Dark Star is a movie of fucking genius that is not talked about enough.
Logan's Run First Watch
- Thread starter Antonovus
- Start date
Dark Star is a movie of fucking genius that is not talked about enough.
Agreed. I think a lot of folks ignore it because it was a low budget film. But I've always found it to be fun, funny, intelligent and creative.
I don't think that "low budget" necessarily equals "bad movie". Sure there are plenty of crap low budget flicks out there. But there is a difference, IMO, between something that's just being churned out a cheap and quick as possible to make some money and something that is done with the best intent and creativity and just happens to be constrained by a lack of funding.
Random comment.
The 1970s and 1980s TV sets made the miniatures in Logans Run look much better than they do now on remastered bluray. That was true even on good weather days with no snowy reception or ghost images.
The 1970s and 1980s TV sets made the miniatures in Logans Run look much better than they do now on remastered bluray. That was true even on good weather days with no snowy reception or ghost images.
Last edited:
Well, somewhat. I think even then you could tell they were pretty obvious miniatures. But of course film is high-definition to begin with, so audiences in theaters would've gotten the full effect even if later TV viewers didn't.
Good point. Water can't really be scaled down effectively, so combining miniatures with water usually gives away how small they are. Generally miniature FX artists tried to compensate by building the miniatures on as large a scale as feasible, but that didn't seem to be something the Logan team was able or willing to do.
The main problem with the miniatures, at least from my perspective, is that they're lacking a unified scale. Some parts are larger because they were made of larger materials, not because of any forced perspective, and no attempt was made to blur the image to mimic distance.
Yes, but the odor of ozone and a warm picture tube experienced while frantically adjusting the vertical hold and turning the antenna made that issue pale in comparison.
Saw the film first run in the theater (I was 13) in 1976 and sorry the miniture shots of the city brought laughter from members of the audience and even at 13 I thought they looked like toys.
Are a handful of miniature establishing shots actually that much of a make-or-break issue for people's enjoyment of the film? They certainly aren't for me.
No need to apologize for it. I didn't make them.
Yes, I would expect the theater view with fresh film to be something like what we see in the remastered digital versions of today.
Last edited:
There were elements of that explored in the sequel novel. Despite the different endings of the movie and the first novel, the sequel created the scenario you describe.
This movie has Box the robot and people are complaining about the miniatures?
^ I would've gone with "Hoover Upright" over Robbie, myself.
As I recall, the sequel novel (which was published after the movie) moves as a quickly as possible, as in a couple of pages, to undo the ending of the original novel and bring us to a new status quo roughly equivalent to the end of the movie version. The authors were apparently going after the movie audience, who would be expecting a sequel to the movie, not the book.
That's sort of like what Arthur C. Clarke did with 2010: Odyssey Two, except he straight-up wrote the novel as a sequel to Kubrick's movie instead of his own original novel (e.g. moving the monolith to Jupiter rather than Saturn). But then, Clarke was never one for continuity between his books in any case.
And then 2061 and then 3001... I think there were all in adjacent continuities.
It has been a long time since I read either book, but that sounds accurate.
Similar threads
