Re: He is Risen

In article <fsgjgv$nnl$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Michael Alan Chary <mchary@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>In article <Xns9A6E611A12139genewardsmithsbcglob@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>Gene Ward Smith  <gene@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in 
>>news:o0dmu3trv042p4im914dml3ub900jc848u@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>> I'm not saying CE3K would have flopped, but I don't think it's absurd
>>> to suggest that "Star Wars" paved its way and whetted the public
>>> appetite for splashy special-effects movies.
>>
>>It was a very different movie, and one might also suggest it hurt CE3K
by not 
>>being the movie people wanted to see in the wake of Star Wars. It's all 
>>speculation, either way. For more speculation, I suspect that if he'd 
>>directed Superman instead, which is what he'd been asked to do, it might
have 
>>gotten done by 1977, and been something closer to Star Wars.
>>
>>The fact is, the movie is what we saw, and what we saw would have made
it on 
>>its own merits, without Star Wars.
>
>Mixed vibes. Science Fiction immediately prior to Star Wars was stuff
like 
>The Planet of the Apes sequels, Andromeda Strain, Soylent Green, Silent 
>Running and the like. (Maybe Network and A Clockwork Orange)
>
>Star Wars shattered the paradigm dramatically which allowed Close 
>Encounters to be a different sort of sf film.

I will say, btw, that 1977 just proves that John Denver and Richard 
Dreyfuss played blind characters in their movies about men married to Teri

Garr look-a-likes who have their lives altered by otherworldly messages.
-- 
The All-New, All-Different Howling Curmudgeons!
http://www.whiterose.org/howlingcurmudgeons