Remember the time David Brin melted the hell down about Ralph Bakshi & COOL WORLD?
No?
In case you don't, the internet did.
tldr summary:
David Brin uses the release of Ralph Bakshi's 1992 movie COOL WORLD to make a unhinged rant about Ralph Bakshi being evil & Bakshi being a copyright thief using a friendly sock-puppet internet account.
Then 6 days later, that friendly sock-puppet account posts a follow-up email rant from David Brin about Ralph Bakshi that directly quoted/or referenced various SFLer's reactions to that 1st rant.
Unexpurgated email messages follow
From SFL Archives Vol 17b.---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 7 Jul 92 21:27:57 GMT
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Cool World
I forward the following without comment:
xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxx.xxx Tue Jul 7 14:23:00 1992
(please keep address confidential)
*Message Date _July 14.92_ *
Added feature... here a momentary act of diatribe. Care to pass it on the
the appropriate interest groups?
DO NOT PAY TO SEE RALPH BAKSHI'S "COOL WORLD"
Recent publicity indicates that a new film - a raunchy rip-off of
cartoon-live action techniques developed for "Roger Rabbit" - has been
directed by the infamous Ralph Bakshi. This film, entitled "Cool World,"
is being widely touted by Paramount.
Disclaimer: I NOT urging people to boycott, or even not to see this film,
if they so choose. I am only suggesting that people who do so be _thrifty_
about it.
Ralph Bakshi is renowned in Hollywood for business practices which would
make Simon Gekko blush. The pantheon of artists who claim to have been
ripped off by him is legendary. But Bakshi's true claim to glory is as arg
one of the greatest propagandists for pure evil working in Hollywood today.
This is a garish statement, but one that's not difficult to back up. His
earlier "Lord of the Rings" was vicious, ugly. His "Fritz the Cat" was
vile and sexist, even to the open-minded. But it is his more popular
"Wizards" that confirms Bakshi's dedication to the Dark Side. That film
writhes through every scene persuading the viewer to root on the side of
injustice and oppression, sanctioning the hateful genocide of pathetic
minority groups, the maintenance of ghettoes, fear and loathing of
technology and, above all, cheating. It is an even finer example of
dark-side, big lie agitprop than Nazi wartime films produced by Joseph
Goebbels. (An irony, since Nazi films provide a prop, in "Wizards.")
Fortunately, word has gone out, and Wizards is no longer part of the Con
Film Program circuit in most places. I urge people to see it only as an
example of the art of propaganda... to see how easily their own emotions
can be manipulated to cheer for vile traits in human beings, and sneer
against charity and justice. Ideally, however, one should find a way to
view the film while passing a MINIMUM of royalties on to its maker. (There
are legal ways of doing so.)
This may seem strange for a writer, who lives by royalities, to prescribe.
However, I consider matters of good and evil to be important, as well. (Not
in the religious sense, but in the sense of decency, kindness, and honor.)
In the case of a film in which every scene appeals to the worst aspects of
human nature, I see little alternative.
Which brings us to what should be done about "Cool World." No, I have not
yet seen the film. But Bakshi's reputation and past works make me feel
free to express an opinion in general terms.
I have no specific recommendations, and certainly refuse censorship.
Making a major public deal out of this will only lead to MORE people
flocking to the film, out of curiosity.
If intensely curious, by all means deputize a friend (one noted for
hard-nosed criticism) to go see it and report back. Better yet, be
patient! (I intend to be, biding my time until I finally give in to the
inevitable curiosity.) Wait for it to hit the cheap houses. Or better
yet, hold a video party with lots of friends to minimize the per capita
royalties. Discuss the film... then cleanse your palates with something
honorable... like "Who Framed Roger Rabbit!"
With regards.
David Brin
------------------------------
Date: 8 Jul 92 06:07:57 GMT
From: jlkim@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Justin Kim)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: Cool World
Well, I don't know all that much about Bakshi (Hey, it's his fault he
has such a difficult name to spell) and his business practices, but I must
say that I really enjoyed his adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. Now, I
don't like the needless cutting of scenes from books when they are adapted
for film, but IMHO the cuts that Bakshi made had to be done to make a
smooth flowing film and, probably more importantly, a film of reasonable
length.
Aside from the cut scenes and a couple of small and not all that
important (IMHO) points, Bakshi's Middle Earth conformed almost exactly to
my own personal vision of the place. In particular, I loved Bakshi's
Aragorn. Both the character design and the choice of actor (John Hurt, I
believe) were wonderful. IMHO, of course.
I must admit that the music on LOTR was kind of bad and I loathe Wizards
like few other films.
Just out of curiosity, which artists have said that Bakshi has ripped
them off? Because I hated Wizards so much, I only watched it once. Maybe
its time I took another look at it.
Justin Kim
Graduate School of International Relations
Pacific Studies
University of California
San Diego
jlkim@sdcc3.ucsd.edu
------------------------------
Date: 8 Jul 92 16:38:08 GMT
From: twisted@bessel.umd.edu (Rick MacKinnon)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: Cool World
steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) forward from David Brin:
>DO NOT PAY TO SEE RALPH BAKSHI'S "COOL WORLD"
[lots of stuff criticizing Bakshi's earlier works deleted]
> Which brings us to what should be done about "Cool World." No, I have
>not yet seen the film. But Bakshi's reputation and past works make me
>feel free to express an opinion in general terms.
