@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society 02/27/26 -- Vol. 44, No. 35, Whole Number 2421
Table of Contents
Apology about Double Email Last Week:
Last week my email reader on my Mac was having trouble connecting to my ISP, so I didn't get a copy and it looked as though the MT VOID hadn't gone out. When I re-sent it, and it still didn't download, I realized that the first one had probably gone out just fine. And indeed after a few hours, the connection was restored (with no action on my part, so we know whose fault it was :-( ). [-ecl]
Middletown (NJ) Public Library Science Fiction Discussion Group:
March 5, 2026: THE MARTIAN CHRONICLES (1980 TV mini-series)
& novel by Ray Bradbury
https://archive.org/details/bwb_O8-CZL-512/page/n5/mode/2up
[Note: The film is based on only the first 1/3 of the book.]
I think what is being shown is the first of the three episodes of the mini-series, "The Expeditions", which is why Charles says, "The film is based on only the first 1/3 of the book." [-ecl]
Picks for Turner Classic Movies for March (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper):
Well, for the horror genre, I would have to recommend CRONOS, which Mark described as "a cutting-edge art house monster movie" and "a film of stylish images and delightful subtle humor." It was also Guillermo del Toro's first feature film; his career has gone on to include eight Oscar nominations with three wins, and five Hugo Award nominations with one win.
[CRONOS, Saturday, March 21, 12:00 AM]
But I also have to point out the great Billy Wilder films TCM is featuring in March: THE APARTMENT, THE LOST WEEKEND, SOME LIKE IT HOT, THE FORTUNE COOKIE, and SUNSET BOULEVARD, as well as a very early Wilder French film, MAUVAISE GRAINE (1934) (which I have not seen).
[THE APARTMENT, Sunday, March 8, 1:45 PM]
[THE LOST WEEKEND, Tuesday, March 10, 8:00 PM]
[SOME LIKE IT HOT, Thursday, March 12, 5:45 PM]
[THE FORTUNE COOKIE, Saturday, March 14, 5:45 PM]
[SUNSET BOULEVARD, Sunday, March 15, 3:30 PM]
[MAUVAISE GRAINE, Saturday, March 21, 2:00 AM]
They are also running two classic Robert Flaherty "documentaries", or rather "docufictions" (NANOOK OF THE NORTH and MOANA: A ROMANCE OF THE GOLDEN AGE), since it turns out that a lot of the action was staged, and the people were not always who Flaherty claimed they were. Still, the films were a major breakthrough in cinema, so worth watching, even as you keep in mind their artificiality. (Back in the day, when we were in college and dinosaurs roamed the earth, NANOOK OF THE NORTH was a standard film for cinema classes.)
[NANOOK OF THE NORTH (1922), Saturday, March 21, 12:15 AM]
[MOANA: A ROMANCE OF THE GOLDEN AGE (1026), Saturday, March 21,
1:45 AM]
Other films of interest: SUNDAY, March 1 10:45 PM All That Jazz (1979) MONDAY, March 2 10:00 AM Logan's Run (1975) TUESDAY, March 3 1:45 PM Being There (1979) 4:00 PM My Favorite Year (1982) 8:00 PM Around the World in 80 Days (1956) THURSDAY, March 5 6:00 PM The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945) FRIDAY, March 6 12:00 AM Seven Days in May (1964) 2:15 AM The Fog of War (2003) FRIDAY, March 6 8:15 AM Yojimbo (1961) 8:00 PM For All Mankind (1989) 9:30 PM 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) SATURDAY, March 7 12:15 AM Marooned (1969) 2:30 AM Forbidden Planet (1956) 6:45 AM Mighty Joe Young (1949) 8:30 AM Jungle Book (1942) SUNDAY, March 8 11:00 AM Guys and Dolls (1955) 1:45 PM The Apartment (1960) MONDAY, March 9 10:00 PM The Artist (2011) THURSDAY, March 12 11:45 AM The Train (1964) FRIDAY, March 13 7:45 AM Topper Takes a Trip (1939) 11:15 AM Woman in the Dunes (1964) 8:00 PM Field of Dreams (1989) SATURDAY, March 14 6:00 AM The Great Dictator (1940) SUNDAY, March 15 7:45 AM What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962) 3:30 PM Sunset Boulevard (1950) MONDAY, March 16 8:00 PM The King of Comedy (1982) 10:00 PM The Nutty Professor (1963) TUESDAY, March 17 5:30 PM Finian's Rainbow (1968) THURSDAY, March 19 4:00 AM Green Mansions (1959) SATURDAY, March 21 12:00 AM Cronos (1992) 3:30 AM Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975) 10:00 AM Tarzan's Savage Fury (1952) SUNDAY, March 22 1:45 PM Cabaret (1972) MONDAY, March 23 9:15 AM Kismet (1944) THURSDAY, March 26 2:15 PM Black Orpheus (1959) 8:00 PM Psycho (1960) SATURDAY, March 28 10:00 AM Tarzan and the She-Devil (1953) MONDAY, March 30 12:15 AM Nanook of the North (1922) 1:45 AM Moana: A Romance of the Golden Age (1926)
[-ecl]
Ray Harryhausen Films, Part 03 (film comments by Evelyn C. Leeper):
THE 3 WORLDS OF GULLIVER (1960): THE 3 WORLDS OF GULLIVER makes more use of Harryhausen's technique of combining multiple layers of action. In his stop-motion work, Harryhausen could put live action both behind and in front of his animation. Here it is used more to put different layers of live-action in such a way as to make the Lilliputians smaller than Gulliver, and the Brobdingnagians larger.
