Home Video Hovel- Plan 9 from Outer Space

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Robert H. says:

    Mr. Nye, I’ve heard you on the show and think you’re funny and smart. So it hurts when I read this: “the concept of using science fiction to address societal ills is, even in 1959, terribly dull.” Lots of room for opinion in a blue-ray review, but it’s a staggering statement in light of so many non-dull si-fi’s made with a socially allegorical intent throughout the history of film, many well after ’59. Some that pop into my head as I traipse down the mental timeline: Children of the Damned, Planet of the Apes, Andromeda Strain, Soylent Green, Blade Runner, They Live, The Matrix, Never Let Me Go.

    That should have been enough for me to stop reading (though I like to read you). Then I wouldn’t have had to read a defense of using full-frame presentation as a way to nudge the badness of a movie for the sake of laughs, when full-frame presentation was not the filmmaker’s intent. Think what you want about Ed Wood, but even he deserves THAT much respect.

  2. Scott Nye says:

    Honestly, I apologize like hell for that phrasing, and I sincerely retract that statement for precisely the reasons you noted. Looking at it now, it seems obviously ridiculous, but somewhere in my insomnia-fueled writing, it made some level of sense.

    What I MEANT to convey is that using science fiction to address societal ills is not a terribly original concept, and Wood seems a little overly giddy at the prospect of having a message to his movie.

    Thanks for pointing this out, and I hope that helps.

    However, you misunderstand my intention with the question of aspect ratio, and reading it again, I can see that I could have been more clear – I wholeheartedly agree with you, and me saying “added benefit” and such was written in a snarky manner that was sadly not conveyed in the rest of that paragraph.

    I will certainly try to be more clear on these and other matters in the future; as one of my college professors advised, over-explanation isn’t the worst thing.

    Thanks for reading, and I appreciate the comment.

  3. Robert H. says:

    I thought for sure (or at least hoped!) it was a momentary haze.

    Yeah, EW is definitely happy to insert meaning, but his thesis is never upheld by anything resembling eloquence. He should’ve taken a few more notes from Sam Fuller before loading the film mag.

    So now that we’re square on those two issues, I’ll try to forget that you don’t like MST3K.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.