Boy, sounds like someone's awful bitter about Bakshi. The author claimed
that his movies are vile because they make you root for the bad guy. Well,
I've seen two of his four films, Lord of the Rings and Wizards (no, I
haven't seen Fritz the Cat yet...and I'm a recent college graduate!
Imagine that!) and I see no justification for the author's statements. I
found Lord of the Rings to be a cheap rendition of Tolkien's work, but it
did remain pretty true to the story (anybody out there felt like cheering
for Sauron? yeah, right...) And never once in Wizards did I feel like
cheering for the neo-Nazi bad guys, the "oppressors", or any other nasties
in the picture. If the movie has indeed been removed from the Convention
video rooms (I don't know, since I rarely watch movies at a Con), it's
probably because everyone's already seen it, and it doesn't hold up to too
many repeat watchings. (Besides, do you see Star Wars much in the Vid
rooms? Is it because Darth Vader is somehow the hero? I think not.)
In any case, whether the old movies were good or not, to tell people not to
see a movie without ever watching it is ludicrous. You may not like Bakshi
and therefore aren't too inclined to see the movie, but to encourage others
not to see it based on a personal dislike of the director (yes, despite
your claims otherwise, that's *exactly* what a post like this is meant to
do) is disgusting.
How many people criticized the various religious leaders for protesting
"The Last Temptaion Of Christ" without seeing it? See a pattern here?
------------------------------
Date: 10 Jul 92 21:53:52 GMT
From: jeff@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jeff Williamson)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: SPOILEReview: COOL WORLD
Okay, so I cheated. I went to the early early matinee and paid $3.75, just
so I could avoid the rush and see what it was all about.
While I don't agree with David Brin and I think people should judge the
movie for themselves, here's what I think I got for my $3.75: a movie.
Not a good movie, not a great movie, not a piss-poor movie. Just a movie.
It was...mediocre. A friend of mine judges movies by whether or not he
would pay $7.00 to see them. I would not. In fact, I can say I've seen it,
and that it falls short of my expectations. It's not bad, but it's not
good, either.
Okay, enough with the platitudes. On with ye SPOILERS:
Las Vegas 1945. Frank Harris is returning home from World War II, and is
met at the airport by his mother. In the first five minutes of the film, we
watch Frank (Brad Pitt) take his mom for a spin on his snazzy new
motorcycle, which he won in a poker game. On the way home, the 'bike is
wrecked in a crash with a drunk driver, and Frank's mother is killed.
Cut to a cartoon setting. Doc Whiskers is experimenting with his new Power
Spike (registered trademark of Nike, I think), and opens a gate to
"reality". Still in a state of shock, Frank gets pulled through the gate
into "Cool World", much to the surprise of Doc Whiskers, who was trying to
enter our world on his own.
Las Vegas 1992. Jack Deebs (Gabriel Byrne) is spending the last few days of
his prison term doing what he does best: drawing his self- created comic,
"Cool World". Jack is, shall we say, surprised to see and hear one of his
"creations", Holli Would, beckoning to him from the cartoon world. He is
"drawn in", and crashes the club where Holli is dancing, having time enough
to examine his surroundings before...
...he crashes back to reality on his prison bed.
Back in Cool World, Detective Frank Harris of the CWPD visits Miss Would,
having heard that she has had a visit from a 'Noid (humanoid?). He warns
her against the consequences of what she thinks she wants, and we get to
find out her motivation: to become real, to feel as 'Noid women feel, to be
flesh. As she rationalizes, Marilyn Monroe got everything she ever wanted
by the end of the film "Let's Make Love". "It's real. I even saw a
copyright date!" Holly needs a surreality check.
Jack's out of prison, he's got a house, and in a fit of writer's block, he
wanders the Vegas streets. For inspiration, he checks out a comic book
store. (This is an interesting scene - Bakshi manages to avoid the classic
comics-fan stereotypes. There are some surprisingly normal folks in that
store :) He is recognized by the cashier, and finds out that his work has
become something of a hit. He is crowded by a few fans who want signatures.
We also find out why Jack was in prison - he killed a guy he found in bed
with his wife.
Back at home, Jack is pulled into Cool World again. He meets some of his
"creations", a strange and surly bunch. And he meets Holli again. They
take off and head back to the enigmatic night-spot without a name, and are
confronted by Harris again. Harris lays down the law to Jack Deebs: the
only rule is, no 'Noid "makes it" with a Doodle. That's the law of the
land.
Jack is returned home (never *does* get the hang of those landings). Back
in Cool World, we learn about Frank's relationship with Lana(?), a Doodle.
Doomed to a non-sexual relationship due to the laws of causality, each is
perpetually frustrated. We also meet Harris' arachnid partner, Nails.
Harris crashes one of Holli's parties, looking for Jack...but he's not
there. Frank leaves Nails on watch and goes to spend some "quality time"
with Lana. Meanwhile, Holli's gang bring Jack through and take him to
Holli's place from elsewhere in Cool World.
Holli seduces Jack, and the reverberations are felt in many corners of the
Cool World. In the after(glow? shock?), Holli gets her wish: she becomes
real. A 'Noid. (Kim Basinger, actually.)
Receiving a tip-off from the Doodle named Sparks, Nails goes to check out
the scene of the egregious crime, and is sucked into Jack's stolen fountain
pen by the newly-flesh Holli. Shortly afterwards, Jack and Holli return to
reality.
