The Phantom Menace

acheron.org discussion board: Non-artscene Related Threads: The Phantom Menace
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By luminous (wiley224h027.roadrunner.nf.net - 205.251.224.27) on Thursday, February 25, 1999 - 05:12 pm:

Can anyone else NOT wait for this movie? I know i'm gonna be wetting myself all the way to the theatre on may 21st. :)

Did you know that they're going to release the soundtrack before the movie comes out? i know i'll be listening to the soundtrack while waiting in line for the movie :)

And how does everyone feel about using proven actors for the parts, as opposed to nobodies?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By mongi (dysprosium.k.kth.se - 130.237.75.89) on Friday, February 26, 1999 - 02:39 am:

I expect a LOT from this movie! I won't accept anything worse than the other three movies! It' Star Wars dammit!

One thing that sucks is that it won't get to Sweden until this autumn/fall! All you damn north american scenesters will ruin my star wars experience by discussing the movie here when you've seen it!

Anyway, I think the actors are pretty good. It would've been better with less known actors, but it doesn't bother me that much. With all the hype around all movies these days, even star wars need some to get to new audience.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By warpus (gateway-g1.londonlife.com - 204.101.39.130) on Friday, February 26, 1999 - 05:56 am:

i'm kind of afraid that the new movies won't live up to the old ones, which are classics... that would just ruin everything. still, i'm hopefully going to see the phantom menace in that new big movie theatre in toronto..

i wonder if this will be the first movie ever to make more than $1 billion (US of course). *i* think so.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By mongi (dialup205-2-60.swipnet.se - 130.244.205.124) on Friday, February 26, 1999 - 10:35 am:

well, nothing can be as good as the classics.. but I will be easily dissapointed.. I really want them to be good movies.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Cthulu of Mistigris ( - 207.194.179.136) on Friday, February 26, 1999 - 02:01 pm:

The last movie to get this kind of hype was Godzilla, and we all know what a colossal disappointment that was 8)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By God among Lice (bootp-231-230.bootp.virginia.edu - 128.143.231.230) on Friday, February 26, 1999 - 02:47 pm:

I have faith in the flanelled-one that he'll end up getting the movie done right.

As I see it, the difference between the hype for godzilla and the hype for TPM is that one kind of hype is artificially created through advertising, and the other seems truly driven by a huge fan base. There's no doubt in my mind that this will be the biggest money maker of all time.

btw.. does anyone know why everyone tends to judge movies by box office results? How come I never hear about comparisons to movies like Gone with the Wind that were wildly huge in terms of the number of people who went to see them? With inflation, the whole box office system seems really stupid.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By crowe ( - 208.170.105.3) on Friday, February 26, 1999 - 02:54 pm:

This movie better rock!

Me and some friends are buying out an entire showing opening night! Its gonna rock!!!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By BD ( - 198.64.44.36) on Friday, February 26, 1999 - 05:52 pm:

Cthulu I hate to inform you , but your idea of failure is a vague one. Let's take a look again at the original Godzilla series, They were all basically B movies so what were you aspecting when you went to go see godzilla something that originated from a B move. Gone with the wind?
(Note this isn't a flame attack or anything just because I'm replying to one of cthulu's msgs so stop being so all half cocked) Anyhow back to the point, They still made 148 Million in box office sales alone, plus Soundtrack and Video retail sales they more than well paid off their bills.
When I went and saw godzilla I was not shocked nor was I disappointed, it was a typical Godzilla movie nothing less , nothing more and for a hundred and forty eight million dollars earned they can do what ever the hell they want.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By BD ( - 198.64.44.36) on Friday, February 26, 1999 - 05:54 pm:

Loom Personally I can't wait. I have been hounding the box office each week waiting for word when the tickets will go on sale. I will take that day off no matter what ;)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By luminous (wiley224h027.roadrunner.nf.net - 205.251.224.27) on Friday, February 26, 1999 - 06:21 pm:

Heh, me neither. I'm gonna be so excited, when i do finally get to see it. :)

George has said himself that its a good movie. I have faith in him. :)

Has everyone heard the sound for Jar-jar? I think it sounds a little weird, but it could be cool.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By BD (dyn79-t1.twistercom.com - 207.235.39.129) on Friday, February 26, 1999 - 08:15 pm:

Stephen Spilberg has already seen it and said he can't wait to see it again


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By dangermouse (slbne7p09.ozemail.com.au - 203.108.251.201) on Friday, February 26, 1999 - 09:50 pm:

This new star wars movie will not be as good as the old movies, rather, I think it'll be better. Not better as in the actual story (although that'll be great) but as in special effects, and how they will play into the telling of the story. The original movie had a great story and movement that if told today, with accompanying special effects (ie. more TIES, ships, etc) and aliens, it would have a much greater impact.

