www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - [OT] Dark Star (1974) - the platinum age of movies

reply Justin Johansson <no spam.com> writes:
I know this is completely off topic and surely shows my age,
but I wonder if anyone else on this ng has seen this movie.

I couldn't remember the name of this movie but googling for
movie star "bomb bay" "I think"
found it for me first pop.

Dark Star (1974) - Memorable quotes
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069945/quotes

The reason for mentioning this is because the next time I ask
a question about D on this ng that comes back with a something
for me to consider further, I'll be answering along the lines
"returning to bomb bay to think about this"
and hopefully people will understand what I mean :-)

Cheers
Justin Johansson
Sep 01 2010
next sibling parent Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk> writes:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Justin,

Just remember that if you teach bombs phenomenology bad things tend to
happen.

On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 23:56 +0930, Justin Johansson wrote:
 I know this is completely off topic and surely shows my age,
 but I wonder if anyone else on this ng has seen this movie.
=20
 I couldn't remember the name of this movie but googling for
 movie star "bomb bay" "I think"
 found it for me first pop.
=20
 Dark Star (1974) - Memorable quotes
 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069945/quotes
=20
 The reason for mentioning this is because the next time I ask
 a question about D on this ng that comes back with a something
 for me to consider further, I'll be answering along the lines
 "returning to bomb bay to think about this"
 and hopefully people will understand what I mean :-)
=20
 Cheers
 Justin Johansson
=20

--=20 Russel. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n= et 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: russel russel.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
Sep 01 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent BLS <windevguy hotmail.de> writes:
ok, Justin "Bomb #20" Johansson, point taken.
Great movie, beside.

On 01/09/2010 16:26, Justin Johansson wrote:
 I know this is completely off topic and surely shows my age,
 but I wonder if anyone else on this ng has seen this movie.

 I couldn't remember the name of this movie but googling for
 movie star "bomb bay" "I think"
 found it for me first pop.

 Dark Star (1974) - Memorable quotes
 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069945/quotes

 The reason for mentioning this is because the next time I ask
 a question about D on this ng that comes back with a something
 for me to consider further, I'll be answering along the lines
 "returning to bomb bay to think about this"
 and hopefully people will understand what I mean :-)

 Cheers
 Justin Johansson

Sep 01 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent JMRyan <nospam nospam.com> writes:
Justin Johansson <no spam.com> wrote in news:i5lnr4$1cmg$1 digitalmars.com:

 I know this is completely off topic and surely shows my age,
 but I wonder if anyone else on this ng has seen this movie.

Perhaps of interest, a new DVD release is sceduled for late October.
Sep 01 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Justin Johansson" <no spam.com> wrote in message 
news:i5lnr4$1cmg$1 digitalmars.com...
I know this is completely off topic and surely shows my age,
 but I wonder if anyone else on this ng has seen this movie.

 I couldn't remember the name of this movie but googling for
 movie star "bomb bay" "I think"
 found it for me first pop.

 Dark Star (1974) - Memorable quotes
 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069945/quotes

 The reason for mentioning this is because the next time I ask
 a question about D on this ng that comes back with a something
 for me to consider further, I'll be answering along the lines
 "returning to bomb bay to think about this"
 and hopefully people will understand what I mean :-)

Never heard of it, but it sounds like something I'll have to check out :)
Sep 01 2010
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Never heard of it, but it sounds like something I'll have to check out :)

Yes, you do. It's a classic.
Sep 01 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Russel Winder wrote:
 Extremely serious low budget though -- everyone needs to remember that
 when watching (1974, so pre Star Wars, and a very, very low budget).

Dark Star and the Star Wars prequels prove that big budgets aren't what make a movie, a plot and good writing is.
Sep 01 2010
next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisprog gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, September 01, 2010 16:17:42 so wrote:
 On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 02:05:53 +0300, Walter Bright
 
 <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:
 Russel Winder wrote:
 Extremely serious low budget though -- everyone needs to remember that
 when watching (1974, so pre Star Wars, and a very, very low budget).

Dark Star and the Star Wars prequels prove that big budgets aren't what make a movie, a plot and good writing is.

If you ignore the Harrison Ford factor, SW is nothing but a soap opera to me... Then you watch Bladerunner, Alien... now they are truly awesome!

Actually, he specifically mentioned the prequels, not the original trilogy, so unless Dark Star has Harrison Ford in it (I haven't seen it, but I'm pretty sure that he's not in it), there is no Harrison Ford factor with the movies that he mentioned. I think his point was that while the Star Wars prequels had large budgets, they weren't all that good, while Dark Star was good in spite of having a small budget. So, the budget doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the quality of the movie. - Jonathan M Davis
Sep 01 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"so" <so so.do> wrote in message news:op.vidmzstl7dtt59 so-pc...
 On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 02:05:53 +0300, Walter Bright 
 <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Russel Winder wrote:
 Extremely serious low budget though -- everyone needs to remember that
 when watching (1974, so pre Star Wars, and a very, very low budget).