Holli is like a kid in a candy store. She wants to do *everything*, and she
wants to do it *now*. She revels in the newfound flesh, and, true to form,
forgets about Jack when she gets caught up in the whirlwind of sensation.
She does a humorous musical number with Frank Sinatra Jr., "Let's Make
Love", of course.
Jack, having been tossed out of the nightclub, and Holli, finishing up her
act inside, both experience flashes from flesh to cartoon form, unnerving
them and causing them to lose their strides. Holli flees the club, goes
back to Jack, and they careen wildly through the city in Jack's car. Holli
sees a neon construct on top of a Vegas casino, and recognizes its true
form: the Power Spike (tm, for those who missed it). Holli insists that
they go to retrieve it, so she can be real forever. Jack refuses, and
Holli pushes him out of the car and takes off on her personal quest.
Frank, outraged at the apparent death of his partner, prepares to go "real"
again, for the first time in 47 years. Back in reality, he is battered and
bloody, just as when he hit the drunk driver before. He confronts Jack in
his home, and together they go to stop Holli from breaking down the
barriers between the two separate universes, thus destroying them both.
Holli is frustrated at nearly every turn, before she encounters a strange
little man outside the casino she needs to be in. The man turns out to be
Doc Whiskers aka Vegas Vinnie, who crossed over a very long time ago, and
is still a Doodle. She threatens him as Frank and Jack show up, then runs
off into the hotel, with Frank hot on her heels.
Holli tricks Frank into trying to help her, then pushes him from the hotel
to his death. Doc Whiskers persuades Jack that he must "be a hero", and
Jack uses a combination of Doodle and 'Noid abilities to pursue Holli.
Holli gets to the Power Spike and removes it, breaking down the barriers
between cartoon and reality. Jack, now a superhero Doodle, gets the Spike
back and encounters opposition in trying to restore it. Eventually, he
plugs the reality (plot?) hole, and the worlds are restored.
Nails escapes from his pen confinement to find his partner truly dead. He
takes Frank's body back to Cool World, because Lana "deserves to see him
again - alive or dead". In a Hollywood ending, Frank is resurrected as a
doodle, enabling them to have a Doodle relationship - a complete
relationship.
And Holli and Jack (in his Dudley Doright Doodle guise) live "wearily ever
after" in comic book form.
*phew*
Okay, let me make a few comments:
This is a very visually "busy" film. There are a lot more things going
on in any given shot than in the inevitable comparison, "Who Framed Roger
Rabbit"'s Toontown. This is not necessarily a good thing, as quite a few of
the shots are repetitive, not to mention interefering with the foreground
visuals. As sidebars or backgrounds, they might have been amusing.
The characterization is almost non-existent. Characters float by the
screen, only to drop out of sight soon after. They exist as characters, but
why? (example: Jack's neighbors)
The animation isn't spectacular, neither is the real-world/animated
interaction. It's average stuff.
As expected, Holli Would (the Doodle) was better than Holli Would (the
'Noid). :)
It's worth seeing the movie, just to see it. The visuals are okay, the
backgrounds are fun to look at, and the industrial music (mostly by My Life
with the Thrill Kill Kult) is way cool.
Overall rating on this film:
Two stars out of four.
6 on a 1-10 scale.
+0.5 on a -4 to +4 scale.
Thumbs sideways.
Definitely a rental. Very likely a second-run theater viewing. Maybe a
matinee viewing. Definitely NOT a full-price feature.
At any rate...go to see it for yourselves. Really.
------------------------------
Date: 11 Jul 92 04:15:10 GMT
From: bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Greg Bole)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: Cool World
dnewman@ut-emx.uucp (Dave Newman) writes:
> The local paper reviewed "Cool World" yesterday. The review was really
> bad.
The movie was really bad.
> The reviewer regarded the movie as a rip-off of "Roger Rabbit" and a very
> poorly written movie.
Rip-off? Hmmmmm... not sure if I'd call it that. Poorly written? BINGO!
> They also indicated that the art and the animation/live action mixing was
> not as well-done as that in "Roger Rabbit."
Not even close. They didn't at all go for an kind of realistic mixing.
> I have an odd kind of respect for the local reviewers:
I think they were exactly right. I have to suggest: don't go see this
film.
>I don't think I'll be going to see "Cool World" until there is a
>significant consensus that the local reviewer is wrong.
I don't see it happening...
Basinger is *wretched*, not even sexy, just pathetic.
Pitt is one dimensional, and slightly grating.
Byrne, is hardly more than a prop, he needs to find a better agent.
Well, it's too late to get my money back, Mr. Brin. But I didn't see any
Nazi-like propoganda in this one, just a poor film.
Greg Bole
bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu
------------------------------
Date: 11 Jul 92 07:37:46 GMT
From: rauser@fraser.sfu.ca (Richard John Rauser)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Cool World Rocks...
Just saw Bakshi's Cool World, and let me tell you, it completely rocks.
I won't give anything away, but I will say that the trailers are VERY
misleading. :-) I was very surprised by what happened in the film. Some
points:
1. Kim Basinger is great as Holli (but you don't need to be told that)
2. Gabriel Byrne and Brad Pitt are awesome in their respective roles -
the first as the comic artist, the second as the Cool World cop.
3. This movie is supremely funny - you'll laugh your head off, trust me!
4. The musical score is outstanding. It's wham, bam, thank you ma'am, non
stop energy. The entire movie is non stop energy.
5. There's a surprising amount of plot, and a very interesting and somewhat
surprising resolution at the end. Again, unexpected. Also, the last five
to ten minutes in this film are absolutely explosive AND hilarious.