This movie will most certainly DEFINE what science fiction is all about.. I can hardly wait.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By mongi (dialup180-4-38.swipnet.se - 130.244.180.230) on Saturday, February 27, 1999 - 12:54 am:

Actually, of all the clips I've seen from the new movie the specialeffects are kinda what I didn't like. A lot of aliens are computer animated, and they really look so too! I mean not realistic.. you can see clearly that they're done with computers. I like puppets a lot more. Now with computer animated spaceships it's a totally different thing. They aren't organic. I mean.. the new star wars creatures are worse than both Antz and a bug's life. that sucks.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By BD (dyn79-t1.twistercom.com - 207.235.39.129) on Saturday, February 27, 1999 - 08:17 am:

Well if you ask me, George Lucas was finally able to cut loose and not worry about limitations. Remeber back in the day when they made the original movies the technology was way limited , they had to make do with what they had, sometimes even come up with something, Now however technology has finally caught up so his vision or dream can finally be made a reality.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By crowe (user-38h1t90.dialup.mindspring.com - 209.16.245.32) on Saturday, February 27, 1999 - 08:29 am:

When star wars came out, Lucas and his team INVENTED most of the special affects used for the movies. He helped define the genre and also intorduced severl new techniques. From what I understand, the same goes for the new movie. This time he does have an advantage. Money. Now he can afford to do the things he's managed to dream up.

I was watching a movie about 2 months ago when the trailer hit theaters here. It almost got a standing ovation. The trailer for this movie is the first ever to be the subject of Major news casts ( like cnn , etc ). This movie is going to make more money than Titanic. Its going to make more money that imaginable. :) If a lame love story like Titanic can do it, this one will blow them all away.

I don't plan on standing in line though. I went and saw Return of the Jedi and I stood in line during 3 SHOWINGS of the movie, just to get tickets. I've made arrangements to buy out a showing. You guys that have alot of firends in one area should pool your money and buy out showings at your local theaters. I reserved mine 3 months ago that had already 2 shows SOLD OUT! ( By radio stations ). I think its kinda smooth that me, and 2 radio stations have most of the tickets for opening night ( at this theater ). And when I say me,I mean me and 14 other guys who are all pitching in to do this.

I'M FUCKING PSYCHED!

:)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By BD (dyn79-t1.twistercom.com - 207.235.39.129) on Saturday, February 27, 1999 - 12:10 pm:

Crowe yeah but heh the super theaters in houston have at least have 1000 or 1500 seats. So id have to blow a large load


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By God among Lice (bootp-231-230.bootp.virginia.edu - 128.143.231.230) on Saturday, February 27, 1999 - 03:42 pm:

mongi: you honestly think the creature effects you've seen are worse than antz and bug's life? Anything can look normal when you're making a cartoon..

Have you seen the trailer clip with Sebulba in it? the guy laughing with the goggles? I thought that was pretty amazing myself. What specifically do you think it is that seems unrealistic about the cg creatures?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By mongi (dialup205-3-5.swipnet.se - 130.244.205.133) on Saturday, February 27, 1999 - 05:05 pm:

They look like the sucky Jabba in the special edition. In antz they actually move realistically and have amazing textures and stuff. Star wars SHOULD be better.. but it isn't. Now.. I think I might expect too much from it..


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By dangermouse (slbne4p23.ozemail.com.au - 203.108.251.23) on Saturday, February 27, 1999 - 06:22 pm:

Mongi, I dunno which clip you were looking at, but when I saw it the creatures looked amazing! I think you'll also find they didn't really give too much away in that trailer. Wait until the new trailer and then I'm sure you will be amazed..

