SF-LOVERS Digest          Wednesday, 13 Jan 1993       Volume 18 : Issue 32
 
Today's Topics:
 
                 Films - Ender's Game & Zardoz (4 msgs) &
                         Highlander 3 & 2001 (2 msgs)
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: 11 Dec 92 05:31:52 GMT
From: gbc@med.unc.edu (Geoff Crooks)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Ender: The Movie
 
I was at a book signing Tuesday, and Orson Scott Card mentioned that after
several years of negotiations, some production company (he didn't say which
one) agreed to his terms regarding making Ender's Game into a movie.  The
sticking point wasn't money, but according to Scott, had to do with the
producers wanting to play Ender as a 16 year old in order to appeal to the
teen market.  Scott recounted a bit of his discussion with one producer in
which he asked the producers "well, what about E.T. or Home Alone" to which
they replied, yes, well, those are "special" movies.  To which Scott
replied, "well, I guess I'll have to find special producers" :))) Anyway, I
found that entertaining.
 
Other interesting tidbits he let fly were:
 
Don't expect another Alvin Maker book until at least '94, maybe not until
'95... apparently he has other contract obligations to complete before
Alvin.. sigh.
 
The 2nd and 3rd books in "The Memory of Earth" series are complete, and as
many are no doubt award, number 2 (I can't recall the title just now) will
be out in March.
 
Finally, look for Ender #4 by the end of '93.
 
Geoff
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 16 Dec 92 21:42:54 GMT
From: fleurant@hri.com (P.Fleurant)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: ZARDOZ
 
Zardoz, written, directed and produced by J.Boorman is out on tape. (CBS
video)
 
It is uncut!
 
This 1974 film stars S.Connery (007) in a very non-James Bond role with C.
Rampling.
 
IMHO this movie is still way ahead of its time and no other SF film has
since come close to its satire, comedy, and drama.
 
P.Fleurant
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 22 Dec 92 08:31:08 GMT
From: k206027@smog.dkrz-hamburg.de (Bakayaroo Banzai)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: ZARDOZ
 
fleurant@hri.com (P.Fleurant) writes:
>k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai) writes:
>> Nor have they managed to match it's silliness, plot mis-handling, bad
>> direction, or lapses in logic.
>>
>Please give us:
>      an example of plot mis-handling?
>      an example of lapses in logic????
>
>There may be something to learn here.
 
No problem.
 
Zardoz may be "art" but it certainly is not a well-told story. Boorman
doesn't tell us who Zed is until the middle of the film. We don't know why
he snuck onboard the flying head, we don't know what in the hell the
Brutals are or why they're so devolved from the Eternals. Maybe Boorman was
trying to create an air of mystery but all he succeeded in doing was
confusing most people I know who saw this film. He was obviously trying to
make a "head" film for druggies to cash in on the 2001:Space Odyssey crowd.
Yeah, he eventually explains everything but by the time he did I didn't
care anymore. A more linear storyline would have done wonders for this
film.
 
As for lapses in logic, the whole film is a lapse in logic as far as I'm
concerned. How does a super-computer extend people's lifespans?  Why do the
Eternals feel it necessary to control the Exterminators and Brutals when
the Vortex is self-sufficient? Why do the Eternals smash great objects of
art while chasing Zed? Why the great massacre scene at the end? Wouldn't a
great many of the Eternals simply wish to live out the remainder of their
lives rather than be brutally snuffed?  If the Tabernacle is contained in a
little crystal how does Zed manage to get inside of it, by shrinking down
real teensy?
 
And the list goes on. The makeup and costuming was terrible. The scene of
the Eternals meditating induces howls of laughter from the audience.
Boorman tries to tackle the big themes but he always misses the mark by a
few inches. His films all seem to have the sound quality of a dubbed
Japanese monster movie. Check out Arthur (Speed Racer) King of the Britons
in Excalibur if you don't believe me. He obviously does extensive
re-looping of dialogue.
 
Now to be fair, his cinematography is always stunning. Zardoz is no
exception. I was completely overwhelmed by "Hope and Glory" a few years
ago. The man is capable of absolute brilliance when he sticks to a real
story and hires good actors. Zardoz works for me only on the "Plan 9 From
Outer Space" level, not as a brilliant work of art.  I can only watch it
and think of what it could have been.
 
All IMO of course.
 
Matt Marchese
Cray Research
DKRZ
Hamburg, Germany
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 22 Dec 92 13:07:55 GMT
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: ZARDOZ
 
k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE writes:
> Zardoz may be "art" but it certainly is not a well-told story.  Boorman
> doesn't tell us who Zed is until the middle of the film. [...]  Yeah, he
> eventually explains everything but by the time he did I didn't care
> anymore. A more linear storyline would have done wonders for this film.
 
And I bet you only read mystery novels if the villain is given on the back
cover, or else you might have to worry about his identity for the whole
length of the book.
 
Personally, I think the split storyline is essential to get the viewer to
enter Vortex "from the outside".  Starting the film by showing an immortal
who devises a plan to destroy the central computer that controls his life
by means of a genetically engineered being is about the blandest way
possible.  The cinematography that you comment on works so well because it
is presented in the correct context.  Boorman keeps you wondering what this
is supposed to be all about.  As a philosophic vehicle, the film is fairly
crude.  As storytelling with a moral, with lots of ideas touched upon on
the sidelines, it's great.
 
> Maybe Boorman was trying to create an air of mystery but all he suceeded
> in doing was confusing most people I know who saw this film.
 
As should be clear from the above, he succeeded admirably for me.
 
>He was obviously trying to make a "head" film for druggies to cash in on
>the 2001:Space Odyssey crowd.
 
Considering that the film effectively argues the opposite, I don't think
so.  Also, there's six years between the two.  (Of course, there's six
years between 2001 and Dark Star, as well :-) .
 
> As for lapses in logic, the whole film is a lapse in logic as far as I'm
> concerned. How does a super-computer extend people's lifespans?
 
That's the wrong question.  The question would be "how can you make people
immortal?"  If you assume that that is possible, then the idea of some
automatically controlled process rejuvenating people is not harder to
believe than any other I might think of.  Obviously, "a super-computer" is
not enough.  It needs some kind of effectors. But actually, I don't care
being told about that, this is not MacGyver or a Robert Forward novel.
 
> Why do the Eternals feel it necessary to control the Exterminators and
> Brutals when the Vortex is self-sufficient?
 
I do get the impression you indeed didn't really watch the film.  The
Vortex ceased to be self-sufficient, since the catatonics (whose numbers
are increasing all the time) are not working.  The Exterminators were not
only controlled by the Eternals, they were created by them, first to reduce
the Brutals which the Eternals considered a threat and an annoyance, later
to get them to work.
 
I think there was one comment, which I accidentally deleted, to the effect
of how could people fall to the level of the Brutals.  Take a look at
Somalia, for instance, or Albania, which is a bit closer geographically.
Wrecking a complex society is not that difficult.  Actually, this is one of
the most believable parts of the film.
 
> Why do the Eternals smash great objects of art while chasing Zed?
 
Releasing pent-up emotions after decades of restraint?
 
> Why the great massacre scene at the end? Wouldn't a great many of the
> Eternals simply wish to live out the remainder of their lives rather than
> be brutally snuffed?
 
Actually, this *is* a simplification, and it fits with what I think about
the "message" of the film (see below).  But wait three hundred years, and
then tell me how you think about it.
 
> If the Tabernacle is contained in a little crystal how does Zed manage to
> get inside of it, by shrinking down real teensy?
 
And where does the second Zed come from, the one he shoots?  Wow.  A twin
brother, and we're never told about him.  Now, there must be something
wrong with this film.
 
> His films all seem to have the sound quality of a dubbed Japanese monster
> movie. Check out Arthur (Speed Racer) King of the Britons in Excalibur if
> you don't believe me.
 
Why should I?  I don't really care, and I don't see what this has to do
with plot line or logic of Zardoz.
 
I confess I have no problems with any details in Zardoz.  I'm not sure I
agree with the message Boorman tries to hit the viewer over the head with,
but that's something else.
 
Markus Stumptner
University of Technology Vienna
Paniglg. 16, A-1040
Vienna, Austria
mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
...mcsun!vexpert!mst
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 4 Jan 93 07:47:33 GMT
From: k206027@smog.dkrz-hamburg.de (Bakayaroo Banzai)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: ZARDOZ
 
mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE writes:
>> Zardoz may be "art" but it certainly is not a well-told story.  Boorman
>> doesn't tell us who Zed is until the middle of the film. [...]  Yeah, he
>> eventually explains everything but by the time he did I didn't care
>> anymore. A more linear storyline would have done wonders for this film.
>
>And I bet you only read mystery novels if the villain is given on the back
>cover, or else you might have to worry about his identity for the whole
>length of the book.
 
Hardly.  My beef with Zardoz is that Boorman apparently thinks he's
providing us with some great revelation by revealing Zed's identity in the
middle. Instead, it just produces a yawn.
 
>Personally, I think the split storyline is essential to get the viewer to
>enter Vortex "from the outside".  Starting the film by showing an immortal
>who devises a plan to destroy the central computer that controls his life
>by means of a genetically engineered being is about the blandest way
>possible.  The cinematography that you comment on works so well because it
>is presented in the correct context.  Boorman keeps you wondering what
>this is supposed to be all about.  As a philosophic vehicle, the film is
>fairly crude.  As storytelling with a moral, with lots of ideas touched
>upon on the sidelines, it's great.
 
I would argue that it would have been a lot more effective had Boorman not
tried to cover every philosophical issue of the 20th Century within the
same film. Yes, Boorman keeps you wondering... right up to the point when
you fall asleep from sheer boredom.
 
>> Why do the Eternals feel it necessary to control the Exterminators and
>> Brutals when the Vortex is self-sufficient?
>
>I do get the impression you indeed didn't really watch the film.  The
>Vortex ceased to be self-sufficient, since the catatonics (whose numbers
>are increasing all the time) are not working.  The Exterminators were not
>only controlled by the Eternals, they were created by them, first to
>reduce the Brutals which the Eternals considered a threat and an
>annoyance, later to get them to work.
 
