THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL TO WATCH THE ORIGINAL MOVIE DAY

 

On December 12th, 2008, 20th Century Fox will be releasing their remake of the 1951 classic SF film The Day The Earth Stood Still. (Click the pic to go to the TDTESSTWTOMD webpage.)

The new version stars Keeanu Reeves and will benefit(?) from 57 years of film-making advances.

57 years is enough time for two generations to have passed since Michael Renne starred in the original.

That’s more than enough time to guarantee that the audience going to see this remake is unlikely to even be aware that it is a remake, and certainly more than enough time for anyone who has seen the original to forget how utterly fantastic and spot on it was.  Not just for its own time, but for all time.

That is why it is so very important for those of us who have seen and do remember the original to make sure that anyone who goes to see the remake will have seen the original BEFORE they do.

Nivair Gabriel, writing on IO9, explains some of the many reasons why:

There is no reason to remake something that is absolutely perfect.

Remakes insinuate that there was something deficient about the original movie, that it’s somehow necessary to update the film for today’s audiences. The vast majority of the cinema-going crowd will watch the version with the actors they know in an instant, and never bother to rent the first one.

We might be afraid of terrorists now instead of communists, but we still haven’t managed to end nuclear proliferation and create lasting worldwide peace. I think there’s still quite a lot to The Day the Earth Stood Still’s message that we might pose a threat to the rest of the universe if we can’t get a grip on our violent tendencies; and I think Klaatu’s non-destructive way of shocking humanity into action is even more brilliant today.

Michael Rennie’s alien, by the way, is an example of a truly flawless and understated performance; anyone who thinks that Keanu Reeves can show that up should stop reading now to go smack their head against a wall a few times. I don’t want to see any current child actor try to replace Bobby Benson; Billy Gray’s adorable portrayal of The Most Fifties Boy Ever will warm my heart for all time.

The Day the Earth Stood Still is a treasure; it’s one of the best films we humans have ever managed to produce. It was fabulous in 1951 and it’s only matured with age, like the finest sci-fi-themed wine in all the world. The movie packs a huge amount of vision about human identity and aspirations — in fact, it’s almost impossible to believe it was made eighteen years before we Earthlings reached the moon. So why in the name of everything beautiful would a person want to taint those waters with a totally unnecessary rehash?

The viewing public has a right to be exposed to the original before they see the remake; they have a right to judge the two side by side – BEFORE the computer-generated dazzle has a chance to influence them. They have a right to view these films in their historical order, to be free from hype and marketing blitz before they are asked to choose which one they prefer.

The only fair and decent way to give the original the credit it is due is for everyone who has ever seen it to pledge that they will get at least one other person to watch the film before December 12th, 2008.

That is why I have declared December 10th, 2008 to be THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL TO WATCH THE ORIGINAL MOVIE DAY day.

I have added a page to my website that provides all of the necessary links – no need to rent or purchase a DVD, no need to schedule a special viewing.  Just grab your friends, siblings and significant others, sit them down in front of the ‘puter and watch. 

I’ve also added links to the original story Farewell to the Master by Harry Bates, the original soundtrack, movie posters and even model kits based on the original film.

If you would like to keep track of how many people you’ve gotten to watch the film, post a message in the comments of this post.

I’ve already done my bit – I got Karen, my wife, to sit still through the whole thing.  She likes super hero movies better than SF ones, but she enjoyed every minute of it. Her comment – why are they bothering to remake it?

Visit the webpage, stick 12.10.08 on your calendar and get others to watch!

Read Full Post »

CORDWAINER SMITH WEBSITE UPDATE!

The Lord Jestocost, C’Mell the Girly-Girl, Roderick McBann, Mother Hittun and her Little Kittuns, Vomact the Scanner chief and many more wonder, strange and completey out of this world characters, places and history (future) are yours to enjoy at the recentlty updated Cordwainer Smith website.

Just go here.  If you’ve never read Smith – don’t stop at GO, go directly to the site, the library or NESFA press.

We’ll wait.  Or you can read Rosana Hart’s blog and THEN go read some Cordwainer.

Read Full Post »

Top 150 Classic SF Writers

Everyone seemed to like it when I posted a ‘top something of something’ list a while ago, so I started working on a couple of others.

Most of my major blog articles these days are taking more than a few minutes to research and write – which is one thing responsible for the recent past paucity of posting.  I just finished up this Top Of list and now I’m posting it.

This is a Top 150 List of Classic Science Fiction Writers. 

What do I mean by classic? To begin, it means that they and their works were present at least twenty five years ago.  The cut off is 1983.  If you were writing and published in 1983 or earlier, you’re a Classic SF Writer – whether you want to be or not. 