(oh, the animation in ants and a bugs life is nothing compared to what I saw in that trailer..)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By God among Lice (bootp-231-230.bootp.virginia.edu - 128.143.231.230) on Sunday, February 28, 1999 - 03:32 pm:

mongi: really.. I have no idea which creatures you're talking about that don't move realistically and don't have amazing textures..

give some examples.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By mongi (actinium.k.kth.se - 130.237.75.66) on Monday, March 1, 1999 - 02:23 am:

I'm not saying it's bad, but it's not good enough! I'm talking about a humanoid creature that's standing by a speeder or something in the desert(tatooine) talking and shit. It would have looked a LOT more realistic with a good puppet.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By maestro (abitw.javanet.com - 209.94.128.4) on Monday, March 1, 1999 - 08:54 am:

I'll have to agree with mongi. The puppet stuff is SOOOOOOO much better! I would much rather see some finely crafted puppets with a bit of computer enhancement than straight out computer generated characters. Thats so annoying!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By dangermouse (slbne2p45.ozemail.com.au - 203.108.250.173) on Tuesday, March 2, 1999 - 12:41 am:

Err. You can do fifty times the things with computer animated models than straight puppets. I will admit tho, the scene with the animated creature behind Liam Neason did look a little weird. BUt only a little - and I only saw it for a split second anyhow.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By mongi (actinium.k.kth.se - 130.237.75.66) on Tuesday, March 2, 1999 - 04:00 am:

I don't agree. Almost all movies with organic cg stuff, you can clearly see it is cg. THAT annoys me. With puppets it looks more real. As maestro said, good puppets with cg enhancements are good.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By God among Lice (bootp-231-230.bootp.virginia.edu - 128.143.231.230) on Tuesday, March 2, 1999 - 04:52 am:

One of the main reasons that Lucas held off making the prequels was the very fact that there were things that he wanted to do that they simply couldn't achieve with the traditional techniques. I guess I would agree that in cases where you can use a model/puppet, you'll probably end up with a more realistic effect when done right. They're still using a puppet for Yoda, for example. I bet Jabba would probably be better as a puppet too, due to the general slimy/griminess that he's supposed to have.

But there are some creatures, such as that thing that's flying in place with super-fast moving wings, or the character of Jar-Jar, which involves a whole other physiology, that you really couldn't do with puppets. That's what cg is for, and why this movie is being made now.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By warpus (gateway-g1.londonlife.com - 204.101.39.130) on Tuesday, March 2, 1999 - 05:40 am:

dangermouse: the new star wars movie will NOT define what science fiction is all about. take that back right now :)

science fiction is more than just star wars and star trek.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By God among Lice (bootp-231-230.bootp.virginia.edu - 128.143.231.230) on Tuesday, March 2, 1999 - 08:17 am:

warpus: I was gonna say something like that, but I'm not really that up on real sci-fi, so I don't exactly have any examples or explanations why.

But yea.. I just get the general impression that there's a lot more hard-core and definitive science fiction out there other than star wars. star wars seems more like a fantasy kind of thing.. like more emphasis on mythic general ideas of good and evil than on the sci-fi itself. I think that's one thing that makes it so great, though.. it really transcends mere science fiction, it just treats this other world as if it were as good a place as any other to portray the themes that it does.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By mongi (actinium.k.kth.se - 130.237.75.66) on Tuesday, March 2, 1999 - 09:07 am:

I agree with with lice's last two posts.. he took the words from my mouth..


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By BD (dyn40-t1.twistercom.com - 207.235.39.90) on Tuesday, March 2, 1999 - 09:35 am:

Hello? is this thing on? Ok time for me to but end with my opinion. If you remember When starwars came out it set the standard for Sci-Fi in the 80's. Now after 20 years and 1000s of sci fi movies, I would like to believe in fact I am counting on it, For Star wars to re define Sci-fi into the next millenium.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By God among Lice (bootp-231-230.bootp.virginia.edu - 128.143.231.230) on Tuesday, March 2, 1999 - 02:07 pm:

bd: did you read what the last 3 people before you wrote? :)

Maybe starwars somehow redefined sci fi movies.. but it's not like it redefined science fiction in general.. I bet it didn't have much of an effect at all on novelists.

