SF-LOVERS Digest          Wednesday, 13 Jan 1993       Volume 18 : Issue 33
 
Today's Topics:
 
         Films - Jurassic Park (2 msgs) & Star Trek VII (5 msgs) &
                 The Quiet Earth (8 msgs)
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: 28 Dec 92 15:28:10 GMT
From: rtravsky@posse.uwyo.edu (Rich Travsky)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Some Minor Jurassic Park News From Nat. Geo.
 
Just got the January '93 National Geographic, with a nice main article on
dinosaurs. In said article, they had some info on the upcoming Jurassic
Park.
 
They have a marvelous picture of the T. Rex under construction.  One "life"
size T. rex, a couple smaller models.
 
The accompanying text (told from the article's author's perspective):
 
   At the Stan Winston Studio in Los Angeles, I see a fleet of
   dinosaurs being built to star in the Steven Spielberg movie
   "Jurassic Park", based on the best-selling novel by Michael
   Crichton. Crichton imagines that bioengineers clone a zoo of
   dinosaurs from ancient DNA.  They collect DNA from dinosaur
   biting insects preserved in amber. The clones are raised on
   a private island off Costa Rica as the stars of an intended
   theme park. A series of technical breakdowns lets the animals
   escape. Some spread to the Central American mainland,
   presumably to breed in the wild and eventually terrorize the
   world.
 
   "This could be the 'Jaws' of the nineties," says spokesman
   Martin Levy. "It's had the longest preproduction of any of
   Steven's films. We've come a long way from Godzilla. These
   dinosaurs will move so fluidly you won't realize they aren't
   living animals."
 
   "We have five main characters," says studio art coordinator
   John Rosengrant. "A T-rex, a sick Triceratops, a spitting
   Dilophosaurus, a Brachiosaurus - and the velociraptors."
 
   I meet each one. T-rex is the biggest - but it's only a
   mechanized black frame at this stage. The Brachiosaurus
   would be larger, but the studio is re-creating just its
   head and neck.
 
Not much new information, but that photo is something else.
 
Richard Travsky
Division of Information Technology
University of Wyoming
RTRAVSKY @ CORRAL.UWYO.EDU
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 3 Jan 93 18:58:13 GMT
From: ganderso@unlinfo.unl.edu (gary anderson)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: JURASSIC PARK: On Spielberg's raptors...
 
From the January 1993 issue of DISCOVER, page 10:
 
"The most vicious killers are the velociraptors, the scholar-athletes of
the dino set, known for both their speed and intelligence.  Crichton made
them six feet tall, which is the size they were in the fossil record.  When
Steven Spielberg started working on the film version of JURASSIC PARK,
which is scheduled for release this summer, he was afraid the velociraptors
would look too puny and harmless on the big screen.  So against the wishes
of his paleontologist advisers, he insisted on making the velociraptors
much larger than they were known to be.
 
"Last summer, however, science caught up with Spielberg's imagination:
dinosaur hunters in eastern Utah discovered a 20-foot-long, 1,500-pound
velociraptor.  Some are calling it 'Spielberg's raptor,' but the name
Utahraptor is more likely to stick.  With its one-foot-long sickle-shaped
claws, Utahraptor threatens to displace Tyrannosaurus rex as the ultimate
killing machine."
 
The same issue of DISCOVER also has a longer article on discovery of the
Utahraptor.
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:02:29 GMT
From: elr@idm.com (Eric L Reiner)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Star Trek VII ?!?!?!
 
Has anybody heard about Star Trek 7 - the movie?  A local TV station has
been broadcasting an anouncement about a Star Trek convention on Jan. 4 in
Chicago where they will show (amoung other things) previews of Star Trek
VII.  Is this for real or are they trying to get me to a convention where I
will be disappointed.  My understanding was that ST VI was it, no more,
that's all folks, etc.  Any information would be appreciated.
 
Thanks.
 
Eric Reiner
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 2 Jan 93 15:44:46 GMT
From: trussell@cwis.unomaha.edu (Tim Russell)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: Star Trek VII ?!?!?!
 