Dark Star and the Star Wars prequels prove that big budgets aren't what make a movie, a plot and good writing is.

If you ignore the Harrison Ford factor, SW is nothing but a soap opera to me...

I don't really see that. To me, the original trilogy at least, seemed like action flicks in sci-fi clothing (Nothing wrong with that!) Now the Battlestar Galactica remake, the V remake, and Stargate Universe, *those* are soap operas pretending to be sci-fi. And that goes triple for Craprica. I really miss the sci-fi from around 1990-2005 (approx). I know a lot of people would probably consider this heresy, but to me, that's the golden age of science fiction. All of the Berman-era Star Treks (none of this JJ Abrams nonsense), the Stargate movie, Stargate SG-1 (even Atlantis was at least ok), Babylon 5 (no spoilers! I still haven't gotten around to the last season and a half), The Fifth Element, Farscape, Firefly (although that was really more space western than sci-fi). Lots of great stuff. But now sci-fi is mostly just soap operas with shitty camera work, and a few well-intended-but-ultimately-mediocre attempts like Warehouse 13, the revived Doctor Who, and Sanctuary (really more of an off-brand X-Men than sci-fi though - and I'm not much one for western comics). Eureka's about the only really good one on (although it still has just a touch more soap-drama than I would like, and sometimes it feels like Carter is the only one really carrying the show). So aside from that one, I usually just watch anime instead.
 Then you watch Bladerunner, Alien... now they are truly awesome!

Still haven't gotten around to seeing Alien (yea, I know - unthinkable ;) ), but I tried watching Bladerunner once and got bored quick and turned it off. I've been meaning to give it another try though, it certainly has a lot of recommendations behind it. Maybe it was just because I was watching the "director's edition"? Bladerunner fans: Which edition would be best to go with: original, "director's", or "final"?
Sep 01 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 I don't really see that. To me, the original trilogy at least, seemed like 
 action flicks in sci-fi clothing (Nothing wrong with that!) Now the 
 Battlestar Galactica remake, the V remake, and Stargate Universe, *those* 
 are soap operas pretending to be sci-fi. And that goes triple for Craprica.

So many people like BG that I keep giving it a try, and keep turning it off.
 I really miss the sci-fi from around 1990-2005 (approx). I know a lot of 
 people would probably consider this heresy, but to me, that's the golden age 
 of science fiction. All of the Berman-era Star Treks (none of this JJ Abrams 
 nonsense), the Stargate movie, Stargate SG-1 (even Atlantis was at least 
 ok), Babylon 5 (no spoilers! I still haven't gotten around to the last 
 season and a half), The Fifth Element, Farscape, Firefly (although that was 
 really more space western than sci-fi). Lots of great stuff.

Please don't overlook 2001 or Colossus.
 But now sci-fi is mostly just soap operas with shitty camera work, and a few 
 well-intended-but-ultimately-mediocre attempts like Warehouse 13, the 
 revived Doctor Who, and Sanctuary (really more of an off-brand X-Men than 
 sci-fi though - and I'm not much one for western comics). Eureka's about the 
 only really good one on (although it still has just a touch more soap-drama 
 than I would like, and sometimes it feels like Carter is the only one really 
 carrying the show). So aside from that one, I usually just watch anime 
 instead.

Real sci-fi is based on a "what if X" and then a story is built around it. 2001 is what if we find an artifact on the moon? Colossus is what if a defense computer becomes sentient? Soap operas, horse operas, etc., aren't really sci-fi even if they are in spaceships. Monster movies are sci-fi, but the genre is so tired (something is killing the crew one by one!) that I really don't want to see another one. Is Star Wars sci-fi? I'd say not, because spaceships are the setting, but have nothing to do with the plot which you could transfer wholesale to a western or an eastern. The fact that entire sequences seem to be lifted directly from "633 Squadron" also argues that it is not sci-fi. BTW, watch "Primer". That's some really good sci-fi. No special effects, no budget, just exploring the amazing consequences of a simple idea.
Sep 01 2010
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:i5ndnb$1e09$1 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 I don't really see that. To me, the original trilogy at least, seemed 
 like action flicks in sci-fi clothing (Nothing wrong with that!) Now the 
 Battlestar Galactica remake, the V remake, and Stargate Universe, *those* 
 are soap operas pretending to be sci-fi. And that goes triple for 
 Craprica.

So many people like BG that I keep giving it a try, and keep turning it off.

I would see a minute or two of BG on TV now and then and turn away because of the soap-like tone and the questionable camera-work. But I started to get so starved for new science fiction (using the, umm, "spaceship" definition, not the technically correct one) that I ended up getting ahold of the miniseries and forced myself through the entire thing. The sets were *impressive*, and I kinda liked the new Starbuck (except for all her soapy-drama), and there was one really cool well-made scene where Starbuck saved some other pilot by locking the ships together - which lasted all of about a couple minutes. But I hated everything else about it, and I was really *forcing* myself though most of it (I was determined to give it a fair try). Then Caprica came around, I started to watch the premiere, and I couldn't bring myself to watch any more than the first 10-15 minutes of it. It felt like I was watching one of those "The CW" shows like Seventh Heaven or One Tree Hill, but with blatantly bad "futurish" props (A pair of black plastic sunglasses with LEDs glued to it? That might have passed for cool and high-tech thirty years ago - but not in 2010.) I turned it on again an hour later, took one minute to see it hadn't gotten any better, and decided the show's correct spelling has an extra "r" as the second letter. I've learned to be wary of popular shows. Lost seemed popular, so I gave the pilot a try. And well...let's say I guess I'm just not a JJ Abrams kind of guy. (But OTOH, avoiding popular shows left me missing out on a lot of Friends, so who can ever tell?)
 I really miss the sci-fi from around 1990-2005 (approx). I know a lot of 
 people would probably consider this heresy, but to me, that's the golden 
 age of science fiction. All of the Berman-era Star Treks (none of this JJ 
 Abrams nonsense), the Stargate movie, Stargate SG-1 (even Atlantis was at 
 least ok), Babylon 5 (no spoilers! I still haven't gotten around to the 
 last season and a half), The Fifth Element, Farscape, Firefly (although 
 that was really more space western than sci-fi). Lots of great stuff.

Please don't overlook 2001 or Colossus.

I have absolutely no good excuse for having never seen 2001 (especially since I liked some of Kubrick's other works: Clockwork Orange and Dr. Strangelove). I keep meaning to pick up 2001 and never do. Never heared of Colossus, I'll have to look it up.
 Real sci-fi is based on a "what if X" and then a story is built around it.

Yea, I often use the "spaceship" definition out of habit and convenience. I do like both types of "science fiction" though.
 Monster movies are sci-fi, but the genre is so tired (something is killing 
 the crew one by one!) that I really don't want to see another one.

I agree those "cast getting picked off one-by-one" plots are very tired and cliche'd. But once in awhile I come across one that has so much style and "fun" that I don't mind. The Tremors series, Ghosts of Mars, Pitch Black. Same thing with the "unlikely teacher turning around a group of misfit students" movies. So many out there, and it's soooo tired and corny. But then I saw "Only The Strong" (lots of Capoeira) and didn't mind the generic plot. The one plot I am really tired of though is "humans are put in danger by a human creation". Matrix, Terminator, 2001, and probably about five billion others. Great as some of those were (like the first two Terminators) I am really tired of that plot. I do plan to make an exception for 2001 though.
 Is Star Wars sci-fi? I'd say not, because spaceships are the setting, but 
 have nothing to do with the plot which you could transfer wholesale to a 
 western or an eastern. The fact that entire sequences seem to be lifted 
 directly from "633 Squadron" also argues that it is not sci-fi.

Yea, it seems more like "action movie in sci-fi clothing" to me. Still liked it, though :)
 BTW, watch "Primer". That's some really good sci-fi. No special effects, 
 no budget, just exploring the amazing consequences of a simple idea.

Sounds good. I'll look it up. One "real sci-fi" movie (with special effects, though) I remember liking was Dark City, although it's been so long I don't remember if it might have been more because of the style than anything else (Actually, I don't remember anything about it other than there being a city, a lot of blue and black, and a lake or something at the end). What do you think about Solaris? I've heard reviewers praising it for being "real" science fiction, so I've been tempted to try it out of sheer curiosity, but I've never felt confident enough about it to actually give it a try.
Sep 02 2010
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 What do you think about Solaris? I've heard reviewers praising it for being 
 "real" science fiction, so I've been tempted to try it out of sheer 
 curiosity, but I've never felt confident enough about it to actually give it 
 a try.

I watched the original russian one. It's sci-fi, but it's rather long and boring. Like there's a long sequence of just the character driving on the freeway. Driving, driving, driving, ...
Sep 02 2010
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 09/02/2010 04:47 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 What do you think about Solaris? I've heard reviewers praising it for
 being "real" science fiction, so I've been tempted to try it out of
 sheer curiosity, but I've never felt confident enough about it to
 actually give it a try.

