From: shoham@ll.mit.edu (Daniel Shoham)
Subject: Re: moontrap
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Distribution: rec
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 02:48:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec26.2756.2620@dosgate> "robert winkler" <robert.winkler@canrem.com> writes:

>     Moontrap, children, is made in 1989, & the best argument for
>dropping a mid-sized nuke on Hollywood (on a midsummer day at noon).

This suggestion might answer question 6 below :-).

>Have you ever wondered why there're so many movies that just CAN'T
>combine ad 1) a good storyline, ad 2) good SF/X, and ad 3) some basic
>scientific logic?

The above are all matter of taste. While Moontrap is clearly a "B-movie",
within that category it does a reasonable job in all three categories (ok, ok
a little weak on the 3rd one - but by defenition SF is allowed to play fast
and loose with science).


I actually liked Moontrap VERY MUCH. A little less gore wouldn't have hurt it,
but all-in-all, it was an enjoyable movie - wish I had seen it in a theater.

>ad 1) there's no sound on the surface of the Moon & in space (that is:
>      in vacum), so you can't hear steps, engines, etc, EXCEPT the
>      sounds of submachine-guns & booster rockets

On the surface of the moon, one CAN hear footsteps (via seismic transmission)
and other "sounds" generated by objects striking the surface, however, at a
much attenuated level. As presented - very loud noises are above the audible
threshold, and soft ones are not.

>ad 2) the Moon's gravity appears to be the same as that of Earth for
>      dust, flame (!) and robots, but for the Mooncars there's less
>      gravity, while humans're somewhere in-between - basically
>      dancing at normal gravity (someone should've told the guy that
>      slowing down the film, a rather cheap & very efficient effect,
>      can be accomplished even at today's primitive technique...)

I can't recall that flaw (but I suppose I must believe you).

>ad 3) there's plenty of oxigen for flames in vacum, so much so that
>      they can shoot a MAC-10 submachinegun in space(!) with
>      "spectacular" fireworks... hey, they even travel by shooting!

No doubt, the SMG was modified to carry it's own oxidizing agent (not a very
difficult thing to do), and have electronic trigering (also feasible).

>ad 4) those naughty robots are invincible in one scene, but more
>      vulnerable than a worn out dishwasher in others

The "robot-in-a-shell" was invincible - as it's mission was to get to Earth
and go into action then. Otherwise, the robots had a weak-spot (the "head"),
and once our hero figured it out, conquering them became easier.

>ad 5) humans had a marvelously high level of spacetravel 14000 years
>      ago, but no explanation is offered how, why, or what the heck...

I thought leaving the speculation of what happened to the spacetravel culture
to the reader was a refreshing change from the usual, and preachy, refrain
"we all destroyed each other because [...]" where [...] is some perceived
present day social-ailment (nuclear holocaust, envio-damage, race-relations,
over-automation, etc.) that make movies appear to have a "message". 
However, if you must have an "insperational message", the robots destroyed
humanity on the moon, while Earth-humans banned (or never had) robots leading
to the regression of human civilization (until re-emergence in the Bronze age)
- teaching us all the dangers of technology and warnning us from repeating our
mistakes as we so clearly are about to do (clap, clap, clap).

>ad 6) our brilliant ancestors hybernated a lady with beautiful breasts
>      at the time; when awaken, she picks up her 14000 year old
>      spacesuit that looks & works like new (yeah, it's not made by
>      JVC), takes a walk, & then quickly strippes just in time to
>      copulate with our hero, in a tent that has no grav.chamber, on
>      the surface of the Moon... (hey, after fourteen thousand years
>      I'd be in a GREAT hurry too!)

Our brilliant ancestors wanted to warn future humans of the robot's danger.
For this mission, the ability to rapidly gain communication and trust is vital.
As such, a lady with beautiful breasts and ready to strip has definite
advantages. The space-suit needed for such a mission would surely be
specifically designed to last a long time - not an overwhelming technological
feat on the non-corrosive moon.

(I did think tent-copulation was a little dangerous, but hormones are hormones)

>ad 7) these nasty robot-fellows supposedly possess an extremely high
>level of intelligence, so they can literally build a ship from
>scrap-metal - yet they wait for fourteen thousand years to get a small
>landing craft from Earth so that they can finish the building with this
>last "domino"; guess there was nobody to tell them that if they built a
>factory and the necessary tools, they could make their very own domino
>from the material of the Moon in fourteen months...

I think you missed the whole point about the nasty robots. The robots NEVER
create anything, they just improvise by connecting ALLREADY FUNCTIONING
machines and objects to form new ones. They are not always successfull, witness
the rather gorish (and not too successfull) attempt to use human body parts
as machine parts. The robot's could never mine the moon and build a spaceship,
they can only take objects they have found and connect them together. Sometimes
the objects maintain their old function, and in other times are used as scrap
bulk material - whatever works.

>Robert


Dan Shoham               shoham@ll.mit.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The view presented are not necessarily those of my employer, etc.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lincoln Laboratory
244 Wood Street
Lexington Massachusetts, 02173-9108
Office B-373
617-981-3515
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: dave@yoyodyne.demon.co.uk (David Bisping)