If you are on the list, be thankful that I chose the word classic. If you aren’t on the list, feel free to substitute adjectives such as antique, ancient, vintage or some such.

My criteria for selection was as: 

Overall presence in the magazines of the era (SF was originally all about magazine-based fiction and hardly anything appeared published as a stand-alone novel). A summary of Astounding/Analog AnLab results, the Contento magazine lists and the covers of runs of the influential magazines of the period were used to acquire that data.

Presence in the anthologies of the era.  It is reasonable to assume that a much-anthologized story/author had a fair amount of influence on the genre – even if it was only because it had been much-anthologized.  Contento’s list was used of this – his ‘most published’ data, as well as the contents lists of seminal, highly-regarded (early) anthologies, such as Adventures in Time and Space – Healy & McComas, The Best Science Fiction – Conklin, SF Hall of Fame – Silverberg, etc.

Awards Won.  I looked at the Hugo (fan based) and Nebula (contemporaries based); between those two, you’ve got the longest-running awards and a representation of the entire field.  I then looked at the Locus Award to get a little more near-term comparison.

Awards Named For.  Look – if you are an SF author and someone names an award for you – a prestigious, influential award that is paid attention to by the people in the field, chances are they felt you had a reasonable degree of impact on shaping things as they are now.  Lord knows no one in the field has enough money to buy themselves an award, so there must be another explanation.

I then compiled all this information in a database, simplified everything by awarding one point for each mention of an author’s name, adding them up and generating a list that ran from most mentions to least mentions.  (Oh, I combined pseudonyms as well.)

Somewhat surprisingly, Harlan Ellison was at the top of the list.  He’s been anthologized a vast number of times AND he’s won a huge number of Hugos and Nebulas, so in retrospect, it isn’t all tat surprising.

I then cut the list off at two or more points.  That gave me 85 entrants.  Unfortunately there remained a huge number of single point entrants (actually, it’s fortunate for all of us who have had the pleasure of reading the stuff these folks have written).  There was no possible way for me to chop 91 entrants down to just 15 more, so I opted to go for the Top 150 rather than the Top 100.

These final selections were based on (oh my gosh) my own OPINION of the quality and influence the author has had.

In the final analysis, I actually had to add two names because they never showed up at all.  But those two authors have had an enormous presence in the genre almost from its inception.  I assure you, had those two names been missing, it would have utterly destroyed any validity this list might have.  And no, I won’t tell you who they were.

I could fairly easily add at least another ten names to the list:  some influential authors have made their mark almost exclusively with novels (and while they have been nominated for major awards, they haven’t won); other influential people are writers, but have made their major contributions in other ways, such as editing, or in film or academically.

So, without further ado, and with a great degree of trepidation, here are the TOP 150 CLASSIC SCIENCE FICTION AUTHORS – in alphabetical order:

Brian W. Aldiss Christopher Anvil Isaac Asimov Poul Anderson Robert Abernathy Alfred Bester Algis Budrys Anthony Boucher Eando Binder Edgar Rice Burroughs Edward Bryant Frederic Brown Gregory Benford Harry Bates J. G. Ballard James Blish Jerome Bixby John Brunner Leigh Brackett Michael Bishop Nelson S. Bond Ray Bradbury Robert Bloch A. Bertram Chandler Arthur C. Clarke C. J. Cherryh Cleve Cartmill Hal Clement John D. Clark John W. Campbell Suzy McKee Charnas Theodore R. Cogswell Avram Davidson Gordon R. Dickson L. Sprague DeCamp Lester Del Rey Philip K. Dick Samuel R. Delany Thomas M. Disch Gordon Eklund Harlan Ellison H. B. Fyfe Howard Fast Philip Jose Farmer Robert L. Forward Charles L. Grant David Gordon Horace L. Gold Martin Gardner Randall Garrett

Raymond Z. Gallun Tom Godwin Edmond Hamilton Frank Herbert Harry Harrison Henry Hasse Joe Haldeman Robert A. Heinlein Malcolm Jameson Neil R. Jones Raymond F. Jones Shirley Jackson C. M. Kornbluth Damon Knight Daniel Keyes Henry Kuttner Barry B. Longyear Frank Belknap Long Fritz Leiber Murray Leinster R. A. Lafferty Ursula K. LeGuin Willy Ley Anne McCaffrey Barry N. Malzberg C. L. Moore Captain S. P. Meek George R. R. Martin John D. MacDonald Judith Merril Julian May Katherine MacLean Laurence Manning Michael Moorcock P. Schuyler Miller R. DeWitt Miller Richard Matheson Richard McKenna Vonda McIntyre Walter M. Miller Jr Ward Moore Alan E. Nourse Andre Norton Larry Niven Alexei Panshin Frederik Pohl H. Beam Piper Jerry Pournelle John T. Phillifent Lawrence A. Perkins

