Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site olivee.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!columbia!topaz!packard!ihnp1!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxm!sftig!sftri!sfmag!eagle!ulysses!allegra!oliveb!olivee!gnome
From: gnome@olivee.UUCP (Gary Traveis)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers,net.movies
Subject: Re: Explorers -- a pico review.
Message-ID: <423@olivee.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Jul-85 14:03:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: olivee.423
Posted: Fri Jul 19 14:03:01 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Jul-85 04:13:27 EDT
References: <710@dataio.UUCP>
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca
Lines: 26
Xref: linus net.sf-lovers:7690 net.movies:5372

> In article <494@oliveb.UUCP> gnome@oliveb.UUCP (Gary Traveis) writes:
> >From Joe Dante (Gremlins) comes a cute, fun, science fantasy
> >about a three kids who are given the key to interplanetary travel.
> >After some local mischief, the three (a street-kid, a sf-type, and
> >a student brainiac) head off to discover the answers to life, the universe,
> >and everything from an unseen all-knowing alien race.
> 
> I thought the second half was totally stupid and dull.
> By the way, where does a 9-volt battery get the energy required to dig
> 5' diameter holes in the ground? I wish some of these sci-fi movie
> directors would take a basic course in physics, or hire a consultant
> to help them avoid the more obvious screwups. And don't wave the
> 'but it's supposed to be fun' at me, I think these glaring problems
> Good sci-fi is not necessarilly preposterous, as an example take a look
> at Arthur Clarke's novels (BTW, he holds a doctorate in physics), and
> the novels that Niven and Pournelle collaborated on.

Your wonderful analysis of my statement overlooked one thing.

I called EXPLORERS a "science fantasy".

It's ok to pan a film, any film, but you don't have to be so
righteously indignant!   It tends to waste everyone's time.


Any other comments to net.flame.