AstroBoy Online Forums

First Space ship on Venus...... Let's Go.
"As they did unto me... So did I unto them..." Samson at the Doom of the Philistines.
:angry:

:wahah:

Originally posted by cybotron@Oct 2 2004, 07:05 AM
First Space ship on Venus...... Let's Go.
"As they did unto me... So did I unto them..." Samson at the Doom of the Philistines.
:angry:

:wahah:

Review....

I consider this film a classic of B-movie sci-fi. It has mechanically intricate devices, rather implausible elements (gravitational field reverses, for one), and in this case, some rather poor footage. There was a scene in which one crew member relized he was being left behind, and the poor lighting had so much glare or such poor lighting (cannot remember which) on his space helmet's visor, that only his teeth were visible (he was black). Dispite the seriousness of that scene, I could not help laughing. I think those helmets had illuminated interiors, so faces would be visible, but even if so, this poor cinematography slipped past the production crew.

Another of my favorites is Voyage to a prehistoric planet. When I was a kid, this was the best Sci-fi film I could imagine. It had a rather sketchy plot, but as a kid, I cared more about the robot & the hover-car, than the plot. The robot was so mechanically intricate, that Robby the Robot seemed lame by comparision. John (the robot) had a really cool synthesized (sounding) voice, was both large and powerful, & even had articulated toes. If I remember correctly, oscilloscopes were over-used as technical-looking items on the ship's instrument panels, most every surface was silver or aluminum colored, & there were plenty of moving objects to add 'realism'. Compared to Forbidden planet, I would say that a similar comparision would be between Space 1999 & Star Trek.

Star Trek_____Forbidden planet
------------ == -----------------------
Sp 1999______Voyage to a prehistoric planet

While those atop (numerators) focused on quality plots, & other script elements, & had most technical items represented by smooth surfaces & blinking lights, those on bottom (denominators) focused on technical intricacy & had rather poor plots. It seems obvious that in the Trek films, the smooth-skinned spacecraft of the 60s gave way to the more detailed exteriors that were featured in Star Wars. BTW, I saw the Melleniun Falcon @ the Smithsonian Air & space a few years age, & upon looking closely, noted engine decks from 1/35th scale Tamiya Panther tank models all over it. Too bad I did not have a camera. It was little more than grilles and cooling fans.

Originally posted by jeffbert@Oct 27 2004, 12:22 PM
I consider this film a classic of B-movie sci-fi. It has mechanically intricate devices, rather implausible elements (gravitational field reverses, for one), and in this case, some rather poor footage. There was a scene in which one crew member relized he was being left behind, and the poor lighting had so much glare or such poor lighting (cannot remember which) on his space helmet's visor, that only his teeth were visible (he was black). Dispite the seriousness of that scene, I could not help laughing. I think those helmets had illuminated interiors, so faces would be visible, but even if so, this poor cinematography slipped past the production crew.

Another of my favorites is [b]Voyage to a prehistoric planet. When I was a kid, this was the best Sci-fi film I could imagine. It had a rather sketchy plot, but as a kid, I cared more about the robot & the hover-car, than the plot. The robot was so mechanically intricate, that Robby the Robot seemed lame by comparision. John (the robot) had a really cool synthesized (sounding) voice, was both large and powerful, & even had articulated toes. If I remember correctly, oscilloscopes were over-used as technical-looking items on the ship's instrument panels, most every surface was silver or aluminum colored, & there were plenty of moving objects to add 'realism'. Compared to Forbidden planet, I would say that a similar comparision would be between Space 1999 & Star Trek.

Star Trek_____Forbidden planet
------------  ==    -----------------------
Sp 1999______Voyage to a prehistoric planet

While those atop (numerators) focused on quality plots, & other script elements, & had most technical items represented by smooth surfaces & blinking lights, those on bottom (denominators) focused on technical intricacy & had rather poor plots. It seems obvious that in the Trek films, the smooth-skinned spacecraft of the 60s gave way to the more detailed exteriors that were featured in Star Wars.  BTW, I saw the Melleniun Falcon @ the Smithsonian Air & space a few years age, & upon looking closely, noted engine decks from 1/35th scale Tamiya Panther tank models all over it. Too bad I did not have a camera.  It was little more than grilles and cooling fans. [/b]

You cannot teach the shamanistic secrets of Sci-Fi... A kid has to born into it. If you don't get into it as a child, you will never understand it.... At one level Caltiki is only a terrycloth towel dipped in honey, and with soap being pumped through it....
Sci-fi was the rebel branch of hollywood. The studios did not compete,so the costs were allways low. A kid would go see the cheapest and campyest movies and not question the reality of them..
At the end, Caltiki is only a terrycloth towel dipped in honey, and with soap being pumped through it.... .
Sci-fi must be desired, Lived,...

Originally posted by cybotron+Oct 26 2004, 11:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (cybotron @ Oct 26 2004, 11:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--jeffbert@Oct 27 2004, 12:22 PM
I consider this film a classic of B-movie sci-fi. It has mechanically intricate devices, rather implausible elements (gravitational field reverses, for one), and in this case, some rather poor footage. There was a scene in which one crew member relized he was being left behind, and the poor lighting had so much glare or such poor lighting (cannot remember which) on his space helmet's visor, that only his teeth were visible (he was black). Dispite the seriousness of that scene, I could not help laughing. I think those helmets had illuminated interiors, so faces would be visible, but even if so, this poor cinematography slipped past the production crew.

