Hahahahaha it's hilarious that he pinned and hearted this comment because he deleted my comment. Can't be woke without being a hypocrite...he actually LOVES censorship, wokies just call it "protecting people from hate speech" when they do it.
“A true history”was written in 2nd century and is the first first sci fi novel. Containing a Greek ship going to the moon and discovering moon aliens battling sun aliens in a war.
I came to post this exact comment. I’ve also heard the “Shelley invented sci-fi” multiple times before, and I distinctly remember thinking what the f when I came across Cyrano de Bergerac’s “Empires of the Moon” where a guy literally travels to the Moon using rockets powered by firecrackers. And this was published in 1657. Later on I came across Lucian’s “A true history” by accident when reading classical Greek works. I have no idea where the Shelley thing came from.
I think there's a period of time during which fables and and fabulist satire were blurring towards science fiction as we know it today. Both Lucian and de Bergerac were being deliberately ridiculous in their works, mocking the credulity of their contemporaries. Lucian spends the whole foreword sarcastically telling us how he never lies, and then launches into a story involving islands made of cheese and fleas the size of elephants. That's something very different in tone from, for example, the Red Mars trilogy by Robinson. If you consider Lucian and de Bergerac to be science fiction authors, then you would also have to consider Baron Von Munchausen and Jonathan Swift to be dealing in science fiction, as their stories also involve air travel and people from other planets. The distinction is subtle, and I'm not sure where or when it finally asserts itself. I can't say if Mary Shelley was the first to cross that fuzzy line, or not. But we have to acknowledge that the fabulists were not earnest science fictionists, whatever that means. As a perfect example of the distinction I'm talking about, compare Animal Farm by George Orwell to Sirius by Olaf Stapledon. Both books were written by Englishmen, published a year apart (1945 and 1944), and are about animals with human-level intelligence. And yet only one is science fiction. Why? I don't pretend to have the answer, but I think that the comparison goes a long way towards showing the difference between science fiction and its predecessor genres. Shelley, whatever else you may say about her first novel, was dealing with things that she believed were possible or would soon become possible. She has read about experiments, which were new and exciting at the time, in which dead bodies of worms and frogs could be made to move by touching them with electric wires. She was extrapolating from recent scientific discoveries, and making a serious (not satirical) guess at where those discoveries might lead. I don't think that either Lucian or de Bergerac seriously believed that space travel was an upcoming possibility. 🤔 I could be wrong. It would be interesting to ask them.
@@itzakpoelzig330 I agree so far as it comes to Lucian, but I wouldn’t be too sure about Bergerac’s intent of being purposely ridiculous in his “scientific” explanations. This is not only because of the explanation of the trip itself, but to the general train of thought he entertains throughout the book. A great deal of the “philosophy” practiced by the inhabitants of the moon seemed to be attempts to cram Bergerac’s views in, at least at some points if I recall correctly. In turn, this leads me to believe that his work might have been an honest attempt at describing a possible mechanism for space travel. He just used “magic” whenever he didn’t have a good explanation. I might be biased however since the foreword of the edition I read (written by a friend of Bergerac) went a long way to explain why the ideas contained in the book weren’t as ridiculous as they might seem at first glance. Regardless, I guess that my main qualm with the claim of Shelley invented sci-fi goes more along the lines of necessarily ignoring all of the (even if unintentional) “proto sci-fi” that came before. As if Frankenstein happened in a vacuum. There had been attempts justifying impossible science feats way before they occurred, with explanations of varying degrees of plausibility. Even if I don’t fully agree, I really liked your analysis though.
@@itzakpoelzig330 "Baron Von Munchausen and Jonathan Swift to be dealing in science fiction, as their stories also involve air travel and people from other planets." that's fine, why wouldn't you consider them sci-fi? It seems clear that there is a conceited effort to ignore those besides Shelly in order to claim she is the first. Shelly used science that wasn't known before her time, a time when "science" was just beginning to become an institution but that in no way means she was the first person to write sci-fi. It's an absurd claim based only on identity politics . Mary Shelly is one of the most famous writers in history, there is no need to fabricate her importance like this.
@@Aikanaroo I won't speak to the commenter before you but it's clear that people trying to elevate Mary Shelly to "the first person ever to do sci-fi" are doing it because of identity politics. No one said this sort of the thing in the 90's, it was only claimed in the 2010s when it was in vogue to say such things.
Both Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan considered Kepler's "Somnium" as the first science fiction story. It depicts a journey to the Moon and how the Earth's motion is seen from there. I translated it to Portuguese and yes, it IS science fiction, two centuries before Mary Shelley.
Major difference being Mary Shelley's work had a profound influence on modern sci-fi and horror litrature and movies that Kepler's didn't. For instance, Shelley's The Last Man influenced Richard Matherson to write I Am Legend which influenced George A. Romero to create flesh-eating zombies for his Night of the Living Dead.
@@SmartCookie2022, you are making the claim that Kepler had no lasting influence on Science Fiction? I think that you should seriously reconsider that position.
it's in between the two but i always wonder why Gulliver's Travels doesn't get more creds for its scifi themes.. i mean Laputa, seriously! also a lot of it feels very much reminiscent of Star Trek - i get it, there's not as much focus on technology, but i think honing in on that often misses the point of what scifi can and should do to begin with.
Bah! The real first one was that Roman travelogue from 200 AD that told of sailing so far north they left the planet, witnessed a war between the King of the Moon and the Emperor of the Sun, found a well on the moon that could show any place on earth and then crashed back down into an unknown ocean on earth when trying to go back home. And if you don’t believe the author, then go to the moon yourself and prove the well isn’t there. …it’s a parody of fake travelogues that the author was getting sick of seeing. Despite this, it reads like a primitive space opera, as seen from a group that attributes the fantastic technology to magic and describes things in a framework that doesn’t fit with what we think of in space stories. The “go there yourself” was apparently a common ending line for these faked travelogues, hence it’s use.
Man, imagine a modern movie having such great fx that clips of it get used in OTHER movies. Like Dr Strange wanting to do a trippy New York so they buy footage from Inception. Wild. And to think, variations of that practice of using other movies’ fx shots as stock footage for your own movie was common up until the 80s
I'm glad someone found this film. As IMDB would say, look in your attic. Thanks for sharing about it. A popular cliche in a love triangle is one person dies, saving a protagonist from making a questionable judgement. In this way the movie seems true to Hollywood form. Granted, taking a bigamy ending probably wouldn't have played well, then or now. Best disaster movie? "Things to Come", if it's allowed.
I'm a big fan of both the film and the book. I started looking for some clue to what the film was back in the 1970s when a local Atlanta radio station used clips for a television advertisement. It took a lot of years but thanks to the internet I finally found more bits and pieces of the presumably "lost" film. Much like the way more complete versions of "Metropolis" keep surfacing, I was tickled when a complete "Deluge" popped up. Great review
The miniature effects are actually quite grandiose! They look a lot like Earthquake (1974). I think that says a lot about effects heavy films. Precode films had some pretty ambitious visuals, with films like King Kong, Bride of Frankenstein, etc. Then at some point after, they were reserved for low-budget B films. Effects heavy A pictures wouldn’t really be pushed until the ‘70s
I first saw it a few years ago as well. It wouldn't be on my top ten list, but I was surprised at how good it was. I thought it would be totally corny, but there were so many interesting aspects to the film that I really enjoyed it.
I haven't seen this yet, but it sounds very worthwhile. I don't know how the 1930s-era public would have responded to the MC keeping 2 wives, but in the context of the story, doing so would have made a lot of sense.
The protagonist's moral dilemma reminds me of what I thought had to happen in the MC universe after the "Snap" was undone. Imagine all those people who lost their spouses in The Snap and had remarried in the intervening years, only for the spouses to show up suddenly, expecting to simply go home. When I was a youngster we had screenplays that dealt with the same idea, with the vehicle being an American soldier returning home after a few years, during which he was MIA but assumed to be KIA. Perhaps, as in the book "Deluge," in the MC universe, the overall response would've been a greater societal acceptance of polygamy and even polyamory.
I was disappointed that the MCU didn't deal with more morally thorny consequences like that to the snap. They mentioned stuff here and there, but never really dealt with it properly. The only example I can think of is Falcon & the Winter Soldier trying to show population displacement, but the series completely fumbled its own ideas.
Interestingly, when I watched this terrific movie I didn't view Claire swimming away as her ending her life but rather as her escape to a new life -- not death, but self-determination.
So did I! The excited face she makes when she realizes she can simply swim to a new life as she disrobes, signaled to me she was swimming off to a new island to begin anew. After all, in the initial disaster, she swam to Jepson’s island and remained until things got uncomfortable, then she went on to swim to Martin’s coast. She stayed with Martin until things once again became uncomfortable, and thus swam in search of another secluded island. Given that each time she made it to a new island she was exhausted and very nearly dead, I always took her swimming away as a potentially life-threatening risk, but I never perceived it as her deliberately committing suicide.
The Poseidon Adventure is my 1st & favorite-it was “My” movie & I insisted We All(family)see it(1972 of course)in the theater. Still Love it till this Day. Thanx Once Again Mr. G !
I read your notes at the end of the video, and the same thing I thought occurred to you: neither the book's nor the film's ending was neat. It's hard to say which would have been more challenging to readers and audiences of the 1930s. Accepting that the old moral order was gone and embracing polygamy sounds like something Heinlein would've written in the 'sixties.
There really is no need to wonder as mini localized apocalypse have happened in recent history to draw a conclusion. Of course, polygamy would be a thing, without any doubt whatsoever. Unless a person is simply nuts, you adapt, if not then you swim to your demise like an idiot, dying a moron's death. I think a better ending would have the lead die to resolve the conflict of the two women, have one of the women die, or my favorite, they deal with it and move on. Sure, the ladies might be less than thrilled for a while but they would get used to it. I also believe the polygamy would run both ways. Believe me, they would all be freaking, gettin nasty, it would be bukkake for EVERYONE!!!
@@tedwojtasik8781Except that polygamy is a thing that existed long in the past and continues today with more than two women. The man and two women would work things out rather quickly. Two men and one woman, however, would cause serious problems that would become violent. History and biology decide these outcomes.
Cool review. But she was just swimming to Little Rock Arkansas, or Pittsburgh . She was a marathon swimmer in the beginning of the film and in the end.
