[fa.sf-lovers] SF-LOVERS Digest Volume 6, Issue 52

ARPAVAX:UNKNOWN:sf-lovers (10/12/82)

>From SFL@SRI-CSL Mon Oct 11 02:37:15 1982

SF-LOVERS Digest          11-Oct-82	       Volume 6 : Issue 52

Today's Topics:
	Star Trek, Tron, Fantasy movies, Jedi, Spielberg, etc.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, 10 August 1982  13:00-PDT
From: Jonathan Alan Solomon <JSol at USC-ECLC>
To: SF-LOVERS at MIT-AI
Address: 2817 Orchard Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90007
Phone: (213) 732-3423
Subject: su password on the Enterprise


It could be reasonable to assume that the SU password for YOUR ship
was online, since it would have to know whether or not you gave it
correctly, but there could be a simple algorithm (someone already said
this) and you would have to know this to get the results. In short,
Khan could have known the RELIANT's password but not the ENTERPRISE's
password. Spock, if he knew the algorithm, could have fed in the
proper data (including, for example, the ship's serial number and the
name of the Cap'ts first born male child), and come up with the right
answer, authorization or not. 

If I were Star Fleet I would not trust the passwords to other ships or
the algorithm for determining same to a computer and some
authorization restriction, considering Khan and his crew could have
patched in a NOOP instruction around the password check as easily as
one can do that in today's world.

--JSol

--------------------

Date: 05-Aug-1982
Subject: Star Trek II - Spoiler Warning and Bad Joke
From: PAUL KARGER AT RDVAX
From: PAUL KARGER AT RDVAX 

This one deserves a spoiler warning.  It's also only humorous to DECnet 
network managers.

When Adm. Kirk needed to penetrate the Reliant's security and shut down
the shields, he obviously used the DECnet Phase XXVII network control 
program and said:

	$ MCR NCP
	NCP>TELL RELIANT LOWER SHIELDS
	NCP>...

--------------------

Date: 13 Sep 1982 (Monday) 2046-EDT
From: OSTER at Wharton-10 (David Oster)
Subject: bit in TRON
To:   sf-lovers at SRI-CSL

The bit in TRON was indeed tristable.  Its three states were:
Yes (presumably +,1)
No  (presumably -, 0)
and Floating.

By the way, the sequel to Stand on Zanzibar was "The Sheep Look Up".

--------------------

Date: 13 Sep 1982 21:45:28 EST (Monday)
From: Mike Meyer <mwm at OKC-UNIX>
Subject: Fantasy Movies
To: sf-lovers at sri-csl
Cc: mwm at OKC-UNIX

There have recently been a couple of Fantasy movies released that share
a common feature: They are in the same quality range as the SF of the fifties.
That is, the movies use a bad sample of the gendre, and are poorly made.

I am speaking of  (from personal experience) The Sword and the Sorcerer,
BeastMaster, and (via hearsay) Conan. The two of these that I saw I enjoyed
for the same reason I enjoy such things as It Conquered the World and Plan
Nine from Outer Space.

Could it be that when the movies pick up a new gendre that way, there is
a tendency for producers/etc.  to try and do it cheaply, hoping that the
draw will be to the fans of the gendre instead of movie fans? Does this
imply that we are going to have to put up with bad fantasy for roughly
25 years before somebody does it right?

Comments, anyone?

	mike

--------------------

Date: 14 Sep 1982 11:01:57-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: sf-lovers at sri-csl
Subject: re: Revenge of the Jedi

   At Chicon IV the people who presented a slide show and a special short film
on the development of some of the [monsters] in the new cantina band said
specifically that Obi-Wan does \\not// come back in the flesh, that they merely
haven't gotten around to doing the [ghost] effect yet. This is not implausible,
given that trailers being shown the February before the release of A NEW HOPE
were missing some cute features of the final cut (e.g. colored light-sabers)
but I wonder whether it's just another smokescreen.

--------------------

Date: 13 Sep 1982 11:44:21-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: dolata at sumex-aim
Subject: Spielberg
Cc: sf-lovers at sri-csl

   The best-known obscure Spielberg film is a non-fantasy (in fact, it's
based on an actual incident) called SUGARLAND EXPRESS. It dates from well
before CE3K and is about a woman (played by Goldie Hawn, of all people) who
snatches her husband from jail and hijacks a police car to prevent the state
from taking away her baby. I don't recall either this or RAIDERS being filmed
with particularly soft lighting, but my lighitng experience is entirely with
stage productions, where the effects of filters are quite different.
(According to the AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER, if you're looking for a really
softly-lit movie see ANNIE---the lighting supervisor was quote as saying that
there wasn't a single instrument without some sort of softening filter over it,
ranging from silk to vaseline.)

Date: 11 Sep 1982 21:07:22-EDT
From: cfh at CCA-UNIX (Christopher Herot)
To: SF-LOVERS at SRI-CSL
Subject: re: Stephen Spielberg's early stuff


As far as I know, Spielberg's first feature length work was the
made-for-TV film "Duel".  It stared Dennis Weaver as a mild-mannered
motorist harassed by a homicidal (but unseen) truck driver.
It is available on LaserVision videodisk.  Not bad for TV.

