Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!columbia!topaz!Postmaster@bbn-vax
From: Postmaster@bbn-vax
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: sf and the critics
Message-ID: <2166@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 1-Jun-85 10:33:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.2166
Posted: Sat Jun  1 10:33:02 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 2-Jun-85 07:47:16 EDT
Sender: daemon@topaz.ARPA
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 28

From: dm@bbn-vax.arpa


Someone, in discussing ``the problems of SF'', mentioned the ``poor,
misunderstood SF'' syndrome: the critics don't take SF seriously, so they
ignore it; and pointed out that it wasn't true anymore--that literary critics
DO take a lot of SF seriously.

MOVIE Critics, on the other hand...

I've seen a number of SF films which I considered quite good (excellent when
judged by SF's standards, acceptable when judged by what meager standards of
the Filmic Arts I'm able to apply to movies): ``Something Wicked this way
comes'' (perhaps the finest portrayal of a novel as a film I have EVER seen),
``Brainstorms'' and ``Dreamscape'' (two movies which, had they been
literature, would have been acceptable short stories, and which I think serve
as evidence that, in film at least, one word is worth a thousand pictures),
``Android'', which have been panned by the critics, get tiny amounts of
promotion, and close in a week.

Critics look at these films, and say, ``Oh, this is Science Fiction'',
turn off significant parts of their brains, and then write a review that says:
``It wasn't _Star Wars_'' (meaning, it wasn't ``good'' by the same measure of
``good'' that one applies to conclude that _Star Wars_ was Real Good).  The
films don't get any promotion to speak of, and aren't around long enough (at
least here in Boston) for word-of-mouth to do them any good, so they vanish
from the face of the earth.  Result: good SF movies lose out to _Star Wars_
clones, where special effects substitute for ideas.