6. Holli isn't the only sexy toon in Cool World...:-)
7. Finally, David Brin need not drool or vomit with rage. Cool World has a
very clear moral balance between good and evil, and evil doesn't win.
Happy, Mr. Brin?
If you are unsure about this movie, I can assure you it's excellent. If
you haven't seen it, I urge you to do so.
Richard J. Rauser
rauser@sfu.ca
------------------------------
Date: 11 Jul 92 12:42:22 GMT
From: fitchitt@wam.umd.edu
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: Cool World
Trust your local reviewers... it wasn't too hot. Brin was right on the
money.
There were some scenes with good shock value, but the animation was
nominal, it looked like they had 3 different animators doing Holli.
And the Animation/Real interaction really was BAD.
------------------------------
Date: 11 Jul 92 13:23:23 GMT
From: ch3c+@andrew.cmu.edu (Christine Hogan)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: Cool World Rocks...
I saw Cool World and thought it was noisey, slow, predictable and just
generally painful to watch.
Young males will probably enjoy it for the sexy female cartoons and Kim
Basinger's legs.
View at your own risk.
Chris Hogan
ch3c+@andrew.cmu.edu
------------------------------
Date: 11 Jul 92 17:21:42 GMT
From: jfe@alchemy.tn.cornell.edu (Brian Chung)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: Cool World
bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Greg Bole) writes:
>dnewman@ut-emx.uucp (Dave Newman) writes:
>> The local paper reviewed "Cool World" yesterday. The review was really
>> bad.
>
>The movie was really bad.
>
>> The reviewer regarded the movie as a rip-off of "Roger Rabbit" and a
>> very poorly written movie.
>
>Rip-off? Hmmmmm, not sure if I'd call it that. Poorly written? BINGO!
I was just arguing this point as I was walking out the movie with my
friends. I came to the conclusiong that Cool World ripped of "Roger
Rabbit" and "Fantasia". My friends disagreed saying CW was making fun of
these movies, not ripping them off. But IMHO, the scenes weren't funny.
Yes, it is also very badly written.
>> They also indicated that the art and the animation/live action mixing
>> was not as well-done as that in "Roger Rabbit."
>
>Not even close. They didn't at all go for an kind of realistic mixing.
The problem here is, I think, that of technology. When RR was being
made, Bob Hoskins actually had robots that played the role of the cartoon
characters. That way Hoskins knew what the action would be and get a
better feel for the scene. CW, however, didn't seem to use such technology
to give the actors a feel for the scene. For example, when the actors put
their arms around the Doodle women, it seems like the actors are just
holding their arms out, not hugging.
T. H. Brian Chung
Internet: jfe@alchemy.tn.cornell.edu
Bitnet: jfe@cornella
------------------------------
Date: 12 Jul 92 01:16:38 GMT
From: merlyn@romulus.reed.edu (Randal L. Schwartz)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: Cool World Rocks...
ch3c+@andrew.cmu.edu (Christine Hogan) writes:
>I saw Cool World and thought it was noisey, slow, predictable and just
>generally painful to watch.
>
>Young males will probably enjoy it for the sexy female cartoons and
>Kim Basinger's legs.
>
>View at your own risk
I totally agree. I went in, hoping for an "adult Roger Rabbit", and got
teenage pablum. Shoot.
The editing was atrocious (the pace was way off, and the lines were delayed
unbearably long in nearly *every* dialogue). The acting was wooden. They
spent *no* money on a writer (plot? what plot?). They even blew it a
bunch on the real-toon interactions (misregistration as they panned through
a shot, for example).
About the only thing I have to say for it is that the animations were
indeed nice, and even suggestive (as the leader of this thread had stated).
"Heavy Metal" fans will eat up these hard-art drawings.
And for the 32-and-a-half fans of Kim B. out there, yes, she's revealing,
although wooden as ever.
But as far as an overall movie, most definitely two thumbs down. What a
disappointment, after having waited months for it and going to the first
possible show here.
Save your money and see it on video. And make sure you have plenty to
distract you while you're watching the video, or else take a lot of drugs.
(Maybe that's the only way to *see* this movie and enjoy it.)
Randal L. Schwartz
Stonehenge Consulting Services
(503)777-0095
merlyn@reed.edu
merlyn@ora.com
------------------------------
Date: 12 Jul 92 15:56:14 GMT
From: chu@acsu.buffalo.edu (John C. Chu)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: How 'bout a *really* good reason not to see _Cool World_?
I just saw it yesterday (matinee: $3.75). No matter how you feel about the
guy to did this movie, the bottom line for me, is that I thought this was a
waste of my money and I will encourage people *not* to see this because I
feel it is a poor movie.
Although the stills (background) were very well drawn, the actual animation
was poor. I think there are Saturday Morning Cartoons that are better done.
The interaction between animation and live action was quite poor. Or maybe
Roger Rabbit just has us spoiled.
The script itself is rather scattershot. There is little characterization
and never adequately explains just what is happening and why they happen.
There were too many events that happened that I just couldn't buy. I don't
know what made Kim Basinger think that this was a worthy vehicle for a star
with her name recognition.
Although there were elements that I thought was decent (and occasionally,
kind of funny), this script could have used a re-write or three. I suppose
the concept was not a bad one and with a funny, witty script and some
decent animation, it might have worked. Unfortunately, Cool World has
neither. (To be fair, there is the occasional bit of humor, wit and decent
animation. They seemed few and far between.)
No matter how you seen about David Brin's diatribe, I suggest that you do
not see this movie because it is simply a waste of time, money and film.
There are better movies to be seen.
John
chu@acsu.buffalo.edu
------------------------------
Date: 12 Jul 92 20:02:13 GMT
From: bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Greg Bole)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: Cool World Rocks...
I was just so disappointed by this film that I have to offer my dissenting
views.
rauser@fraser.sfu.ca (Richard John Rauser) writes:
> I was very surprised by what happened in the film.
I was suprised by nothing in this film. Very predictable.
> 1. Kim Basinger is great as Holli (but you don't need to be told that)
She's supposed to be 2-D, but she seemed more pathetic than sexy. I don't
think she's ageing very well. (An MD friend I saw it with said: "That's
what happens to coke fiends..."
> 2. Gabriel Byrne and Brad Pitt are awesome in their respective roles...
Byrne was given one of the weakest characters I've ever seen, and Pitt...
well let's just say I thought he was far less than "awsome".
> 3. This movie is supremely funny...you'll laugh your head off, trust me!
Sorry, the only laughing I did was at the acting, and the quality of the
dialogue. Oh, and the lousy ending.
> 4. The entire movie is non stop energy.
This is the statement I disagree with most emphatically. I thought the
first 10 minutes or so spent *in* Cool World were full of energy, then the
movie started to d...r...a...g... Especially the parts with Pitt and his
"girlfriend".
> 5. There's a surprising amount of plot
Yes there was plot, but I found it to be meaningless, and pointless.
> 6. Holli isn't the only sexy toon in Cool World...:-)
Geez, did you *really* get turned on by a... (stop Greg, don't flame)
Never mind.
> If you haven't seen it, I urge you to do so.
Obviously, I'd urge you not to. Very strenuously.
Greg Bole
bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu
------------------------------
Date: 12 Jul 92 20:47:14 GMT
From: chu@acsu.buffalo.edu (John C. Chu)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: How 'bout a *really* good reason not to see _Cool World_?
I omitted one of the more important reasons why I did not like this movie
and will encourage others not to watch this. (Note: I did not say and do
not mean boycott. If people wish to see this movie, it is their choice to
make. However, an informed choice is better than an uninformed one. People
have made recommendations for movies. In this case, I choose to make an
anti-recommendation.)
I mentioned that I found little character development. However, I also felt
that the movie itself was rather misogynist. Without giving away the events
of the movie, it is difficult to explain why. However, I found Holly to be
consistent with other misogynist creations, down to the point where I could
predict her actions with little problem.
It was not something that I enjoyed sitting through. (Then again, I don't
laugh at rape scenes in movies and am disturbed when I hear the rest of the
theatre do just that.) If this is the "cutting edge" in SF or Fantasy
movies, I am very depressed.
John
chu@acsu.buffalo.edu
------------------------------
Date: 13 Jul 92 00:57:56 GMT
From: keisha@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Coed of the Damned)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: Cool World Rocks...
ch3c+@andrew.cmu.edu (Christine Hogan) writes:
>I saw Cool World and thought it was noisey, slow, predictable and just
>generally painful to watch.
>
>Young males will probably enjoy it for the sexy female cartoons and Kim
>Basinger's legs.
>
>View at your own risk.
I concur. It was poorly written, woodenly acted, and the animation was
just....average. The union of the animation and live action was totally
unconvincing. And couldn't Ralph Bakshi have gotten a younger dumb blonde
for the live action Holli? Kim Basinger, in her choice of movie roles,
once again shows that she's just another Hollywood bimbo. I just expected
so much more. <sigh> Back to renting movies....
Keisha J. Gray
keisha@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
------------------------------
Date: 13 Jul 92 03:10:29 GMT
From: crunch@hogbbs.scol.pa.us (Travis Prebble)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Cool World wasn't.
I checked out Cool World yesterday... and hated it. The soundtrack was
terrific (just how many TKC songs can one squeeze into a single movie??).
The animation seemed like usual Bakshi fare (at least in the tone of the
cartoon characters... their actual animation was poor). If this movie had
been completely animated, it would have been okay. But, Ralph wanted to go
for that Roger Rabbit interaction. It didn't work.
To make up for Cool World, I may have to go out and rent a copy of Fritz
the Cat. :-)
Travis Prebble
crunch@hogbbs.scol.pa.us
------------------------------
Date: 13 Jul 92 19:36:43 GMT
From: james@wrs.com (James Moore)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: Cool World
dnewman@ut-emx.uucp (Dave Newman) writes:
>The local paper reviewed "Cool World" yesterday. The review was really
>bad. The reviewer regarded the movie as a rip-off of "Roger Rabbit" and a
>very poorly written movie.
While I agree that _Cool World_ was, in general, a bad movie, I have
trouble with the oft-heard assertion that it's a Roger Rabbit ripoff.
What's so much like Roger Rabbit here? OK, one of the characters is a cop,
slightly similar to RR's detective. And one of the main characters in both
movies is a sexually attractive female. Both movies mix live-action and
animation. None of these were introduced by RR - animation studios have
been mixing live action and animation for decades, cops aren't exactly a
stranger to the silver screen, and sex in the movies has been around as
long as movies have existed.
