One of the most hilarious films I've seen in a long time. Sure, the effects were good, but they weren't making me believe I saw the insides of a person. All those soap bubbles and slimy antibodies!
shareteen's stupidity, thats Hilarious !!
shareis this the movie with the stupid scene about the crew getting sterilized to go inside the guy, they made a smart remark or joke about having all their hair removed (ha ha pubic hair),
yet they all still had the hair on their head!
[deleted]
[deleted]
that's a stupid statement to make!!
I'm watching the movie right now, and they just had the sterilization scene.
However, this one was just walking through a corridor. You're right that the fried pubes scene was Andromeda Strain.
No, no - Pillage first, then burn! Stupid Vikings...
altpensacola: "...being 7 at the time I guess I didn't catch how they got to keep their hair in (The Andromeda Strain), So I wouldn't mind if you would explain it. I might be old enough now to understand it."
That question is ancient history, but nobody ever answered it so I'll answer it now for posterity.
The scientists in The Andromeda Strain wore mesh helmets to protect their scalp and facial hair while the rest of their bodies were zapped by the decontamination apparatus. They obviously weren't happy about it.
As for the other question about how the crew in Fantastic Voyage breathed un-miniaturized air, in Asimov's novelization, he explained that the Proteus' snorkel system had a small miniaturizer in it.
Also, Asimov went into rather great depth about how miniaturization was accomplished. If I recall correctly, I believe it was an extra-dimensional effect, in some ways as though the subjects had been "moved away" from normal space in an odd direction, and their reduced size and mass were akin to a trick of perspective. But, the bubble of distorted space/time around them was only stable for a short time. When it collapsed, they returned to normal size.
Scientific gobbledygook of course, but pretty clever scientific gobbledygook.
It most certainly is the movie with the silly sterilization joke. As they are going into the sterilization room (as in hygiene) Stephen Boyd makes some snide remark about what he does for his country.
shareI found the only ludicrous things in this movie were Raquel Welch (her costume, her acting and her function as the female that male chauvinists don't want around) and Arthur Kennedy's pseudo-profundities. The story and effects are excellent; and Donald Pleasance gives a very good performance.
... J. Spurlin
"I found the only ludicrous things in this movie were Raquel Welch (her costume, her acting and her function as the female that male chauvinists don't want around)"
True, she should have been in a bikini for the whole movie; after all, it would make life easy if she decided to go for a swim outside.
I say we remove the bikini -- with our teeth -- and then replace it with all those antibodies, or whatever they were. That way, when the rest of the crew frantically removes them, we'll get a kind of impromptu striptease.
I should have written the script. I would have added a joke that no one could be anti-body when Raquel Welch is around. It wouldn't have been funny, but the movie is serious science-fiction anyway. Jokes spoil the mood when people are swimming around in someone's innards.
... J. Spurlin
This film really signaled the start of the modern special effects film. Even though most of it is mechanical, it was in 2001 and Star Wars also.
shareI know this was a popular movie to watch while getting high on drugs.
shareClearly the IQ's in America's teens have dropped. Stop with the idiotic statements.
The film has held up surprisingly well considering it's 41 years old. Of course the question that always bugged me as a kid was how they could breathe the air they gather from the old man's lungs when IT hasn't been miniaturized. As Hitch always said...its only a movie.
I'll pay you the compliment that as a kid this is a pretty thoughtful question. Anyway, Asimov addressed that exact problem in the preface to his book, as well as others, such as "wouldn't a submarine crushed by white blood cells still return from shrinkage, and kill the hell out of the patient"? As well as squash the operating table, and smash the doctors and nurses (that clumsy one who dropped the scissors deserves it) against the walls? In the book they got it the heck out of the poor guy and it unshrunk to a mass of twisted shards and pieces.
The remake by Emmerich might be fun. 2010? That's a long time even by today's moviemaking standards.
[deleted]
Oh yeah, an interesting thought - but Asimov wrote the adaptation [after] the movie came out and "fixed" several problems, like that one. But he wrote that some things never really are clear, like do you shrink the size of the atoms/molecules, or just remove some of them? and could miniature people breathe the same air as big people, be able to absorb the "huge" oxy molecules? Not likely...
share> "But he wrote that some things never really are clear, like do you shrink the size of the atoms/molecules, or just remove some of them? and could miniature people breathe the same air as big people, be able to absorb the "huge" oxy molecules?"
Both of those questions are addressed in the book. When the agent arrives at the CMDF (after imagining several interpretations for the initials: "Combined Martian Dimwits and Fools"), he says that he was taught in school that miniaturization is impossible, because there are only two ways to achieve it: either remove enough molecules to reduce an object in size, or compress it. Removing enough matter to make a human the size of a mouse would leave the human with less brain than a mouse, and a human compressed from human to mouse size would be too dense to move (as well as dead). He's told that the US is in an arms race with its adversaries to develop miniaturization (an interesting harbinger of nanotechnology) and the proof that miniaturization is impossible was deliberately disseminated disinformation. Miniaturization is possible and is done using something analogous to the photographic reduction process. (As mentioned above, this explanation is no more useful than calling the process "magic", but it uses sciencey-sounding words).
As for the air: first, it's a submarine, so they have air on board that's miniaturized along with the craft. When they need to replenish their air supply from the lungs, they miniaturize the air as they pull it in. To get air faster, they even extend the miniaturization field into the room.
Some other questions are not addressed, such as how they can see with miniaturized eyes.
When the agent arrives at the CMDF (after imagining several interpretations for the initials: "Combined Martian Dimwits and Fools") . . .
In the movie, Grant (Stephen Boyd) suggests that CMDF might stand for Consolidated Mobilization of Delinquent Females, which I think is funnier.
And in movies and TV shows, why do the headquarters of top-secret organizations always have their logos plastered all over the walls, the furniture, the equipment, and the top-secret uniforms?
All the universe . . . or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?
First of all where are is all the called male chauvinism exactly?
And in movies and TV shows, why do the headquarters of top-secret organizations always have their logos plastered all over the walls, the furniture, the equipment, and the top-secret uniforms?
First of all where are is all the called male chauvinism exactly?
In the movie, Col. Reid (Arthur O'Connell) objects to Dr. Duval (Arthur Kennedy) taking his assistant Cora along on the mission. "A woman has no place on a mission of this kind," he grumbles. Apparently he believes in keeping 'em barefoot and pregnant.
All the universe . . . or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?
lol That's not much male chauvinism if it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TzcANOHiDo
so what was Asimov's explanation for how they were able to breathe unminiturised air ?
sharebeestoneg, I think somebody else already mentioned it, but in Asimov's novelization, they're able to extend their miniaturization field through their snorkle and miniaturize the air molecules they're pulling in. Silly, maybe, but he had to do something.
It was already a silly contrived plot device to have the sub experience a critical loss of air just as they're going through a lung.
But the overwhelming problem with the movie is that they should be exploding the patient at the 60 minute mark, when the miniaturized saline solution they injected into him expands back to its original volume of several gallons. (Not to mention the fact that they left a 30-foot submarine inside him.)
"The truth 24 times a second."
"But the overwhelming problem with the movie is that they should be exploding the patient at the 60 minute mark, when the miniaturized saline solution they injected into him expands back to its original volume of several gallons."
They should have added a bit of exposition to explain: either the miniaturized water molecules are so small that they diffuse out of the body before the 60-minute mark, or before the miniaturization process, they made the water bigger, so that after miniaturization, it was just regular water. (The book mentions that the process works in both directions: they had blown up an ant to the size of a locomotive for study. Would have made E.O. Wilson's dissections a whole lot easier.)
It also seems unnecessarily convenient that the maximum time just happens to be 60 minutes, rather than 57 minutes or 71 minutes. (As it turned out, 60 minutes was a conservative estimate anyway.)
This is one of my favorite movies and one which I can continually re-watch. Some of the comments on this thread amaze me. Some seem to condemn the movie because it does not have 21st century state-of-the-art effects. Guys...the movie is 40 years old! As for the actors, there were top names in this flick. Stephen Boyd was a prominent leading man, especially in the late 50s and early 60s. Others, with the exception of Raquel Welch, were well-respected. It is true that there is not a lot of character development but this is an action flick and a jolly good one at that.
Those commenting on the male chauvinism in the movie betray the shallowness of their own thought. The movie was made in a time when women's liberation was just beginning in full force. The conflict was between traditional and liberated views of women's roles. The movie deals with that conflict and Arthur O'Connell's statement was used as a foil for the movie's assertion that a woman should be able to serve in non-traditional roles. Admittedly, this flick is action fare and not social commentary but it effectively deals with this subject. Sadly, Raquel Welch was chosen for visual appeal, not her acting ability.
Overall, a very good movie that still holds up well today.
I think it's ridiculous and totally redundant to point out the mistakes and errors in a movie like this - it's a 'what if?' scenario, something that is physically impossible to do, to shrink people and insert them into a human body.
If the central conceit bothers you then don't watch the movie, it's that simple.
But if like me and a lot of other people, if you can accept it as fantasy and just go with it it's very enjoyable.
Hear! Hear!
"Just scratching around for something to believe in. Something to believe in..."
-Aqualung
I think it's ridiculous and totally redundant to point out the mistakes and errors in a movie like this - it's a 'what if?' scenario, something that is physically impossible to do, to shrink people and insert them into a human body.
If the central conceit bothers you then don't watch the movie, it's that simple.
But if like me and a lot of other people, if you can accept it as fantasy and just go with it it's very enjoyable.
I enjoy older films often, but I must admit I was disappointed in the special effects until about half way through the film.
Those lava lamp wax blood cells were pretty lame.
But I enjoyed the ear, the lungs and the heart valve, and the brain was acceptable, too.
I also liked the white blood cells swallowing the conspirator's head.
.. The magnification of the crew in a tear duct was pretty terrible though. Water does not behave that way at that size. Judging by the general level of special effects in the rest of the film, I'd say they could have figured something out.. like maybe just imposing film of the actors onto a tear for example.. would have been effective. Or if that would have looked too hokey, how about having the actors rolling around on top of a large transparent water filled sack of some sort..
Anyway, I enjoyed the movie. If there's one thing I'm most disappointed in, it's that there are virtually no other movies like this to my knowledge.
[deleted]
[deleted]