Even the claim for movies seems questionable to me. It advanced special effects and sound and stuff like that, but I don't see how it's really influenced other sci-fi movies that much aside from those kinds of things. (maybe I'm just not knowledgable of starwars-defined sci-fi movies.. give some examples if you find them.)

Star Wars certainly transformed popular culture.. but how exactly did it "redefine" sci-fi itself, in the sense that it actually changed or influenced things? Certainly the series is unique and special.. but how has its legacy actually altered the course of other science fiction? (suddenly I'm less pessimistic about this and honestly curious about what anyone can think of to answer the question)

And note.. I'm not concerned with storytelling in general, I'm talking about science fiction.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By dangermouse (slbne11p62.ozemail.com.au - 203.108.235.254) on Tuesday, March 2, 1999 - 06:54 pm:

What I meant by DEFINE was not so much the entire science fiction genre, but rather the way science fiction is made, and ulitimately what science fiction is all about - ie. it WILL be the epitimy of science fiction on film.

God, Yeah star wars influenced many other sci-fi releases over the years.. But then again, I guess you could say that for other classic sci-fi (not inc books, etc)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By God among Lice (bootp-231-230.bootp.virginia.edu - 128.143.231.230) on Tuesday, March 2, 1999 - 07:58 pm:

"God, Yeah star wars influenced many other sci-fi releases over the years.. But then again, I guess you could say that for other classic sci-fi (not inc books, etc) "

Like what? This is the question I was asking. You wouldn't get very far in a debate just by saying "Yeah star wars influenced many other sci-fi releases over the years". Give some examples, have some meat to the things you say.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By maestro (abitw.javanet.com - 209.94.128.4) on Wednesday, March 3, 1999 - 04:10 am:

ok, you're debating over star wars. this has gotten way out of control. you guys must be the life of all the parties.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By warpus (gateway-g1.londonlife.com - 204.101.39.130) on Wednesday, March 3, 1999 - 05:46 am:

i don't think that star wars had much effect on sci-fi novelists. star wars has a VERY simple plot. good vs evil. and as far as i can remember, it was itself heavily influenced by a movie called 'forbidden planet' (which also gave roddenberry an idea or two). "If there had been no Forbidden Planet, there might not have been a 2001 or Star Wars or Close Encounters" (from an essay by Charles Tashiro, whoever he is)

authors were pumping out great science fiction decades before star wars came out. Herbert, Verne, Asimov, Heinlein, etc...

if you know science fiction only by what you see on tv or in movie theatres.. then you don't know what science fiction is about at all.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By mongi (dialup162-4-59.swipnet.se - 130.244.162.251) on Wednesday, March 3, 1999 - 09:39 am:

Actually, Star Wars is influenced by a Akira Kurosawa movie.. I don't remember the title. It's about a princess and two peasants getting help to a palace where an evil lord rules etc. And that was in feudal Japan.

The Star Wars sptry could as well be a fantasy story.. it would work pretty well too. But then you wouldn't have TIE-fighters and X-wings =)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Funbaby (ip168.pom.primenet.com - 204.212.52.168) on Wednesday, March 3, 1999 - 12:33 pm:

I was just talking about this with my brother a while back. He's the kinda guy who's going to be crying at the opening credits come May. :P

Anyway, as I see it, Science Fiction is about new ideas.

The best sci-fi puts human characters in unnatural, impossible situations, to explore the possiblities, and their reactions to these new worlds.

Sci-fi usually gives you something to think about.

On the other hand, Star Wars is what I've heard called "Space Opera". On the surface, it's sci-fi, but it's based on mythological archetypes that have recurred all throughout recorded history. The Star Wars story could occur anywhere, at any point in time, on any scale.

(There's a very interesting book, of which I've read a bit, called The Hero of a Thousand Faces, by Joseph Campbell, which explorers the common aspects of all myth and religion, and the "heroic journey".)

So anyway, at its core, Star Wars isn't sci-fi, it's mythology.