Eric Frank Russell Joanna Russ Mack Reynolds Milton A. Rothman Ross Rocklynne Spider & Jeanne Robinson Tom Reamy Walt & Leigh Richmond Clifford D. Simak Cordwainer Smith E. E. Doc Smith G. Harry Stine George O. Smith Howard Schoenfeld James H. Schmitz Leslie F. Stone Nathan Schachner Robert Sheckley Robert Silverberg Stanley Schmidt T. L. Sherred Theodore Sturgeon Wilmar H. Shiras Charles R. Tanner James Tiptree Jr Lisa Tuttle Theodore L. Thomas William F. Temple William Tenn A. E. Van Vogt Jack Vance Joan D. Vinge John Varley Jules Verne Connie Willis Donald Wandrei Donald Wollheim Gene Wolfe H. G. Wells Howard Waldrop Jack Williamson Jack Wodhams James White John Wyndham Kate Wilhelm Robert Moore Williams S. Fowler Wright Stanley G. Weinbaum Wallace West Roger Zelazny

Obviously, if you strenuously disagree with someone who is on the list, or someone who isn’t on the list – or perhaps more importantly, if you think you should be ON the list and aren’t, let me know.

Read Full Post »

Geeky Young Guys

Here’s my preliminary t-shirt (and coffee mug, mousepad etc., etc.) design.  A piece of social commentary on the SciFi Channel’s opinion of science fiction fans:

If you have any suggestions for famous names that ought to be added, I’m all ears…

 

 

Read Full Post »

Now THIS is What I’m Talking About – Ray Gun Revival

RayGun Revival is a FREE e-zine (PDF format) that’s got some of the best retro art I’ve yet seen anywhere.

Its also chock full of great masses of pulpy goodness (don’t let the imagery that statement evokes put you off, its a GOOD thing).

New fiction that harkens back to an earlier era when good is good and evil is EVIL.  Simple tales featuring spaceships, exploding planets and ray guns.  What more could you ask for?

Well, only one thing.  A little more attention to copy editing.  I’m not a nitpicker (my own scribblings will attest to that) so when I start to notice missing words, misplaced commas and the like, its time to take another pass on the copy.

Otherwise – I’m a fan.  If you like classic SF, you will be too.

Read Full Post »

The No-Genre Sub-Genre Thing

Patrick Nielsen Hayden, author, editor, (TOR books) and one of the founders of Making Light (a googleplex of SF and other commentary) has issued a call to end the schisms within SF, Fantasy and Horror literature with the establishment of a new MOVEMENT.  He urges everyone to join the New Eclectics, a no-subgenre genre, where everyone is encouraged to mix and match – new wave psychedelic with steampunk, space opera with new weird – the more bizarre and seemingly impossible, the better.

The basic idea seems to be that the more the lines are blurred, the more difficult it will be to categorize individual works – or even individual authors – and the quicker everyone can get back to just enjoying what they like to read and write.

All of this is based on a call-to-arms issued by the founders of the ‘Mundane SF Movement’, that sub-genre which eschews the rest of the universe in favor of near-future Earth.

But its not the establishment of a new sub-genre name that has people going at each other. Who cares what category a book is shoved into – unless you happen to be looking for ‘something just like what you just read’?  No.  Sub-genres are useful for book-buyers, blurb-writers and library lists, academics and niche marketers, but not much else.  The thing that’s causing all the hubub seems to be the rote necessity of putting down all other genres in order to make a place for the new one.

Which leaves me in the clear, because I’ve not advocated anything other than the suggestion that people spend some time reading CLASSIC SF, a category that crosses and/or encompasses all of the sub-genres.

My criticisms have also been equally eclectic (to steal Patrick’s word); I’m generally negatively disposed towards NEW SF – which encompasses and crosses just as many subgenres as CLASSIC does.  The only difference being that classic denotes good and fun (for me) while new doesn’t (for me). 

Generally speaking.

Patrick points folks towards this piece by Richard Morgan (recent award winner) that calls for an end to all the bitterness, that I found interesting and mostly spot-on.  (I’m still trying to guess who the opening quotes were from.)

Going over TOR’sofferings, it looks as if PNH is backing up his plank; they seem to be publishing equal parts of whatever sub-genre you happen to be gaga for, including New Wave Golden Age Space Opera, at least in the form of Space Vulture.  (Had to get that in there, my autographed copy of the book just got back from authors Wolf & Myers.) 

