Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site ahutb.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!drutx!ahuta!ahutb!leeper From: leeper@ahutb.UUCP (m.r.leeper) Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: FIVE MILLION YEARS TO EARTH (super-spoiler) Message-ID: <547@ahutb.UUCP> Date: Sun, 10-Mar-85 09:25:04 EST Article-I.D.: ahutb.547 Posted: Sun Mar 10 09:25:04 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 11-Mar-85 23:46:02 EST References: <491@ahuta.UUCP>, <24700006@siemens.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ Lines: 163 REFERENCES: <491@ahuta.UUCP>, <24700006@siemens.UUCP> >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. "In matters of taste... etc." I didn't think the effects were too bad. I am not fond of the memory video-tape sequence. I did like the energy column at the end, which you don't like." In any case, I like the film for its ideas, not its effects. > >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. Quartermass I did not call him "Quartermass." The name is "Quatermass" with one "r". Of course it is easy to look at something and not really see what's there. >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 The physical characteristics of the aliens implied a lower gravity and a thinner atmosphere than Earth's. Mars was a logical guess and the only location within our solar system that matched the physical characteristics of the aliens. I think that is pretty good evidence and is no more far-fetched than logical conclusions drawn in many scientific investigations. >and they altered apes into evolving toward intelligent humans. This is really the result of more complex evidence. The apes found at the site fit into the recognized flow of evolution except that their braincases were unaccountably much larger than than their immediate predecessors on the evolutionary tree. The connection of the apes to the craft was explained in my previous mailing. The best protected of them were the ones inside the craft, hence they were contemporaries. The coincidence of the braincases and the alien visitation at the same time leads one to believe the two were connected. As I remember one of the scientists is uneasy about this connection. In either the film or the play, probably both, Roney refers to coincidence as a breeder of false theories. It is a good line. There is further evidence, more abstract and later on, in that the latent telekinetic capabilities of current humans seems to be tied into the alien craft in some unclear manner. There seems to be more going on in the initial contact than just a passing noticing of each other. >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. Based on the above, yes. "We don't know where they came from" is not an explanation of anything. It is an obvious step to try to work out where they could have come from, and the best evidence points to Mars. > >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. I hope the above is helpful. >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, At the time Mars is guessed they already have the braincase evidence and the physical structure of the aliens. They do not mention the conclusion that the aliens altered the humans until after the telekinetic evidence also shows up. Nigel Kneale is a craftsman and sweats the details. If you went to Seacon you saw in what high regard British fans hold him (for very good reason, in my opinion). >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 More taken as an operational theory. An when Quatermass tells anyone about it, he qualifies everything he says with "If I'm right...". >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. Except that there have been reported cases of it for many years. Why do you think we already have a word for it? This film takes the claims of telekinetic power and treats them as scientific observations. >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. I probably agree with you here, since there could be an instinctive basis for it, but since it shows up in both races, Quatermass concludes that it is more than coincidence. >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! No, I don't think he asked Sladden, the driller, to draw any conclusions. Sladden just describes what he sees. > >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. And I agree with the idea of your flame, but I think this was not a film it really applied to. I can think of no other science fiction film in which I think this complex a conclusion is so well reasoned. >In conclusion, I maintain that unless I remember totally >wrong, the "science" put forth in this film is worse than >useless. I think where the film presents science, it is reasonable. Where it presents scientific method it is good. But for the most part it presents speculation and for that I consider the best science fiction film I remember ever seeing. They conclusions it draws are a good distance from our understanding of how things are, but the chain of evidence makes the film plausible. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!ahutb!leeper