(It still rocks, though. :)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By God among Lice (bootp-231-230.bootp.virginia.edu - 128.143.231.230) on Wednesday, March 3, 1999 - 12:53 pm:

Star Wars is influenced by a million things, really. I think you could add Flash Gordon to the list of heavier influences... I've read that Lucas wanted to get the rights to Flash Gordon to do a movie but couldn't, and made star wars instead. :)

I was reading up on TPM, and after the face of Darth Maul was shown, people all over started finding all kinds of examples of faces with remarkably similar markings.. aborigine, chinese mythology, pictures on soda cans, etc.. This is just a visual detail from the movie, but I think Lucas is able to do this on almost every level.. he somehow finds common elements from cultures, and they end up being so primal and understandable, that they can be found everywhere. Even if it wasn't a direct influence on the movie, they both had common sources for their inspiration.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Funbaby (ip197.pom.primenet.com - 204.212.52.197) on Thursday, March 4, 1999 - 09:24 am:

I heard that the markings on Darth Vader's costume were Hebrew or Sanskrit or something.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By filth (svcr-247ppp187.epix.net - 205.238.247.187) on Thursday, March 4, 1999 - 07:46 pm:

ok, about these "the effects look lame" deal. i highly doubt it. ok, when movies first started to heavily use computer gfx i thought it sucked, and'd rather see puppets (ie when i seen the mortal kombat movie, and seen the shitty computer generated reptile.) but this is ILM we're talking about. and yeah the jabba on the special edition was kinda lame. but like you gotta understand that they had to work around with something that was already there. i'm sure if they had to do a jabba in tpm it'd be a whole lot better. PLUS it's been what 2-3 years since that was, even tho it wasn't THAT long ago, computer gfx have gotten better.

in any case, i'm very stoked to go see this


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Cthulu of Mistigris (cr618396-a.crdva1.bc.wave.home.com - 24.113.55.86) on Thursday, March 4, 1999 - 08:59 pm:

The only thing that Star Wars redefined was the ability to endlessly push merchandise.

Mongi - Star Wars was redone as a fantasy. That's what Willow was 8)

Star Wars isn't science-fiction because there's no science in it. It's space opera.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By dangermouse (slbne13p14.ozemail.com.au - 203.108.206.78) on Friday, March 5, 1999 - 12:21 am:

Cthulu, Science Fiction doesn't have to have 'science' in it to be Sci-Fi. (but it does anyway - i mean, space travel, etc etc etc)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By warpus (gateway-g1.londonlife.com - 204.101.39.130) on Friday, March 5, 1999 - 06:00 am:

you could claim that everything you see on tv is science fiction. "oh my god, he's reading a book, that means he's learning, that's science, and it's a book that doesn't really exist, so it must be science fiction".

science fiction usually involves things that couldn't be done when the book was written, like... flying to the moon, colonizing mars, time travelling, whores with three breasts, gateways to other universes, etc...

i consider star wars to be science fiction AND fantasy.. the science fiction part of it is the space fighting, the spaceships, etc. the fantasy part of it is the force, the lightsabres, the ewoks, leia the princess, and so on.

my sci-fi english prof claimed that CRASH was sci-fi and made us read it. actually, most of the recommended novels for that class made us think what REALLY sci-fi is.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By maestro (abitw.javanet.com - 209.94.128.4) on Friday, March 5, 1999 - 06:38 am:

umm, just to clarify something.. I've had a whore with 3 breasts so they DO exist.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Funbaby (ip196.pom.primenet.com - 204.212.52.196) on Friday, March 5, 1999 - 10:09 am:

There's also a distinction between sci-fi, and "hard science-fiction", which involves real-world honest-to-god science, applied to as-yet-impossible situations. I guess.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By warpus (gateway-g1.londonlife.com - 204.101.39.130) on Friday, March 5, 1999 - 01:12 pm:

maestro: you've met my mom?

funbaby: as far as i know, "hard" sci-fi uses science that we know to be true. who's not to say that science used in other books will come true someday?

there are scientists working on such things as time machines, anti-gravity devices, and matter/anti-matter engines.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By mongi (dialup228-4-48.swipnet.se - 130.244.228.240) on Friday, March 5, 1999 - 04:11 pm:

They have actually achieved teleporting a couple of photons. that's cool.

does hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy count as sci-fi?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By BD ( - 198.64.44.36) on Friday, March 5, 1999 - 04:57 pm:

Heh you know what really sucks?
it's still about 2 and 1/2 months till this movie comes out =)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By God among Lice (bootp-231-230.bootp.virginia.edu - 128.143.231.230) on Saturday, March 6, 1999 - 03:17 am:

mongi sez:

"science fiction usually involves things that couldn't be done when the book was written, like... flying to the moon, colonizing mars, time travelling, whores with three breasts, gateways to other universes, etc... "

Well then.. how is sci-fi different from just plain fantasy? I guess really you're saying that sci-fi is stuff that could conceivably be possible someday somewhere.

