<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Retro-Trailer: Robinson Crusoe on Mars (1964)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2010/08/retro-trailer_robinson_crusoe_on_mars_1964/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2010/08/retro-trailer_robinson_crusoe_on_mars_1964/</link>
	<description>A science fiction blog featuring science fiction book reviews and with frequent ramblings on fantasy, computers and the web.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 18:23:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Stephenson</title>
		<link>http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2010/08/retro-trailer_robinson_crusoe_on_mars_1964/#comment-88844</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Stephenson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 23:36:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://beta.sfsignal.com/archives/2010/08/retro-trailer_robinson_crusoe_on_mars_1964/#comment-88844</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I absolutely love this film and I attribute my lifelong love of SF as beginning with a night out with my Dad and cousin seeing it back in 1964.  I have an autographed pic of Mantee and Lundin hanging on the wall in my SF room and have owned the film continuously in VHS, Laserdisk and now DVD versions since purchasing my first VHS recorder in 1981.

That said, the &quot;this film is scientifically accurate&quot; claim has always given me a chuckle, especially the Elinor-M&#039;s vehicle frame orbiting Mars at such a low altitude that it &quot;whooshes&quot; over every so often.  Love the delayed &quot;bang&quot; when Draper destructs it.  I guess that&#039;s supposed to make it accurate.  Then, there&#039;s the Everest-sized asteroid that rumbles overhead every now and then.  Not to mention that Friday and Chris being so close to the asteroid impact at the Martian pole should have left both of them as pulverized as a T-Rex standing too close to the Yucatan K-T asteroid impact.

Then, there&#039;s the whole issue of the alien mining operation and the inevitable wondering why, if their tech is so advanced, they don&#039;t just toodle over to Sol 3 and enslave all the natives there into the mining biz?  Wouldn&#039;t even need &quot;air pills.&quot;

All that said, if you hung the &quot;scientifically accurate&quot; moniker on any Trek, SW or other SF film, it would be just as hilarious.  The only one that would be able to wear it well would be &quot;2001: A Space Odyssey,&quot; in which no majestic starships rumble through the vacuum on perpetual full power.

Anyway, no matter its flaws, RCoM is a diamond in the rough of early 1960s SF krap.  Except, I always expect Paul Mantee to blurt out something like &quot;Holy Asteroids, Batman&quot; during the opening scenes.

]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I absolutely love this film and I attribute my lifelong love of SF as beginning with a night out with my Dad and cousin seeing it back in 1964.  I have an autographed pic of Mantee and Lundin hanging on the wall in my SF room and have owned the film continuously in VHS, Laserdisk and now DVD versions since purchasing my first VHS recorder in 1981.</p>
<p>That said, the &#8220;this film is scientifically accurate&#8221; claim has always given me a chuckle, especially the Elinor-M&#8217;s vehicle frame orbiting Mars at such a low altitude that it &#8220;whooshes&#8221; over every so often.  Love the delayed &#8220;bang&#8221; when Draper destructs it.  I guess that&#8217;s supposed to make it accurate.  Then, there&#8217;s the Everest-sized asteroid that rumbles overhead every now and then.  Not to mention that Friday and Chris being so close to the asteroid impact at the Martian pole should have left both of them as pulverized as a T-Rex standing too close to the Yucatan K-T asteroid impact.</p>
<p>Then, there&#8217;s the whole issue of the alien mining operation and the inevitable wondering why, if their tech is so advanced, they don&#8217;t just toodle over to Sol 3 and enslave all the natives there into the mining biz?  Wouldn&#8217;t even need &#8220;air pills.&#8221;</p>
<p>All that said, if you hung the &#8220;scientifically accurate&#8221; moniker on any Trek, SW or other SF film, it would be just as hilarious.  The only one that would be able to wear it well would be &#8220;2001: A Space Odyssey,&#8221; in which no majestic starships rumble through the vacuum on perpetual full power.</p>
<p>Anyway, no matter its flaws, RCoM is a diamond in the rough of early 1960s SF krap.  Except, I always expect Paul Mantee to blurt out something like &#8220;Holy Asteroids, Batman&#8221; during the opening scenes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeffrey Swanson</title>
		<link>http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2010/08/retro-trailer_robinson_crusoe_on_mars_1964/#comment-88843</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeffrey Swanson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 14:32:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://beta.sfsignal.com/archives/2010/08/retro-trailer_robinson_crusoe_on_mars_1964/#comment-88843</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;I remember watching this movie on saturday afternoon years ago.&#160; I would always give a SF film a try and was surprised at this one.&#160; Considering the level of science in TV shows like Lost In Space, etc. this movie was pretty accurate for the time.&#160; And the story wasn&#039;t bad.&#160; A little bit of similarity to the James Blish novel Welcome To Mars, although not much. Still I liked it.&lt;/p&gt;

]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I remember watching this movie on saturday afternoon years ago.&nbsp; I would always give a SF film a try and was surprised at this one.&nbsp; Considering the level of science in TV shows like Lost In Space, etc. this movie was pretty accurate for the time.&nbsp; And the story wasn&#8217;t bad.&nbsp; A little bit of similarity to the James Blish novel Welcome To Mars, although not much. Still I liked it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard</title>
		<link>http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2010/08/retro-trailer_robinson_crusoe_on_mars_1964/#comment-88842</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 08:16:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://beta.sfsignal.com/archives/2010/08/retro-trailer_robinson_crusoe_on_mars_1964/#comment-88842</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;I might not go &lt;em&gt;that &lt;/em&gt;far...but the movie is one hell of a lot better than you might expect. &#160;Even things like the oxygen-bearing rocks and constant fires, while not factual, show a degree of &#160;internal consistency and logic other filmmakers could do well to emulate.&lt;/p&gt;

]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I might not go <em>that </em>far&#8230;but the movie is one hell of a lot better than you might expect. &nbsp;Even things like the oxygen-bearing rocks and constant fires, while not factual, show a degree of &nbsp;internal consistency and logic other filmmakers could do well to emulate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