I watched the original russian one. It's sci-fi, but it's rather long and boring. Like there's a long sequence of just the character driving on the freeway. Driving, driving, driving, ...

That was a key scene. Andrei
Sep 02 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 09/02/2010 04:47 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 What do you think about Solaris? I've heard reviewers praising it for
 being "real" science fiction, so I've been tempted to try it out of
 sheer curiosity, but I've never felt confident enough about it to
 actually give it a try.

I watched the original russian one. It's sci-fi, but it's rather long and boring. Like there's a long sequence of just the character driving on the freeway. Driving, driving, driving, ...

That was a key scene.

Whoosh. That's either your joke going way over my head, or the scene!
Sep 02 2010
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 9/2/10 14:01 CDT, Walter Bright wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 09/02/2010 04:47 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 What do you think about Solaris? I've heard reviewers praising it for
 being "real" science fiction, so I've been tempted to try it out of
 sheer curiosity, but I've never felt confident enough about it to
 actually give it a try.

I watched the original russian one. It's sci-fi, but it's rather long and boring. Like there's a long sequence of just the character driving on the freeway. Driving, driving, driving, ...

That was a key scene.

Whoosh. That's either your joke going way over my head, or the scene!

The scene was of the main character driving on a busy highway into a crowded metropolis. The meaning was to question the veracity and meaning of perception, existence, and human interaction - all of which are central themes in the movie. Andrei
Sep 02 2010
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:i5ov2v$2c07$1 digitalmars.com...
 On 9/2/10 14:01 CDT, Walter Bright wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 09/02/2010 04:47 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 What do you think about Solaris? I've heard reviewers praising it for
 being "real" science fiction, so I've been tempted to try it out of
 sheer curiosity, but I've never felt confident enough about it to
 actually give it a try.

I watched the original russian one. It's sci-fi, but it's rather long and boring. Like there's a long sequence of just the character driving on the freeway. Driving, driving, driving, ...

That was a key scene.

Whoosh. That's either your joke going way over my head, or the scene!

The scene was of the main character driving on a busy highway into a crowded metropolis. The meaning was to question the veracity and meaning of perception, existence, and human interaction - all of which are central themes in the movie.

Sounds like one of those ultra-artsy movies I would probably hate :/ Kinda reminds me of that Robin Williams movie where he was a robot, and the David Bowie movie "The Man Who Fell To Earth". Both seemed to be trying for some sort of artsy profound "meaning", but ultimately came across as pretentious snore-fests.
Sep 02 2010
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 9/2/10 14:55 CDT, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Andrei Alexandrescu"<SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org>  wrote in message
 news:i5ov2v$2c07$1 digitalmars.com...
 On 9/2/10 14:01 CDT, Walter Bright wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 09/02/2010 04:47 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 What do you think about Solaris? I've heard reviewers praising it for
 being "real" science fiction, so I've been tempted to try it out of
 sheer curiosity, but I've never felt confident enough about it to
 actually give it a try.

I watched the original russian one. It's sci-fi, but it's rather long and boring. Like there's a long sequence of just the character driving on the freeway. Driving, driving, driving, ...

That was a key scene.

Whoosh. That's either your joke going way over my head, or the scene!

The scene was of the main character driving on a busy highway into a crowded metropolis. The meaning was to question the veracity and meaning of perception, existence, and human interaction - all of which are central themes in the movie.

Sounds like one of those ultra-artsy movies I would probably hate :/ Kinda reminds me of that Robin Williams movie where he was a robot, and the David Bowie movie "The Man Who Fell To Earth". Both seemed to be trying for some sort of artsy profound "meaning", but ultimately came across as pretentious snore-fests.

Difference is, The Bicentennial Man and The Man Who Fell To Earth don't hold a candle to Solaris. Andrei
Sep 02 2010
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:i5p06p$2dq9$1 digitalmars.com...
 On 9/2/10 14:55 CDT, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Andrei Alexandrescu"<SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org>  wrote in message
 news:i5ov2v$2c07$1 digitalmars.com...
 The scene was of the main character driving on a busy highway into a
 crowded metropolis. The meaning was to question the veracity and meaning
 of perception, existence, and human interaction - all of which are 
 central
 themes in the movie.

Sounds like one of those ultra-artsy movies I would probably hate :/ Kinda reminds me of that Robin Williams movie where he was a robot, and the David Bowie movie "The Man Who Fell To Earth". Both seemed to be trying for some sort of artsy profound "meaning", but ultimately came across as pretentious snore-fests.

Difference is, The Bicentennial Man and The Man Who Fell To Earth don't hold a candle to Solaris.