Yes, yes! We must protect everyone else's feelings! What if this made someone uncomfortable!?! No! It shall not be! Ah yes.... It's much better to live in a dream world, a fantasy land! More CGI!! Less real human beings! Kow tow to the mob!!!! Do you hear me!?!?! Bow down to the MOB!!! Shame people who dare to think differently! Ha ha yeah man, that's my rant. Great video, I've never heard of this movie.
"f you're looking for a "review" in the traditional sense, then let me just say I like this movie. This video, however, is a "review" in the literal sense (using the Miriam-Webster definition "a retrospective view or survey"), in that I'm going over the history of the film and its place in cinema history." Wheras I find this sort of this thing more interesting. But the title did give me the impression that you had uploaded the movie. Oh.I see there are plenty of versions of it on youtube.
No doubt about it-deluge is the first disaster movie 🍿 with special effects that probably inspired the creators of the movie the day after tomorrow because the scenes of both films were similar to each other! Like the statue of liberty 🗽 being overwhelmed by the waves moving towards New York City! I’ve seen the movie on UA-cam about two or three times I’m impressed by it! 👍👍👍👍👍💥🔥🌎⚡️💦🌏
So has this never had a home video release? I’m amazed, if not. I appreciate it was a lost film at one point, but given that I’d have thought someone would be keen to get a dvd/blu ray release out there.
@ 10:40 she couldnt afford her children - but she could afford the makings of fresh materials. Inclusive of paint / inclusive of being executed with a 'perfectly' steady hand / inclusive of 'perfect' lettered and a 'perfectly' spaced presentation. Complete, with (seemingly) professional boutique style verbiage. "inquire within" Staged? Photo Shoot? Designed for trauma bonding. Ah... a set for a sequence in another movie, called 'life propagandized'... Unless it is a sequence in this movie, (this movie, that is being expounded upon) in this content.
Favorite disaster movies? I'd pick The Day after Tomorrow and Dante's Peak. I also watched Moonfall some time ago and I actually quite enjoyed it. It's totally ridiculous and over the top, but that's exactly what I liked about it.
The film is a bit stiff and "stagey," the effects hold up if you're willing to ignore the water. But what strikes me as "right" more than anything else is the dynamics of our hero. He isn't acclaimed leader because he's cool and the main character; he develops a clever plan to solve a problem by reintroducing the concept of money. The ending is sad and disappointing, but you can't say it's not plausible. I don't think self-murder is a good resolution to the problem, but I can see why she chose it.
I am, as a Middle East scholar, always so very flummoxed at the lack of specific knowledge regarding Gilgamesh. The flood narrative in that story is only one of 12 tablets and is a very, very basic recap of the event and not the core of the narrative. It is only one element of many vignettes in which Gilgamesh must learn that he is mortal and unable to achieve literal immortality. Indeed, Utanapshitum deceives Gilgamesh because he asserts that he is the only man to have achieved immortality and tells Gilgamesh that it isn't possible. Non-dissuaded Gilgamesh persists and Uta creates an impossible test in which Gil must stay awake for seven days and nights and not even nod off. Which Gil proceeds to do. He is given a token for his efforts but even loses that in the process of returning to Uruk. It is a tale of the futility of such pursuits and he must be content with Uruk remaining as his memorial and thus remaining immortal through memory. Therefore, inclusion here is really way off base.
So the Unapologetic Geek is unapologetically wrong about who pioneered what genres. Using time based structured phrases to make it seem like they popularized or invented or reinvented a genre or idea then it is common bad faith psueod intellectual manipulative bullshit.
The creature is brought to life via alchemy in the novel as well. It's a oft repeated ridiculous lie that the novel is science fiction. It's a moody gothic inspired by German folklore.
Not true whatsoever…..then name the books…..🙄😂🤡 Yep I triple checked YOU ARE WRONG. She’s listed as the FIRST in 1818….what you mad cuz it’s a WOMAN? 🙄🤮
@@6Haunted-Days Ramayana, depictions of "mechanical birds" in an Indian epic from 500 BCE. are you mad because they are brown!?!? well probably not, Ramayana is epic poetry and speculative fiction divorced from science fiction only by the authorial understanding of the concept of "science". you are both correct.. in a way.
Sorry dude who thinks Frankenstein was the first science fiction... Somnium was written in 1608 by Johannes Kepler(not published till 1634). Frankenstein was 1818. If you want to broaden the term "science" to include the "science of the time" you can go back to the second century. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_True_Story
Vates104 Absolutely! The Epic of Gilgamesh and Saga of Beowulf are good examples and the Indian/Hindu texts centuries before that! And who knows what those Aboriginal rock paintings and carvings were saying in Australia. Then there's the ENTIRE Ancient Egyptian religion--- Mary Shelly was late
She invented a lot of great stories but you would have to ignore a lot of prior works to claim she invented a genre. Presentism and motivated reasoning are definitely at play here
Well I wouldn't really count that is the first time the world ended hell if nothing else did dinosaurs getting wiped out counted as the world ending for them not to mention there was the Bronze Age collapse and several other times the World basically ended
Hmmm... Cultural milestone that should be venerated for originating so many elements of modern film? Inspiration for The Day After Tomorrow? ... Everyone get your torches!!
I watched Deluge because of this video. Definitely some outdated cultural mores in there, but otherwise a surprisingly well thought out post-apocalypse story.
I don't know I think at the end she is just swimming off to some other possible life, just the way she washes up into this movie, she could wash up into some other story. We don't see her go under we just fade out.
