🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2018-06-21, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 06:53:31 -0400, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 19 Jun 2018 21:33:20 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> 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.
>> 
>> 2001?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 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. I think it started the trend toward
>>> higher-class scifi now in the movies and on tv. 
>> 
>> 
>> The Andromeda Strain, The Omega Man, THX 1138, Silent Running, Solaris,
>> Fantastic Planet, Soylent Green, Dark Star, The Terminal Man, A Boy and His Dog,
>> Logan's Run, The Man Who Fell to Earth, Close Encounters of the Third Kind...
>> just some of the films from that period -- hardly a desert.
>> 
>> It was 2001 that really set the higher bar for science fiction cinema, but
>> nobody tried to reach it for quite a while.  Star Wars did spawn a host of
>> imitators, none of which were as good and some of which were truly awful.
>> 
>> 
>
> 2001 was good, but the ending was hokey - not the fault of the movie, since
> the book was also. I saw many of the others and thought some were pretty
> good. Blade Runner beat them all, but I believe that came after SW.
>

AFAIK, the Book (2001) came after the film, and was really the `bookifying'
of the script. Great film.


-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man