Well that's good to hear then. Although in the case of The Man Who Fell To Earth, I got the impression that even really artsy-film fans probably wouldn't have liked it either. Even for what it was trying to be, it didn't seem very well done.
Sep 02 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Well that's good to hear then. Although in the case of The Man Who Fell To 
 Earth, I got the impression that even really artsy-film fans probably 
 wouldn't have liked it either. Even for what it was trying to be, it didn't 
 seem very well done. 

Zardoz can never be topped! http://craptastictv.com/wp-content/uploads/zardoz.jpg
Sep 02 2010
next sibling parent bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Walter Bright:
 Zardoz can never be topped! 
http://craptastictv.com/wp-content/uploads/zardoz.jpg

I think Sean Connery is having nightmares still about that carnivalesque look :-) Bye, bearophile
Sep 02 2010
prev sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:i5p72r$2r7a$2 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Well that's good to hear then. Although in the case of The Man Who Fell 
 To Earth, I got the impression that even really artsy-film fans probably 
 wouldn't have liked it either. Even for what it was trying to be, it 
 didn't seem very well done.

Zardoz can never be topped! http://craptastictv.com/wp-content/uploads/zardoz.jpg

Ha! That's hilarious! Disturbing...But hilarious :)
Sep 02 2010
prev sibling parent reply Max Samukha <spambox d-coding.com> writes:
On 09/02/2010 11:07 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 Difference is, The Bicentennial Man and The Man Who Fell To Earth don't
 hold a candle to Solaris.

Interestingly, Lem didn't like the movie at all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_%281972_film%29#Reception_and_legacy
Sep 02 2010
parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 9/2/10 15:31 CDT, Max Samukha wrote:
 On 09/02/2010 11:07 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 Difference is, The Bicentennial Man and The Man Who Fell To Earth don't
 hold a candle to Solaris.

Interestingly, Lem didn't like the movie at all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_%281972_film%29#Reception_and_legacy

Yah, and Tarkovsky didn't care much for the book either! Andrei
Sep 02 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 The scene was of the main character driving on a busy highway into a 
 crowded metropolis. The meaning was to question the veracity and meaning 
 of perception, existence, and human interaction - all of which are 
 central themes in the movie.

This sounds more like an after the fact rationalization!
Sep 02 2010
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 9/2/10 17:03 CDT, Walter Bright wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 The scene was of the main character driving on a busy highway into a
 crowded metropolis. The meaning was to question the veracity and
 meaning of perception, existence, and human interaction - all of which
 are central themes in the movie.

This sounds more like an after the fact rationalization!

That's the thing with art - a relational value. Andrei
Sep 02 2010
parent Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
On 03/09/2010 01:40, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 9/2/10 17:03 CDT, Walter Bright wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 The scene was of the main character driving on a busy highway into a
 crowded metropolis. The meaning was to question the veracity and
 meaning of perception, existence, and human interaction - all of which
 are central themes in the movie.

This sounds more like an after the fact rationalization!

That's the thing with art - a relational value. Andrei

I also saw Solyaris and like Walter I didn't find it to be that special. I haven't given it a second view, which could (potentially) improve my appreciation of the movie. Such has happened before, with 2001 for example, which is one of my top 5 all-time favorite movies, but which I also wasn't too impressed with my first viewing. But that increased appreciation would likely only happen if I gained a better understanding of the moive. So if indeed much of it is subjective/abstract/open-to-interpretation then that wouldn't happen, I generally don't like this kind of thing. (That's why I dislike almost all David Lynch movies... a level of magnitude above Solyaris in that regard) -- Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
Oct 14 2010
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 The scene was of the main character driving on a busy highway into a 
 crowded metropolis. The meaning was to question the veracity and meaning 
 of perception, existence, and human interaction - all of which are 
 central themes in the movie.

But if I showed you 15 minutes of me driving around on the freeway, you'd think I was torturing you. It's like that unauthenticated Pollock painting. If it is authenticated, it's a masterpiece. If not, it's just paint dribbled on canvas. The painting is the same in either case.
Sep 02 2010
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:i5pa6s$316c$1 digitalmars.com...
 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 The scene was of the main character driving on a busy highway into a 
 crowded metropolis. The meaning was to question the veracity and meaning 
 of perception, existence, and human interaction - all of which are 
 central themes in the movie.

But if I showed you 15 minutes of me driving around on the freeway, you'd think I was torturing you. It's like that unauthenticated Pollock painting. If it is authenticated, it's a masterpiece. If not, it's just paint dribbled on canvas. The painting is the same in either case.