James Moore
Wind River Systems
Alameda, California
james@wrs.com
------------------------------
Date: 14 Jul 92 01:31:25 GMT
From: rauser@fraser.sfu.ca (Richard John Rauser)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Review: Cool World Rocks
Cool World Rocks
a film review by Rick J. Rauser
Yup, I'm back in the reviewing game. To all of you who (for some reason
known only to God himself) got upset that I changed my opinion about Batman
Returns, go to heck. I'm too nice to say "hell". :-)
I saw Cool World after reading David Brin's article in which he urges
people to avoid this film because, like all of Bakshi's other films (in
Brin's opinion) it is a work of pure, unmitigated evil. Of course, Brin
hadn't even seen Cool World at the time but that was beside the
point...(sigh).
Let me say two things about Cool World right off the bat: (1) I don't
think it will do very well at the box office, and (2) I loved it. Why do I
think it will (more than likely) be a financial flop? To put it simply,
Cool World has very limited appeal. It is a fast-paced flick with little
attention to plot and characterization that operates on an entirely surreal
level. It is a dream, a fantasy, a look inside the psyche. There are plot
holes and overall the movie doesn't make a lot of sense. People who go to
Cool World expecting a fun cartoon for the kiddies will probably walk out
the instant they see Holli swinging her hips, and people who go to this
film expecting a consistent, well-thought out plot will be screaming and
whining five minutes after the first plot hole.
So why did I love it? Simple...I knew what to expect. Call it a hunch,
but I was expecting a fast-paced fantasy that appealed more to the emotions
than the intellect and I got what I expected. Cool World is energy. Cool
World is humour. Cool World is action. Cool World is fantasy. Complaining
that there are some plot holes is like complaining that a porno has too
much sex. Plot holes aren't relevant in Cool World because the film isn't
about plot. Oh sure, there IS some semblance of a plot and the movie does
roll along towards its fulfillment, but Bakshi is more interested in
appealing to our senses, our emotions, and with subverting our traditional
ideas about heroism, stereo-typing, and what constitutes reality. The
exercise isn't intellectual so much as it is allegorical and metaphysical.
You have to let yourself go to enjoy Cool World. You can't sit there and
try to make sense of the universe. Cool World is a film about the senses,
not sense.
That's another big reason I think this film will have limited appeal.
(Heck, I KNOW it has limited appeal :-). Most movie goers are too wrapped
up in trying to poke holes in the plot and trying to understand the world
presented to them in logical terms to be able to enjoy a metaphysical and
emotional experience like Cool World. Someone pointed out to me that a
character at the film's end is too corny and silly to be taken seriously.
I replied by saying, "That was the entire POINT behind that character!"
This person missed the emotion and the allegory because he was too busy
trying to fit the film into logical pigeon holes. He couldn't see the
forest for the trees.
So be warned: Cool World is one wild ride. The music is fantastic, the
film is non-stop energy, and the humour is very clever and very consistent.
Bakshi is poking fun at many things on many levels and if you watch the
film with a careful eye you'll see what it's trying to say. But Cool World
is not a film for people who love Sherlock Holmes style plot, and it's not
a film for the people on rec.arts.sf.movies who spent endless hours
discussing Terminator 2 plot holes.
Cool World is a film for people who want to get blown out of their seats
for two hours and then figure out after what it all meant. It does mean
something...quite a lot, really. Cool World rocks.
But you have to let it rock, and not everyone can do that. On a scale of
one to ten, I give Cool World 9/10. It's that good. But you have to be able
to appreciate it, and Cool World appeals to limited tastes.
Richard J. Rauser
rauser@sfu.ca
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 13 Jul 92 16:18:44 GMT
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-movies@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Cool World and Bakshi: Brin reply
Text below is forwarded from David Brin, it is opinion.
Begin forwarded file
BRIN'S REPLY REGARDING BAKSHI'S "COOL WORLD" and "CENSORSHIP"?
Despite the fact that my novel, "Earth", deals with the Net in 50 years, I
have kept off most net groups for several reasons.
First, while the one-on-one communication is terrific, interest group
discussions can be a monumental time sink, depriving creative adults of
useful lifespan. (What could _you_ be doing with the X hours/day you spend
hooked up?)
Second, one has to deal with people best described as "Net-Tourettes" - a
word coined jointly by Bruce Sterling and me at a recent conference. It
alludes to certain psych patients suffering from Tourette's Syndrome, who
have the unfortunate tendency, in the course of normal conversation, to
suddenly break out cursing, howling and frothing obscenities. (See "Earth"
page 325 of the paperback edition for a futuristic solution.)
It seems this early, primitive version of the medium allows people to
ignore countless little survival cues we inherit from neolithic days, or
even the playground, which normally restrain our behavior. ("Hmmm. If I
start screeching at people, they may leave me, next time the tribe
migrates." or "If I'm rude, that fellow may punch me.") Oh, the
attractions to livid flaming are clear. Biochemists find that endorphins
released into a human brain during fits of self-righteous rage are almost
as potent as those triggered by pain and injury, and are many times as
addictive. Multiply this by a culture which extols individual ego above
all else, and you have a recipe for the kind of spasmodic behavior most
flamers exhibit.
(Of course, they rationalize this self-induced drug high with moral
indignation about this or that. But let's recognize the self-secreted
equivalent to PCP when we see it.)
Another flaw in the medium is that people tend to _skim_ the missives
they receive, looking for distilled BULLETS to accept or reject
instantaneously. We complain about this in politics and the news, then we
do it ourselves! (Many responses to my "Cool World" blip showed clearly
that the senders had not read it carefully, before reacting.) I don't know
what to do about this. It's fine to preach that one should never to answer
without reading carefully, preferably twice, and then counting to ten. But
who has the TIME? Hence a reason to stay off most groups.