It makes no sense to credit Shelley as the first science fiction author because credit is given to her based on a modern definition of science fiction and a multitude of older stories fit within that definition. It's like saying Elvis invented rock & roll
@@prof.badfellow9868 Granted but even then there were plenty of authors writing as far back as the C14th whose works might be considered science fiction under the modern definition, like Christine de Pizan.
So genuinely hate when people say “it makes no sense” when what they really mean is “I disagree” or more often “That depends…” Of course it “makes sense”. You even detailed the reasoning behind why it makes sense.
Brian W. Aldiss defined SF as man's search for meaning in the universe cast in a Gothic mold, and Shelley's Frankenstein being the first SF work. Gothic here means a literature informed by fear and the supernatural. It might seem inexplicable, but the real connection being made is that of the sublime, in its classical sense: the beauty and majesty of Nature being terrifying, heedless of man and his works. I was a Literarure major and am a professional editor. Take my word for it. If yoy study Lit and some aesthetics, you'll see what Aldiss means. There were stories of imagination before Frankenstein, but nothing like it. Remember, Dr. Frankenstein is a scientist seeking immortality. His works are for naught. He fails. Quest for meaning in a seemingly meaningless world (that's where science comes in: we increase our knowledge, but not our understanding- science lends no comfort, for all its allure), tinged with fear and frightened by our Nature within and Nature without. You can reject this, but come up with a better definition. As a Lit guy, Yes, I can see why Frankenstein is the first work of SF. And don't forget, this is a major writer defining the genre.
Personally, I'm not sure if we can talk about Science Fiction predating Science. In that case, Science Fiction can't predate the 1720s, where the word was first applied to a systematic process of observation, theorizing, and exprerimentation. Naturally, the practice of science predates the word by centuries, and if I had to give it a hard start date I'd give it to Kepler's "Dream" from 1630. But if we broaden that to include stories involving technology we cannot build yet, then we go back to antiquity. The Illiad, 8th Gentury BC, includes autonomous "Golden tripods" able to cook meat and serve the diners.
@@JohnWilliamNowak The point is that as far as modern SF is concerned Jules Vern is considered the first. Mary Shelly wrote one novel. Vern wrote several. A lot of them came true. What Shelly wrote was a one off fever dream that nobody considers the "first".
@@pathevermore3683 what Im talking about is modern Sci Fi. Nobody disputes the fact that Vern is the creator of the modern form of SF He wrote about not just a submarine but a nuclear submarine. And various other things. Concerning actual science. When the steam engine was high tech he was writing about space travel
The whole Noah episode is ridiculous. A cartoon. Yahweh made a fool of himself. When are Christians ready to interpret the Bible stories as what they are: allegories? Never, I'm afraid....
“Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak because a baby can’t chew it.”
-Mark Twain
Argument from personal incredulity
@@cdorman11
🤡
Hahahahaha it's hilarious that he pinned and hearted this comment because he deleted my comment. Can't be woke without being a hypocrite...he actually LOVES censorship, wokies just call it "protecting people from hate speech" when they do it.
@@cdorman11
It's a quote. Not incredulity.
@@cdorman11argument from informal fallacy accusation
“A true history”was written in 2nd century and is the first first sci fi novel. Containing a Greek ship going to the moon and discovering moon aliens battling sun aliens in a war.
I came to post this exact comment.
I’ve also heard the “Shelley invented sci-fi” multiple times before, and I distinctly remember thinking what the f when I came across Cyrano de Bergerac’s “Empires of the Moon” where a guy literally travels to the Moon using rockets powered by firecrackers. And this was published in 1657.
Later on I came across Lucian’s “A true history” by accident when reading classical Greek works.
I have no idea where the Shelley thing came from.
I think there's a period of time during which fables and and fabulist satire were blurring towards science fiction as we know it today. Both Lucian and de Bergerac were being deliberately ridiculous in their works, mocking the credulity of their contemporaries.
Lucian spends the whole foreword sarcastically telling us how he never lies, and then launches into a story involving islands made of cheese and fleas the size of elephants. That's something very different in tone from, for example, the Red Mars trilogy by Robinson.
If you consider Lucian and de Bergerac to be science fiction authors, then you would also have to consider Baron Von Munchausen and Jonathan Swift to be dealing in science fiction, as their stories also involve air travel and people from other planets.
The distinction is subtle, and I'm not sure where or when it finally asserts itself. I can't say if Mary Shelley was the first to cross that fuzzy line, or not. But we have to acknowledge that the fabulists were not earnest science fictionists, whatever that means.
As a perfect example of the distinction I'm talking about, compare Animal Farm by George Orwell to Sirius by Olaf Stapledon.
Both books were written by Englishmen, published a year apart (1945 and 1944), and are about animals with human-level intelligence. And yet only one is science fiction. Why?
I don't pretend to have the answer, but I think that the comparison goes a long way towards showing the difference between science fiction and its predecessor genres.
Shelley, whatever else you may say about her first novel, was dealing with things that she believed were possible or would soon become possible. She has read about experiments, which were new and exciting at the time, in which dead bodies of worms and frogs could be made to move by touching them with electric wires. She was extrapolating from recent scientific discoveries, and making a serious (not satirical) guess at where those discoveries might lead.