(Peter Jackson developed a slightly different technique, using forced perspective and split screens, to have hobbits and dwarves sharing the frame with men and elves.)
There is some stop-motion work, but this is a step down from 7TH VOYAGE OF SINBAD.
And while based on GULLIVER'S TRAVELS by Jonathan Swift, it uses only two of the four sections (the third world is our own), and removes anything unsuitable for a G-rated film(*). For example, in the film Gulliver puts out the fire in Brobdingnag by pouring a cask of wine(?) or beer(?) into his mouth and then spitting it onto the fire. (In the book, for those who haven't read it, Gulliver used the liquid *after* it had passed through his system. That makes more sense, because spitting an alcoholic beverage on a fire seems like a bad idea.)
(*) THE 3 WORLDS OF GULLIVER predates the rating system, but there still was the question of the Production Code and approval by the MPAA. Effectively, a film like this marketed as being a "family" film, could not include a lot of what was in the novel.
THE 3 WORLDS OF GULLIVER did continue a couple of signature elements that started in THE 7TH VOYAGE OF SINBAD: the score by Bernard Herrmann, the crayon drawings under the title credit sequence, the use of color, the dropping of an opening narration.
Released theatrically 16 December 1960.
Film Credits: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053882/reference
What others are saying: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/three_worlds_of_gulliver
THE MYSTERIOUS ISLAND (1961): This is loosely based on Jules Verne's MYSTERIOUS ISLAND. I say "loosely" because Verne's novel had no giant creatures and no women, while it did have a stranded convict (who appears in the film only as a skeleton and a diary).
I should note that this was one of my favorite books when I was in junior high (a.k.a. middle school), which was partly because it was one of the few books we owned. (However, we were heavy users of the libraries--school, town, and base.) I read and re-read it until it literally fell apart. (Another book I read and re-read was Franz Werfel's STAR OF THE UNBORN. My reading habits were peculiar, to say the least.)
Anyway, Schneer wanted to do the book because it was apparently the most requested book in bookstores, and I suppose the island setting brought to mind KING KONG and its creatures. That KING KONG was an influence can be assumed from the scene in which the sailors cross a log bridge: the bridge and its surroundings are almost an exact copy of a similar scene in KING KONG.
Ironically, the orangutan Jup from the novel is *not* a character in the film.
This film clearly places Nemo's adventures in Verne's TWENTY THOUSAND LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA before the American Civil War, yet that novel is quite explicitly set after the Civil War. Verne was very critical of Wells's "unscientific" science, yet his own chronology was sloppy (and some of his science equally spurious, such as firing a spaceship with passengers from a cannon, and having them survive).
In any case, the Nautilus in THE MYSTERIOUS ISLAND is clearly inspired by the Nautilus in Disney's 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA (1954).
Released theatrically 21 December 1961.
Film Credits: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055207/reference
What others are saying: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1014592-mysterious_island
[-ecl]
BATTLE OF THE BIG BANG: THE NEW TALES OF OUR COSMIC ORIGINS by Niayesh Afshordi and Phil Halper (book review by Gregory Frederick):
BATTLE OF THE BIG BANG is a 2025 popular-science exploration book of modern cosmology that examines some of the deepest questions in physics; not just what the Big Bang was, but whether it really was a singular beginning at all. Through historical context, interviews with leading scientists, and explanations of cutting-edge theories, authors Niayesh Afshordi and Phil Halper invite readers to confront the mysteries that lie at the edge of our understanding.
Currently most astronomers and cosmologists do not believe there was just an initial singularity which started the Big Bang off creating our Universe and that there was nothing before that event. They are creating theories which explore what may have happened before the Big Bang.