But can anyone tell me what the difference is between a fantasy world involving magicians, gates to other worlds, and unicorns, and one involving the force, mysterious unexplained "hyper drives", and wookies?

Maybe it's best to say that Fantasy is just a parent classification, under which falls other categories including sci-fi. But then what exactly defines sci-fi? Technology?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By mongi (dialup163-4-33.swipnet.se - 130.244.163.225) on Saturday, March 6, 1999 - 07:53 am:

lice: You cited warpus, not me.

btw, in all bookstores and stuff, sci-fi and fantasy use to be the same department..


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By liceboy the unobservant (bootp-231-230.bootp.virginia.edu - 128.143.231.230) on Saturday, March 6, 1999 - 01:53 pm:

woops. :)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By warpus (gateway-g1.londonlife.com - 204.101.39.130) on Monday, March 8, 1999 - 06:38 am:

liceboy: there is really no difference between sci-fi and fantasy if you look at the general ideas behind the two genres. however, sci-fi usually involves stuff that CAN be imagined to happen. for example, life on other planets, voyages to other galaxies, time travel, and so on. fantasy is more about "fairy tales" involving, as you said, magicians, unicorns, and so on.

it all really has to do with what the general public perceives as being sci-fi, or fantasy. the stand, for example, could be considered sci-fi. however, it is not, because stephen king is usually associated with horror (usually:).

genres are just labels to help us decipher what a book is about. if we see a book in the 'fantasy' section, we'll know that we should expect something about elves, wizards, and the like. for example, if you do not like novels about bears that can talk, cook, and comb their hair, you should not even consider looking under the 'young readers' section.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Grim (asterix.goteborg.se - 194.17.227.11) on Monday, March 8, 1999 - 09:41 am:

Just thinking about the definition of sci-fi...
The way I see it there are basically five different categories of sci-fi; 'The meeting with the Unknown', 'The exploration/explanation of a scientific principle' and 'The consequences of tendencies/trends of our society'.
Earlier sci-fi would also include 'Space Opera' and 'Utopic Visions', which later transformed into 'Dystopia'. The majority of the sci-fi stories fit in with one or more of these categories.
Rama and 2001, for instance, would fit into the first category.
I had intended to talk more about this, but it seems like I have to go now, so...


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By mongi (dialup205-2-26.swipnet.se - 130.244.205.90) on Monday, March 8, 1999 - 10:22 am:

Breaking down the two genres doesn't do them justice. It's clear that they are different. It's like saying a dog and a human is the same, because we're mammals.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Cthulu of Mistigris (cr618396-a.crdva1.bc.wave.home.com - 24.113.55.86) on Monday, March 8, 1999 - 12:07 pm:

Science fiction is interpreted by purists as speculative fiction based on existing (or at least reasonably hypothesized) quirks of Science, ie How The Universe Works. The scientific element is the crux around which the story revolves - without the science the story wouldn't exist.

Star Wars is for all practical purposes a piece of fantasy, not of science fiction. Replace the space-ships with magic carpets, the lightsabers with enchanted swords, and the "Force" with, well, mana, and the story is not significantly changed.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By BD ( - 198.64.44.23) on Monday, March 8, 1999 - 04:06 pm:

Um actually the story would be different because the technology involved would be different, thus the battles, outcome the whole basis of the clone war would be different and if that is screwed up the what we know that is Star wars would be out of wack on all kinds of planes. Ie you would be fucking with the whole basis of the stories!

