Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site astrovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!ks
From: ks@astrovax.UUCP (Karl Stapelfeldt)
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: Arthur C. Clarke's 2010
Message-ID: <329@astrovax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 4-May-84 20:33:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: astrovax.329
Posted: Fri May  4 20:33:38 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 5-May-84 01:46:02 EDT
References: <588@osu-dbs.UUCP> <578@abnjh.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Astrophysics
Lines: 30


     I don't know how ANYONE, ANYWHERE can claim to have enjoyed "Capricorn
One" and also be pro-space.  It is not possible.  The movie portrays NASA
in the worst possible terms.  I have *never* seen anything so derogatory
to the space program (and that includes William Proxmire) put in the public
domain.  The film has a predictable plot; Elliot Gould is inept and miscast
as an investigative reporter; the astronauts have practically no characters;
the hardware needed to fly to Mars is supposedly Apollo Saturn V's, CM's, and
LEM's.  This film makes me sick.
     The story is based on the single supposition that NASA would fabricate a
Mars mission in order to get it to fly on time (instead of slipping the launch
due to hardware problems.)  Anyone who is at all familiar with NASA's philosophy
on mission scheduling would know that (1) Launches can be scrubbed at any time,
even with tens of millions of people watching; (2) Programs will be delayed
for any necessary length of time in order to assure the proper functioning
of the spacecraft.  Apollo delayed a year after the 1967 fire, despite the
risk that the U.S.S.R. might get to the moon first and that we might not
get there "by the end of the decade".  Hyams' story is completely out of
character for NASA; he seems to have never heard of NASA's policy requiring that
civilian space activities be conducted in the open.  I could never believe
a bit of the story; I am simply astonished that something so slanderous could
have been pushed on the public as "entertainment".  Worse yet, it was kicking
NASA when it was down (in the mid-1970's), underfunded, and ignored.
     "Outland" certainly does not add to Hyams' resume.  Except for the
the ridiculousness of his exploding people, Hyams' work here is completely
forgettable.  
     Mr. Hyams now has in his hands the power to destroy one of the best
opportunities for a space film that will come in this decade.  My only hope
is that an aging Arthur Clarke has found the energy to supervise the
screenplay.  If not, this film will probably look more like a successor to
"Lost in Space" than to "2001".