From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!npoiv!npois!ucbvax!sf-lovers Newsgroups: fa.sf-lovers Title: SF-LOVERS Digest V6 #25 Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8143 Posted: Wed Jul 28 14:26:07 1982 Received: Thu Jul 29 05:11:36 1982 >From JPM@MIT-AI Wed Jul 28 14:10:47 1982 SF-LOVERS Digest Sunday, 25 Jul 1982 Volume 6 : Issue 25 Today's Topics: SF Movies - Revenues & The Secret of NIMH & Blade Runner & Poltergeist & ET: The Extra-Terrestrial, SF Topics - Books vs Movies, Spoiler - ET: The Extra-Terrestrial ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 Jul 1982 1350-PDT From: Robert AmslerSubject: 11 Top-Grossing Films (week ending July 7) (source: Variety) Ranks: Last-week =>This week Film Name (Rank Change + = up 1, - = down 1) Total to Date Weeks on Chart 1 => 1. E T - The Extra-Terrestrial $23,721,283 ( 4 weeks) 5 => 2. Blade Runner (+++) $ 4,363,497 ( 2 weeks) 3 => 3. Rocky III $23,560,379 ( 6 weeks) 4 => 4. Poltergeist $13,808,381 ( 5 weeks) 7 => 5. Annie (++) $ 7,572,065 ( 7 weeks) 2 => 6. Firefox (----) $ 7,134,092 ( 3 weeks) 6 => 7. Star Trek II-Wrath of Kahn (-) $15,664,867 ( 5 weeks) 8 => 8. The Thing $ 2,559,139 ( 2 weeks) 9 => 9. Author Author $ 2,304,756 ( 3 weeks) 10=>10. Bambi $ 4,321,303 (15 weeks) 11=>11. Megaforce $ 972,272 ( 2 weeks) ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jul 1982 05:36:47-PDT From: decvax!duke!uok!uokvax!jab at Berkeley Subject: The Secret of NIMH The Secret of NIMH (I believe that's spelled right) is an experience. The animation is very, very good. It puts Disney studios to shame (note that I distinguish between present Disney Studios and the works Walt Disney worked on.) I would compare this to Walt Disney at his best --- it isn't *quite* as good, but extremely close. And that's not even the good part! The plot is similar to some of the plots Walt Disney pulled out of his hat: not so intense as to frighten children, but interesting enough to keep everybody well entertained. I'll not say much more, except that I was pleased that Walt Disney's craft is finally being followed. Jeff ------------------------------ Date: 07/13/82 21:27:14 From: ZEMON@MIT-MC Subject: The Secret of NIMH This is a /good/ movie. I haven't seen animation like this in YEARS. Along with a story THAT good . . . . I think Disney's blown it. Again. (Why'd they ever let Bluth (?) go, anyway?) Go see it. (And take your family and friends, especially the youngsters.) -Landon- ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 1982 0039-PDT From: Jim McGrath Subject: Secret of Nimh Star Watch: Disney Deserters Create New Animated Film By BOB THOMAS Associated Press Writer HOLLYWOOD (AP) - On Sept. 13, 1979, Don Bluth led a band of fellow artists out of Walt Disney studios. Almost three years and $7 million later, the result of their exodus can be seen in the nation's theaters. The MGM-United Artists release is called ''The Secret of NIMH,'' and its similarity to the classic Disney animated features is more than coincidental. Bluth, Gary Goldman, John Pomeroy and the other 14 defectors vowed to carry on the Walt Disney traditions that they felt were being stifled at the studio Disney had founded. Don Bluth Productions started in Bluth's garage and still operates in a modest manner, with headquarters in a building behind a savings and loan on Ventura Boulevard in Studio City. The atmosphere is more confident now than it was when ''NIMH'' was in its early stages. The company has now completed its first feature and has already embarked on another. Bluth was in a state of high anticipation as the ''NIMH'' openings approached. That's unusual for a man who is normally under total control. ''We proved we could make a feature on schedule and on budget,'' he said ''Now we hope producers and exhibitors will be convinced there is a future for animation. They will be - if our picture makes money.'' ''The Secret of NIMH'' is based on a Robert C. O'Brien book about Mrs. Frisby, a resourceful mouse who tries to keep her family together and seeks help from a number of forest animals, including a superintelligent cadre of rats. The animation and effects are top grade, as are the voices: Dom DeLuise, Elizabeth Hartman, John Carradine, Peter Strauss, Derek Jacobi, Hermione Baddeley. Bluth said that he had learned much as leader of his own band of artists. ''First of all, the value of story,'' he said. ''I bought five or six how-to books and learned all about plot points and paradigms - the rise-and-fall action of the story. I also