Context does change things - sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for questionable reasons. Someone recently brought up the book Atlanta Nights ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Nights ). If I had come across that in a library a week ago, I likely would have thought "What a horrid book! Terrible waste of paper." But now that I know the story behind it (it was *deliberately* bad), I find it hilarious. Another example: Back when the "Jerry Maguire" movie came out sometime in the 90's, one song on its soundtrack started getting played everywhere: "I would walk 10,000 miles" or something like that. I *hated* that song. So irritating. A few years later I found out that song was originally released in the 80's (not the 90's), made it big in Europe, but got ignored in the US until Jerry Maguire popularized it. But see, I'm a huge 80's nut. I swear, the very next time I heard the song, it didn't bother me anymore, and I actually started to like it. All that even though I knew perfectly well it was the exact same song I had hated and that the *only* thing that had changed was my knowledge of what decade it was made. It *is* an incredibly stupid phenomenon, no doubt. But it is a normal human thing, for better or worse.
Sep 02 2010
parent reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Nick,

 "Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:i5pa6s$316c$1 digitalmars.com...
 
 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 
 The scene was of the main character driving on a busy highway into a
 crowded metropolis. The meaning was to question the veracity and
 meaning of perception, existence, and human interaction - all of
 which are central themes in the movie.
 

you'd think I was torturing you. It's like that unauthenticated Pollock painting. If it is authenticated, it's a masterpiece. If not, it's just paint dribbled on canvas. The painting is the same in either case.

questionable reasons. Someone recently brought up the book Atlanta Nights ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Nights ). If I had come across that in a library a week ago, I likely would have thought "What a horrid book! Terrible waste of paper." But now that I know the story behind it (it was *deliberately* bad), I find it hilarious. Another example: Back when the "Jerry Maguire" movie came out sometime in the 90's, one song on its soundtrack started getting played everywhere: "I would walk 10,000 miles" or something like that. I *hated* that song. So irritating. A few years later I found out that song was originally released in the 80's (not the 90's), made it big in Europe, but got ignored in the US until Jerry Maguire popularized it. But see, I'm a huge 80's nut. I swear, the very next time I heard the song, it didn't bother me anymore, and I actually started to like it. All that even though I knew perfectly well it was the exact same song I had hated and that the *only* thing that had changed was my knowledge of what decade it was made. It *is* an incredibly stupid phenomenon, no doubt. But it is a normal human thing, for better or worse.

Venison makes really bad beef. And as long as you expect it to tates like beef it will taste bad. Same goes for most anything, if you think it's something it's not, you'll think it's a bad example of what it's not. -- ... <IXOYE><
Sep 03 2010
parent Justin Johansson <no spam.com> writes:
On 03/09/10 23:38, BCS wrote:
 Venison makes really bad beef. And as long as you expect it to tates
 like beef it will taste bad. Same goes for most anything, if you think
 it's something it's not, you'll think it's a bad example of what it's not.

It's rather serendipitous that you say that as I recall a past experience. Long time ago a girlfriend once asked if I would like a coffee to which I said yes. Five minutes later she came back with the hot beverage in a cup which I then sipped and almost spit out. This was such horrid coffee. She thought she would delight me by bringing chicken noodle soup instead. However as I was expecting the taste of coffee it tasted bloody aweful. Once she explained that she was trying to delight me with something a little different for the winter's day and then I re-tasted it, with the knowledge of chicken soup in mind, it was very in fact very nice. Thirty years later I still remember what horrid coffee it was but what nice chicken soup it was also once I knew it was chicken soup. Crazy our minds can be!!! Cheers Justin Johansson
Sep 03 2010
prev sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 9/2/10 17:58 CDT, Walter Bright wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 The scene was of the main character driving on a busy highway into a
 crowded metropolis. The meaning was to question the veracity and
 meaning of perception, existence, and human interaction - all of which
 are central themes in the movie.

But if I showed you 15 minutes of me driving around on the freeway, you'd think I was torturing you.

Well yah but that's because it'd be /you/. :o)
 It's like that unauthenticated Pollock painting. If it is authenticated,
 it's a masterpiece. If not, it's just paint dribbled on canvas. The
 painting is the same in either case.

Not at all. The comparison doesn't make sense. I and others I discussed it with found the scene was very powerful, and when I first watched the movie I had no opinion about the director etc. That you didn't find anything in it doesn't automatically make it crappy. Andrei
Sep 02 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 That you didn't find 
 anything in it doesn't automatically make it crappy.

Yes it does!
Sep 02 2010
parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 9/2/10 21:01 CDT, Walter Bright wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 That you didn't find anything in it doesn't automatically make it crappy.

Yes it does!