I mean its like taking the Beaming out of star treak, Taking away the transporter in the fly! You simply can't do it! :)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Cthulu of Mistigris (cr618396-a.crdva1.bc.wave.home.com - 24.113.55.86) on Monday, March 8, 1999 - 10:30 pm:

They are convenient plot devices which allow the action to move from set piece to set piece quickly without the epic marching-for-two-weeks-straight like you'll find in JRR Tolkien, but the vast majority of Star Trek stories, for instance, aren't ABOUT the teleporter. They aren't about the ramifications of this pseudo-magical device ("The technology of any sufficiently advanced civilization is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke, a genuine science-fiction author) but they, like Star Wars, are about the people (or more commonly, archetypes) who use them.

George Lucas said himself that Willow was the same story as Star Wars - only viewed through the 'low fantasy' goggles instead of the 'space opera' ones.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By warpus (gateway-g1.londonlife.com - 204.101.39.130) on Tuesday, March 9, 1999 - 05:48 am:

cthulu: if you take away the spaceships, the timemachines, the laser guns, the teleporters, and the space stations out of sci-fi, then you'll always end up with another genre.

most stories are about people, doesn't matter what the genre is.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Funbaby (ip199.pom.primenet.com - 204.212.52.199) on Tuesday, March 9, 1999 - 09:28 am:

What's "low fantasy", exactly?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By maestro (abitw.javanet.com - 209.94.128.4) on Tuesday, March 9, 1999 - 10:23 am:

the opposite of "high fantasy" silly!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Funbaby (ip199.pom.primenet.com - 204.212.52.199) on Tuesday, March 9, 1999 - 11:57 am:

Wuzzat?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By mongi (dialup205-2-36.swipnet.se - 130.244.205.100) on Tuesday, March 9, 1999 - 01:00 pm:

If you made Star Wars in a fantasy version, you wouldn't have the Millenium Falcon, the x-wings and tie-fighters! THAT's why you can't make it fantasy! Actually star wars is kinda low-tech in some places..


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Argon (wlv-a4-d0013.ftel.net - 205.138.219.45) on Wednesday, March 10, 1999 - 01:48 am:

This is only going to be the fourth film George Lucas has directed. The first was THX1138, which was his USC film school final exam. ( a damn good movie) Then American Graffiti, and Starwars: A New Hope. (The second two had different directors, with Lucas producing)

Just an interesting little note.

Argon


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By God among Lice (bootp-231-230.bootp.virginia.edu - 128.143.231.230) on Wednesday, March 10, 1999 - 07:20 pm:

yea.. TXH1138 was great. I think I read once that the actual finished version of the movie is different from what he did for school. Longer and more developed, I think.

If you ever talk to remission, he can go on and on about this movie. :)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By imot (darth.nls.fi - 195.156.38.2) on Thursday, March 11, 1999 - 05:49 am:

there's new trailer on starwars.com which came today.. and it's a boomed fat-ass, yeah =)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By dangermouse (slbne7p56.ozemail.com.au - 203.108.251.248) on Friday, March 12, 1999 - 12:46 am:

Yeah the first day it came out the server got swamped. But now they've entered into a partnership with Apple and the server is fast as..


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By BD ( - 198.64.44.36) on Friday, March 12, 1999 - 03:20 pm:

As nuttin
heh
:P It still took a decent while to dl


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By BD ( - 198.64.44.36) on Friday, March 12, 1999 - 04:56 pm:

Oh yeah on a sidenote heh Luscasfilms LTD is in cohoots with apple since the new starwars trailer will only play on the new version of quicktime 3.0 which is available at apple.com :) Soo Looks like the fruit strikes back :P


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By God among Lice (dynamic224.cl8.cais.net - 205.177.20.224) on Monday, March 15, 1999 - 05:08 pm:

hey.. yea I was pissed about this arrangement, since the newest quicktime movies mess up my system and I have to reboot, without ever seeing the movie (same with realvideo).

Anyone know where I could find the trailer in a different format? mpg or avi?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By dangermouse (px1.syd.aone.net.au - 203.12.178.133) on Monday, March 15, 1999 - 06:28 pm:

How the hell do they mess up your system? What are you using?


Add a Message


This is a public posting area. If you do not have an account, enter your full name into the "Username" box and leave the "Password" box empty. Your e-mail address is optional.
Username:  
Password:
E-mail: