Conference noted::sf

    I read THE ABYSS this past weekend. As a novel, it leaves a
    little to be desired. Card lets his use of metaphors get way
    out of control, and he has a tendency to beat the reader over
    the head with repetitious character descriptions. Given the
    conditions/time constraints under which Card was working, this
    is reasonably excusable. Instead of writing from an early
    draft of the script, as most novelizations are, Card wrote the
    final draft of the novel from videotape dupes of the actual film
    supplied by director Cameron. He was writing it right up until
    the end of this past March, *way* past deadline.
    
    As a story, it's first rate. It's more in line of a thriller,
    a la Clive Cussler or Tom Clancy, though it definitely falls
    into the realm of sf, whereas Cussler and Clancy are pretty
    much borderline sf at best. It's got strong, well-defined
    characters (a lot of the character background material was
    Card's own work that doesn't appear in the film), suspense,
    action, and that ol' debbil Sense of Wonder. As I got closer
    to the end, I found it harder and harder to put down.
    
    This is going to be a *stunner* of a film! It's hard to judge
    from Card's novel alone (well, also from articles here and there
    about the film), but I can easily believe that Cameron will
    easily top his previous two efforts, THE TERMINATOR and ALIENS.
    
    The only "problem" (and a minor one it is) I found is that there's
    something put into the story that seems to be the obligatory
    "hi-tech" element akin to the exoskeletons in ALIENS -- something
    to "impress the rubes", as it were. It's actually something that's
    pretty old hat with respect to diving technology, but I'm willing
    to bet that a vast majority of the people who see the film won't
    believe that it already exists.
    
    Unless you're the kind of person who wants to avoid having the
    story spoiled for him before seeing the film, I recommend the
    novel. It's certainly one of the best film novelizations I've
    ever read.
    
    --- jerry

I enjoyed the novel and am wondering how my visualization of the novel
compares to the movie.

This one I'm really looking forward to!

    
    I enjoyed the novel, even though I thought it started slow. Once
    the "action" gets going, its difficult to put down. I suggest
    people read the book before seeing the movie, in order to better
    understand the logic and motivations of the Builders, which will
    probably be superficial, at best, in the movie. I fear that a lot
    of John Q. Public will go to see this film expecting an underwater
    ALIEN, and will be greatly disappointed. However, those who can
    enjoy a decent thriller should be quite pleased.

    
    Isn't there a writer named James Cameron? Wrote _Swan Song_ and
    a few other books? Same guy, maybe?

    I believe that _Swan Song_ was written by Robert McKammon (sp) not
    James Cameron.

    Any resemblance in the storyline to "Sphere"?  Tell me there's more
    to the story than just an undersea humans-meet-monsters-and-most-die
    thing.  (I need motivation to read or view -- the title sounds like
    Jacques Cousteau, which is ok but not SF.  The overtones sound like
    "Aliens".  Use spoilers if you like, but give me something more!!!
    (PLEASE!))
    
    Thanks!
    
    Sherry

    Latest news I read on Usenet is that the film has been pushed off
    until August. Apparently there's been some last minute refilming
    of some scenes.
    
    re:.4
    
    There may well be a writer named James Cameron, though I can't
    off-hand think of one. As .5 said, SWAN SONG is by Robert McCammon.
    
    re:.6
    
    I haven't read SPHERE, though I've seen some comparisons made
    between it and THE ABYSS.
    
    THE ABYSS is *not* an undersea "humans-meet-monsters-and-most-die
    thing". It's certainly not in the same vein as this year's earlier
    films DEEPSTAR SIX and LEVIATHAN. Well, parts of your description
    are true, but the aliens are not monsters; quite the opposite, in
    fact. I've seen the film referred to as "Close Encounters of the
    Wet Kind", which is not an inaccurate description.
    
    I will give a relatively brief description of the plot, after a
    Spoiler Warning and form feed, for those who want to know what it's
    about. I'll try not to spoil too much, though.
    
    --- jerry
    
    Spoilers ahead:
    
    At the bottom of the Caribbean's Cayman Trench (about 4 miles deep)
    there is a city built by an alien race from a high-pressure world
    who have established colonies on any number of planets. They call
    themselves the Builders, and have been there for quite some time,
    though they haven't contacted humans for two reasons. First, they
    basically cannot survive at low pressures any more than we can in
    a vacuum. Secondly, they have different standards about what they
    consider sentience, and we don't qualify. They are certainly among
    the more alien aliens I've encountered in my sf reading. I have
    a hard time imagining how that alienness will come across on the
    screen, which makes me believe even more how worthwhile reading
    the novel is.
    
    Anyways, at the beginning of the story, the Builders accidentally
    destroy both a Russian surveillance satellite and an American sub.
    The sub manages to launch a marker buoy to alert the Navy. The Navy
    cannot bring in its own deep-salvage equipment to the site in time,
    as a hurricane is brewing in the area, so it requests help from
    an oil company which has an experimental, mobile, deep-water
    drilling rig not far from the site.
    
    The salvage operation is commanded by a Navy SEAL and his team,
    and due to pressure-induced psychosis, he makes a few errors in
    judgement, which leads to Deepcore (the drilling rig) being cut
    off from topside when the hurricane hits. When the salvage team
    finds out about the aliens, and what they can do, the SEAL leader
    (hell, I've forgotten his name already) decides that they are a
    potential threat, and sends one of the sub's warheads down the
    trench to destroy the city. Meanwhile, the Builders have decided
    that humans *are* sentient, of a fashion, and that they (humans)
    have a proclivity towards killing each other for no reason.
    
    While on topside, the US and USSR are edging toward Mutually Assured
    Destruction (the Russians, of course, think that the US destroyed the
    satellite; the Americans think the Russians destroyed the sub; the
    Russians then get concerned about a US Navy build-up in the Caribbean
    not too far from Cuba; and during the hurricane, and American and
    Russian ship collide, completely scuttling the Russian), the engineers
    in Deepcore are trying to find a way to prevent the Builders from
    being destroyed. And the Builders, knowing now that the humans have
    both the ability to destroy the entire planet and the willingness
    to do so, are trying to decide whether they should try to stop the
    humans from doing so or just up and depart, leaving mankind to its
    own fate.
    
    The "hi-tech, impress the rubes" bit I mentioned earlier is (another
    form feed, since this is much more of a spoiler)...
    
    ...liquid breathing, which is a technique for substituting a super-
    oxygenated fluorocarbon liquid for air, allowing a diver to survive
    much higher pressures. This technique was developed in the late 60's
    (I recall reading about it in LIFE/LOOK/SATURDAY EVENING POST back
    then), but isn't used very often because it's extremely hard on
    the users.
    
    The reason I compared this to the exo-skeletons in ALIENS is because
    relatively early on in the book, the technique is demonstrated on
    a rat in such a way that it's obvious that it's going to become
    important later in the story.

    I saw a segment about The Abyss on one of those entertainment news type
    shows.  They described it as a love story more than anything else,
    which suprised me because none of the previous replies here described
    it that way [I did not read past the spoiler warning earlier and I
    haven't read the book].  More than 50% of the film takes place under
    water which, if the information on the show was accurate, makes it a
    first for the film industry.  The under water filming was done in deep
    water inside an abondoned (and unfinished) nuclear reactor.  All the actors
    had to be certified before filming could begin.  Special diving masks
    were designed for the actors so that their faces could be visible.
    There were some interesting technical innovations associated with
    filming under water for 6 - 8 hours at a stretch, such as special air
    cylinders.  Unfortunately I can't recall any more details, but it was
    an interesting segment.  I don't remember the name of the show but The
    Last Crusade, Batman and Lethal Weapon 2 were also reviewed.  It was
    narrated by Mark Harmon.
    
    -Michelle

    re:.8
    
    That was PREMIERE MAGAZINE's tv special.
    
    As for THE ABYSS being a love story, well, yes it is, but that's
    not what leaps to mind when I think of it. That would be akin to
    thinking of, oh, ALTERED STATES as a love story. It's more a
    subtextual theme.
    
    From what I've heard, some of the diving innovations created for
    the filming (such as the helmets) are being adapted for real use
    in diving. Life imitates Art once again.
    
    --- jerry

    
    The episode of COPS on FOX this past weekend was sponsored by
    THE ABYSS. During a commercial break they showed a 60 second
    promo which, I feel, gave away alot of the "mystery" of the movie.
    Anyone who has seen it should no longer expect an underwater version
    of ALIEN from this movie. 
    
    The few special effects they did show looked FAN_TAS_TIC. Things
    looked EXACTLY as I imagined them to look while reading the book.
    I guess this is evidence of Orson Scott Card's ability to translate
    pictures to literature.
    
    They also mentioned that the movie will be out in early August.

    Latest word in August 9 for the release.
    
    --- jerry

    They're now selling T-Shirts that say:

    Life's ABYSS and then you dive.


    Groan.....

    Linda, 8^)

    
    After seeing The ABYSS last night, I must say its really well done.
    The acting and cinematography are both first rate. I think its the
    kind of movie that has to be seen on the "big screen" to really be
    appreciated. 
    
    And I highly recommend reading the book before hand. It will help
    explain certain scenes that might otherwise have you saying "Now
    why/how the hell did that happen?". 
    
    					-Steve
    

    re .13
    
    I think Steve more than adequately speaks for me.  The movie was
    very well done.
    
    Harris and Biehn did marvelous jobs as Brigman and Cofey, but I
    think they could have found someone better to play Lindsey than
    Masstrantonio.  The supporting players were more than adequate.
    
    I, too, recommend Scott Card's novelization as a must-read prior
    to seeing the movie.  While most of the movie audience seemed to
    enjoy the movie, I heard several uttering sounds of puzzlement at
    some of the scenes.

    I thought the movie wasn't even opeing until tomorrow?

The cheri has it in 70mm dolby (six-track??) surround.  The only thing I wish
for there is a slightly larger screen.  

Also a thumbs-up for Chris Elliot (ex of late night with david letterman).  The
audience also recognized and laughed when they saw him. (So he had a bit
part so what...)

brad

    My S.O. seems to think the best way to experience one of these things
    is to:
    
    1)	see the movie
    2)	read the book
    3)	see the movie again
    
    While some rumblings here seem to indicate that reading the book
    first is A Good Thing.  Any  ideas?  Is this such an amazing movie
    that seeing it twice is worthwhile?
    
    Willie

    
>    While some rumblings here seem to indicate that reading the book
>    first is A Good Thing.  Any  ideas?  Is this such an amazing movie
>    that seeing it twice is worthwhile?
>    
>    Willie
	Actually I read the book before seeing the movie and then wish
I never read the book first, sure it was good to know alittle more
about what was going on before hand but it really killed all the
suspense for me, and this is one of the major drawing cards of 
James Cameron, you always get a pretty good roller coaster ride.
I think reading the book after seeing the movie would be the best idea.
then maybe watching the movie again after reading the book....Jim

re Note 746.11 by RUBY::BOYAJIAN 
    
>    I have the book, but I'm waiting for a nice long plane flight
>    next week to read it.
    
    Good!  I think I'll do exactly that on the long plane flight next week.
    
    Now the (rhetorical) question is, should I see the movie before I do that?
    
    --Simon
    

    Difficult question. I'd say that reading the book first would give
    a much better understanding of the film.
    
    On the other pseudopod, as I was, you might be disappointed in
    the film as a result.
    
    On the third pseudopod, I'm not sure that seeing the film first
    won't be just as disappointing (I haven't yet consulted with my
    alternate-universe self who didn't read the book first :-)).
    
    On the fourth pseudopod, the book is worth reading regardless of
    how you like or dislike the film. So, perhaps seeing the film
    first would be better. Reading the book may spoil some elements
    of the film, but there are plenty of elements left over in the
    book that won't be spoiled by seeing the film.
    
    --- jerry

    Well, my wife and I saw the film and are willing to see it again.  I
    agree that reading the book first migh spoil the (considerable) element
    of suspense in the movie.  I found a couple of obscurities, but no
    major inconsistencies, though I admit I had to keep my eyes peeled.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    I thought the film had a little to much "ET"ism in it.
	Spoilers follow...
        
    There was too much "good guy" aliens. They leaped to the conclusion
    that the aliens were even aliens without any evidence whatsoever.
    That thing was a machine? And alive? Right. These guys were okay?
    A sub had died-- a couple of hundred people. Remember the Larry
    Niven scenario in Mote: You park on a hill with your brakes unlocked. The
    car rolls down hill and kills a couple of people. What's your liability?
    Lousy. If these creatures were smart enough to save the derrick,
    bring everybody to the surface, and prevent them from having the
    bends, then they were smart enough not to destroy the US sub in
    the first place. 
    
    And if it was an accident, where's their remorse? Is that why they
    saved the derrick? If that's the case, why didn't they fix it when
    they first saw it? Or after they noticed this two ton ALVIN drop
    on them after the SEAL bites the tube?
    
    Maybe the 3.5 hour version or the book solves these problems. I,
    for one, was disappointed.
    
    I will say this, though. Cameron grabbed on to the audience and
    didn't let go. That movie put me through some heart failure a couple
    of times. The way it played on drowning and claustrophobia... whew!
    
    steve

    
    Re: -.1
    
    For those and other answers: Read the book! Its all there. The problem
    is that the answers you are looking for are difficult to translate to
    screen/visual images.
    
    					

    re:-.1
    Or maybe they lie in the forty minutes or more left on the cutting
    room floor.
    

    Re .20:
    
    Perhaps you'll luck out and get to see it in-flight at the same time?
    
    Nahhh...

    re:.24/.25
    
    Quite possibly both. That was part of my disappointment with the
    final product. I wanted to see how Cameron was going to show us
    some of the stuff in the book in purely visual terms.
    
    --- jerry

    
    Maybe, if we keep our fingers crossed, the video release will contain
    some of the "lost" footage..
    
    					-Steve

    re .26 re .20:  In-flight wouldn't be satifactory, once you've seen it
    on the big screen with Dolby stereo.  Yeah, I went to see it.  Great
    stuff!  Now to pick up the book before I leave.
    
    --Simon
    

    Well, I saw it and liked it a LOT.
    
    An excellent thriller, I was scared and cared for these characters.
    
    I have to agree with Siskel and Ebert however, the last 5 minutes
    sucked.  Sure seems as if they could have come up with a more
    satisfactory ending.  I even think the otherwise EXCELLENT special
    effects were rotten for the last scene.  
    
    My specific problems with the special effects are
    
    
    The Builders city went from a living castle of lights to some dead
    metal, what a let down.  Also while I never thought any of the other
    ships were models, when they borke the surface and were on top of the
    builders city, I KNEW they were models.
    
    Tony

    re:.30
    
    Even worse, that wasn't the original ending. They *re-shot*
    the ending, resulting in what I agree was a poor one.
    
    --- jerry

    re:.30, .31
    
    Apparently, they had filmed 4 different endings to it.....  I think 
    they picked the wrong one....

    I did like the movie, though.... just wished it went more into the
    extra-terrestrials.....

    Linda

.32>    I did like the movie, though.... just wished it went more into the
.32>    extra-terrestrials.....

Sounds like there's a reasonable chance of a sequel, or sequels?  "The 
Return of the Son of the Abyss, Part 12"?    ;-}

Peter B

    Saw it, loved it, hated the final scene (why didn't they use
    translucent material or even inflated polyvinyl?) I want to read
    the book and see the film again, preferably the uncut version. I
    think the alien beings were the best I've seen in cinematic or tv
    sf so far.  They SEEMED alien, yet understandably sentient, and
    they seemed suited for their environment.  I loved the city, too.
    Breathtaking!  For once, the filmmakers managed to convey the quality
    of wonder and amazement I get from good sf or fantasy.  MORE!!!
    
    (I do fear a sequel -- fear it because there is NO WAY I can imagine
    perpetuating the sensations of this film.)
    
    Oh, yeah -- I read recently that liquid breathing has been used
    on a premature baby (who later died of other complications) but
    that it is not used by divers yet -- they don't have the problems
    solved, I guess.  They hope it will be useful for other preemies
    in future, though, since air respirators can damage their lungs.
    (Of course, what I read might not know about REAL top-secret SEAL
    equipment!  :^)  )
    
    Sherry

    re:-1
    
    I didn't think the aliens were at all suited to their environment.
    They kind of reminded me of the angels in TJ Bass, the Godwhale,
    but the angels were old men and the "wings" were large gas exchange
    apparatus. Hardly people adapted to the environment.
    
    And they didn't move in a very efficient way. Underwater water winged
    beasts move much more gracefull. Note rays, skates, and flounders.
    All of them glide effortlessly, where the alien in the Abyss looked
    as if he would sink if he quit pumping.
    
    

    Re .35
    
    Almost all the time it was on screen, the alien was hauling a
    semi-conscious human around.  That might impede swimming; it certainly
    impedes walking.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

   re:-1
    Good point. How would a skate or ray look when they were carrying
    something? Hm. I swam with some sea turtles when I was in Mexico
    and they did not seem impeded. They were slower but not different.
    Dolphins don't look clumsy in the water when a man is hanging off
    them. And I seem to remember a national graphic about the manta
    rays. There was a picture of a man riding a ray and the ray looked
    just fine-- it was a still, though. And the alien was in an alien
    environment to itself-- note arms and legs. Don't need them in the
    water. Maybe it was *appropriate* it seem clumsy. Maybe they *chose*
    a foreign environment for some reason.
    
    steve p

    
    re: -1
    		Arms, yes, but legs? It may be my imagination but I think
    	if you look again (closely) you'll see that what looked like legs
    	were more like tentacles (or tails), perhaps for maneuvering in a
    	fluid environment. It doesn't really seem logical that a creature
    	which evolved in such an environment would have any need for legs.
    
    	Which brings up another small point, the bottom of the ocean was
    	an alien environment to the builders, only because it wasn't on
    	their home planet. The fact is, that in their natural state, the
    	aliens, couldn't exist anywhere except at those great depths.
    	Its not like they were "hiding" from us, to them it was a simple
    	matter of preference/survival. 

    
    
    
    I, myself didn't like the movie. 
    
    I thought it would have been a better movie if they took the aliens
    out of it completely and did a little character developement in
    the beginning.
    
    Come on, didn't anyone else choke on the sickly sweet ending.
    

    Re .39
    
    No, I didn't choke, and I didn't think it was sickly sweet.  I was
    a little disappointed that the object looked so different in bright air
    compared with its appearance in dark water, but I also thought that 
    rather realistic.
    
    If you found that "sickly sweet," I recommend you avoid "Coccoon,"
    unless it is too late.
    
    All in all, I thought it a pretty decent action-adventure.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

I didn't think much of this movie either, though I did like the first
"Cocoon."  But then I haven't really liked a science fiction movie since
"2001" (and before that, "The Day The Earth Stood Still").

If you're a science fiction fan, I do think it is worth seeing.

I actually found myself giggling uncontrollably at some of the allegedly 
dramatic spots...  Spoiler warning:



As our heroine is being revived from her drowning, the normal CPR
techniques (defribrillator, closed heart massage) have failed.  So our
hero starts screaming at her and slapping her until she woke up. Maybe
this approach works but they sure don't teach it in CPR class.  And when
she started to come around, I nudged my wife and said that since she'd
been without oxygen for quite a few minutes now, she's going to be a lot
more docile and sweet when she wakes up.  Sure enough...

After our hero saves the crew and starts falling into the abyss, the
crew is trying to keep him alert in spite of the increasing pressure.
The heroine is told, "Talk to him," so she starts a rather inane
conversation.  Then she is told, "No, I mean _talk_ to him," so she
starts talking about True Love.  I was hooting pretty loudly by this
time...

JP

    Saw the movie when it came out and read the book a month ago. The
    book is really good! As mentioned in earlier notes, the book gives
    a lot of background on the aliens and there way of thinking. And
    they were involved in ways the movie could not show us. You have
    to read the book to appreciate the movie. 
     
    The movie ending left us hanging. The book explaines the aliens
    actions. And most of the humans from the oil rig were permanently
    changed to be able to travel from surface to sea-floor to act 
    as ambassadors.

    Dom

    
    		Anyone know when it will be out on video?
    

    Nothing's been announced yet.
    
    --- jerry

    >
    >		Anyone know when it will be out on video?
    >
    
    Maybe when the ABYSS freezes over? :-)
    

    Saw an ad for the video release the other night

    I believe that March 29th is the release date. Not positive,
    though. I tend not to pay attention simply because I'm not interested
    in tape releases. The laserdisc should be out in May. It'll be
    letterboxed and includes a "making of" featurette.
    
    --- jerry

    
    	THE ABYSS is available on video in San Jose, CA.  Just hit our
    	store today.
    
    	-rick

    OK, so the burning question is:
    
    	Does it contain extra footage?
    
    I've heard differing sources that say it would and it wouldn't.
    
    --- jerry

    
    
    			Read my lips!
    
    	D O E S   I T   I N C L U D E    E X T R A    F O O T A G E
    
    	I saw it at the cinema and thought it was great,except for
    	that ending.The release date has'nt been confirmed here in
    	Britain yet so i dont know how much longer i shall have to
    	wait(on video that is!!).
    
    			***vince***

    There is no mention of the extended ABYSS in any of my issues of
    CINEFEX - especially not in the issue on the ABYSS.
    
    Well the longer remixed version of Aliens has been out on VIDEO here in
    Oz for a few months now, and they've just released the special
    "postbox" format version of the original ALIEN.  Still no sign of the
    ABYSS longer version.
    
    Just as a nit pick, given that they (the "heroes") are DEEP diving
    already, I thought the suits used in LEVIATHAN were more realistic -
    they looked tough enough to keep you healthy in deep water, more so
    than an unheated O'Neill wetsuit with a faceted faceplated helmet...