Comparison of the Three PAs


Jun 12, 2004
2,131
0
106
Hey Jim et al,

I read your back posts on this and was curious about your comparison of the three versions. Which one is your favorite, or preferable, and why?

Just for the sake of clarity, a few of my thoughts are below. I'm short on time, so I'm going to share general impressions and stay away from a lot of the specifics.

Here goes . . .

I don't care what anyone says--I still like the original best! Why? Because it's all about the characters. To me, that's the most important thing. These characters are passionate, distinct, ALIVE. The original was driven by everyone, even the whiney brat. I can relate to them for their everyday regularities as well as their freshness. Not only the characters, however, but the conflict of ideologies, which carries the entire movie. The entire picture revolves around this conflict--fighting for oneself opposed to relying on others (in this case, authority. Yes, some of those who sided with the purser got out through the bow in the book, which I didn't finish reading, but the movie got away with that and made it much more simple). This conflict gave the movie powerful meaning and purpose that screamed out: "This is why this movie was made, why it had to be made!"

The 2006 movie, Poseidon, loses both the ideology and the solid characters. All we get at the beginning is a glance at Josh Lucas, then Richard Dreyfuss . . . and then the tip-over (right on cue, as if to say "let's get on with it"), and the heart-pounding race is on. We don't have a chance to really get to know the characters, and because of that, I couldn't care for them because they all seem like flitting images on a screen. I wasn't even affected when Kevin Dillon got slammed in the face by the ship's engine, which, by the way, I expected. The one redeeming quality about this movie (which, I presume, was intended) was its special effects. This version seems like nothing more than to show off new and innovative CGI--which it does well--but because the characters are underdeveloped (if at all), the whole thing loses solidity and strength.

As for the other remake, with Rutger Hauer and Adam Baldwin, this, too, was nothing more than an effort that only seemed like an effort. First, this felt like a desperate attempt to copy the original--nothing really new, just modernized--and there isn't really anything unexpected (I knew someone was going to buy it in the vertical chasm, and I knew that one of the women was going to fall while crossing the bridge near the end in Linda Rogo fashion). Even many of the names, though switch around as if trying feebly to play off the same characters from the progenitor, weakened it and made it even comical (Come on--Captain Paul Gallico???). What got my knee jerking, too, was the fact that there were waaaaaaaaay too many characters; the movie was too complicated because it got me jumping back and forth from the one dining room to a stairwell to someone's bedroom, back to the dining room to some computerized station God-knows-where, back to another hallway aboard the ship . . . Instead of sticking to one fluid plot line, the progression was choppy and involved too many elements. Keep it simple, which is, as I've said, why I like the 1972 release the best.

One note on the music: I am damn glad that The Morning After wasn't reapplied to the new versions. That song belongs to the original and it should stay that way, as the other two songs belonged to their respective movies. Each song helped to create its own movie's distinctive spirit. Crossing over music from one movie to another--even for the sake of forming connections--is like writing a song especially for one woman and then giving it to another. Each woman should have her own special song, and so should each movie.
 

Jim Kalafus

Member
Dec 3, 2000
6,114
15
198
POSEIDON MISADVENTURES: Well, Mark, since you asked
happy.gif


There are "good" bad movies and there are "bad" bad movies. Posedon 2 and 3 are the latter, the 1972 film the former.

The two contemporary films were, frankly, dull, and in either case I found myself thinking "what's the point of this?" VERY soon after the opening credits rolled.

Much of this is the fault of scriptwriters who seem to have forgotten the concept of 'pacing' these last few decades. Scenes are often MUCH shorter now than they were 30 years ago, much more 'visual stimulation' is given via frenetic onscreen action and FX, yet storylines seem to take forever to get rolling. Scenes do not flow together in a way that advances the film, and quite frequently so much time is invested in FX scenes that endings suddenly rush at one with all the subtle charm of a Mako to keep the film at, or under, two hours.

But the chief culprits to me are unappealing, interchangeable, stars.

Poseidons 2 and 3 offered a surfeit of all of the above.