Hmmmm, that's a good argument. I thought of it for a while and I agree with you. Andrei
Sep 02 2010
prev sibling parent reply BLS <windevguy hotmail.de> writes:
On 02/09/2010 09:28, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 What do you think about Solaris? I've heard reviewers praising it for being
 "real" science fiction, so I've been tempted to try it out of sheer
 curiosity, but I've never felt confident enough about it to actually give it
 a try.

But if you like SF, buy the book from Stanislaw Lem. IMO the best SF author and philosopher ever. bjoern
Sep 02 2010
parent reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
BLS:
 But if you like SF, buy the book from Stanislaw Lem. IMO the best SF 
 author and philosopher ever.

The SF author I like most is Greg Egan. Any group of ten of his short stories contain more ideas than the whole career of an average SF author :-) Bye, bearophile
Sep 02 2010
parent reply BLS <windevguy hotmail.de> writes:
On 02/09/2010 22:30, bearophile wrote:
 BLS:
 But if you like SF, buy the book from Stanislaw Lem. IMO the best SF
 author and philosopher ever.

The SF author I like most is Greg Egan. Any group of ten of his short stories contain more ideas than the whole career of an average SF author :-) Bye, bearophile

Thanks, Is there a book you would recommend from Greg Egan ? To be honest with you I have never heard about him.
Sep 03 2010
parent reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
BLS:
 Thanks, Is there a book you would recommend from Greg Egan ?  To be 
 honest with you I have never heard about him.

Greg Egan is exceptionally good and he invents some of the most incredible ideas, but he's not for everyone. He writes the hardest SF. So if you don't like scientifically accurate SF, then Greg Egan isn't for you. I have read all novels and short stories he has written (but the last one, "Zendegi", I will eventually read it too). As it happens with most other SF writers, his books are not fully separated from each other even if no characters last more than a book, there is a development in the author ideas. So I suggest you to start from the first books and short story collections he has written, in chronological order. On the author site (and elsewhere on the net) you find many (probably 15 short stories or so), so even if you don't read them in chronological order, you will be able to know if you want to read his books. http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Egan I have written several short stories inspired by ideas or stories invented by Greg Egan. I think you will need to wait 20-40 more years before some movie starts to copy from his ideas (typically in a bad way, see the last movies based on Asimov novels, like I robot, Bicentary man, etc. The movie on I robot tells even the opposite of the purpose those short stories were written for). Bye, bearophile
Sep 03 2010
parent reply Jeff Nowakowski <jeff dilacero.org> writes:
On 09/03/2010 10:12 PM, bearophile wrote:
 Greg Egan is exceptionally good and he invents some of the most incredible
ideas, but he's not for everyone.

I was curious and checked out his website. I ended up reading the short story “Crystal Nights”: http://ttapress.com/553/crystal-nights-by-greg-egan/ I liked it, but it was a modern-day take on "Microcosmic God" from 1941. I would be a little bit wary about attributing a bunch of new ideas from him. Lots of ideas are "in the air" and in many cases there's not much new under the sun. Just a different variation on a theme. The stories may still be good, but they are not necessarily revolutionary.
Sep 04 2010
parent bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Jeff Nowakowski:
 I liked it, but it was a modern-day take on "Microcosmic God" from 1941. 
 I would be a little bit wary about attributing a bunch of new ideas from 
 him.

One story is a too much small sample. He has invented tons of ideas, but of course you are right that it's very hard to invent totally new things. Bye, bearophile
Sep 04 2010
prev sibling parent reply Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
On 02/09/2010 06:46, Walter Bright wrote:
 Real sci-fi is based on a "what if X" and then a story is built around
 it. 2001 is what if we find an artifact on the moon? Colossus is what if
 a defense computer becomes sentient? Soap operas, horse operas, etc.,
 aren't really sci-fi even if they are in spaceships. Monster movies are
 sci-fi, but the genre is so tired (something is killing the crew one by
 one!) that I really don't want to see another one.

2001 A Space Odissey is about much, much more than "what if we find an artifact on the moon" that its not even funny. :p
 Is Star Wars sci-fi? I'd say not, because spaceships are the setting,
 but have nothing to do with the plot which you could transfer wholesale
 to a western or an eastern. The fact that entire sequences seem to be
 lifted directly from "633 Squadron" also argues that it is not sci-fi.

I highly disagree that you could transfer the Star Wars plot wholesale to a western. The Force is one big reason right there. Not only because it is equivalent to magic or psionic powers, but also because apparently it is (for better or worse) a central catalyst element in the moral decisions and alignment of characters. As for an eastern, what is that? A movie set in ancient China/Orient/Asia? -- Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
Oct 13 2010
parent Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
Bruno Medeiros schrieb:
 
 As for an eastern, what is that? A movie set in ancient China/Orient/Asia?
 

Also (according to german wikipedia) it's also used for martial arts movies (John Woo, Jackie Chan etc).
Oct 13 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent so <so so.do> writes:
 I think his point was that while the Star Wars prequels had large  
 budgets, they
 weren't all that good, while Dark Star was good in spite of having a  
 small
 budget. So, the budget doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the  
 quality
 of the movie.

 - Jonathan M Davis

err? -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Sep 01 2010
prev sibling parent so <so so.do> writes:
 Actually, he specifically mentioned the prequels, not the original  
 trilogy, so
 unless Dark Star has Harrison Ford in it (I haven't seen it, but I'm  
 pretty sure
 that he's not in it), there is no Harrison Ford factor with the movies  
 that he
 mentioned.

SW = Star Wars SW != Dark Star I thought it was pretty obvious. SW has Ford in it, and it sure hell has Ford factor in it. SW is not a low budget film.
 I think his point was that while the Star Wars prequels had large  
 budgets, they
 weren't all that good, while Dark Star was good in spite of having a  
 small
 budget. So, the budget doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the  
 quality
 of the movie.

That is what i thought, and supported him as i think it is also pretty clear. My English is not the best but i can't help but think the source of confusion is not my writing skills on this one :P -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Sep 01 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk> writes:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 12:01 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Never heard of it, but it sounds like something I'll have to check out =


=20
 Yes, you do. It's a classic.

Extremely serious low budget though -- everyone needs to remember that when watching (1974, so pre Star Wars, and a very, very low budget). Great work by John Carpenter and Dan O'Bannon. --=20 Russel. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n= et 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: russel russel.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
Sep 01 2010
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Russel Winder" <russel russel.org.uk> wrote in message 
news:mailman.34.1283369300.858.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 12:01 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Never heard of it, but it sounds like something I'll have to check out 
 :)

Yes, you do. It's a classic.

Extremely serious low budget though -- everyone needs to remember that when watching (1974, so pre Star Wars, and a very, very low budget). Great work by John Carpenter and Dan O'Bannon.

It's John Carpenter?? Ok, now I *know* I have to see it! :)
Sep 01 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent so <so so.do> writes:
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 02:05:53 +0300, Walter Bright  
<newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Russel Winder wrote:
 Extremely serious low budget though -- everyone needs to remember that
 when watching (1974, so pre Star Wars, and a very, very low budget).

Dark Star and the Star Wars prequels prove that big budgets aren't what make a movie, a plot and good writing is.

If you ignore the Harrison Ford factor, SW is nothing but a soap opera to me... Then you watch Bladerunner, Alien... now they are truly awesome! -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Sep 01 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent so <so so.do> writes:
 Still haven't gotten around to seeing Alien (yea, I know - unthinkable  
 ;) ),
 but I tried watching Bladerunner once and got bored quick and turned it  
 off.
 I've been meaning to give it another try though, it certainly has a lot  
 of
 recommendations behind it. Maybe it was just because I was watching the
 "director's edition"? Bladerunner fans: Which edition would be best to go
 with: original, "director's", or "final"?

If you missed Alien, you missed it all, nothing else to say on that one! For these two, i should actually stop talking, for i am so biased on both. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Sep 01 2010
prev sibling parent so <so so.do> writes:
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:47:01 +0300, Walter Bright  
<newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 What do you think about Solaris? I've heard reviewers praising it for  
 being "real" science fiction, so I've been tempted to try it out of  
 sheer curiosity, but I've never felt confident enough about it to  
 actually give it a try.

I watched the original russian one. It's sci-fi, but it's rather long and boring. Like there's a long sequence of just the character driving on the freeway. Driving, driving, driving, ...

All the movies of him i have seen is like that, but he knows well how to strike, deadly. You should give Nostalghia a try, especially one scene that involves (don't want to spoil it but) a candle. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Sep 02 2010
prev sibling parent Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
On 01/09/2010 15:26, Justin Johansson wrote:
 I know this is completely off topic and surely shows my age,
 but I wonder if anyone else on this ng has seen this movie.

 I couldn't remember the name of this movie but googling for
 movie star "bomb bay" "I think"
 found it for me first pop.

 Dark Star (1974) - Memorable quotes
 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069945/quotes

 The reason for mentioning this is because the next time I ask
 a question about D on this ng that comes back with a something
 for me to consider further, I'll be answering along the lines
 "returning to bomb bay to think about this"
 and hopefully people will understand what I mean :-)

 Cheers
 Justin Johansson

I saw that one some years ago. I have a high-tolerance for low-budget effects, so when I read that it was quite a classic, I decided to watch it. It was good, yeah. -- Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
Oct 13 2010