    Actually I've heard (vastly unsubstantiated) rumors that parts of what
will be ST VII were filmed at the same time as ST VI.  Has anyone else
heard anything like this?  It would explain the convention footage, and
also makes a lot of sense (Back To The Future 2 and 3 were filmed at the
same time).
 
Tim Russell
Omaha, NE
trussell@unomaha.edu
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 2 Jan 93 20:41:01 GMT
From: mart4372@mach1.wlu.ca (Reginald Martin u)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: Star Trek VII ?!?!?!
 
Around the time of STV, the whole cast signed a deal with Paramount for
STVI and STVII.  However, this was a while ago and in 'the biz' contracts
don't often seem to mean a whole lot.  Most of the actors have said that
they don't want to do STVII, but I'd bet that the folks at Paramount will
try to persuade them into it after the abnormal success of STVI.
 
Reg Martin
mart4372@mach1.wlu.ca.
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 4 Jan 93 12:24:15 GMT
From: nicolas@stam.nl (Nico Veenkamp)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: Star Trek VII ?!?!?!
 
The guy who playes Sulu (I forgot who, I'm not that much of a Star Trek
fan) was on British television last week. He told the audience that a
seventh movie is forthcoming. Apparently with him as captain.
 
Nico Veenkamp
Stam Tijdschriften bv
P.O. Box 235
2280 AE  Rijswijk
The Netherlands
nicolas@stam.nl
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 5 Jan 93 04:55:33 GMTF
From: andrew@openage.openage.com (Andrew Scholnick)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: Star Trek VII ?!?!?!
 
nicolas@stam.nl (Nico Veenkamp) writes:
>The guy who playes Sulu (I forgot who, I'm not that much of a Star Trek
>fan) was on British television last week. He told the audience that a
>seventh movie is forthcoming. Apparently with him as captain.
 
I saw George Takei (aka Sulu) on the Sci-Fi channel last night...  He gave
Shatner's directing a good swift kick in the ribs ("oh no, not him trying
to direct again..." or something like that) and proceded to *HINT* at
another movie in several ways:
   1) listing all of the preceding "this is the last time" ST movies
   2) explaining something about Paramount having OK'd ST-VII shortly
      before the recent shake-ups there and how now things are on hold
      for a while...
 
He also dropped the much quoted comment that *HE* would like to see (he
didn't say anyone was taking, or is it Takeing;-} sorry, it seriously yet)
a ST - the adventures of Captain Sulu movie... maybe he (and Paramount?) is
fishing for some public reaction/support before beginning/committing to a
project like that... (I would probably go see it, but then I go see almost
anything SF...)
 
Anyhow, that's all I remember from what I saw/heard...
 
Toodles.
 
ARS
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 4 Jan 93 23:13:33 GMTF
From: ror1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Richard O. Rouse III)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: THE QUIET EARTH
 
Has any one out there seen the New Zealand film "The Quiet Earth" circa
1985?
 
It is absolutely not only one of my favorite sf films, but also one of my
favorite films all around.  But the ending is a little vague, so I was
wondering other people's thoughts on it.
 
In the end, is Zac supposed to be in heaven?  If not, why is Saturn
appearing immediately in the background?
 
At the end, why does Zac look at the tape recorder he has somehow brought
with him to wherever he is, and then toss it to the ground (at least this
is what I seem to remember seeing)?
 
Does Zac save the Earth in the end?
 
If so, are all the humans brought back to life, or does "all reality"
simply maintain itself as it was after humanity was mostly killed off?
 
I'm also curious to anyone else's thoughts on this *GREAT* movie.
 
Richard O. Rouse III
ror1@ellis.uchicago.edu
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 5 Jan 93 06:13:38 GMT
From: gre253@mis.csiro.au (Steven Green (+61 6 276 6813))
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: THE QUIET EARTH
 
ror1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Has any one out there seen the New Zealand film "The Quiet Earth" circa
>1985?
>
>It is absolutely not only one of my favorite sf films, but also one of my
>favorite films all around.  But the ending is a little vague, so I was
>wondering other people's thoughts on it.
 
Excellent movie! A MUST see.
 
>In the end, is Zac supposed to be in heaven?  If not, why is Saturn
>appearing immediately in the background?
 
I thought he was on a moon of Saturn personally. Why he was there - who the
hell knows !?
 
>At the end, why does Zac look at the tape recorder he has somehow brought
>with him to wherever he is, and then toss it to the ground (at least this
>is what I seem to remember seeing)?  Does Zac save the Earth in the end?
 
I got the impression that he stopped "the effect" - as for saving humanity,
isn't it sort of too late !?
 
>If so, are all the humans brought back to life, or does "all reality"
>simply maintain itself as it was after humanity was mostly killed off?
>
>I'm also curious to anyone else's thoughts on this *GREAT* movie.
 
I found the ending as incomprehensible as you did - sort of like watching
2001 for the first time.
 
Steve Green
Comms Group
ITS Branch
CSIRO Australia
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 5 Jan 93 10:17:44 GMT
From: k206027@smog.dkrz-hamburg.de (Bakayaroo Banzai)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: THE QUIET EARTH
 
ror1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Has any one out there seen the New Zealand film "The Quiet Earth" circa
>1985?
>
>It is absolutely not only one of my favorite sf films, but also one of my
>favorite films all around.  But the ending is a little vague, so I was
>wondering other people's thoughts on it.
>
>In the end, is Zac supposed to be in heaven?  If not, why is Saturn
>appearing immediately in the background?
 
According to my admittedly vague memory of this movie Zac forces some sort
of Quantum Event to occur which propels him *elsewhere* (alternate
universe, different planet) this also has the theoretical effect of
restoring Earth to it's pre-experiment state. I think that the ending was
intentionally left vague. I don't think he was anywhere near Saturn since
none of Saturn's moons is capable of supporting unprotected human life.
 
>At the end, why does Zac look at the tape recorder he has somehow brought
>with him to wherever he is, and then toss it to the ground (at least this
>is what I seem to remember seeing)?  Does Zac save the Earth in the end?
 
This is never explained and I liked the ambiguity of it. The fantasy aspect
of having a completely new planet available for your personal
use/exploration was pretty nifty.
 
As for throwing away the tape recorder, what's he going to do with it in
his new locale? Seemed as if he was going to abandon his previous life and
start all over again on the new planet. Sensible move I think.
 
>If so, are all the humans brought back to life, or does "all reality"
>simply maintain itself as it was after humanity was mostly killed off?
 
There wouldn't have been much point to Zac's sacrifice if it didn't
restore the planet to its previous state.
 
Matt Marchese
Cray Research
DKRZ
Hamburg, Germany
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 5 Jan 93 19:29:48 GMT
From: disaacs@pietrzak.ccs.carleton.ca (Dave Isaacs)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: THE QUIET EARTH
 
ror1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Richard O. Rouse III) writes:
>Has any one out there seen the New Zealand film "The Quiet Earth" circa
>1985?
>
>It is absolutely not only one of my favorite sf films, but also one of my
>favorite films all around.  But the ending is a little vague, so I was
>wondering other people's thoughts on it.
>
>In the end, is Zac supposed to be in heaven?  If not, why is Saturn
>appearing immediately in the background?
>
>At the end, why does Zac look at the tape recorder he has somehow brought
>with him to wherever he is, and then toss it to the ground (at least this
>is what I seem to remember seeing)?
>
>Does Zac save the Earth in the end?
>
>If so, are all the humans brought back to life, or does "all reality"
>simply maintain itself as it was after humanity was mostly killed off?
>
>I'm also curious to anyone else's thoughts on this *GREAT* movie.
 
I thought that this was one awesome movie!!
 
I don't think Zac is anywhere near Saturn at the end.  All you see is a
ringed planet, nothing at all indicates that it is Saturn.
 
I don't remember Zac throwing away his tape recorder at the end, but then
it has been awhile.  I think that the fate of the Earth is left
deliberately obscure.  I don't think that all the humans are brought back
to life, but at least the remaining ones may survive.
 
One should remember that the reason Zac survived in the first case was
because he was trying to kill himself when the first "effect" occurred.
His sacrifice was just finishing that job once and for all (and maybe doing
some good in the process).
 
By the way, I have always felt that the music in THE QUIET EARTH is just
awesome.  Does anyone know what it is, or where one can get it?
 
David Paul Isaacs
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Carleton University
Ottawa, Ontario
disaacs@ccs.carleton.ca
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 5 Jan 93 20:02:29 GMT
From: rjg@doe.carleton.ca (Richard Griffith)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: THE QUIET EARTH
 
disaacs@pietrzak.carleton.ca (Dave Isaacs) writes:
>ror1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Richard O. Rouse III) writes:
>>Has any one out there seen the New Zealand film "The Quiet Earth" circa
>>1985?  It is aboslutely not only one of my favorite sf films, but also
>>one of my favorite films all around.  But the ending is a little vague,
>>so I was wondering other people's thoughts on it.
>
>One should remember that the reason Zac survived in the first case was
>because he was trying to kill himself when the first "effect" occurred.
>His sacrifice was just finishing that job once and for all (and maybe
>doing some good in the process).
 
When the effect occurs only those dying at the time are moved into the new
reality. Who knows what happens to everyone else, they may continue to live
without noticing any difference at all. In the end Zac dies and the effect
occurs again on a larger scale. Zac and I presume anyone else dying at the
time, are projected into the new reality. The effect was larger this time
and the new reality is a radical departure from its predecessor.
 
I saw this as a character movie that looked at the way humans interact and
show respect for the results of their actions on others.
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 6 Jan 93 05:23:18 GMT
From: scimitar@suction.acme.gen.nz (Robert Singers)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: THE QUIET EARTH
 
The Quiet Earth was written by one of the lecturers here in Palmerston
North at Massey university.  Craig Harrison I believe, but I could be
wrong, my memory is like a thing with holes in it.  He probably has net
access, so if you're lucky, He might even answer some of your questions.
 
Robert Singers
scimitar@suction.acme.gen.nz
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 8 Jan 93 07:43:35 GMT
From: sirwin@isrc.sandia.gov (Scott J. Irwin)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: THE QUIET EARTH
 
I have seen this movie and enjoyed it so much, I wanted to experience it
via book.  However, I have searched high and low for it and have been
unable to obtain this story in its printed form.  Apparently, it is
unavailable to US booksellers (or at least the ones I have tried to special
order it through).  Any suggestions?
 
Scott J Irwin
sirwin@isrc.sandia.gov
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:29:50 GMT
From: alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz (Ross Smith)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: THE QUIET EARTH
 
ror1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Richard O. Rouse III) writes:
>Has any one out there seen the New Zealand film "The Quiet Earth" circa
>1985?
>
>It is absolutely not only one of my favorite sf films, but also one of my
>favorite films all around.  But the ending is a little vague, so I was
>wondering other people's thoughts on it.
 
The ending is extremely vague! I suspect the makers were aiming for a
2001-style interpret-it-any-way-you-want sort of thing. Personally I think
they succeeded; TQE is proof that you don't need to explain every last
detail to make a successful story.
 
Craig Harrison, who wrote the novel it's based on, complained that even he
didn't understand the ending of the movie. Then again, personally I didn't
understand the ending of the book either...
 
(The book is very different to the movie, and IMHO not very good; I think
this is one of the very rare cases where a movie is actually better than
the book it's based on. The only other one I can think of is "Lifeforce".)
 
>In the end, is Zac supposed to be in heaven?  If not, why is Saturn
>appearing immediately in the background?  At the end, why does Zac look at
>the tape recorder he has somehow brought with him to wherever he is, and
>then toss it to the ground (at least this is what I seem to remember
>seeing)?
 
No, he holds it up to his mouth, as if about to record something; then the
picture freezes and the credits roll.
 
>Does Zac save the Earth in the end?
>If so, are all the humans brought back to life, or does "all reality"
>simply maintain itself as it was after humanity was mostly killed off?
 
Your guess is as good as anyone's :-)
 
Ross Smith
Wanganui, NZ
alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz
 
------------------------------
 
End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************