I could go on about this. It's a fascinating subject. (And yes, _I_
have been seen to rant self-righteously, in public, so we're talking shades
of gray, here.) Suffice it for now to say that a mature adult should
always TRY to compensate for human nature, and for the flaws in a medium of
communication. Pausing before leaping to conclusions. Assuming the other
person might be intelligent, rather than an idiot. Giving people the
benefit of the doubt, and asking for explanations. Aren't these rather old
fashioned behaviors we were taught that "good" people engaged in? The Net
liberates... but do we _want_ to be liberated from courtesy?
"We live as free citizens, not only in our public life but in our attitude
toward one another in the affairs of daily life. We are not angry at our
neighbor if he behaves as he pleases, nor cast sour looks at him, which, if
they do no harm, still cause pain." - Pericles
Hence, obviously, I have nothing to say to RJ Rauser or Greg Bole. They
are welcome to behave as they wish. One advantage of the Net is that
flying spittle is seldom contagious.
That lengthy apologia aside, two major philosophical issues came up in
regards my blip on "Cool World." (1) re: Censorship and (2) re: "good and
evil". May I have a moment to comment on both, before finishing off with
Bakshi?
(1) The damning word, "Censorship" is all too often used as invective
against anyone who suggests that all data is not equal. This is not only
stupid, but non-semantic. We must be choosy about what we see, hear, do,
for reasons of simple survival and limited time. Since the time of
Benjamin Franklin, no living human could read all of the great works being
published, let alone wade through mountains of crap to find the good stuff.
Not without the help of friends, experts, (even critics (shudder!), and
especially... the marketplace.
Yes, the marketplace of ideas, in which better ones supposedly rise, and
trash eventually meets well-deserved oblivion. Anyone who tells you that
Freedom of Speech is _sacred_ is anthropologically illiterate, since NO
other culture ever practiced it, and it flies in the face of human nature.
(People with big mouths, or big sticks, _always_try to keep others from
talking, especially when they disagree.)
Freedom of Speech is a bold experiment in _pragmatism_. We have found
that open criticism is the only way societies avoid error... and no one
ever knows in advance which ideas are going to prove right or erroneous.
So even boors and assholes must be suffered a soapbox, protected AS IF it
were sacred. Because if you allow _any_ exceptions to free speech, the
whole grand experiment will come tumbling down.
People who say all ideas are equal are simply fools. Somewhere out
there is a Net-Tourette Flamer _who happens to be right_. Most of his
fellow Flamers are irritating loonies with keyboards, who would have been
left to the hyenas back in the old days, but we're wise enough to put up
with them, because the one with the right idea will (hopefully) eventually
prove him/herself right, and maybe save us all. That's worth suffering a
whole lot of irritation.
So, I am as dedicated to fight censorship as anybody. I am also a full
fledged participant in the _marketplace_ of ideas! Which means I can shout
out mine, and one of mine is that the works of Ralph Bakshi are perverted,
evil crap. I am free to suggest to my peers that paying money to Bakshi is
as ill-advised as donating to the Mafia or KKK or any other institution
inimical to human decency. If certain persons think that has _anything_ in
common with censorship, well, I'm not responsible for the wretched way
uneducated people interpret the English Language.
(2) Cultural Relativism is the new cult which contends that "good" and
"evil" are meaningless terms. As a cult, CR then uses _other_ words to fill
the same slots. And proceeds to demonize its opponents with a will.
Good and Evil are basic human archetypes, and it is useless to say they
don't exist.
Now _what_ you call evil is open to argument. I personally don't care
for the fundamentalist POV, which constrains human freedom of thought and
persecutes victimless pursuits. I intend to continue to deny their "evil."
But would you exclude Hitler? Where do you draw your lines?
I believe some things we were taught on the playground are valid. It is
good to be patient with others and share. It is good to help those worse
off than you. It is good to tell truths. It is good to feel sympathy for
the oppressed. It is good to develop your professional skills, and deliver
quality goods or services for your pay. Some may wax sarcastic and simper
at this... but I'll bet they like seeing these traits in their neighbors
and tradesmen, and mutter when they run into their opposites.
To those out there who sneer at my "preachiness" in the preceding
paragraph... can you name another topic MORE appropriate for open
discussion?
Plato asked, "What is the Good?" It is still the most critical question
facing human beings.
Finally, Bakshi.
My intention, in blipping "Don't pay to see Cool World," was primarily
to let out the word THAT the film was by Ralph Bakshi.... That fact, alone,
will keep many from seeing it.
For some others, however, I failed to justify my brief suggestion. Fair
enough, let's try again.
I am not online to transcribe a litany of accusers against Bakshi, for
past crimes and misdemeanors. It's not my job, nor do I want to break the
privacy of friends who have confided their tales. I thank Chuq for
bringing up the brilliant Vaughn Bode, whom a certain director did such
heinous dirt that Bode's subsequent demise is not unreasonably attributed
to him by some. Otherwise, either take my word for it or not... or tap
your own Hollywood contacts.
The basis for my arguments against Bakshi's films is not that he's a
bastard. There are bastards out there who nevertheless do good work.