realized that we needed a comic and a villain. We turned Jeremy the crow into a comedian; the villain came late, one of the rats. ''The second thing I learned was how to get along with people,'' Bluth said. ''Making an animated feature is not just drawing. It's dealing with many artistic people who become angry and excited, hold grudges and need to be convinced to get along with each other. That part of my job was even harder than the story.'' Bluth provided incentive for cooperation. He cut in all of the staff - 140 at full production - for a share of the profits. ''They were told, 'This picture is something that you own, too.' That was reason for them to dig down inside themselves and bring more to the picture,'' said Bluth. ''The Secret of NIMH'' is a rarity this summer: a G-rated movie. Most producers seek to avoid the G. Not Bluth. ''Producers believe that the teen-age market requires movies that are fast, violent, sex or drug oriented,'' he said. ''That puts a real burden on young people: To be treated as if they have no feelings. ''I'm encouraged by the big business being done by 'E.T.' Steven Spielberg has put another diet on the plate of teen-age moviegoers, a movie that is frankly sentimental. I'm hopeful that 'E.T.' will help make room for other family pictures. Like 'The Secret of NIMH.''' ------------------------------ Date: 26 July 1982 13:05-EDT (Monday) From: David H. Kaufman Subject: Bladerunner I enjoyed Bladerunner-the-movie, but felt that it did not live up to Bladerunner-the-book. Actually, the movie pulled from the book the society and the characters names (but not the characters themselves) and then went off on its own. The combination of book (read first) and movie I found interesting - they complement each other without telling the same story; kind of like reading the book Star Wars only more so. Has anybody noticed yet that Harrison Ford can't act? He's always essentially the same character - luckily for him, the strong man with a conscience roles are plentiful these days (This is not derogatory; I rather enjoy the character he always ends up playing, I'm just amused when I see Han Solo swing through Raiders, etc.). Going off at a tangent from my tangent, did anybody else keep seeing Star Wars and Empire antics during Bladerunner? Each time Deckard pulled off an athletic stunt, I saw Luke or Han doing the same thing a few years ago . . . . Right, now I'll leave the poor movie makers alone and ask a simple question: does anyone know when HitchHiker's Guide Book Three is coming out? (And for all you who enjoyed the first two, I suggest that you see if you can get your hands on the records, or tapes of the radio play: they're kind of the same situation I described above about storylines. But don't buy the records if you can avoid it - they have a short life before they begin to fall apart.) Hope I haven't bored you too much, Dave Kaufman ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 82 2:03-PDT From: mclure at SRI-UNIX Subject: flicks Well, I've caught my two or three movies for the year. Here are some short reviews for those of you who hate the long ones from the newswires. Poltergeist: *** More of Spielberg's Southern California suburban comedy-drama. The effects by ILM are excellent. The plot is a bit weak. Overall, I'd say it's worthwhile once for anyone in the teens or over. Not recommended for little kids. Very intense in places. "Last June, Spielberg paid $60,500 for the balsa wood sled with 'Rosebud' painted on it, featured with the poignant last scene of Citizen Kane. He said he wants to hang it over his desk to remind him of how important quality is in films. Maybe some day Rosebud will remind him that bigger, louder schlockier gimmicks, mixed with blood, violence, and ersatz science, are not enough to make a motion picture memorable." Martin Gardner, in Discover E.T.: ** 1/2 More of Spielberg's Southern California suburban comedy-fantasy. Perhaps a great children's film but tiresome otherwise. I still think The Black Stallion from 1980 surpasses it and touches adults much better too, not to mention TBS's more beautiful photography, lyrical hypnotic island sequences, and haunting score. E.T. is awfully mushy in places but hysterical in others (school-room). Overall, I'd say it's worthwhile for any children. Adults might get bored in places. I did. "Spielberg sides with the children so wholeheartedly that he reduces them and their adversaries alike to two-dimensional characters. Bad guys start chasing good guys, and this film, racing at the pace of a video game, becomes little more than a slick thriller. The viewer feels manipulated, as by a tear-jerker or a sitcom. All special effects stops are pulled for the climax. Spielberg's technical mastery is indisputable. If he ever grows up, he has the tools to make a film that is truly out of this world." John Stickney, in Discover Just to give some sense of how I feel about Spielberg, his only movie that has really impressed me is the TV movie Duel. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 82 18:59:40 EDT (Tue) From: Steve Bellovin Subject: E.T. George Will had an interesting comment about E.T. in the July 19 "Newsweek": Throughout the movie, [scientists] have been hunting the little critter, electronically eavesdropping on the house and generally acting like Watergate understudies.... But what is bothersome is the animus against science, which is seen as a morbid calling for callous vivisectionists and other unfeeling technocrats.... Hostility to science is the anti-intellectualism of the semi-intellectual. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jul 1982 2221-EDT From: James M. Turner Subject: Is film/video going to take over SF I just saw E.T., and the quality of the film brings up some serious questions about the viability of written SF. E.T. could very well win the Oscar if nothing *really* spectacular comes along (co-staring Jesus as Bob the mailman, or something along those lines.) In a year when nothing seems to be coming out of the top SF authors but rehashed plots and characters, the high quality and quantity (Gee Phil, these things make money...) of SF films acts as a dramatic counter-pointer. In the past, the inability of the camera to capture what minds could imagine has restricted the impact the movie industry could make on SF. But recent improvements in special effects make me wonder if the written medium may not be inferior. Where is it written in stone that books must be better than movies. Is this an elitist attitude? 1000 years ago, you didn't have mass market paperbacks. Everyone told stories. Now the art of story telling is almost gone. Should we lament the possible passing of written SF, or should we exalt in a new way to experience the wonders of imagination? I'll leave it to you to decide... James (One in a continuing series of attempts to divert SFL from movie reviews) ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, July 28, 1982 4:36AM From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) Subject: SPOILER WARNING! SPOILER WARNING! The last message in this digest discuss some plot details in the movie ET: The Extra-Terrestrial. Some readers may not wish to read on. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 1982 1638-PDT From: First at SUMEX-AIM Subject: Cardiac Arrest in E.T. - *SPOILER* Like the rest of the civilized world, I thoroughly enjoyed E.T. but I strongly question the believability of the medical aspects of the film. After E.T. is found lying gravely ill on the bathroom floor, he is hooked up to the mobile Intensive Care Unit while heroic efforts are being made to keep him alive. He subsequently deteriorates and has an arrest. The medical accuracy of the resussitative effort was impeccable--in fact, instead of using actors they incorporated medical people to go through the motions of reviving E.T.--something which becomes an automatic action to doctors. It was therefore an excellent depiction of a real "code" (medical jargon for reviving efforts after a cardiac arrest) but this was not a human being! The EKG, blood pressure, drugs used, etc. were particular for human physiology and anatomy. clearly, E.T. was quite different than humans in more than appearance--esp. his abilities to heal by touching. Medical procedures for a code were developed with knowledge of where blood vessels are, etc. It would be incredibly unlikely that they could even figure out where to insert IV lines, let alone know which drugs to use and in what doeses. One could say that the believability standards in E.T. are lower than in most other SF films because of its fairy tale tone and the fact that Spielberg has a history of not playing close attention to such details in his films. But given the large amount of screen time devoted to the fine details of the resussitative efforts (including the liberal use of medical jargon), there should have been more consideration of the unlikliness of the situation. --Michael (FIRST @ SUMEX-AIM) ------------------------------ End of SF-LOVERS Digest ***********************