I don't think that either Lucian or de Bergerac seriously believed that space travel was an upcoming possibility. 🤔 I could be wrong. It would be interesting to ask them.
@@itzakpoelzig330
I agree so far as it comes to Lucian, but I wouldn’t be too sure about Bergerac’s intent of being purposely ridiculous in his “scientific” explanations.
This is not only because of the explanation of the trip itself, but to the general train of thought he entertains throughout the book. A great deal of the “philosophy” practiced by the inhabitants of the moon seemed to be attempts to cram Bergerac’s views in, at least at some points if I recall correctly. In turn, this leads me to believe that his work might have been an honest attempt at describing a possible mechanism for space travel. He just used “magic” whenever he didn’t have a good explanation.
I might be biased however since the foreword of the edition I read (written by a friend of Bergerac) went a long way to explain why the ideas contained in the book weren’t as ridiculous as they might seem at first glance.
Regardless, I guess that my main qualm with the claim of Shelley invented sci-fi goes more along the lines of necessarily ignoring all of the (even if unintentional) “proto sci-fi” that came before. As if Frankenstein happened in a vacuum. There had been attempts justifying impossible science feats way before they occurred, with explanations of varying degrees of plausibility.
Even if I don’t fully agree, I really liked your analysis though.
@@itzakpoelzig330 "Baron Von Munchausen and Jonathan Swift to be dealing in science fiction, as their stories also involve air travel and people from other planets."
that's fine, why wouldn't you consider them sci-fi? It seems clear that there is a conceited effort to ignore those besides Shelly in order to claim she is the first. Shelly used science that wasn't known before her time, a time when "science" was just beginning to become an institution but that in no way means she was the first person to write sci-fi. It's an absurd claim based only on identity politics . Mary Shelly is one of the most famous writers in history, there is no need to fabricate her importance like this.
@@Aikanaroo I won't speak to the commenter before you but it's clear that people trying to elevate Mary Shelly to "the first person ever to do sci-fi" are doing it because of identity politics. No one said this sort of the thing in the 90's, it was only claimed in the 2010s when it was in vogue to say such things.
The movie “Deluge” is on UA-cam.
Both Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan considered Kepler's "Somnium" as the first science fiction story. It depicts a journey to the Moon and how the Earth's motion is seen from there. I translated it to Portuguese and yes, it IS science fiction, two centuries before Mary Shelley.
Major difference being Mary Shelley's work had a profound influence on modern sci-fi and horror litrature and movies that Kepler's didn't. For instance, Shelley's The Last Man influenced Richard Matherson to write I Am Legend which influenced George A. Romero to create flesh-eating zombies for his Night of the Living Dead.
@@SmartCookie2022
Don't hurt your back moving that goalpost.
@@SmartCookie2022, you are making the claim that Kepler had no lasting influence on Science Fiction? I think that you should seriously reconsider that position.
it's in between the two but i always wonder why Gulliver's Travels doesn't get more creds for its scifi themes.. i mean Laputa, seriously! also a lot of it feels very much reminiscent of Star Trek - i get it, there's not as much focus on technology, but i think honing in on that often misses the point of what scifi can and should do to begin with.
Bah! The real first one was that Roman travelogue from 200 AD that told of sailing so far north they left the planet, witnessed a war between the King of the Moon and the Emperor of the Sun, found a well on the moon that could show any place on earth and then crashed back down into an unknown ocean on earth when trying to go back home.
And if you don’t believe the author, then go to the moon yourself and prove the well isn’t there.
…it’s a parody of fake travelogues that the author was getting sick of seeing. Despite this, it reads like a primitive space opera, as seen from a group that attributes the fantastic technology to magic and describes things in a framework that doesn’t fit with what we think of in space stories.
The “go there yourself” was apparently a common ending line for these faked travelogues, hence it’s use.
Man, imagine a modern movie having such great fx that clips of it get used in OTHER movies. Like Dr Strange wanting to do a trippy New York so they buy footage from Inception. Wild. And to think, variations of that practice of using other movies’ fx shots as stock footage for your own movie was common up until the 80s
Forry Ackerman gave me his 1st edition of S. Fowler Wright’s novel. It’s a terrific book and I’ve always wanted to see the film. Thanks for this!
I'm glad someone found this film. As IMDB would say, look in your attic. Thanks for sharing about it. A popular cliche in a love triangle is one person dies, saving a protagonist from making a questionable judgement. In this way the movie seems true to Hollywood form. Granted, taking a bigamy ending probably wouldn't have played well, then or now. Best disaster movie? "Things to Come", if it's allowed.
No.A day to Remember.
Felix E. Feist is the step-father of Fantasy author Raymond E. Feist.
I'm a big fan of both the film and the book. I started looking for some clue to what the film was back in the 1970s when a local Atlanta radio station used clips for a television advertisement. It took a lot of years but thanks to the internet I finally found more bits and pieces of the presumably "lost" film. Much like the way more complete versions of "Metropolis" keep surfacing, I was tickled when a complete "Deluge" popped up. Great review
Thank you. I have never heard of this movie before. It sounds.
Like it would be a good watch.
The miniature effects are actually quite grandiose! They look a lot like Earthquake (1974). I think that says a lot about effects heavy films. Precode films had some pretty ambitious visuals, with films like King Kong, Bride of Frankenstein, etc. Then at some point after, they were reserved for low-budget B films. Effects heavy A pictures wouldn’t really be pushed until the ‘70s
That's amazing that a film with these themes appeared so long ago, I had no idea, thanks for bringing it to light.
I discovered Deluge only a few years ago. It's been on my top ten list of all films. I'll bet I watch it at least a half dozen times each year.
I first saw it a few years ago as well. It wouldn't be on my top ten list, but I was surprised at how good it was. I thought it would be totally corny, but there were so many interesting aspects to the film that I really enjoyed it.
It seems so much more brutal than what we get in contemporary films
Wow, I had no idea that disaster movies as we know them today can find their roots that far back.
For it's time some impressive SFX & decent story. A good watch.
You could NOT have picked a better day to post this! Thank you, my Friend!
As I watch the rising Mississippi through sheets of pouring rain, I feel the same. I picked a good day to talk about a deluge!
I haven't seen this yet, but it sounds very worthwhile. I don't know how the 1930s-era public would have responded to the MC keeping 2 wives, but in the context of the story, doing so would have made a lot of sense.
The protagonist's moral dilemma reminds me of what I thought had to happen in the MC universe after the "Snap" was undone. Imagine all those people who lost their spouses in The Snap and had remarried in the intervening years, only for the spouses to show up suddenly, expecting to simply go home. When I was a youngster we had screenplays that dealt with the same idea, with the vehicle being an American soldier returning home after a few years, during which he was MIA but assumed to be KIA. Perhaps, as in the book "Deluge," in the MC universe, the overall response would've been a greater societal acceptance of polygamy and even polyamory.
I was disappointed that the MCU didn't deal with more morally thorny consequences like that to the snap. They mentioned stuff here and there, but never really dealt with it properly. The only example I can think of is Falcon & the Winter Soldier trying to show population displacement, but the series completely fumbled its own ideas.
Another variation on this idea is the 1940 comedy "My Favorite Wife" with Irene Dunne and Cary Grant. One of my favorite comedies.
Interestingly, when I watched this terrific movie I didn't view Claire swimming away as her ending her life but rather as her escape to a new life -- not death, but self-determination.
So did I! The excited face she makes when she realizes she can simply swim to a new life as she disrobes, signaled to me she was swimming off to a new island to begin anew. After all, in the initial disaster, she swam to Jepson’s island and remained until things got uncomfortable, then she went on to swim to Martin’s coast. She stayed with Martin until things once again became uncomfortable, and thus swam in search of another secluded island. Given that each time she made it to a new island she was exhausted and very nearly dead, I always took her swimming away as a potentially life-threatening risk, but I never perceived it as her deliberately committing suicide.
Thanks!
Thank you!!
The Poseidon Adventure is my 1st & favorite-it was “My” movie & I insisted We All(family)see it(1972 of course)in the theater. Still Love it till this Day. Thanx Once Again Mr. G !
I’d never heard of it. Now I know
HEAR HEAR, good SIR! Censorship is both vile and evil!
I read your notes at the end of the video, and the same thing I thought occurred to you: neither the book's nor the film's ending was neat. It's hard to say which would have been more challenging to readers and audiences of the 1930s. Accepting that the old moral order was gone and embracing polygamy sounds like something Heinlein would've written in the 'sixties.
There really is no need to wonder as mini localized apocalypse have happened in recent history to draw a conclusion. Of course, polygamy would be a thing, without any doubt whatsoever. Unless a person is simply nuts, you adapt, if not then you swim to your demise like an idiot, dying a moron's death. I think a better ending would have the lead die to resolve the conflict of the two women, have one of the women die, or my favorite, they deal with it and move on. Sure, the ladies might be less than thrilled for a while but they would get used to it. I also believe the polygamy would run both ways. Believe me, they would all be freaking, gettin nasty, it would be bukkake for EVERYONE!!!
@@tedwojtasik8781Except that polygamy is a thing that existed long in the past and continues today with more than two women. The man and two women would work things out rather quickly. Two men and one woman, however, would cause serious problems that would become violent. History and biology decide these outcomes.
Cool review. But she was just swimming to Little Rock Arkansas, or Pittsburgh . She was a marathon swimmer in the beginning of the film and in the end.
This is a film that I’ve never heard of before, and definitely want to chase down. Thx for the overview!
Abel Gance had directed another film called THE END OF THE WORLD in 1931
Yes, yes! We must protect everyone else's feelings! What if this made someone uncomfortable!?! No! It shall not be! Ah yes.... It's much better to live in a dream world, a fantasy land! More CGI!! Less real human beings! Kow tow to the mob!!!!
Do you hear me!?!?! Bow down to the MOB!!!
Shame people who dare to think differently!
Ha ha yeah man, that's my rant.
Great video, I've never heard of this movie.
The dude does not abide.
What a fantastic review.
I really appreciate these.
I saw this movie years ago.
one I actually haven't seen. I'll definitely track this one down. Thanks for interesting content💗 as usual
A good movie and you made a good overview of it. I'm glad this classic was unearthed after being lost for so long.
was wondering why more people don't talk about this movie.
"f you're looking for a "review" in the traditional sense, then let me just say I like this movie. This video, however, is a "review" in the literal sense (using the Miriam-Webster definition "a retrospective view or survey"), in that I'm going over the history of the film and its place in cinema history." Wheras I find this sort of this thing more interesting. But the title did give me the impression that you had uploaded the movie.
