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

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Walter Bright" <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:i5ndnb$1e09$1 at 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.