From: py1djf@sunlab1.bath.ac.uk (D J Ford)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Day the Earth Caught Fire
Keywords: Stupid Science Syndrome
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:29:56 GMT
Organization: School of Physics, University of Bath, UK

In the referenced article, barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>In article <C0yqwu.KJ@sunlab1.bath.ac.uk> su0bufs@sunlab1.bath.ac.uk (Bath University Film Society) writes:
>>	Who out there saw the British Sci-Fi Classic
>>	on BBC 2 the other night? And what did you
>>	think.
>
>	You know, I really wish I could agree. I _want_ to like that
>film. The acting and direction are excellent, as is the writing, save
>for one fatal flaw which I'll discuss. Overall, the mileage they got out
>of a small budget is incredible, or would be incredible were it not
>actually typical of British SF films of that period. While the US was
>making low-budget sci-fi memorable only for being unintentionally funny,
>the Brits were consistently more creative than the budget would seem to
>have allowed.
	Thankfully this is still so, and not just where
	SF is concerned.
>
>	But a classic? No. 5,000,000 YEARS TO EARTH (aka QUATERMASS AND
>THE PIT) is a classic; VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED is a classic; but THE DAY
>THE EARTH CAUGHT FIRE is a Mona Lisa with a moustache scrawled on it.
>
	Mmm, yes the films mentioned are classics. Two of the best
	in fact. But considering The Day The Earth Caught Fire, it
	must rate nearer to Villiage of the Damned and Quatermass and the
	Pit, than to the other end of the spectrum.

>	The problem is Stupid Science Syndrome. The basic premise, that
>the Earth gets knocked out of its orbit by H-bomb tests, ranks right up
>there with traveling to the Moon by balloon for scientific plausibility.
>Look, this film tries, and in other respects succeeds, in giving a
>chilling sense of reality to what's happening. Realism is the style of
>the film. And the stupidity was so _unnecessary_. John Christopher made
>a career out of showing Britain in ruins, and he never once resorted to
>such silliness.
	
	Yes, I know its drivel. But thats not important. The film
	isn't about the effects of Atomic testing, its about
	the effects of global catastophy. The H-bombs are merely
	a plot device, which where know at the time. I fully expect
	films to be made in a similar vain, but with diferent (and
	possibly more valid) science when comet PS/T comes closer.

	The Science details don't nessesarily detract from a film
	in my opinion. Take Star Wars, the science is all bollocks
	in that film, but its still a damn good movie.

	A SF story, wether film or book, doesnt have to be scientifically
	valid to be good or not. It depends on the context:
	eg, The ridiculos Bistromatic Stardrive in the HHGTTG series
	helps to reinforce the nature of the story.
	Whilst in this film, the bad science does harm it.
	
>
>	It destroys an otherwise fine film, and destroys it by ignorance
>and/or carelessness, not out of putting dramatic necessity ahead of
>science.
>
	I wouldn't say destroy, but it does dammage it certainly.

	However, it is also about the British Tabloid Press, and
	theyv'e NEVER let the facts get in way of a true story :->


	Dave Ford
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  // /||\/| | /^, /| ||	Dave Ford        ||	Come and play at	
\X/ /-||  | | \_7/-| ||py1djf@sunlab1.bath.ac.uk||rec.games.mornington.cresent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies