I was leafing through some musty film magazines at me mum's today from my high school days (1982-83). I read Starlog (still around today) and Fantastic Films (a pretty neat film magazine that died in the mid '80s at some point).

There's an August 1982 Fantastic Films issue with lots of interviews, photos and in-depth behind the scenes stuff on that year's big films, including:
*Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
*E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial
*Blade Runner
*Poltergeist
*Mad Max II: The Road Warrior
*The Thing
*Firefox (well, no classic, but some like it)
But, ahem, we'll skip Megaforce and The Sword and the Sorcerer. :) Also mentioned briefly are Conan the Barbarian and Tron.

Sometimes I forget what a great year that was for sci-fi, fantasy and action fans. Anyway, if you missed anything from that year, here's a film festival waiting for you to rent - The Films of 1982. :)

It's quite interesting to read the lengthy interview with Ridley Scott about Blade Runner (he mentions he's waiting for a script for what turned out to be the wretched Legend, and talks about his decision to drop out of the directing of Dune) or read Road Warrior director George Miller's declaration that "I'm certainly not ever going to do a Mad Max III." D'oh!

I can remember quite vividly that E.T.'s success made releasing the nihilistic The Thing so soon after it sheer suicide (I was really into gore at the time and just loved it to death). I saw Blade Runner its opening week and was impressed visually but it wasn't what a 17-year old Harrison Ford as Han Solo/Indy Jones fan wanted to see and most people weren't drawn to it at the time.

That's a pretty good year for sci-fi and horror. Wrath of Khan is the best of the Trek movies. Tron and Sword and the Sorceror also came out that year.

1982 was a blockbuster year for movies. Here's the top grossing films:

399,804,600 E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
177,200,000 Tootsie (1982)
129,795,549 An Officer and a Gentleman (1982)
122,823,200 Rocky III (1982)
78,900,000 Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
76,600,000 Poltergeist (1982)
75,900,000 48 Hrs. (1982)
54,000,000 The Verdict (1982)
50,400,000 The Toy (1982)
46,700,000 Firefox (1982)

Some big titles there. Other movies from that year include Ghandi, Sophie's Choice, My Favorite Year (I love this film), Frances, Victor/Victoria, Diner, Das Boot, and The World According to Garp.

Man, there really were a lot of big movies that year.

ah Das Boot that is a cool movie...anybody see that updated american version? u571? bah...doesn't even compare! also the guy who did Das Boot also did Neverending Story with that flying dog pretty cool!

ET was the first movie as a kid that made me feel really sad and happy. i remember crying when ET died...and when i saw it a few years back i still had some tears welling up in my eyes! also, if you liked ET watch Miracle in Milan ... Spielberg bascially remade ET from that movie (and did it pretty well), even down to the flying bicycles!

of all those movies from 1982 i would rewatch ET, Tootsie, Blade Runner, The Thing (John Carpenter is awesome, he even does the score for his movies!) Star Trek, Diner, Das Boot....I only watch the clown under the bed scene in Poltergeist...and i actually liked Poltergeist 2 better than the original (after rewatching them recently). that reverend guy in poltergeist 2 is CREEPY! "LET ME IN!!! YOU'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!"

anyway, movies from the eighties i used to like but "hate" now are the John Hughes movies... something about them annoys me now (and i used to love em!).

what i want to know is what recent movies would you definitely rewatch and consider "classics". CTHD pops to mind for me....not counterstrike hehe

etc

The Poltergeist 2 reverend lost its charm for me when I read the actor was dying of cancer and the producers were basically exploiting how wretched the disease made him look.....

You had to see Poltergeist in a theater to really appreciate it. Even DVD can't really do it justice. :) Although it was probably coincidence, a lot of gossip focused on "curses" on the people involved in the Poltergeist flicks including the reverend actor, the little blond girl (who died very young of heart failure) and the teenage daughter in the first flick (who was murdered by her estranged boyfriend). And Craig T. Nelson inflicted ... Coach on us. Eeek!

I'm trying to figure out some other strong years for genre films, but that one ('82) just stands out far and above any year I can remember.

---

Quote:

Wrath of Khan is the best of the Trek movies.

---

I still find Khan the most genuinely exciting of the original Trek movies. I probably enjoyed ST 4 the most, and 6 was a satisfying close, but 2 probably holds a fonder place for many because it brought the fun back after the original turned out a collossal mis-edited bore (I know some disagree, but that's the consensus) that some thought would kill the franchise right there. Rodenberry hated 2 because he thought it was far too violent and militant, but he didn't have much to do with most of the movies after 1.

If you like Carpenter, you should look up the Directors book (I forget exact title), which is based on Bravo's interviews with many famous directors back in 1995. There's a lengthy interview with Carpenter who's a pretty thoughtful guy and an easily-hurt guy as it turns out. He felt like he never quite recovered from the nasty reviews of The Thing, though time has been kinder to it. :)

I took a film course in college and we watched Carpenter's The Thing for the unit on horror movies. Most of the class had never heard of it and thought it was going to be cheesy. I was thinking "you have no idea what you're getting into." The class went fucking nuts during the dog scene and quite a few people were pretty shocked. Several people walked out after the "blood test."

I'm still amazed at how well made and scary it is. When most special effects movies from the early eighties are starting to look dated, The Thing holds up great. I don't think it could look any better.

Hehe, I saw The Thing by myself when it opened (I was visiting back in Virginia over the summer but my friends didn't want to see it). My favorite story was that this big ugly rat appeared just in front of my movie seat halfway through the movie. I spent the rest of the movie with my legs on top of the seats in front of me. :)

What's sad is that so much of The Thing is not showable on TV (other than premium movie channels) -- entire 5-10 minute passages get completely butchered and it makes no sense at all anymore.

I took a Horror Fiction and Film course in college (does that sound like a dream course or what? I loved it and got an A in it). We watched Night of the Living Dead and I think Rosemary's Baby, among other things. Then we had to discuss them and write papers about them. Dang, I miss that. :)

I told a family friend about it once and she initially thought I said "WHORE Fiction and Film Course," which resulted in her looking at me very strangely until we cleared the misunderstanding up. :D Well, lastly, I picked up The Thing on DVD based on Entertainment Weekly's recommendation. It's a fine DVD with lots of making-of, behind the scenes stuff, deleted scenes and commentary.

Earth vs. the Flying Saucers

If you can find this one somewhere and you like 50's UFO movies, it's DA BOMB. I think it's still got ID4 beat. Nothing modern can top the Ray Harryhausen special effects job where the saucers are crashing into buildings in Washington DC.

---

Quote:

I told a family friend about it once and she initially thought I said "WHORE Fiction and Film Course," which resulted in her looking at me very strangely until we cleared the misunderstanding up. :D

---

I didn't know that reverend guy in Poltergest 2 had cancer... that does leave a bad impression of the movie... actually its kind of sad if you think about it... the guys dying and we see it on film.

etc

Yeah but what a way to go! :0 Poltergiest 2 had some great effects though - it didn't feel memorable to me cause nobody behind the scenes (producer, director, writer) on the first flick was back for the sequel. And it has a special effects credit for "Vomit Creature." :)

---

Quote:

I still find Khan the most genuinely exciting of the original Trek movies.

---

"office irregardless"

I don't mean to be a little bitch here, but irregardless is not a real word. One of my pet peeves. Just use "regardless", it's correct. No need to slap that "ir" on the front unless you want to make a double negative.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

Yeah, yeah, I know... it's a bad habit of mine. You and Lee Johnson ought to get together and compare grammar notes. He corrected me on it in an AOL IM conversation last night. Sorry it pissed you off. :)

--Dave

It is a word. Just not a very good one.
From my good friend Miriam Webster:

Main Entry: ir�re�gard�less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'g�rd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : REGARDLESS

usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that

"there is no such word."

There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

While you're at it, wumpus, why don't you go ahead and try to excise "reiterate", which literally means "to repeat again".

Irregardless of whether it's holds up under grammatical scrutiny, it's still legit.

-Tom

But "to repeat again" is still a valid phrase. Plus, repeated repetition is what is intended there.

If you accept that the ir prefix means not, as in irrational: not rational.. then its inclusion NEGATES the original phrase.

So "freedom for all, irregardless of race or creed" would mean the OPPOSITE of what is intended-- eg, "freedom for all, NOT regardless of race or creed."

And that's bad! But if you want to look like a goofball, by all means, use it irregardless.*

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

* HA HA HA!! AHAHAHAHHH!! HAHAHAHHAA!!!

I'm still confused about Flammable and Inflammable.

-Andrew

Don't be. It's just like regardless and irregardless. J

If I recall correctly, "Flammable" was painted on fuel trucks and the like because the oil industry was (justifiably) afraid that the American populous would think "Inflammable" meant fireproof.

Is that the origin? How interesting. I always wondered how there came to be two opposite-sounding words that meant the same thing.

I always kinda thought inflammable meant "more flammable". But the word does fly into the face of vulnerable and invulnerable.
(Which to any self-respecting American teen comic book fanboy youth is the standard for the prefix "in".)

-Andrew (Well-Nigh Invulnerable)

Desperately piloting thread back on course....

So you sat around last summer grousing about U-571 not being all that good a submarine movie. So dig into your sub archives and track down....

Das Boot (but of course. The DVD has new digital sound effects and an expanded director's cut)

Grey Lady Down (w/ Charlton Heston)

Run Silent, Run Deep (w/ Clark Gable and Burt Lancaster)

Crash Dive (Tyrone Power, has some echoes of U-571)

Torpedo Alley

And if you consider them old enough to be nostalgia,

The Hunt for Red October

Crimson Tide

And "Balance of Terror"!
Ok, it's a Star Trek episode but it doubles as a taut thriller which easily fits in the submarine genre. Enterprise tracks clocked Romulan ship through space.

Just bought Das Boot, 'bout time I saw that one.
-Andrew

"Balance of Terror" was based on "The Enemy
Below," a movie that I would also add to the list.

"I always kinda thought inflammable meant "more flammable". But the word does fly into the face of vulnerable and invulnerable."

Hah! Screw you guys. Setting autopilot for digression!

I don't get flammable and inflammable. Inflammable should mean "not flammable", just like vulnerable/invulnerable, valid/invalid, solvent/insolvent, coherent/incoherent, etc etc etc. The "in" prefix, like "ir", means NOT.

http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=inflammable

Ah.. I see. The latin word it derives from just happens to be "inflammabilis" which ever-so-unfortunately starts with "in". Just a coincidence. I blame Italy.

Irregardless*, I think they should stick with flammable due to the potential for confusion. And flaming people.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

* HAHAHAHAH!!! AHAAHAHAHAHAHAHH!!!! HAAHAHEHEAHHAHA!!

Being a submariner myself, I have to say that U-571 is a far better (and more accurate) sub movie than Crimson Tide and Gray Lady Down.

I enjoy Crimson Tide as an action flick but its a disgrace to the submarine force. Das Boot is, is of course, the ultimate sub flick and Red October is great too.

Heh... that's cool that a submariner thought U-571 was good because while not being one myself, I had read enough about the period to know that the movie took the accuracy seriously. I've seen a lot of claims of inaacuracy leveled against the film and I was kind of like "huh?" becuase it seemed more right on to me than ... yes... Crimson Tide.

The Hunt for Red October was John McTiernan's last great film. It's a shame he hasn't been able to duplicate the success or the flair of that, Die Hard and Predator. Though I really loved The 13th Warrior even if no one else did. Maybe he'll be back on his game in Rollerball this summer.

--Dave

Another good "sub battle"- the final scene in the nebula in Star Trek 2: Wrath of Khan. The director said they modeled it on sub combat.

U-571 isn't realistic in terms of history (it was the Brits who captured the U-boat) and its a B-style action flick at its heart, but it is accurate in things like termnology(never thought I'd heard someone mention manning the maneuvering watch in a movie) and life aboard a submarine. The scene wear they tap on pipes to find leaks is true to life and the crews did in fact wear rain coats when initially submerging the ship on the really old boats.

Crimson Tide on the other hand- ugh. Scenes like the officer making the enlisted guy do pushups and the general tension level among the officers are total bullshit. Submariners are far more laid back than the rest of the navy and if I tried to make a guy do pushups his most likely response would be "fuck you sir." The interior of the submarine looked nothing like a real Trident SSBN, there is no way in hell any Captain would be allowed to have a dog on board, and any sub that took a torpedo hit like they did would either be on the bottom of the ocean or floundering on the surface.

McTiernan was one of my favorite directors until Medicine Man and its been downhill after that (though I did enjoy Die Hard with a Vengeance). Maybe he'll be back in form with Rollerball, but the concept and trailer don't give me a lot of faith.

My eternal Star Trek question is (keeping in mind I love Star Trek in most of its guises), why the hell don't they screw down the chairs and make the crew wear seat belts so everytime they get hit with a laser blast you don't have bridge members flying 30 feet across the room and having their seats topple?

Oh, probably some multimillion dollar contract with the people that repair the bridge I guess. :)

BTW I wasn't recommending any of those sub movies, they were just all the ones I could think of or track down on the Internet. Tony Scott films in general have no relation to reality. :)

For my birthday, for which none of you sent me gifts I might add, I asked for DVDs.

In the spirit of this discussion, here is my haul.

The Conversation
Dances with Wolves
Enter the Dragon
2001
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest
Taxi Driver

My sweet little wife looked at me last night and naively said: "We've got 2 hours, let's watch a movie. I'm in the mood for something light"

But she hates Martial Arts movies...
So, we did something else instead.

-Andrew

I've got your gift right here in my pants, Bub.

Enter The Dragon is a really good DVD. Watch out for Sammo Hung in the intro 1-on-1 fighting sequence (even then he was pudgy!), and Jackie Chan appears as the guy Bruce Lee chokes dramatically in a headlock inside the "fortress".

I hope the new Rollerball movie works out; I have the original on DVD. Is it just me, or was the 70's sort of a haven for futuristic "Brave New World" type sci-fi flicks we don't have today? I can rattle off dozens of movies I remember from the 70's in that vein. But today, the last good, modern sci-fi movie I can remember was Gattaca.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

Ooooo...Gattaca... loved it. Saw it in theatres and was really glad I did. What's on that DVD anyway?

--Dave

"Ooooo...Gattaca... loved it. Saw it in theatres and was really glad I did. What's on that DVD anyway?"

Little anecdote for you. My wife has a PhD in pathology and deals with lab DNA every day (her postdoc is at Duke, which is more or less why we're here). Yet she totally missed the way the title of the movie is a sequence of DNA codes. Even *I*, man of no scientific ability, grokked that. ;)

Actually I don't have the DVD. I think we saw it on VHS. Only recently has Blockbuster's DVD selecton gotten good enough to rent from consistently.

Gattaca is an underrated movie IMO; we don't have enough quality "Brave New World" movies. We need a return to the days of classic 70's "future" flicks like Omega Man, Planet of the Apes, and Logan's Run. It's like nobody gives a damn about the future any more. What I wouldn't give for a movie version of Fallout!

We need a new Charlton Heston. Will it be Marky Mark?

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com