Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site mtgzz.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!drutx!mtuxo!mtgzz!leeper
From: leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Criticizing the critics
Message-ID: <725@mtgzz.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14-May-85 01:14:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: mtgzz.725
Posted: Tue May 14 01:14:04 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 8-May-85 06:21:38 EDT
References: <1869@topaz.ARPA>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 120

I know I am not the only person that this is aimed at, but I am probably
one.  So I will speak for myself only.

 >After reading this digest for about a year and a half, I
 >have to say I'm upset with the way most everyone complains
 >about SF movies.  Most  comments about SF books are neutral
 >to good, while most comments about  SF movies are neutral to
 >negative.  
 
I have been accused of the converse.
 
 >Very few good, supporting statements are made.

That may be the period you have been looking at.  BRAINSTORM was a good
thoughtful science fiction film, but that was a while back.  The film
of 1984 was pretty good, but it was a depressing experience.  It is not
the kind of film that gets a big following (though BLADERUNNER seems to
break this rule).

 >Now you must remember that writing allows much more freedom
 >of expression than does movie making.  I feel that given the
 >restrictions of time, money, available actors (with talent)
 >and politics (which eventually enter any large project) what
 >we see is not too bad.  
 
Good low-budget science fiction films are rare, but good filmmakers do
occasionally come up wit a good concept that doesn't need effects.
UNEARTHLY STRANGER is certainly in the top 10% of science fiction
films, yet it is just actors in front of a camera.  No special effects
required.  In fairness, it also seems to have disappeared.  Audiences
want to see more than actors in front of a camera for some reason.
 
 >   My point is that I don't blame the movie industry for not putting
 >its heart and soul into SF.  No matter what they try, it
 >gets torn apart by SF 'fans'.  
 
And it makes big money at the box-office.  Look how many more big
budget science fiction films are made now than were made a decade ago.
That does not argue that people who review these films shouldn't be
fair to them, but don't exaggerate the credence that filmmakers give to
the opinions of science fiction fans.  I call them as I see them so I
gave a +2 (on the -4 to +4 scale) to DUNE.  That is hardly tearing
apart a film that was to say the least flawed.  I think many of the
people on the net, like me, will rate a film high if it has something
good in it, regardless if it also has bad touches.
 
 >Nothing is good enough, nothing is acceptable.  
 
I think that science fiction fans are considerably less harsh on
science fiction films than are mainstream critics.  Be fair, a good
proportion of fantasy films get good reviews on the net.  LADYHAWKE has
gotten some real raves on the net.  I don't think that science fiction
films do worse than fantasy as a whole, but it is harder to discuss if
the curse makes sense in LADYHAWKE than it does to discuss the ecology
of SILENT RUNNING.
 
 >Well I enjoy seeing a new SF movie,  

So do I.  Perhaps even a bit more than you do.

 >if it is a serious attempt to do  well, even if it falls
 >short.  We see *so* little of it.  WIZARDS was enjoyable,
 >LotR was entertaining, and 2010 was far better than watching
 >the The Love Boat.

I agree on two out of three, and did so in my original reviews.
(I find a little hypocrisy in the story of WIZARDS.)

 >  I'm not saying films shouldn't be criticized.  If they weren't
 >nothing would improve.  But the impression from this digest
 >is, "Nothing is good enough for us.  You do your best and
 >we'll pick it to death somehow."  
 
That is not my observation.
 
 >Many of the criticisms
 >I've seen are really ridiculous.  If I was a movie producer
 >and read this digest, I  wouldn't even attempt SF.  
 
Oh yes you would!  You would count the number of people commenting on
the films and multiply by $4.50.  I don't see anyone on the net saying
that this or that film has soured them on going to see science fiction
films.
 
 >I'd get
 >Jacqueline Bisset, put her in a T-shirt, and be assured to
 >make money without anyone noticing the plot (or lack of).

Very seriously, I read Variety and that sort of film does not hit the
top of the charts the way a science fiction film does.  Of course,
films like POLICE ACADEMY II do well too, and require a lot less
thought, but they require a funny script, and that is a real gamble
too.  PA-II and LADYHAWKE are currently at the top of the charts.  The
latter is a well-made fantasy film and it is being paid off
accordingly.


 >  I'd like to see more constructive comments; remove the clothespins
 >from your noses and point out the good parts, the creative
 >and original ideas, the novel approaches.  
 
I think I try to, but it is good advice, nonetheless.
 
 >Don't be in such
 >a hurry to jump on the bandwagon of critics that recognition
 >is forgotten.  Support for what the industry does right may
 >create more progress and generate more creative ideas than
 >continuous, boring and tiresome criticisms.

Most of who I consider the better critics on the net have a fair share
of positive reviews and do try to write the kind of review you want.
Peter Reiher is my personal choice for the best of us and he certainly
does.  (But then he says so much in a film to talk about, some of it
would have to be good.)

I don't think you are entirely wrong, but I don't think you are
entirely right either.

				Mark Leeper
				...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper