Logan's Run First Watch

[Steven P Bastien]

Logan and Jessica were probably stoned to death before the day was over.

Oh, but you are forgetting the up-side. They can all feel the strange lines on the old-man's face. Then they get to talk to the old guy like Jess and Logan did through half the movie. That's got to be better than all those free drugs they used to indulge in.

 

[Christopher]

At least WALL-E had that end-credits montage to show you how they survived.

 

[DrCorby]

Oh, but you are forgetting the up-side. They can all feel the strange lines on the old-man's face. Then they get to talk to the old guy like Jess and Logan did through half the movie. That's got to be better than all those free drugs they used to indulge in.

Credit where credit is due -- the quote you used is actually from Greg Cox's post...

Even as a teen, I wondered what happened five minutes after the end of the movie, when all those wide-eyed young people realized that their entire social infrastructure had been destroyed: no more shelter, food, sanitation, health care, etc. And that they're totally ill-equipped to survive in the wild.

"Good news! We're all going to die of disease and exposure now!"

Logan and Jessica were probably stoned to death before the day was over.

 

[Skipper]

In your opinion, how many people managed to escape from the city after the computer's destruction..?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Old sci-fi computers just blew up randomly when faced with simple dilemmas, sometimes.

It's just one of those things you either accept or don't. I grew up watching Kirk talk computers and androids to death and Earth be besieged by a living machine that never thought to wipe the muck off it's name plate, and then ascended to a higher plane of existence because it merged with a human.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

For those who have read the book- is it worth the read? Or is the movie very similar? I will probably read it any hoo.

Yes, it is worth the read, and almost a priority for anyone to really get into/understand all things Logan. The novel has its own, unique voice not only among 1960's sci-fi novels, but the genre in general. The world only hinted at in the 1976 film takes on a very expansive feeling/meaning in the novel. Names and certain relationships are different than the film (e.g., there's no "Ballard" in the movie--its all Francis 7, Box has different, more disturbing motives in the novel, etc.), but its a don't-miss book.

 

[Christopher]

It's just one of those things you either accept or don't.

No, it isn't, because it isn't always handled the same way every time, and it is entirely valid to critique those individual examples that handle it worse than others. As I already clarified yesterday, the problem with Logan's Run is not simply that the computer blows up; it's that it has no reason to blow up. Most other stories that end that way provide some plausible reason for it to get stuck in an irresolvable logic loop or conflict of programmed imperatives. Here, that isn't convincingly sold. There's no insoluble paradox, merely a disagreement. The computer could've just rejected Logan's input as bad data, since it had no corroborating evidence.

Also, most other stories make it a clear victory for the protagonist by showing them arguing the computer into self-destruction, beating it in a battle of wits and wills. Here, Logan is passive and unquestioning, not actively defiant at all, and the computer basically turns on itself. So it leaves out the most important part of the trope, the fact that the hero defeats the computer. It's not a victory earned by Logan, it's just a random thing that happens to end the movie. It's a deus ex machina and thus is bad plotting.

And thirdly, or C-dly, it's just a ridiculous case of overkill that it blows up, not just the computer, but the entire city.

 

[Steven P Bastien]

So with all this Logan talk, I reread the book last night. I forgot just how short the book is, so yes it can be read easily in an evening. So it is crazy not to buy a cheap used copy and read it, or at least start to read it and see if you like it.

For me, the story of the book is better, but it lacks the charm that makes Logan's Movie a cult classic. What is funny (I had forgotten) is that even though the story is very different, there are many scenes and even lines that are essentially the same. But, it is all small stuff that is not critical to the overall story arc. I had to chuckle when it got to Holly (the assistant to Doc) and she is not so innocent as portrayed in the movie.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

No, it isn't, because it isn't always handled the same way every time, and it is entirely valid to critique those individual examples that handle it worse than others. As I already clarified yesterday, the problem with Logan's Run is not simply that the computer blows up; it's that it has no reason to blow up. Most other stories that end that way provide some plausible reason for it to get stuck in an irresolvable logic loop or conflict of programmed imperatives. Here, that isn't convincingly sold. There's no insoluble paradox, merely a disagreement. The computer could've just rejected Logan's input as bad data, since it had no corroborating evidence.

The holographic interrogation probably convinces the computer that Logan's input is not bad data so it can't reject it and it can't reconcile that with what it thinks to be true. I haven't blown up a computer yet but if you aren't careful and you have a process that relies on a variable that is being changed by another process you can get software to deadlock and freeze but it's not as compelling on a visual level.

 

[Christopher]

The holographic interrogation probably convinces the computer that Logan's input is not bad data so it can't reject it and it can't reconcile that with what it thinks to be true.

If so, the directing and writing failed to convey that. If you have to make up an explanation for it after the fact, the film failed to do its job. And it still leaves Logan passive; he's not actively resisting, not defying authority, just saying what he saw and being a lucky beneficiary of the computer's own self-inflicted freakout.

 

[Steven P Bastien]

In your opinion, how many people managed to escape from the city after the computer's destruction..?

All the living ones.

Seriously, I don't think there is any way to know or estimate. It's not even clear how many people live in the city dome. We know that there are over 1000 people missing runners that the computer thinks went to sanctuary, but we know are mostly frozen by Box. So, there must be many many thousands or probably at least a million. We see maybe hundreds emerge, but the city is huge and we are only seeing the ones that escape near the old man.

 

[Steven P Bastien]

If so, the directing and writing failed to convey that. If you have to make up an explanation for it after the fact, the film failed to do its job. And it still leaves Logan passive; he's not actively resisting, not defying authority, just saying what he saw and being a lucky beneficiary of the computer's own self-inflicted freakout.