Read Full Post »

Grandmaster Heinlein

Science Fiction Classics - a yahoo group I belong to – recently said ‘lets talk about Heinlein’.  The group unfortunately suffers from under-participation, despite the moderator’s herculean efforts at generating interest (perhaps its because those into the classics are not into the internet).

He did give me something to talk about though. 

I’ve been ‘into’ Heinlein since the very first science fiction novel I ever picked up.  It was, in fact, Heinlein’s Starman Jones, a novel that I’ve probably re-read on average once a year for the past forty years.

My friends obviously picked up on my infatuation; in high school we filmed a 16mm spoof of Star Wars and during the garbage disposal scene, our caricatures of Han, Luke, Leia and Chewbacca were showered with Heinlein books… I’d written the script for the film, but was caught completely unawares by the ad lib changes, much to the amusement of everyone.

Since picking up Starman Jones, I’ve dutifully read every last shred of fiction (and most of the non-fiction) that ever rolled out of RAH’s typer.  Much like Mel Gibson’s character in Conspiracy Theory, I have an uncontrollable compulsion to purchase any first edition of his books that I happen to run across – whether I already own one or not.  I’ve literally worn out copies of Starman Jones, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Time Enough For Love, Stranger in a Strange Land and Starship Troopers (not figuratively, no, the ink on the pages has faded into illegibility).

I was fortunate enough to be able to meet the man (and his lovely wife Virginia) once (during and preceding the blood drive at WSFS SunCon in 1977) and have been equally fortunate to have acquired several editions of his books that are autographed.

To say that I have a passion for Heinlein is a gross understatement.  Let’s put it this way; pick a social issue, pick a libertarian character from one of his stories and you’ll know where I stand.  (Its probably NOT a good idea to let young, impressionable minds read Heinlein. They’ll get all kinds of contrarian ideas about ethics and morals and freedom and responsibility.)

Over the years folks have taken great pains to discuss, analyse (and in some cases find fault with) one of my favorite authors.  For the most part, they’ve gotten it all wrong.     He had his own personal views on things, but you can find plenty of contradictions in his published work.  More than enough to prove that he wrote his stories to both entertain and explore, and he wasn’t afraid of adopting unpopular viewpoints while doing so.

 When discussing Heinlein with people who’ve yet to read anything by him, the discussion inevitably turns to which novel to recommend.  The four most popular suggestions seem ‘any of the juvenovels’ (Heinlein wrote a fair number of YA novels from the late 40s to the mid 50s), The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Stranger in a Strange Land and Starship Troopers.

There are good and bad reasons for each of those recommendations, and I won’t get into debating them, but what I can do is give you a list of his novels and story collections with a bit of a twist. I’m going to list them by ‘frequency of re-read’.  Maybe taking a look from the perspective of someone who’s read everything by the man – and much of it multiple times – you’ll get some ideas about where to start yourself.  (Where appropriate, I’ve added a note or two.)

 Most frequently re-read

 Starman Jones

The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress

Starship Troopers

Stranger in a Strange Land

The Door into Summer

Time Enough for Love

Farnham’s Freehold

Glory Road  - everything up to this point has been re-read on the close order of once every two or so years, at least

Tunnel in the Sky

The Puppet Masters

Orphans of the Sky

 

Frequently re-read

 

Have Space Suit—Will Travel

The Past Through Tomorrow – short story collection it incorporates most of the other collections

Between Planets

Space Cadet

Methuselah’s Children

Farmer in the Sky

The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag

The Star Beast

Citizen of the Galaxy

 

Infrequently Re-Read

 

Time for the Stars

Expanded Universe - short story collection that is, again, very comprehensive

The Man Who Sold the Moon

Friday

The Rolling Stones

Rocket Ship Galileo

The Green Hills of Earth

Red Planet

Sixth Column

Waldo & Magic, Inc.

 

Re-read a few times

 

Revolt in 2100

Podkayne of Mars

The Menace From Earth

Double Star

Beyond This Horizon

Three by Heinlein

The Worlds of Robert A. Heinlein

 

Re-read three or fewer times

 

Assignment in Eternity

The Number of the Beast

Job: A Comedy of Justice

The Cat Who Walks Through Walls

I Will Fear No Evil

To Sail Beyond the Sunset

For Us, The Living: A Comedy of Customs

Variable Star - shouldn’t really count as its Spider Robinson completing RAH notes.  Sorry Spider, I know how much you love Heinlein, but this thing was pretty awful.

 

Read Full Post »