Now, the original film is "good" bad in that one can spend hours discussing its various inane plot twists, odd dialogue points, continuity errors, weird characters, and oddly composed shots. YET, since it dates from a time when 'pacing' was still understood, it flows better than most vintage 2006/7 movies, and its two hours SEEM like two hours and not 17 or 18.

The cast, with the exceptions of Martin and Shea and possibly Hackman, were all products of the Studio System. They all had a good grasp on blending presentational and naturalistic acting styles, and could alternate between both and keep a scene moving in ways that today's blanket reliance on the latter does not allow for. It is fun, but not embarrassing, to watch good actors breathing life into bad dialogue and idiotic characters. It is NOT fun, and VERY embarrassing, to watch bad actors working with awful dialogue and inane characters. Which is why...uh...Speed, no less Speed2, is now a forgotten film while Poseidon retains enough of a cult following to warrant periodic theatrical screenings. Is there ANY actress alive today under the age of 40 who could take the line "I know what do do with suppositories....now get them the hell outta here!" and miraculously make it 'work?' Honestly, I can't think of a single one other than, perhaps, Kim Catrall who...come to think of it...would be a DIFFERENT Linda Rogo than Stella, but not an awful one.

I've seen the 1972 film probably 100 times, and will from time to time use it as entertainment on cross country drives. It remains fun. The other two have literally nothing going for them and, I believe, I no longer have them on tape.
 
K

Kyle Johnstone

Guest
I'll generalize the generalities:

TV Poseidon: crap
2006: crap
1972: classic
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
418
283
Easley South Carolina
I never saw the 2007 version so I'll suspend judgement on that. I did see the 2006 version in a few pieces and switched away to something else in short order. There just wasn't anything compelling about it that made it worth two hours worth of my life.

I saw the whole of the 1972 version. Say what you will about Irwin Allen but like a trainwreck, this was something I couldn't take my eyes off of.
 
Feb 14, 2011
2,447
4
68
"I'll generalize the generalities:

TV Poseidon: crap
2006: crap
1972: classic"



I couldn't have said it better.....
 
Feb 14, 2011
2,447
4
68
"Much of this is the fault of scriptwriters who seem to have forgotten the concept of 'pacing' these last few decades. Scenes are often MUCH shorter now than they were 30 years ago, much more 'visual stimulation' is given via frenetic onscreen action and FX, yet storylines seem to take forever to get rolling. "




This is so true- I recently watched the 1968 classic sci fi movie '2001 A Space Odyssey' with a friend, and he complained the scenes were too long....I think everything today comes in short soundbites, including scenes in modern films- it's as if society as a whole has developed ADD....
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
0
106
Jim -

quote:

storylines seem to take forever to get rolling. Scenes do not flow together in a way that advances the film, and quite frequently so much time is invested in FX scenes that endings suddenly rush at one with all the subtle charm of a Mako to keep the film at, or under, two hours.
Yes, but I will argue that, in general, more current movies, like music, are being created with longer duration, and I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. Movies that drag on and on like a migraine that won't go away are by far too long (or inadequately paced to seem like it), BUT movies that seem to end as soon as they begin have no substance and lack that enjoyable factor. Stretch the movie out, put more into it and extend it so we can spend more time enjoying it. This might be why so many movies have broken past the two-hour barrier. I can foresee three hours eventually becoming a typical time limit for a movie.

Case in point: The English Patient. This movie carried on, but it didn't drag on. If it had been any shorter, I probably wouldn't have enjoyed it as much.


quote:

bad dialogue and idiotic characters
Care to elaborate on this? I'm curious to know what makes you think that these original characters were idiotic and the dialogue tripe. Yes, I won't argue that much of it seemed hyperbolic and overly melodramatic to the point of extending to some extent from realism, but you can't deny that these actors did an exceptional job with it. Talented is the performer who can turn something questionable into something to maintain one's attention. Even you admitted to having seen the thing at least 100 times (about the same number of times that I viewed Star Wars when I was younger).

quote:

Speed, no less Speed2, is now a forgotten film
No argument from me! Although Planet of the Apes is another matter for a different discussion.


Mike -

quote:

I saw the whole of the 1972 version. Say what you will about Irwin Allen but like a trainwreck, this was something I couldn't take my eyes off of.
This seems to be the consensus, but for different reasons for each person, hehe. This version has so much to like and dislike for an infinite number of reasons.​
 
K

Kyle Johnstone

Guest
I think the "Epic" film will continue to be rare, especially ones that are hits. And then the subjects tend to be "serious", leaving out the golden demographic of 18-35 or whatever.

For one reason, how many filmmakers can pull it off?
That is, a two-hour-plus film that people want to sit through?

Sir David Lean was the Master of the Epic Film Hit:
A Passage to India - 2hours 43 minutes
Doctor Zhivago - 3hrs 17m
Lawrence of Arabia 3hrs 36m
Bridge of the River Kwai 2hrs 43m
Ryan's Daughter 3hrs 15m

Other epic hits were

Gone With the Wind 3hrs 46m
Ben Hur 3hrs 22m
Ten Commandments 3hours 40m

Musicals:
Westside Story 2hrs. 32m
Hello Dolly 2hrs 26m
Fiddler on the Roof 3hrs 1m
My Fare Lady 2hrs 50m

In modern times:
Dances With Wolves 3 - 3hrs 56m
"T" 3hrs. 14m.
Apocalypse Now 2hrs 33m - 3hrs 22m

Scorcese could with
Casino 2hrs 58 min
Goodfellas 2hrs 25m
and sometimes he couldn't (Gangs of New York, The Aviator)

And Coppola with the Godfather Trilogy
at 2hrs 55m, 3hrs 20m, and 2hrs 42m

And the funniest comedy epic
It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World 3hrs 12m

There are more of course...

remember when these long films had an Intermission? I love it when they still do, when screened in a revival cinema.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
418
283
Easley South Carolina
>>Although Planet of the Apes is another matter for a different discussion.<<

Which one? I kind of liked the 1968 version. The problem I have with both is that niether were faithful to the book written by Pierre Boulle. (I've read it.)

>>This seems to be the consensus, but for different reasons for each person, hehe. This version has so much to like and dislike for an infinite number of reasons.<<

Maybe I should have suffered sat through the whole thing. The problem here is that there was just nothing about it which grabbed on and held on, and there was better programming to be seen.
 

Jim Kalafus

Member
Dec 3, 2000
6,114
15
198
>>bad dialogue and idiotic characters

>Care to elaborate on this?

But, of course!

Let me begin by reiterating that A) I love the 1972 film and B) part of its weird appeal comes from watching a mostly A-list cast struggling with Ed Wood quality dialogue. The actors are good enough- mostly- to make one not notice just how bad most of the dialogue truly is...but imagine this exchange from the film delivered by Ed Wood's stock players, and not a pair of old pros:

"Goooood MOOOOORning! Don't fall OOOOOver!"
"That Martin. He's crazy."
"He's lonely. That's why he runs. I like him."
"You like him because he runs on time like a train. You and trains."
"When in my life have I ever run for a train?"
"Who cried for a week when they tore down the Third Avenue El? Hmmm...yeah..."

Ed Woodian free-association and, really, an amazing rambling waste of at least a minute's screen time~ cutting to the dialogue about Israel, the guided tour, the three year old grandson they've never seen, etc, would strengthen the composition (or at least tighten it) but the non-sequitur is so endearing as delivered that, really, who cares?

Both of Linda and Mike's cabin scenes would be EXCRUCIATING if performed by B-Listers:

"Mike- I saw a young officer on deck today. And he looked PRET-ty damned familiar! Even with his clothes on!"

is an awful line that only a skilled actress could possibly make work. Stella Stevens had a hot bod and could deliver dialogue believably. If you heard those words coming out of a hot bod who COULDN'T deliver dialogue you'd groan out loud!