My opinion about this is that Mr.Adventure is basically correct. At least I got that the computer is facing the true facts revealed by the holographic interrogation that appears to be a brain link of some type. The computer does not believe him so it engages the link, but it must then face the facts.

However, I agree that the writing and directing failed. Even if we accept the above, so what? So, the computer knows that those 1000 people did not go to sanctuary but fell victim to the malfunctioning Box. They are all frozen. Mystery solved, ... no dilemma ... no reason to blow itself up.


... oh, and give Logan his 4 years back.

 

[Noname Given]

I remember when she was at the height of her popularity, ads for the movie on TV made a big deal of Farrah Fawcett "starring" in the film. In reality, her part was little more than a "walk on" with very few lines. For anyone curious, she appeared in the cosmetic surgery scenes, the "New You" ("Nu Yu"?) shop as an assistant to the surgeon.

That's because her scene in "LOGAN'S RUN" was filmed BEFORE she hit it big on TV with "Charlie's Angels" (the film released before the first episode of the show aireded) - but after she hit big, everytime they'd air it on TV they'd mention "...with (or 'also starring') Farah Fawcett!" because of the popularity of "Charlie's Angels" in the mid-late 1970ies.

Old sci-fi computers just blew up randomly when faced with simple dilemmas, sometimes.

It's just one of those things you either accept or don't. I grew up watching Kirk talk computers and androids to death and Earth be besieged by a living machine that never thought to wipe the muck off it's name plate, and then ascended to a higher plane of existence because it merged with a human.

^^^
Captain Kirk made a name for himself saving Humanity from such homicidal computers many times over.

 

[Kilana2]

What happened after the Old Man met all those young people? They formed relationships or married and finally got children instead of all the incubator stuff.

 

[Redfern]

That's because her scene in "LOGAN'S RUN" was filmed BEFORE she hit it big on TV with "Charlie's Angels" (the film released before the first episode of the show aireded) - but after she hit big, everytime they'd air it on TV they'd mention "...with (or 'also starring') Farah Fawcett!" because of the popularity of "Charlie's Angels" in the mid-late 1970ies.

Right, I'm aware that was before "Charlie's Angels". That's what I find rather amusing, ads luring in TV audiences to watch the movie under false pretenses, being fooled into thinking Ms. Fawcett would have a major role in the film.

 

[Skipper]

Captain Kirk made a name for himself saving Humanity from such homicidal computers many times over.

Yes, but at least it tried to talk computers into self-destructing while presenting them some logical paradox. Where the heck is the paradox here??!

Computer: Did you find Sanctuary?
Logan: Er, there is no Sanctuary. All the missing people have been frozen to death by a psychotic robot.
(Computer explodes).

Really, what am I missing here? And don't forget that it was that computer which came up with the idea to infiltrate Logan and make his life clock blinking four years before its time. So, in comparison to other sci-fi movies' computers, it was a quite cunning one. And this shows that it knew the concept of deception, or at least that sometimes what one says or believes can be different from an objective reality. I mean, it was deceiving an entire city with the "Carrousel" thing.

And really, a possible explanation for the Logan's words could also be that he was simply wrong (Sanctuary really existed but he hadn't found it), but the computer didn't even take this possibility into account.

 

[Greg Cox]

Right, I'm aware that was before "Charlie's Angels". That's what I find rather amusing, ads luring in TV audiences to watch the movie under false pretenses, being fooled into thinking Ms. Fawcett would have a major role in the film.

Exactly. What was amusing and/or annoying was the way they'd hype LOGAN'S RUN as "starring Farrah Fawcett-Majors!"

Often at the expense of the actual stars.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I'm one of those people who actually saw Logan's Run in the theater and I loved it. I'm fine with the miniatures-- I still believe that modeling and hand-painted mattes embody more artistry than most CGI-- and I love the sets and the costuming. This may be the last movie that actually looked futuristic before Stars Wars made all Sci-Fi movies look like a salvage yard. The story is very high concept, and still resonates today-- in fact, even moreso in some respects. Imagine a society governed by sheltered, naive children unable to cope with the outside world. How prescient.

And Jenny Agutter was just amazing, of course. She will always remain a happy memory from my childhood.

I also love the episodic nature of the plot and all the exotic locales, including the vine-ridden ruins of Washington. Almost a Statue-of-Liberty moment there. And, of course, the wonderful Peter Ustinov and his kitty kats.

The computer blowing up doesn't bother me a bit. Back then, the idea of a computer system robust enough to run a city but fragile enough to break down at the drop of a hat was science fiction-- today it's science fact. Also, remember that the thing probably hadn't been properly maintained in centuries....

 

[Mysterion]

Old sci-fi computers just blew up randomly when faced with simple dilemmas, sometimes.

Well, you really gotta be careful when you try to talk a computer out of doing something:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Christopher]

I'm fine with the miniatures-- I still believe that modeling and hand-painted mattes embody more artistry than most CGI

I love miniatures and classic techniques too. That's why I don't like the Logan city -- because it's bad miniature work, far worse and less convincing than the state of the art in other movies and even TV shows of the era, and criticized at the time for falling short of the era's standards. This was just a year before Greg Jein's amazing miniature work in Close Encounters of the Third Kind and the iconic Imperial battlecruiser miniature in Star Wars, and yet the miniatures in Logan looked like something out of a '50s B-movie. As with the computer-explodey bit, the problem isn't the general category of what they did, it's that Logan's Run did it worse than other examples of the same thing.

This may be the last movie that actually looked futuristic before Stars Wars made all Sci-Fi movies look like a salvage yard.

Umm, Star Trek: The Motion Picture was 2 years after Star Wars.