Comments | sturgeonslawyer: Responding to some borscht

sturgeonslawyer

Responding to some borscht

Nov 04, 2005 09:16

In responding to a comment on his LJ, fr_john asks, rather plaintively, Why is it that we have had precious little SF on film that isn't mindless fluff?

I suspect, fr_john, it's because you are looking at the empty part of the cup. Yes, there has been a lot of mindless fluff, but there has been a lot of good, thoughtful SF over the years, too ( Read more... )

disputation, movies

Comments 6

orangemike November 4 2005, 17:43:53 UTC

Umm, some code needs fixing there.

sturgeonslawyer November 4 2005, 17:52:12 UTC

Thanks! Fixed.

kalimac November 4 2005, 22:50:49 UTC

Realizing that "suck" and "fluff" are not synonymous (a couple of the films on your list really suck, including, I'm sorry to say, Forbidden Planet), I note that experience - or possibly MST3K - has taught me to react to news of a new SF film I know nothing about with the thought, "That's really going to suck," but I don't have that thought about other types of films.

sturgeonslawyer November 5 2005, 00:14:13 UTC

Forbidden Planet sucks?

Heretic! Where's my bell book and candle...?

kalimac November 5 2005, 07:17:34 UTC

Sucks. Someone put a sign reading "No good acting is allowed in this area!" on the set, and only Walter Pidgeon ignored it.

fr_john November 5 2005, 18:20:31 UTC

I admit you caught me in a bad spot, having had just compared SWE3 with Serenity. I concede your point. ok?

I like "Forbidden Planet". "Fantastic Planet", not so much.