Subject:
|
Re: Bicentennial Man (spoilers, and quite lengthy)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Dec 1999 16:34:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
953 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Asimov is "the master" not because he's the best of all SF writers,
> (he's not) but because he was writing stuff that others were learning
> from before many current writers were born... remember, some of his
> first stuff was written during the Golden Age. Plus, he was prolific.
Another extremely cool thing about him is that he was better educated than
just about any SciFi writer out there, then or now, and as such was able to
impart greater technical insight to his writing without sounding like he was
trying to impress his readers.
**snip**
> Like I said initially, if you (the general you, not Dave, who has
> already seen it) want to see it, go see it soon, I predict that it won't
> be out long, 80% of the audience won't like it, because they won't get
> it. You didn't, and you're no doubt brighter than the average movie goer
> and more thoughtful to boot.
Eh? Get what? I think I understood exactly what was going on and, more
importantly, what wasn't going on. There's no point in having us argue about
which of us is brighter or more sensitive, but I just don't see that the film
had much going for it beyond what was on the screen. As you say below, it may
just be a matter of personal tastes.
> Now, granted, it is very possible that because I have such a deep
> familiarity with the subject matter, having read all of Asimov's robot
> stories, all of any number of other SF authors writings, and having a
> particular fascination with the philosophical questions around self
> aware computers, that I read something into the movie that wasn't
> actually there. But I doubt it.
Interestingly, I share a fascination with these subjects and was as such
greatly disappointed by their representation in the film. Once again, though,
I can't credit a film with quality based on the efforts of other media.
> I'm also just generally a more sensitive, literate, and thoughtful guy
> than the average (not to mention smarter and handsomer), too, which
> might be a factor.
Didn't you invent the Internet, too?
**snip**
> As to why I asked how old you were, it was to satisfy a pet theory of
> mine that there IS a generational difference around subtlety of
> experience, attention span, and ability to enjoy sedately paced work.
> I'm 40.
A good rule of thumb, perhaps, but in all immodesty I don't think it applies
in this case. My chosen field of study is English Lit, specifically pre-
Renaissance lit, which isn't exactly fast-paced and requires a fair amount of
plodding. There can be no denying that today's "average" moviegoer, having
grown up with MTV's frenetic, epileptic pace, is less inclined to sit through
a slower film--let's see them watch Fannie and Alexander, for instance--but I
think that, happily, Alvin Toffler-style artistic apathy is neither guaranteed
nor universal. Some of us lit geeks are keeping the torches burning!
> The speed at which people lived when I was growing up was significantly
> different than when you were. Further, what is wondrous and new for me
> is taken for granted by some who are younger. I remember slide rules and
> actually used them in class! I like living fast, really, and can't wait
> to see the changes ahead, I plan to profit from them.
Did you use an abacus, too? 8^)
**DIGRESSION FOR PURPOSES OF A POTENTIALLY BORING STORY**
Several years ago my grandfather, then 82, told me about how he used to wake
each morning and poke through the ashes of the previous night's fire to find a
still-glowing ember, then use that to build that day's fire, and he would put
a pot of water on the stove to heat.A few years later he repeated the process
with his family's coal stove. The cool (to me) part of this story is that he
told it while waiting for his tea to heat in his microwave.
**END OF POTENTIALLY BORING STORY**
> But to a certain extent, there is no arguing with taste. Readers should
> take my opinion into account only insofar as it might be a predictor
> (positive OR negatively correlated) of their reaction, and the same is
> true for anyone else's opinion.
Well, except for the fact that I'm right, of course!
Dave!
(not quite as old as Larry)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
86 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
