🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 18:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 4:53:32 AM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote:
> > JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > > The first one, now number 4, was the best sf movie since Forbidden
> > > Planet. My high school buddies and I had given up ever seeing a good
> > > sf movie again. I was in a small nothing town out in Texas when the
> > > first movie came out. I drove over, expecting maybe 10 or 20 people in
> > > line to see it.
> 
> > My recollection is foggy, but my thought at the time was that Star Wars
> > dropped in as a full-featured sci-fi movie into a desert of creature
> > features and cheap B movies.
> 
> Star Wars was a great and highly entertaining movie.

	Definitely, a clear demonstration that space opera could make a
great film.

> 2001: A Space Odyssey was quite a way in the past,

	and was too complex and strange for many people.

> Other major science fiction films that I can think of also go back to the
> 60s, and many of them were relatively low-budget releases...
> 
> The Andromeda Strain
> Westworld
> Planet of the Apes

	Also Solaris and a bunch of earlier and very cheesy stuff like Plan
9 (now an operating system) and Forbidden Planet (now a chain of shops).
Some of it was quite good science fiction (not much) but none of it was
great entertainment.

> Star Wars, of course, wasn't really like _any_ of those; it wasn't
> *serious* SF. The last time there was anything like it... was the Flash
> Gordon and Buck Rogers serials.

	It was space opera in the grand style of Doc Smith, crap science
fiction but great fun.

	Star Wars is to science fiction as James Bond is to spy fiction.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/