ONLY THE MEEK SURVIVE: Surely you've noticed the leitmotif of Irwin Allen films: 99% of the women look like Playboy After Dark extras (Check out the amazing run of hot women in the Poseidon dining room)or Stately Country Club matrons, while the men range from only passable to downright unappealing. And only the hot but gormless babes survive. If Irwin dresses a woman in a pink men's shirt with white cotton panties it is a guarantee that A) she is a 'bad girl' and B) will fall to her death into a pit of fire. (Linda in the Poseidon Adventure and Susan Flannery in Towering Inferno come to mind). If a woman is courageous and effects a rescue that a MALE hero should effect, she invariably dies a horrible death for doing so (The Poseidon Adventure's Belle, and Inferno's Lisolette come to mind). If a woman seems slightly brain damaged, cries a lot, clings to a middle aged man, and has a nice backside, it almost GUARANTEES that she will survive to the end credits:

"Nonnie....your brother is dead..."
"Did you like his music?"

How about Susan's coma in the dining room, where the only hot guy in the entire cast asks her to dance and she sits there wearing a blank expression which suggests that a demon only she can see is whispering to her of atrocities?

A touch of the eerie- have you noticed that when the Doctor leads his ill fated caravan of doomed to die extras away, as soon as they begin walking Sharon Tate, dead three years at that point, passes by in the foreground? Cultists refer to this unnamed bit player as Sharon Tate Zombie Woman. Really.

I love the Cousin Itt pile of hair that can be seen sitting at the Rogo's table in longshots. A bit player with too much hair, worn long, she looks exactly like Itt sporting a party hat.

Another favorite idiocy is the endless supply of neckwear that pop's from Belle's cleavage. She wears the short strand of pearls she hands over to Manny early on, but during her first post-capsize 'big moment' she appears to be doing the Jewish equivalent of Telling her Beads on a second necklace, and then gives Manny a medallion that appears to be a Hebrew symbol to hand over to her grandchild (which MAY be the same object she was praying over) all of which perfectly offsets the SWIMMING MEDALLION she wore on formal night. Makes one wonder what else she had concealed, does it not?

Robin. So all American boy. So pert. So perfect a mate for Tammi Marihugh. In the book he dies but, of course, we are not given that cathartic experience as viewers.

"Aft sir, by the propeller shafts. Nowhere is the steel hull thinner."

We laugh a lot at the questionable friendship between Robin and Charlie the Third Engineer who, (it is revealed in Robin's big cabin scene) has offered to show him the shaft. BTW...when Robin says "Shove it shove it shove it" to Susan, switch your dialogue track over to French- he says "Foutre foutre foutre" which does NOT mean 'Shove it!'

"You...you'd fancy bagpipes!"

Ever notice that Nonnie falls out of her vest? She is wearing it when she topples over the amp, but it is gone when she is crawling across the floor saying "Teddy?....Teddy?" Nonnie lovingly stroking her brother's head during the Morning After rehearsal is a creepy visual.

"I...can't...swim..."

A disturbing interlude is the sequence in which a reverend urges a priest to abandon his flock and do the selfish thing. Missing the entire point of what a priest DOES but, hell, it was 1972 an questioning rules was au courant thinking...

Amusing is the framing of the "alarm button shot" in which, just in case we missed the point, the cinematographer has positioned Stella Stevens' massive breasts to act as induicators directing one's eye RIGHT to the flashing button.

At least ONE shot in the capsize was created by mounting a camera sideways at shoulder level and having extras 'run' past it waving their arms in the air. With the film properly oriented, they fall from top screen to bottom. During a down moment at work as a teen, we replicated this sequence by laying a camcorder on it side...etc...causing the video store I managed to appear in mid-capsize when the tape was played....

122583.jpg


A cherished Christmas Gift from ET's own Kyle, which warranted clearing an entire wall in my dining room of other artwork so it 'displayed' properly. But, I digress...

Okay- expalin this. The Rogos en route to Venezia, Napoli, Roma and don't forget about Torino. The Rosens en route to Israel. Nonnie and the Nonettes en route to a jazz festival in Sicily. Reverend Scott en route to "darkest Africa" on a ship due at the scrapyard in Greece first thing Monday morning. WHY are any of these people aboard the Poseidon?
happy.gif


Why is the hottest woman in the film allowed to die? The babe in blue who sits next to Reverend Scott is a one-in-a-million gorgeous woman. A quintillion times better looking than...oh...Susan or Nonnie. Just as eye candy she should have been kept around longer.

"I need a monkey. Are you gay?"

