen by putting two and two together.”

And finally, Robert Heinlein said, “realistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the nature and significance of the scientific method.”

I tried to find a quote from Arthur C. Clarke, as I thought he would have a very concise idea, but I could not remember any and was not sure where to look.


edited to add that I'm waiting for Jack or Walter or someone else with more accurate and detailed knowledge to show up and correct or add to my pulled quotes.

 

[Lew Crippen]

The defination of what constitutes Science Fiction sort of depends on the degree of purity of the definer.

Many serious fans (and some writers) hold that that in order for something to be ‘science fiction’, the work must conform to natural law as we understand it, or what might pass for natural law given a different understanding of the universe.

Therefore someone may dream up an invention or a device or concept that might be possible given what we know or could be possible given a set of reasonable postulates set forth by the writer and which conform to whatever internal logic that the writer sets up. Set up a proposition and follow it—especially the consequences of the proposition.

Most serious fans, demand that Science Fiction examine the social consequences of the proposition (but see some quotes further down)

Fantasy involves much less rigor in its realization. Of course the line between the two is blurred—John W. Campbell made one of the best distinctions: “…science fiction uses one, or a very, very few new postulates, and develops the rigidly consistent logical consequences of these limited postulates. Fantasy makes its rules as it goes along...The basic nature of fantasy is "The only rule is, make up a new rule any time you need one!"

This is why most Science Fiction fans don’t consider Star Wars to be true (or real) Science Fiction.

Isaac Asimov, who was a master of considering the consequences of his ideas said, “science fiction is the only form of literature that consistently considers the nature of the changes that face us, the possible consequences, and the possible solutions.”

And Ray Bradbury who was not so rigorous in the ‘science’ area said, “Science fiction is really sociological studies of the future, things that the writer believes are going to happen by putting two and two together.”

And finally, Robert Heinlein said, “realistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the nature and significance of the scientific method.”

I tried to find a quote from Arthur C. Clarke, as I thought he would have a very concise idea, but I could not remember any and was not sure where to look.


edited to add that I'm waiting for Jack or Walter or someone else with more accurate and detailed knowledge to show up and correct or add to my pulled quotes.

 

[Jack Briggs]

You pretty much are there, Lew, as always. Science fiction is, as the moniker says, fiction about science. The science must be real. We cannot play fast and loose with the laws of physics (there are no Star Trek-inspired portions of this galaxy where different laws of physics operate -- meaning the Roddenberry franchise can only rarely be considered SF).

Internal logic and consistency cannot be cheated.

Even SF that focuses more on the sociological must adhere to a rigid internal framework.

People dismissively give the nod to junk such as Independence Day by saying, "Oh, it's just science fiction, whaddya expect?"

Well, it's not science fiction.

In the world of print SF, ever since the days of Hugo Gernsback (the man who basically founded the field -- even to the point of giving it its name), editors have held their writers to the rigid, demanding standards of SF. In order to be published, their work must be literate (and, one would hope, literary), compelling, and scientifically plausible.

Therefore, no whooshing sounds when spaceships fly by -- not to mention spaceships doing aerobatic maneuvers in the vacuum of space (a real Starship Enterprise would not bank into turns). I mean, my goodness here, have Hollywood's many moguls never looked at film and videotape brought back by astronauts? (Apparently not. Note how our planet is often depicted in Hollywood's space: The entire industry seems to have forgotten the cloud-dominated, blue-marble jewel photographed by the Apollo astronauts.)

Oh, I'm rambling now. I could go on and on about this. But at least some of you know why I always maintain that there have been but a handful of films that genuinely qualify as SF

 

[Jack Briggs]

You pretty much are there, Lew, as always. Science fiction is, as the moniker says, fiction about science. The science must be real. We cannot play fast and loose with the laws of physics (there are no Star Trek-inspired portions of this galaxy where different laws of physics operate -- meaning the Roddenberry franchise can only rarely be considered SF).

Internal logic and consistency cannot be cheated.

Even SF that focuses more on the sociological must adhere to a rigid internal framework.

People dismissively give the nod to junk such as Independence Day by saying, "Oh, it's just science fiction, whaddya expect?"

Well, it's not science fiction.

In the world of print SF, ever since the days of Hugo Gernsback (the man who basically founded the field -- even to the point of giving it its name), editors have held their writers to the rigid, demanding standards of SF. In order to be published, their work must be literate (and, one would hope, literary), compelling, and scientifically plausible.

Therefore, no whooshing sounds when spaceships fly by -- not to mention spaceships doing aerobatic maneuvers in the vacuum of space (a real Starship Enterprise would not bank into turns). I mean, my goodness here, have Hollywood's many moguls never looked at film and videotape brought back by astronauts? (Apparently not. Note how our planet is often depicted in Hollywood's space: The entire industry seems to have forgotten the cloud-dominated, blue-marble jewel photographed by the Apollo astronauts.)

Oh, I'm rambling now. I could go on and on about this. But at least some of you know why I always maintain that there have been but a handful of films that genuinely qualify as SF

 

[Jack Briggs]

Oh, and Peter: Are you showing a 70mm print of The Film? Your theater is 35mm, isn't it? Well, I'll have you know that two of the best-ever prints I've seen of it were 35mm. Let us know the complete list when you can.