 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gentlemen, how 'bout you agree to disagree and move on. The thread has become a two-man tennis match, and unless there is a prize for winning the debate, I don't see anything positive coming from the argument. Thanks.
DSS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 23, 2011 - 4:02 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ebab
(Member)
|
So what are we to make of THIS artwork? Is Robby gonna fire up his vibrating attachments with Altaira?
I will actually try to give you an honest answer here (in the certainty that it’ll be wasted like everything else).
When I was trying to find movie posters in the Internet with that particular pose – hero carrying helplessly attractive victim – I found some, but I found that another combination was way more common, that of the monster/vampire/pervert carrying the helplessly attractive victim. There is a nice blog on the subject here: http://my-retrospace.blogspot.com/2009/10/monsters-really-like-carrying-chicks_07.html, and an even more … niche-oriented site here: http://lordcarry3.tripod.com/index.html, which have tons of examples, from decades of films, pulps also. Obviously, this was a rather consistently successful subject, or image.
So I believe potential movie-goers were pretty much familiar with the hero-carrying-victim image, but even more familiar with the sick-monster-carrying-victim image. What did they make of Robby carrying that voluptuous blonde? He doesn’t look very frightening, he doesn’t look sexual, but he doesn’t really look like a hero either. He is tall though, and does look strong, and black … but the gadgets in his head are really goofy. Still, how would it work …?
And Charles, you can say “sick” as much you like (I know, all your own phantasies carry G rating), but this is how movie tickets are sold. This poster makes people wonder, and that’s already half the admission. It's a play with expectations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Pulliam said:
This thread has been befouled by the most inane stubborness I've had the displeasure of witnessing in my lifetime.
And you are not one of the stubborns?
Geez, give me a break. And open your eyes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've got one person on ignore (from way back) but now there's another that's been added on this list as he seems to have issues that go far beyond anyone pointing out that a favorite and cherished film he saw in his childhood has homoerotic themes. It's gotten too ridiculous actually. He said, initially, 'stop forcing this stuff on us'. And what does he do, he comes back again and again and again. He protests too much [/]. It's very strange.
I think his greatest fear will be that sometime, in the near future when no one is around he'll see 'Robinson Crusoe on Mars' again. And something unseemly could (omg) happen to him. He'll know.
This thread has unfortunately run it's course and those of you who answered in intellegent and truthfull manners, thank you.
Intellegent? Nah, but...ah hell, why not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello all! I haven't been following this thread, so forgive me if it has been mentioned before, but I remember reading in an old issue of Starlog or something that the tilte "Robinson Crusoe on Mars" was actually chosen as an in-joke by director Byron Haskin's grandmother. Of Scottish descent, she suggested the title in full awareness that when the Scots talked about the upcoming movie, they'd unwittingly speak in a thick brogue about "Robin's Son Cruisin' M'arse", which, when said quickly, actually was quite subversive in Glasgow in 1964. Some people ended up in prison for saying it, and to this day they don't know why.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think this thread has outlived its value and degenerated into the muck. For the record, the creator of the thread is cool with closing it. Thanks for playing.
DSS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