Yes, yes, I KNOW he says "Game." But he drops the "m" just enough to make it register more like "gay." Directed as it is at Robin, the question seems doubly odd.

"Where do you think I been? Flying around on my ass!"

I could go on, but the hour grows late and I must retreat to the dining room and be served a late dinner in regal isolation under Stella's watchful gaze.

I really do love the film and use it as the PERFECT example of how a first rate ensemble cast can salvage even the worst of dialogue.
 

John Clifford

Member
Mar 30, 1997
1,691
0
166
57
Of course, the real classic lines I always think about: would never work for many an actor and actress today:

REV SCOTT: "Excuse me for getting so familiar"
BELLE: "What else can you do?? Mrs. Peter Pan I'm not"

also

ROBIN: "I'm sorry, Mrs. Rosen. I didn't mean to say you weigh 300 pounds"
BELLE: "With everything happening here, that's what you're worried about??"

and

BELLE: "If anyone makes it out, I hope it's those children"
(even as some of us wouldn't mind Robin perishing)
Yes, that is my evil side at work.

And for the absolutely ludicrous "Why is it in this film???" scene: the upside down barbershop and the "snip, snip, snip" statements from Mr. Martin and Nonnie. Couldn't there have been a better way of showing affecting between the two??


Yes, Jim, I apologize if "these reminders make your stomach turn worse than the Poseidon capsizing".
grin.gif
 

Jim Kalafus

Member
Dec 3, 2000
6,114
15
198
>the upside down barbershop and the "snip, snip, snip" statements from Mr. Martin and Nonnie. Couldn't there have been a better way of showing affecting between the two??

WEEllll...glad you asked. In the book, Nonnie is a tough little English 'tart' as Linda calls her. She falls for Hubie the Playboy who has never known love before. The book points out that Nonnie's armpits are 'oniony' from terror. A nice touch. ANYWAY, Nonnie and Hubie find not the barber shop, but the storeroom where all of the tea cakes and snax are stashed. They have piled up on the floor, and Nonnie and Hubie burrow into them and lay there eating junkfood. If THAT is not an odd enough mental image, well...uhhhh...soon they are going away at it like rabbits.

LATER, after Robin dies and Susan get raped by Herbert The Cute Crewman with whom she falls in love only to lose him when he panics and falls into a hole, the characters find themselves in the engineroom. Surrounded by dismembered bodies that Gallico describes in remarkable detail. Scott turns off the flashlights and suggests a nap, during the course of which linda goes for his crotch and gets slapped down AND Nonnie and Hubie end up going at it like rabbits.

>Couldn't there have been a better way of showing affecting between the two??

No, my friend, but it could have been worse!
happy.gif
 

Jim Kalafus

Member
Dec 3, 2000
6,114
15
198
"That green pill- it's very attractive. What it it?"
"It's Imodium, Mrs. Rosen."


Personally, I LOVE that maddest of Mambos Terry does when Susan snaps out of her trance and agrees to dance with him. But, the "What happened to the bone in my neck?" modified Hitchhike Susan does is pretty funky, too. They truly WERE made for one another. Disappointment loomed, however, when they returned to Susan's stateroom only to discover that Robin's date with Charlie the Third Engineer had broken up early (after the whole discussion about knowing the difference between two inches and one inch~ later to be put to good use in the dining room~ had come up) and he was already home.

Watch the widescreen version. During Auld Lang Syne, take note of what happens when Jack Albertson kisses the gorgeous woman next to him. The reaction is so bizarre that if you dubbed the voice of Mercedes McCambridge as "Pazuzu" in The Exorcist spewing something abusive, it would seem appropriate. To be blunt, it's either demonic possession or the 'shrooms suddenly kicking in. Either way, it highlights the dangers inherent in letting Jack Albertson kiss you.

After hearing Robin use the term 'Sis' about 80 times in the dining room sequence, my friend and I ~ after discussing how inane a term 'Sis' is~ began referring to his sister as 'Sis' (which she loved, I am sure) and close to 20 years later still do.
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
0
106
quote:

We laugh a lot at the questionable friendship between Robin and Charlie the Third Engineer who, (it is revealed in Robin's big cabin scene) has offered to show him the shaft. BTW...when Robin says "Shove it shove it shove it" to Susan, switch your dialogue track over to French- he says "Foutre foutre foutre" which does NOT mean 'Shove it!'
Umm, I can't help but wonder if this "relationship" was developed more in the book. I'd dread to wonder if there really was a double entendre.

