From: anybody@anywhere-anytime.com

In article <48916eae$0$17154$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
sgordon@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:

> Anybody  wrote:
> :
> : I think sgordon meant the original "Star Wars" movie was compared to
> : Stanley Kubrick's movie "2001" - a movie that was drug-induced, boring
> : and extremely confusing nonsense (just like Arthur C. Clark's original
> : book it was based on).
>
> That's a matter of opinion.  I was 8 years old when I saw 2001 in the
> theater, was assuredly not on drugs, not at all bored, and found the
> movie intriguing, beautiful, and thoroughly entertaining.  Still do.
> But more relevant to the earlier poster's question... I recall Star Wars
> being compared to 2001 at the time.  That's true whether or not you
> like 2001.

I didn't mean the movie viewer was on drugs (although that's just as
debatable for then as it is now), but that the makers of the movie
probably were and Arthur C Clark probably was when he wrote the
confusing book. So were the makers of shows from around that time like
HR Puffnstuff and The Hair Bear Bunch.

I don't recall Star Wars being compared to 2001, but you could well be
right (maybe it was only claimed in America).

I find the movie incredibly boring (a 20 minute docking sequence set to
ballet music, 10 minutes of largely irrelevant monkeys, 10 minutes of
walking around the rotating ship, ...!!) and like the book it gets very
drug-induced strange and confusing towards the end. I couldn't even be
bothered trying to read the sequel books.



> Both were attempts at making a space movie that went beyond your
> typical "B" sci-fi flick.

"Star Wars" is meant to be a "B" sci-fi flick ... or more precisely a
"B" sci-fi serial. George Lucas was trying to make something similar to
the movie serials he saw in cinemas as a kid - Tarzan, Flash Gordon,
etc.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)