I must confess that it's been about 4 years since the last time I saw this
film. I've since re-watched it and you are correct in pointing this out.
 
>I think there was one comment, which I accidentally deleted, to the effect
>of how could people fall to the level of the Brutals.  Take a look at
>Somalia, for instance, or Albania, which is a bit closer geographically.
>Wrecking a complex society is not that difficult.  Actually, this is one
>of the most believable parts of the film.
 
I don't believe that I posted anything to this effect?...
I also find this part of the film to be quite believable, probably the only
believable part.
 
>> If the Tabernacle is contained in a little crystal how does Zed manage
>> to get inside of it, by shrinking down real teensy?
>
>And where does the second Zed come from, the one he shoots?  Wow.  A twin
>brother, and we're never told about him.  Now, there must be something
>wrong with this film.
 
Even you seem to admit that it doesn't make any sense, that was the
original point I was trying to make.
 
>> His films all seem to have the sound quality of a dubbed Japanese
>> monster movie. Check out Arthur (Speed Racer) King of the Britons in
>> Excalibur if you don't believe me.
>
>Why should I?  I don't really care, and I don't see what this has to do
>with plot line or logic of Zardoz.
 
Lighten up Markus. I was making some general comments about Boorman's body
of film work, not specific comments about Zardoz.
 
>I confess I have no problems with any details in Zardoz.  I'm not sure I
>agree with the message Boorman tries to hit the viewer over the head with,
>but that's something else.
 
Glad you like it so much. I like the film also, albeit in quite a different
way.
 
Matt Marchese
Cray Research
DKRZ
Hamburg, Germany
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 7 Dec 92 19:41:41 GMT
From: allan@slab.unt.edu (Mark Allan)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: HIGHLANDER 3
 
Believe it or not, but it looks like there is going to be another one -
hopefully not as odious as the second (but I am big fan of the first).  As
of yet they are uncertain whether Sean Connery will be in it.  Got this
info from the mag Cinefantastique (think that's the title).
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 17 Dec 92 12:20:11 GMT
From: law015@aberdeen.ac.uk
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: 2001
 
   The book does help understand the 'moving' sequence.  But see also
another books *The Lost Worlds of 2001* where various versions of various
parts are given by Clarke - drafts and ideas as it were.  There was always
a concept of Bowman being moved through a mechanism - pipe - or something
to the world of the makers of the Monolith.  That fits what happens in the
film.  Incidentally, does not a large chunk show a helicopter flight over
Scotland in false colours??
 
Frank Lyall
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 4 Jan 93 20:17:08 GMT
From: BBLUM@griffin.uga.edu (Bill Blum)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: 2001 .... A Space Odyssey (continued)
 
Continuing on the similar vain as previous posters ...
 
> What is is the meaning of the "colorful" trip in the movie?
 
The definitive books to look at are:
    2001: A Space Odyssey   -- by A.C. Clarke and S. Kubrick
    The Lost Worlds of 2001 -- by A.C. Clarke
    The Making of 2001      -- ??
 
Supposedly, the monolith was a Star-gate (maybe, in essence a white-hole)
which allowed a "user" of it to take a shortcut from one place in the
galaxy to another.  I suppose you could say the trip was Kubrick's vision
of the "mind-blasting" or sensory overload that a human would perceive
while he/she was in an unknown place/time/continuum.  There were periods
during the "trip" that calmness occurred (the human - Bowman, could grasp
something of what currently was happening to him because he had something
he could relate it to) and other times that were inconceivable (to the
human viewpoint - often accompanied by quick shots of Bowman's face
seriously contorted).  Any cursory examination of the original book
(predominantly by Clarke) and the movie shows that they differ most at the
end of the book.  Clarke had to finish the book, and Kubrick the movie -
since those were their main focuses; both were working on deadlines.  The
book, however was submitted first, and was to be the original ending.  But
Kubrick did not like the ending after editing, and reshot /
used-alternative-endings of what happened to Bowman.  Some of the possible
"trips" or items Bowman was to perceive while in the stargate, were
explored by Kubrick/Clarke and Clarke wrote them down and put them in "The
Lost Worlds of 2001".  "The Making of 2001" contains the definitive
descriptions of the days before both works (movie and book) were finalized,
AND contains much philosophical/religious/anarchistic discussion on what
the movie (and principally the ending of the movie) means.  Nobody in those
discussions knew the answer to what it meant either.  There is one great
synopsis, by a young woman who wrote Kubrick a letter, postulating what the
movie (as a whole) was supposed to mean - Kubrick later stated that this
letter is the closest description of what HE wanted the movie to visualize.
Both the letter and K's comments are in "Making".
 
My great question is not what the "stargate-trip" was representing, but
what was happening during the period of time Bowman finds himself at later
and later stages of life after "landing" in the "house", till the time of
becoming StarChild.  (I didn't think much of "Making"'s descriptions on
this topic - I'd still like Clarke and Kubrick to explore that one!)
 
------------------------------
 
End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************