The French just might have been designed to add a new if subtle dimension to this oh-so curious "shaft" we've heard about.

From what I've heard, [that natural act]* is an ongoing activity throughout the book. That's why I probably wouldn't be at all surprised to learn about any shockers related to good ol' Charlie the Third Engineer. ;)

Well, we can see what Gallico had on his mind when he wrote this, LOL. Hey, do you suppose the inclusion of [that natural act]* (if allowed at the time) would likely have affected the movie's quality? Heaven knows its certainly would have been more popular.


*Sorry, have to be careful on this PG board. ;)
 
Feb 4, 2007
1,646
3
108
40
Denver, Colorado, United States
quote:

do you suppose the inclusion of sex (if allowed at the time) would likely have affected the movie's quality? Heaven knows its certainly would have been more popular.
Well, I think that the inclusion of sexual activity would DEFINITELY have affected the quality of the film ~ and (plot of the actual book aside) probably for the worse. I feel that the inclusion of gratuitous sex for the sake of "getting a rise" out of the audience is ugly and distasteful. That is not to say that I think all sex in films is distasteful, just that there are times when it becomes an integral or natural part of the story but most times it is not.

Would a sex scene in PA make the film more popular to an average film audience? Well, unfortunately, probably yes. And it also probably wouldn't matter if it was a sex scene from the book or something newly created. Sex sells, but a real film critic/buff can see right through it and decipher whether it was included for the $$ or included as an actual, meaningful plot device.

Just my 2 cents.​
 

Jim Kalafus

Member
Dec 3, 2000
6,114
15
198
Regarding the book~ while Nonnie was paired off with Hubie The Heartless Playboy, Mr. Martin was a meek habedasher from Illinois with a crippled wife (arthritis)who took the long cruise for obscure reasons. ANYWAY, onboard the Poseidon was a hot rich widow named Wilma Lewis who all the men were agog over, and who had taken the voyage for the express purpose of finding Hot Cheap Casual Sex. She rejected them one and all, including Hubie who according to the text has bedded a thousand women, and with "unerring instinct" as Paul Gallico put it, honed in on the mousy, frustrated, unassuming Mr. Martin. (Does this all sound like Sci-fi?) Anyway, soon Wilma's cabin is converted to Plato's Retreat Afloat. I believe Mr. Gallico actually uses the phrase "capered like naked fauns" to describe their tawdry frolics. Anyway, Wilma cant get enough of Mr. Martin's "flava" and wants to continue their adultrous debauche on land at her Lake Shore Drive apartment in Chicago. (More Sci-fi?) Which has Martin worried, although not worried enough to cause him to wean his way off of the drug that is 24/7 sex with a raging stereotypical nympho. HOWEVER all good things must come to an end, and the seasick Wilma stays in her cabin that night at dinner and drowns. Martin is consumed by guilt over the affair, relief that Wilma is dead solving the 'How do I get rid of her in Chicago?' problem, and haunted by the thought of her drifting around her cabin dead with her eyes open like a goldfish. Paul Gallico's words, not mine. Here's how it all ends:

ROGO: (watching the Poseidon sink) Well...she's gone. (To Martin) And so's the big blond you were shacking up with.

Martin then realises that he hasn't gotten off scot free and that he must confess to his bedridden wife, and Hubie who overhears the remark wonders why Wilma chose Martin the grey and mousy little man over HIS suave handsomeness.

The addition of sex to Poseidon would have added nothing and detracted much. As someone 'who was there,' I can attest to the fact that the line to get in stretched around the block and it took my family and me several attempts to get in. The film could not POSSIBLY have been more popular than it already was!

At the time, onscreen sex was possible, but employed more...shall we say...intelligently than it would be just 10 or so years later. In the -roughly- contemporary Young Frankenstein there was a prime example of such, between Madeline and and Peter Boyle, that skirted the borders of what was allowable onscreen at the time, but which did not seem prurient.

>Umm, I can't help but wonder if this "relationship" was developed more in the book.

No. Robin serves a much more ...uh...vivid plot purpose in the book. When the characters are bumbling about the area where the ship's stores are located, Robin gets a 'call of nature.' Let us refer to it as "#2" as all good third graders will. NOW, just forward of where everyone is hovering, there is a huge hole torn by falling engine room equipment, that was discovered human-guinea-pig style by Nonnie's friend Marie the Hairdresser who falls into it and drowns. Robin's mom helps him find an isolated spot, but the pubescent Robin gets embarrassed to defecate in front of his mom (and realistically, who wouldn't?) and asks her to leave, which she does. Exit Robin from the book, never to be seen again. Because, oh, say 2 minutes later, the electricity fails and the hundreds of crewmen milling around in shock fly into a blind (literally), trampling panic that sees most of them run directly into The Hole That Ate Marie, where they, too, die. Scott allots a certain amount of time to find Robin, but they never do. Jane, his mother, is given the option of staying to find Robin and possibly dying, or continuing on with the castaways:

LINDA: Here we stand yak yak yak. I don't want to die! Let's keep going! If she wants to stay, leave her! What kind of mother was she, anyway, leaving her kid like that? I don't want to die!

Jane reveals to her husband that she hates him and hates her role as The Stepford Wife and hates their marriage. Susan, in the mean time, gets raped in the ship's dentist office while searching for Robin, but when she sees the crewman who did it, becomes instantly smitten because...welllll...he's kinda cute. It was a 'sexual awakening' and not a rape, or so claims the text. But this affair based on dominance and masochism is never 'put to the test' because Herbert the Rapist flies into a blind panic, runs away, and is soon plummetting down yet another one of the Poseidon's notorious sinkholes.

Ultimately, the Shelbys carry on with the group, and Jane never learns if Robin was stampeded into The Hole That Ate Marie with the panicked crew, or trampled to death in mid~dump.

So, it is the final blow to Jane to see that those who remained in the dining room are emerging from a hole in the bow at the end of the book! It was all for nothing! Ha! They still had their evening clothes on, and not a one of them fell into the gaping pit that ate Marie and possibly Robin! Susan gets the final paragraph... she is hoping hoping hoping that the rape impregnated her, so that a little bit of Herbert The Rapist is still alive. He mentioned being from Hull, and Susan hopes to bring his parents a grandchild. Yes, really.

Imagine the great cinema this would all have made!
 
May 27, 2007
3,917
3
0
I remember reading the book and having Robin dies or disappears never to be seen again (as you stated Jim) and his mom goes through guilt and anger at her husband because she discovers that he weak. Robin's older sister Susan is raped by a stoker in the book and is possibly pregnant by him at the end. What a wild read The Poseidon Adventure is.

Love the picture of Stella Stevens Jim.
happy.gif
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
0
106
Actually, I was only kidding in regards the interesting "relationship" Robin has with Charlie, hehe. I'm glad nothing more became of that, as the thought of it is quite disturbing anyway.

As for the large hole, I heard about that. Seems that is a major feature in the book, and why wouldn't it be when about a third of those on board fall into it. It obviously affects others, too, as a perilous sign of impending doom.

What a way for the kid to go, though. The thing about children dying in movies, apparently there was, and still is to some degree, a strict rule against that. People are not either ready or tolerant of seeing children die in tragedy movies. Whenever there's a kid, you know s/he is going to survive. Case in point: Philip (aka: Michael Lookinland from Bobby Brady fame) in the Towering Inferno. I haven't seen it in ages, but as I remember, he survived, amidst explosions and fire, and somehow managed to safely work his way out of an awkwardly dangling elevator.

Who knew Martin was such a real Lady's Man! In the movie, he comes off more as the quiet, sensitive type, not one for initiating sex with despondent Nonnie. Then again, he occasionally did have that curious little glimmer in his eyes. No wonder he didn't mind taking his time helping her up the shaft ladder, hehe.

Ditto to the pic of Stella. ;)
 

Similar threads