The book is praised for offering a comprehensive overview of many alternative cosmological theories from bouncing or cyclic universes to multiverse concepts and speculative ideas involving extra dimensions or black holes acting as cosmic seeds. This breadth gives readers a sense of just how unsettled and vibrant current debates about the universeís origins really are.
The authors Afshordi and Halper successfully convey the wonder and philosophical depth behind cosmology, helping readers appreciate not only the science but also the human curiosity driving it.
On the negative side; the book can feel overly dense or abstruse, especially for those without a strong background in physics. Some readers admitted that certain sections "went over their head," and that the flow of ideas could be overwhelming.
The book is an ambitious and thought-provoking work that challenges the reader to reconsider established cosmological narratives. It excels in breadth and intellectual curiosity, offering a panoramic view of where science currently stands on one of humanityís most profound questions. However, its density and occasionally uneven narrative pacing mean it will likely appeal most to readers who already have some interest in physics and cosmology or to those who are willing to grapple with complex ideas without shying away from technical detail. [-gf]
Orwell and Socialism (letter of comment by Gary McGath):
In response to Evelyn's comments on George Orwell's comments on socialism in the 02/20/26 issue of the MT VOID, Gary McGath writes:
[Evelyn wrote,] "Basically, Orwell is saying that we need contrast. Just as we don't appreciate health unless we have experienced illness, or satiety until we have known hunger, a life with no difficulties would not result in happiness. (Elements of this appear in the probably apocryphal early life of Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha). So Orwell concludes, '[The] real objective of Socialism is not happiness. Happiness has hitherto been a by-product, and for all we know it may always remain so. The real objective of Socialism is human brotherhood.'" [-ecl]
When socialism speaks of human brotherhood, it means the treatment of people as units in a mass. It's presented as "Share equally with your brothers," as if all of society were a gigantic family. Family relations, of course, don't scale up into the millions. All these brothers have to be directed. Perhaps by a family council? But that too would be impossible in practice; people don't have the time or knowledge to make decisions for everybody. So a ruler or ruling class is inevitable. It doesn't have the knowledge either, but it has the power. People have lots of different ideas about what's best for the "family," most of them having a lot to do with their particular interests. Inevitably, the "brothers" have to do what those in power tell them to. At best, it's clumsy and inefficient. More often, average people find themselves with little control over their lives. And not much happiness. [-gmg]
Evelyn adds:
Not only do family relations not scale up into the millions, but even on the small scale they are often not ideal. When Tolstoy said, "All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way," he clearly recognized the existence of unhappy families. [-ecl]
Smear Campaigns (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper):
I am watching "Great Presidents" from Great Courses, which was made in 2000, and in talking about the campaign of 1800, the professor read some of the things people wrote and said about Jefferson, such as:
"Should the infidel Jefferson be elected, the seal of death is that moment set on our holy religion."
and
"Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, and the soil will be soaked with blood and the nation black with crime."
And then the professor said, "Imagine anyone, even the most negative politician today, resorting to that kind of smear and that kind of hyperbole."
"Imagine"? Does the phrase "eating the pets" ring a bell? [-ecl]
This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper):
PROOF: THE ART OF SCIENCE OF CERTAINTY by Adam Kucharski (Basic Books, ISBN 978-1-5416-0669-2) is so annoying at times I wanted to throw it across the room.
On page 13, for example, he writes, "Euclid also specified self-evident axioms that needed no proof, such as "the whole is greater than its part." I immediately thought of infinite sets, and sure enough, on page 45 Kucharski writes, "According to Cantor ... there are as many positive whole numbers as positive even numbers. The whole, in other words, is not always larger than the part." And on page 47 he introducing the Banach-Tarski Theorem, which showed that the whole could be *smaller* than the part.
But on page 13, he didn't say "Euclid also specified *what he thought* were self-evident axioms that needed no proof, such as "the whole is greater than its part" (emphasis mine). No, Kucharski himself was calling this axiom self-evident. This makes him, I think, the equivalent of an unreliable narrator.
And then, on page 63, he completely departs from our world into an alternate universe when he claims that in 1969 the Constitution was amended to prevent such laws as the World War I Sedition Act of 1918. In our universe, the Constitution was not amended at all in 1969, and none of the amendments after World War I have anything to do with free speech. There was a Supreme Court decision in 1969 (Brandenburg v. Ohio) that ruled such laws unconstitutional, but that is not the same thing as amending the Constitution.
Is Kucharski's goal to demonstrate that someone saying something doesn't constitute truth, or even evidence? [-ecl]
Evelyn C. Leeper
evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com
Quote of the Week:
God was able to create the world in only seven days
because he had no installed base to consider.
--Andy Finkel
Go to our home page