Bakshi is not one of them. Leaving aside Lord of the Rings and Fritz the
Cat, let's concentrate on "Wizards." First off, I must ask Ray Randolph
and Andrew Plotkin what they thought I meant, when I said the movie works
to get you to cheer for the bad guys. From your text, I get the impression
you missed my point... The so-called heroes of the film _are_ the bad
guys!
I often play this game at cons... "who is the bad guy in the movie, E.T.?"
One in a hundred gets it right, yet most later agree that Spielberg had
them on, throughout the film. The essence of the art of propaganda is to
twist the viewer's arm into giving over his/her human sympathies to one
side or another. Try watching Werfenstahl's Nazi wartime films, and you
_can't help_ feeling the tweak of emotion she wants from you, when the
brave young Aryan hero shows up to slaughter the slathering Poles.
Today, most American propaganda pushes themes like suspicion of
authority and individual egotism, which sure beats the old stuff, but still
merits critical analysis, from time to time. Look for these themes in the
movies you see! (Also count the _tolerance_ messages you see/hear in any
given day. They pervade the media... a campaign of which I approve, though
not the means.)
Paul Griffiths says "Most of us can see right through the lies." Pah!
Human beings LOVE lies! All myths, politics, science fiction stories, are
lies. The secret is to pick and choose among the lies, and to know which
are the nasty ones.
(Stanley Friesen and several others, go ahead and skip the following.
You know how to tell when you're being peddled garbage.)
In "Wizards," Bakshi depicts two brothers who feuded and separated in
youth. One of them goes off to help the mutants, who have been kept
quarantined in a tiny, sunless canyon for a thousand years. The other
cavorts with pretty pixies on the outside...those doing the quarantining.
The movie goes out of its way to show that Bakshi's world is filled with
vast, open countryside, and that the poor mutants are much too timorous to
ever be a threat, and yet the art of the propagandist actually persuades us
that they "should" be squashed in a ghetto for eternity. The status quo
must be protected at all costs!
Now tell me, what traits ought a human male to have? Make up any list
of attributes you would desire in your son, your son-in-law, or a neighbor
if you ever needed help. In this film, one brother is a lazy, shiftless
lech, who doesn't give a damn about anything but boozing and bimbos, has
let his skills rot, is a coward, and avidly lends his aid to oppressors.
The other brother works hard, loves a wife and child, develops his craft,
and dedicates himself to helping the oppressed. Who should you root for?
Recall that this is a story told by the victors (the pixies) so the
wizard helping the mutants is depicted as a skeleton creature. His
desperation that his child should not grow up in the poverty and slavery of
mutanthood is a bit twisted, but understandable in context. Hey, he freaks
out a little. That doesn't change the essentials one bit.
Now the McGuffin is that the mutant-helper uses a movie projector as a
magical device. His clients are so pathetic, they'll only fight if
shown... get the irony here... Nazi war films! This technophobic
symbolism deserves its own masters thesis, but suffice it to say that - if
that's what it would take to get some cowardly victims to fight back, when
hordes or pretty, fascist pixies are laying seige in preparation for
genocide - I would gladly use the same means.
In the end, while the viewers delight in the mutant-slaughter taking
place outside the castle, the twins meet inside for the dramatic climax.
Having let his professional skills go to hell, the anti-technology "wizard"
cleverly pulls out a _lugar_ and shoots his brother, screaming: "you son of
a bitch!" (Get the clever irony? He says this to his _brother_...? Get
it? Har har.)
Natch, the audience cheers its head off.
Conclusion number One... try noticing the deeper message of movies and
books, especially those which pander to sickness in us.
Conclusion Two. There IS evil in the world. It is whatever suppresses
human potential and yanks us backward into darkness and ignorance. It is
what panders to herd poison, causing the IQ of a mob to be that of its
stupidest member... divided by the number of people in the mob. It is what
allows a civilized, educated people, like Germany, to choose vileness
enthusiastically, and not see their victims as fellow human beings.
Cultural relativists may sneer at such words, but "good" remains
something the rest of us aspire to, and want in our commonwealth. 'Evil"
is what happens when we forget that the purpose of free speech is partly
the discovery of great new ideas (even if they, at first, offend)... and
partly to expose bad ideas, and let them sink into the cesspool where they
belong.
I don't have to see every film of R. Bakshi to suggest to my friends
that life is too short to go wading in swill. Go see what you want to see,
by all means. But my advice is, flush it and move on.
Sincerely - David Brin
P.S. 1. Paul Griffiths says - "My renting doesn't support the movie, but
rather the video store..which does all the buying/dishing out per capita
royalties without my influence..."
Untrue, and naive, Paul. By renting, you vote what kind of movie the
store will buy next time, or keep on stock. It is by such micro-voting
that we determine what comes on TV, what stores offer for sale and whether
they trust their customers not to shoplift, and whether or not people smile
at each other on the road, or try cutting each other off. Micro-voting is
at least as important as the official kind.
P.S. 2. Sorry Brian Lev. Was there naughtie stuff done in making Roger
Rabbit? Oops. Another illusion shattered. (Ask me sometime about what
Warner Bros. has done to _The Postman_!!) (Better yet, don't ask, please.)
P.S. 3. Tim Smith... do you seriously doubt that, when a thief steals and
warps good stuff, it _doesn't_ turn to shit?
P.S 4. This cost me several hours. And there's sure to be tons of
response that will kill _more of my work time. Agh! Now you see why I
fear (!) this addictive Net stuff? Why do intelligent adults DO this ?????
D.B.
------------------------------
