Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.14 $; site siemens.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!siemens!steve
From: steve@siemens.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: FIVE MILLION YEARS TO EARTH (super-s
Message-ID: <24700006@siemens.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 8-Mar-85 09:59:00 EST
Article-I.D.: siemens.24700006
Posted: Fri Mar  8 09:59:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Mar-85 06:34:03 EST
References: <491@ahuta.UUCP>
Lines: 80
Nf-ID: #R:ahuta:-49100:siemens:24700006:000:4318
Nf-From: siemens!steve    Mar  8 09:59:00 1985


I recently made a rather unintelligible flaming response to Mark Leeper's
note about his favorite sf film "Five Million Years to Earth".  This note
is an attempt to clarify and defend that flame.

I saw "Five Million Years to Earth" quite some time ago, and I don't
remember it too well.  I remember mostly the hoaky and/or silly special
effects like the giant devil-insect ghost at the end and the melting
aliens and a few others.  I also remember thinking the movie was pretty
dumb.  So I had to rely mainly on Mark Leeper's spoiler to jog my memory.

Mark's spoiler:
"The army, with much trouble, is able to bore a hole into the inner chamber
found in the craft, and inside they find insect-like inhabitants.  Quarter-
mass theorizes that they are from Mars and that they had altered the apes
whose fossils were found into evolving toward intelligent humans."

Mark's comment to me:
"Given the evidence I cannot think of any time in the film when Quartermass
or Roney jump to a wild conclusion when there is another that is simpler
AND more convincing."

So anytime an extraterrestrial craft that is 5 million years old is found,
the simplest, most convincing explanation is that the aliens are from Mars
and they altered apes into evolving toward intelligent humans.  A much more
complex and unconvincing explanation is that we don't know where they came
from and their reason for being on Earth probably had nothing to do with the
apes.

GGGGIIIIIIVVVVVVVEEEEE MMMMEEEE AAAA BBBRRRREEEEEAAAAKKKK!!!!!!

My swiss cheese memory and Mark's spoiler offer no evidence for Quartermass
to believe the aliens were from Mars, and no evidence that they had anything
to do with the apes except being on Earth at the same time.  Perhaps there
was something in the movie or in the play to justify these conclusions, but
I don't remember and Mark didn't mention it.  Afterwards, evidence appears to
support these wild conclusions, and this is the heart of what I was sputtering
and flaming about:  crappy "sf" movies often have a scientist make a wild
conclusion and later provide evidence to support it.  (I ineloquently
phrased this as "...and this explanation is taken for fact for the rest of
the movie.").

There is another example.  Mark's spoiler:
"Quartermass ... hears the driller babbling about seeing scenes from another
world.  His description seems to be of a race purge of mutants.  Quartermass
theorizes that the telekinetic powers and the hatred of anyone different
were invested in us by the aliens and were always with us more or less
dormant.  The craft has the power to reawaken them in us."

There is no evidence that the telekinetic powers were always with us more
or less dormant.  There is no evidence that hatred of anyone different was
invested in us by the aliens; it may be a trait that we and
the aliens share, to different degrees.  In fact, I kind of remember even
the part about the "description seems to be of a race purge of mutants" to
have been something like (I admit to exaggeration):

Driller: Thousands of weird aliens being driven out!  They're being killed!
         All sorts of havoc and destruction!
Quartermass: Was it some sort of racial purge of mutants?  Tell me!
Driller: Babble babble yes!

I think you probably get the idea of what I am flaming at.  Scientist makes
wild, unfounded conclusion which is later supported by evidence not available
at the time the conclusion is made.  Please forgive me if I am wrong about
this movie, and I simply don't remember supporting evidence.  I'm pretty
sure I would remember, though.

By the way, this business about mutants brings up another pet peeve of mine,
that science fiction authors and readers generally know very little about
biology and seldom understand mutation or evolution.  Systematically killing
off all abnormal individuals would be an anti-survival trait if you accept
the theory of evolution.  (Small quibble in this movie; someday I'll flame on
about this one when a better (worse) example comes up.)

In conclusion, I maintain that unless I remember totally wrong, the "science"
put forth in this film is worse than useless.  However, if I could get that
out of my mind, I think I might agree with Mark that the film presents a
number of very interesting ideas worth thinking about.

ihnp4!princeton!siemens!steve