virus: Re: virus-digest V2 #190

Ken Pantheists (
Fri, 18 Jul 1997 10:17:48 -0700

At 06:10 AM 7/17/97 -0600, Reed wrote:
>Same as above. Style decision. What if I told you Carl made the
>screenwriters take a vow not to use such stunts to attract your

Yeah, I get what your're saying. Car chases are not the only way to do it,
But this particular director *really* likes to hammer the point home in a
classic hollywood fashion. (tone check: *classsic hollywood* meaning--
staying true to it's lineage for all that's great about h-wood and all
that's not.)

This director has a whole set of other stunts though, a Norman Rockwell
optimism that gives images a kind of forced social resonance. In short---
now I am being *really* picky here--- he should have trusted the audience's
intelligence enough to stick with the story about science and discovery and
trusting your own desires/abilities-- the subplots were just too much. They
seemed long and boring to me. Unpredictable is not a word I would have used
to describe them.

When Carl told them noot to use one set of stunts, he should have seen the
other set of stunts coming. That's the prize-winning right-left combination
of Hollywood.
To extend the metaphor to a sickening level--

The moral of the story is, "You never know when Hollywood will chew the ear
off a perfectly good story."

>I agree. But I think that it's an incredible challenge to translate Sagan's
>vision into the "big screen".

Some really great writers make not-so-great sceenwriters. William Gibson
really flubbed when he wrote the screenplay for "Johnny Memnonic". Too
bad-- he's one of my favourite fiction writers. AND he has a great ear for
terse dialogue-- very cinematic-- but he flubbed the structural
translation. --- in my opinion, I have no pretenses to being a pro film
critic-- just a lot of crit-memes floating around that want out.

>...I just think the movie's heart is in the right place.

You are right there.