Oh.I see there are plenty of versions of it on youtube.
10:30 I had to do a double take on "censoriousness". Yep! That is indeed a word!
No doubt about it-deluge is the first disaster movie 🍿 with special effects that probably inspired the creators of the movie the day after tomorrow because the scenes of both films were similar to each other! Like the statue of liberty 🗽 being overwhelmed by the waves moving towards New York City! I’ve seen the movie on UA-cam about two or three times I’m impressed by it! 👍👍👍👍👍💥🔥🌎⚡️💦🌏
So has this never had a home video release? I’m amazed, if not. I appreciate it was a lost film at one point, but given that I’d have thought someone would be keen to get a dvd/blu ray release out there.
It has been released on Blu-ray.
@ 10:40 she couldnt afford her children - but she could afford the makings of fresh materials. Inclusive of paint / inclusive of being executed with a 'perfectly' steady hand / inclusive of 'perfect' lettered and a 'perfectly' spaced presentation. Complete, with (seemingly) professional boutique style verbiage. "inquire within"
Staged? Photo Shoot?
Designed for trauma bonding.
Ah... a set for a sequence in another movie, called 'life propagandized'...
Unless it is a sequence in this movie, (this movie, that is being expounded upon) in this content.
The censorious thing is quite an art destroyer.
geek this great ty brother
l need to go on internet archive and see this movie. Thanks!
1:04 that guys back 😢
holy shit @corridor crew needs to get in on this.
Thank you. I learn so much from your videos! You Rock!
Thank you!
Haven't seen this one yet -- thanks!
Favorite disaster movies? I'd pick The Day after Tomorrow and Dante's Peak. I also watched Moonfall some time ago and I actually quite enjoyed it. It's totally ridiculous and over the top, but that's exactly what I liked about it.
The film is a bit stiff and "stagey," the effects hold up if you're willing to ignore the water. But what strikes me as "right" more than anything else is the dynamics of our hero. He isn't acclaimed leader because he's cool and the main character; he develops a clever plan to solve a problem by reintroducing the concept of money.
The ending is sad and disappointing, but you can't say it's not plausible. I don't think self-murder is a good resolution to the problem, but I can see why she chose it.
Oh wow that's awesome.
Deluge eats every Ronald Emerich movie.
Excellent take on the topic!!! Great video!!!
I am, as a Middle East scholar, always so very flummoxed at the lack of specific knowledge regarding Gilgamesh. The flood narrative in that story is only one of 12 tablets and is a very, very basic recap of the event and not the core of the narrative. It is only one element of many vignettes in which Gilgamesh must learn that he is mortal and unable to achieve literal immortality. Indeed, Utanapshitum deceives Gilgamesh because he asserts that he is the only man to have achieved immortality and tells Gilgamesh that it isn't possible. Non-dissuaded Gilgamesh persists and Uta creates an impossible test in which Gil must stay awake for seven days and nights and not even nod off. Which Gil proceeds to do. He is given a token for his efforts but even loses that in the process of returning to Uruk. It is a tale of the futility of such pursuits and he must be content with Uruk remaining as his memorial and thus remaining immortal through memory. Therefore, inclusion here is really way off base.
Favorite disaster movie, The Day After about the Cold War.
earned a follow w/ this review. 🍻🗿
Thank you, Cujo! Don't bite me.
So the Unapologetic Geek is unapologetically wrong about who pioneered what genres. Using time based structured phrases to make it seem like they popularized or invented or reinvented a genre or idea then it is common bad faith psueod intellectual manipulative bullshit.
Poseidon adventure the towering inferno 😊
Youtoo is too concerned with the parsley
LOL. Mary Shelley did not invent science fiction.
The creature is brought to life via alchemy in the novel as well. It's a oft repeated ridiculous lie that the novel is science fiction. It's a moody gothic inspired by German folklore.
She did not invent Science Fiction single handedly. Many people were before. Many.
Not true whatsoever…..then name the books…..🙄😂🤡 Yep I triple checked YOU ARE WRONG. She’s listed as the FIRST in 1818….what you mad cuz it’s a WOMAN? 🙄🤮
@@6Haunted-Days Ramayana, depictions of "mechanical birds" in an Indian epic from 500 BCE. are you mad because they are brown!?!? well probably not, Ramayana is epic poetry and speculative fiction divorced from science fiction only by the authorial understanding of the concept of "science". you are both correct.. in a way.
Sorry dude who thinks Frankenstein was the first science fiction... Somnium was written in 1608 by Johannes Kepler(not published till 1634). Frankenstein was 1818. If you want to broaden the term "science" to include the "science of the time" you can go back to the second century. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_True_Story
Vates104
Absolutely! The Epic of Gilgamesh and Saga of Beowulf are good examples and the Indian/Hindu texts centuries before that! And who knows what those Aboriginal rock paintings and carvings were saying in Australia. Then there's the ENTIRE Ancient Egyptian religion--- Mary Shelly was late
She invented a lot of great stories but you would have to ignore a lot of prior works to claim she invented a genre. Presentism and motivated reasoning are definitely at play here
It's a hurricane, not a quake.
My favorite disaster movie is The Towering Inferno. There are many parallels with it and the real life disaster of the Titanic.
