Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!ames!barry From: barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: Criticizing the critics Message-ID: <977@ames.UUCP> Date: Thu, 9-May-85 15:03:45 EDT Article-I.D.: ames.977 Posted: Thu May 9 15:03:45 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 12-May-85 00:01:38 EDT References: <1869@topaz.ARPA> Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA Lines: 90 > 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. Very few good, supporting >statements are made. 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. Well, I partly agree with you. I've certainly been guilty of potshots at movies I dislike on this net, perhaps more often than I've put in a kind word for those movies I like. It's easier to pan than praise, I think. Still, I must take partial exception to your comments. There are a number of people on the net who are kind enough to take the trouble to do very good reviews of SF movies, reviews that are thorough, well- written, and fair. We may not always agree with these reviewers' opinions, but they always explain their opinions, and I end up feeling better- informed about the films even when I don't agree with the conclusions. The Leepers (Mark and Evelyn) and Peter Reiher, as well as some other worthy critics whose names escape me (sorry) deserve our thanks for their efforts, and they have mine. I also think you give the filmmakers too much slack. Sure, there are many difficulties encountered in making good films, but it remains true that many SF films come out badly because they're just bad art. Many are made for the quick buck, many are made by people who are quite ignorant of science fiction, but too arrogant or unconcerned to find out about it before making their sci-fi trash. Look at many of the SF films of recent years: SF is popular these days, and a lot of these films had the necessary time, money and talent to be good. Even so, not all of them were. Consider DUNE; consider THE BLACK HOLE; consider how often Hollywood has chosen the good old remake, when there are dozens of classic SF novels crying to be made into films. I don't think all the abysmal failures can be written off as due to the inevitable difficulties of filmmaking. The fact is, too many producers neither know nor care what makes a good film. Their only concern is to make sure-fire box-office winners, and their shortcomings as artists are often most apparent with SF films, because they see SF as a trash genre, mostly for the kiddies and teens. > 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'. Nothing is good enough, nothing is acceptable. No, not really true. An example: STAR WARS was at first seen by Fox as middle-weight Summer fare which would at best turn a small profit. It originally had a small promotional budget, and opened at minor locations. It was only because Lucas had Charlie Lippincott running around to all the SF cons for a year before it opened that the movie took off as it did, in my opinion. SF fans were waiting for that film with their mouths watering because of the presentations at the cons, and this was why the lines ran around the block when the film quietly opened. It was only after the studios saw this initial enthusiastic reception that the film was given a big "premiere" at the Chinese, and a big promo budget. Most SF fans *like* STAR WARS, a *lot* (Ellison notwithstanding), and while we would also like to see some more serious SF films, we're willing to recognize quality when we see it. >If I was a movie producer and read this digest, I >wouldn't even attempt SF. 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). What I find truly ironic is that many of the producer's "sure- fire" formula films actually bite the big one at the BO. If these potboilers really *were* guaranteed money-makers, I'd be a little more inclined to excuse the low level of artistry that too often characterizes Hollywood films. But since this is not so, I'll still maintain that the major problem is that many producers are Philistines, and too stupid to even realize that. They think the average moviegoer has as little taste as they do, but that's not (quite) true. > 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. 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. Partly true; mea culpa. But part of encouraging better films is also not to let them get away with junk and sloppy seconds. If we're not willing to call a spade a dirty old shovel, how will the schlockmeisters ever realize we're not satisfied with garbage? - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry