![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Odd coincidental discoveries: I had borrowed Sleeper from the library, and as I turned on the TV to watch I noticed Forbidden Planet was also on. Sometimes it's frustrating to not be really able to watch multiple shows at once, but it's better to focus attention on fewer things if you want the whole experience. Ultimately I went with watching Sleeper, since I came into Forbidden Planet well into the movie and it'd be just as easy to watch the whole thing on borrowed or bought DVD anyway. (Discussion topic for the convention panel I'll never run: is humor the best non-written medium for presenting science fiction? The case for: Sleeper, Futurama. The case against: Pluto Nash, Homeboys In Outer Space.)
One thing I'd forgotten, although that I should have anticipated, was the presence of Douglas Rain as the voice for one of the robots. It'd be very hard to make even a moderately funny science fiction movie with talking computers or robots and not have at least some reference to HAL, of course. So out of curiousity I looked him up on the Internet Movie Database and discovered that his role immediately prior to HAL 9000 was in a made-for-TV presentation of Henry V, where he played, er, Henry V.
I know he can't have played it that way. But now I'm stuck on trying to imagine the relentlessly calm, evenly modulated tones of the HAL 9000 computer delivering the Saint Crispin's Day speech. It's staged as in the Sir Laurence Olivier version, of course. It ends with the Jay Ward effect of the crowd going wild. (Yaaaaay.)
(Meanwhile I'm trying to process the fact that Roger Ebert's most recent Answer Man column seems to suggest that he might just have come across a thread discussing his review of Blade Runner raging in a Usenet group I've been reading for thirteen years. I haven't felt quite like this since a brief e-mail correspondence with the wife of the guy who plays Ian Shoales, also brought about through Usenet, but ultimately ended by her e-mail server's schemes to guarantee only human beings are sending mail to her.)
Trivia: ENIAC consumed 174 kilowatts while running. Source: Eniac, Scott McCartney.
Currently Reading: Biting The Sun, Tanith Lee.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-15 04:47 pm (UTC)Actually, I'm sure that Roger Ebert's staff Googles his name frequently.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-17 02:36 am (UTC)His staff must keep reasonable track of how he comes up on Google; it's just remarkable to suppose that Usenet apparently hit the top of that list at least once.
I don't think I made it to the top five screens of Google searches, despite the Livejournal power.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-15 05:54 pm (UTC)I think the best sci-fi comedies are those grounded in science fiction, and then just happen to be funny; As opposed to comedies that seem to be sci-fied up. Though this puts me dangerously close to snobbishness.
--Chiaroscuro
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-15 08:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-17 02:39 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-17 02:51 am (UTC)But then why is that that humorous science fiction seems to have a better batting average, for matching productions that are at least watchable or even good, than straight science fiction has? Is it just that it hits more appealing buttons for me, or that a dose of comedy wallpapers over what would otherwise be nagging plot holes or can fill in dull stretches of screen time?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-17 03:38 am (UTC)That said, I think that sci-fi and fantasy that are funny can be, well.. both hard sci-fi and soft sci-fi at once. You can have the grand themes of Space Opera, but the good solid tech of hard sci-fi, and bridge them well through humor. Plus, as noted, funny can fill in for plot or tech...
And, moreover: Scifi is mostly of the future. Dystopian views can be powerful and challenging, but it's nice to have the notion of the future being.. well, happy in at least some ways.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-18 02:16 am (UTC)You know, I haven't seen F-Troop in so long I just don't know how I'd feel about it. With westerns, well, my tastes are all over the place, but I admit I do like -- at least in radio -- the ones that almost embody the ``we can't possibly live up to the challenge and the best we can do is try to avoid things getting too horrible too fast'' type, a la Gunsmoke, over more ebullient or goofy shows like The Lone Ranger.
Generally I like humorous takes on things more than perfectly straight ones, which does somewhat reflect my absurdity-biased lifestyle, but it's not an always reliable rule.
I think science fiction has something of a tendency to -- if done seriously -- grow self-important, as see Trekkies explaining why Voyager is actually a brilliant show. So being intentionally funny avoids that sin, not to mention provides a convenient stopping point for people who are trying to over-analyze the structural elements of the plot.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-19 07:32 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-20 02:58 am (UTC)Of course, on the other side of all this, there is Ron Goulart.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-17 02:44 am (UTC)That was one of ... I think Chuck Jones's ... cardinal rules about making fun of something in cartoons, that you couldn't do it well unless you had some respect for the original. He did make an exception, though, for the boring-and-pompous travelogue and guessed there might be a generalizable exception for certain types of original material.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-17 02:42 am (UTC)Maybe the right comparison is between the comic and the serious science fiction movie, come to that ... given the choice, would you rather watch Mom And Dad Save The World or Memoirs of an Invisible Man?
(Wait, was Memoirs intended to be a comedy?)