Well I wouldn't really count that is the first time the world ended hell if nothing else did dinosaurs getting wiped out counted as the world ending for them not to mention there was the Bronze Age collapse and several other times the World basically ended
Favorite Disaster movies: any of the movies based on works by Ayn Rand
Are you taking us to Philadelphia next time?
Is it that transparent? 😛
Hmmm... Cultural milestone that should be venerated for originating so many elements of modern film? Inspiration for The Day After Tomorrow?
...
Everyone get your torches!!
Famous fable of Noah’s Ark? 🫤
Yeah I heard it too. Bygones be Bygones is how I'm going about it.
I watched Deluge because of this video. Definitely some outdated cultural mores in there, but otherwise a surprisingly well thought out post-apocalypse story.
I don't know I think at the end she is just swimming off to some other possible life, just the way she washes up into this movie, she could wash up into some other story. We don't see her go under we just fade out.
Good movie
Have you reviewed Frankenstein the True Story? I am only asking because I want fame by interacting with a famous UA-camr.
I have, as a matter of fact.
@@TheUnapologeticGeek have you seen the awful avalanche movie from the 70s 😂
@@mikesilva3868 no. The Polidorry death kind of messed me up when I was a kid.
It makes no sense to credit Shelley as the first science fiction author because credit is given to her based on a modern definition of science fiction and a multitude of older stories fit within that definition. It's like saying Elvis invented rock & roll
You make a valid point. But we have to start somewhere for reference, even if it's arbitrary
@@prof.badfellow9868 Granted but even then there were plenty of authors writing as far back as the C14th whose works might be considered science fiction under the modern definition, like Christine de Pizan.
So genuinely hate when people say “it makes no sense” when what they really mean is “I disagree” or more often “That depends…”
Of course it “makes sense”. You even detailed the reasoning behind why it makes sense.
It makes perfect sense to credit Shelley if you’re trying very hard to revise history towards an idealistic goal of herstory lol
Brian W. Aldiss defined SF as man's search for meaning in the universe cast in a Gothic mold, and Shelley's Frankenstein being the first SF work.
Gothic here means a literature informed by fear and the supernatural. It might seem inexplicable, but the real connection being made is that of the sublime, in its classical sense: the beauty and majesty of Nature being terrifying, heedless of man and his works.
I was a Literarure major and am a professional editor. Take my word for it. If yoy study Lit and some aesthetics, you'll see what Aldiss means.
There were stories of imagination before Frankenstein, but nothing like it. Remember, Dr. Frankenstein is a scientist seeking immortality. His works are for naught. He fails.
Quest for meaning in a seemingly meaningless world (that's where science comes in: we increase our knowledge, but not our understanding- science lends no comfort, for all its allure), tinged with fear and frightened by our Nature within and Nature without.
You can reject this, but come up with a better definition. As a Lit guy, Yes, I can see why Frankenstein is the first work of SF.
And don't forget, this is a major writer defining the genre.
Jules Vern invented science fiction.
Ramayana was the first sci fi story, 500 BCE.
Personally, I'm not sure if we can talk about Science Fiction predating Science. In that case, Science Fiction can't predate the 1720s, where the word was first applied to a systematic process of observation, theorizing, and exprerimentation. Naturally, the practice of science predates the word by centuries, and if I had to give it a hard start date I'd give it to Kepler's "Dream" from 1630.
But if we broaden that to include stories involving technology we cannot build yet, then we go back to antiquity. The Illiad, 8th Gentury BC, includes autonomous "Golden tripods" able to cook meat and serve the diners.
@@JohnWilliamNowak
The point is that as far as modern
SF is concerned Jules Vern is considered the first.
Mary Shelly wrote one novel.
Vern wrote several. A lot of them came true. What Shelly wrote was a one off fever dream that nobody considers the "first".
@@musicman8270 Only if you ignore everyone who did it before him.
@@pathevermore3683 what Im talking about is modern Sci Fi.
Nobody disputes the fact that Vern is the creator of the modern form of SF
He wrote about not just a submarine but a nuclear submarine. And various other things. Concerning actual science. When the steam engine was high tech he was writing about space travel
uy
That actress does not the shoulders of a swimmer!!!
the 'world' did not end
Ummm, that's not what money even looked like then.
HAIL SATAN!!! 🙂
I like the anime series "Tokyo Magnitude 8.0."
You say "anime", I say "documentary about something that is going to happen in the future".
Just like The Swarm!
Watched this during lockdown (which saved lives!). Amazing special effects for the time
Lockdown killed more lives than it saved...by far.
LOL. What?😂😂😂
Why do videos like this use so much pointless stock footage?? Sad. Interesting video apart from that.
It has to do with copyright rules, even on old movies like this one.
Bro
She didn't invent shit
Noah isn’t a fable.
The whole Noah episode is ridiculous. A cartoon. Yahweh made a fool of himself.
When are Christians ready to interpret the Bible stories as what they are: allegories? Never, I'm afraid....
Everything woke goes to sh!t, even language.
Censorship sucks.
Noah’s Ark was not a myth.
A barely alive women washes ashore after a disaster...in perfect hair and makeup...
You've reviewed films from our past, now review our future... Idiocracy.
Thank you democrats.
Brazil, Gattaca and 1984, of course. Yes, thank a democrat.