Another of my favorites is [b]Voyage to a prehistoric planet. When I was a kid, this was the best Sci-fi film I could imagine. It had a rather sketchy plot, but as a kid, I cared more about the robot & the hover-car, than the plot. The robot was so mechanically intricate, that Robby the Robot seemed lame by comparision. John (the robot) had a really cool synthesized (sounding) voice, was both large and powerful, & even had articulated toes. If I remember correctly, oscilloscopes were over-used as technical-looking items on the ship's instrument panels, most every surface was silver or aluminum colored, & there were plenty of moving objects to add 'realism'. Compared to Forbidden planet, I would say that a similar comparision would be between Space 1999 & Star Trek.

Star Trek_____Forbidden planet
------------  ==    -----------------------
Sp 1999______Voyage to a prehistoric planet

While those atop (numerators) focused on quality plots, & other script elements, & had most technical items represented by smooth surfaces & blinking lights, those on bottom (denominators) focused on technical intricacy & had rather poor plots. It seems obvious that in the Trek films, the smooth-skinned spacecraft of the 60s gave way to the more detailed exteriors that were featured in Star Wars.  BTW, I saw the Melleniun Falcon @ the Smithsonian Air & space a few years age, & upon looking closely, noted engine decks from 1/35th scale Tamiya Panther tank models all over it. Too bad I did not have a camera.  It was little more than grilles and cooling fans. [/b]

You cannot teach the shamanistic secrets of Sci-Fi... A kid has to born into it. If you don't get into it as a child, you will never understand it.... At one level Caltiki is only a terrycloth towel dipped in honey, and with soap being pumped through it....
Sci-fi was the rebel branch of hollywood. The studios did not compete,so the costs were allways low. A kid would go see the cheapest and campyest movies and not question the reality of them..
At the end, Caltiki is only a terrycloth towel dipped in honey, and with soap being pumped through it.... .
Sci-fi must be desired, Lived,... [/b][/quote]
Once again, you have responded in a way that only you can understand. I do not see how anything you wrote here had anything to do with anything I wrote. Why did you bother to quote me?

You ran and you watched 'The Flik" and you understood nothing of it.
You have to be born into Sci-Fi. If you don't enter it as a child, you will never grasp it.

Originally posted by cybotron@Oct 27 2004, 11:37 PM
You ran and you watched 'The Flik" and you understood nothing of it.
You have to be born into Sci-Fi. If you don't enter it as a child, you will never grasp it.

It is not asking too much that you make yourself understandable. I too, could invent some psychbabble and confuse you about subjects with which I am but not you are not familiar. However, if I did that, I would kindle the wrath of others.

Why post your incoherent responses on a public forum? It certainly could not be called 'communication', as only you understand it. There have been college professors who really knew their subjects inside & out, but were very poor at communicating. Perhaps they just lacked the desire to do so, I cannot ascertain which. Then there were those with mediocre grasps of their fields, but who had the abilty to communicate well. Which ones would you prefer to study under? I want the guy who knows how to make himself understood by others.

Originally posted by jeffbert+Oct 28 2004, 01:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jeffbert @ Oct 28 2004, 01:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--cybotron@Oct 27 2004, 11:37 PM
You ran and you watched 'The Flik" and you understood nothing of it.
You have to be born into Sci-Fi. If you don't enter it as a child, you will never grasp it.

It is not asking too much that you make yourself understandable. I too, could invent some psychbabble and confuse you about subjects with which I am but not you are not familiar. However, if I did that, I would kindle the wrath of others.

Why post your incoherent responses on a public forum? It certainly could not be called 'communication', as only you understand it. There have been college professors who really knew their subjects inside & out, but were very poor at communicating. Perhaps they just lacked the desire to do so, I cannot ascertain which. Then there were those with mediocre grasps of their fields, but who had the abilty to communicate well. Which ones would you prefer to study under? I want the guy who knows how to make himself understood by others. [/b][/quote]

You did a review of "First Spaceship on Venus" and made no mention of Yoko Tani.... Why would anyone take you seriously? :wacko:

Originally posted by cybotron+Oct 28 2004, 01:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (cybotron @ Oct 28 2004, 01:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -jeffbert@Oct 28 2004, 01:05 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--cybotron@Oct 27 2004, 11:37 PM
[b]You ran and you watched 'The Flik" and you understood nothing of it.
You have to be born into Sci-Fi. If you don't enter it as a child, you will never grasp it.

It is not asking too much that you make yourself understandable.
Why post your incoherent responses on a public forum? It certainly could not be called 'communication', as only you understand it. [/b]

You did a review of "First Spaceship on Venus" and made no mention of Yoko Tani.... Why would anyone take you seriously? :wacko: [/b][/quote]

Wind Cannot Read, The - Dirk Bogarde, Yoko Tani 1958 on VHS
IMDB

My comments had nothing to do with the cast. If you wanted to bring up that topic, you had no need to quote me, Baka!