--------------------

Date: 29 August 1982  22:10-EDT (Sunday)
Sender: LECIN at RU-GREEN
From: Mijjil (Matthew Jody Lecin) <LECIN at RUTGERS>
To:   Sf-Lovers at MIT-AI
cc:   Lecin at RUTGERS
Subject: Star Trek (random trivia point)

    But did  anyone  besides me  ever   wonder why  they  named  her
Christine Chapel?

The pun on Sistine Chapel has always amused me.

>Mijjil

--------------------

Date: 29 Jul 1982 0136-CDT
From: CS.EMERSON at UTEXAS-20
Subject: the Science Fiction Book Club
To: sf-lovers at MIT-AI
cc: cs.emerson at UTEXAS-20

I am considering joining the Science Fiction Book Club.
Does anyone know if it is a good deal. For instance, what books
have constituted their selections over the past few months?
Are they reliable? Etc.

--------------------

Date:  10 August 1982 12:07 edt
From:  Boebert.SCOMP at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  Copy of old Astounding cover wanted
To:  sf-lovers at MIT-AI

I would like to obtain a copy of the cover of Astounding SF which
illustrated a story called "...And a Star to Steer Her By," author
unknown, subject space travel in a rocketship called Fafnir. The cover
was, I believe, the first time AstoundIing had used photography (of a
model, natch.)  If any collector has this issue, and would be willing to
color xerox it, I would cover all copy/mailing expenses.  Replies to me
directly, this is really too trivial for the Digest.  I would also
appreciate author/issue/reprint data on the story.

Earl

--------------------

Date: 17 Aug 1982 1755-EDT
From: YOUNG at DEC-MARLBORO
To: SF-LOVERS at MIT-AI
Subject: [DD-B <DYER-BENNET at KL2137>: SFL submission]

More forwarded DEC SFL
- - - - - - - Begin message from: DD-B <DYER-BENNET at KL2137>
Date: 16 Aug 1982 1820-EDT
From: DD-B <DYER-BENNET at KL2137>
To: YOUNG at MARKET
cc: dyer-bennet.dean at KL2137
Reply-to: DYER-BENNET at KL2137
DTN: 231-4076
Mailstop: MRO1-2/L14
Subject: SFL submission
Message-ID: <"MS10(2066)+GLXLIB1(1056)" 11848366356.38.253.34235 at KL2137>

( Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V6 #34 )

(decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley) I finished Dragon Lensman, so I can
tell you that you aren't missing much if you haven't.  I also saw a
second book by David Kyle, Lensman from Rigel, in an "upcoming books"
list.  I hadn't known the original publication order of the Lensman
books, which I suppose shows I'm a lazy reader rather than an
energetic fan.  The Ellern story you mention has been published as a
novel (presumably expanded).  I found the divergence of technology to
be a great problem -- he suddenly introduced computers into the middle
of the Lensman universe!!  The lack of computer technology throughout
the Lensman series was one of its more humorous points for me, so its
appearance startled me.

I actually found Triplanetary and First Lensman to be among my
favorites in the series.  I'm not sure that knowing what they and the
forewards to the later books supply really spoils the story.  It gives
you a different perspective on it, certainly.

( Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V6 #36 )

(A.AVERY at SU-LOTS (l. avery)) You appear to have missed ALL of
Heinlein's awards, which include (from memory) Hugos for Double Star,
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and Stranger in a Strange Land.

A Canticle for Leibowitz is by Walter M. Miller.

( Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V6 #36 )

(A.AVERY at SU-LOTS (l. avery)) I didn't see Niven & Pournelle's The
Mote in God's Eye on your ratings list.  Since I agree with you about
the importance of A Martian Oddyssey (and agree with your reasons),
and about The Gods Themselves in this context, you may care to know
that I think the aliens in Mote are the best I've found anywhere.

I still like Heinlein's children's books.  I'm at least somewhat
familiar with the children's books you list.  I like Narnia, and the
McKillip books, and of course Earthsea.  Heinlein's "juveniles" are
such a large part of his output, especially of his early output, that
ignoring them in evaluating Heinlein is a mistake.  I wondered where
you got the idea that his fiction is all sex-oriented.  It is possible
to get that impression from things since Stranger, but the stuff
before that has very little sex in it (REALLY very little, like
usually none).

LeGuin, on the other hand, I don't like too well at all, with the
aforementioned exception of the Earthsea trilogy.  The Left Hand of
Darkness was dull.  It had what I consider to be the worst possible
single character flaw:  the protagonist seemed stupid.  It's hard to
be sympathetic towards someone that you think is creating his own
problems as he goes.  I was surprised that that book won awards -- I
mean, it had not occurred to me that it could possibly have any chance
of winning.  I enjoyed The Dispossessed, but it has not drawn me back
for re-reading.  I re-read it anyway, since I thought I had liked it
and normally I'm a heave re-reader, and found that on reevaluation it
was a shallow and dishonest book, failing to actually come to grips at
all with the problems it claims to address.

I'm not sure I have the energy to carry out this discussion with
thousands of people helping us, or the energy to re-read yet again
these books I didn't like so that I can discuss them from more recent
memory.  We'll see how it goes....

( Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V6 #39 )

(Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>) I second the recommendation of The Subspace
Explorers.  For those rounding out the collection, the other completed
real works I know about are Spacehounds of IPC and The Galaxy Primes.
I enjoy them all, with perhaps a slight preference for Subspace
Explorers and The Galaxy Primes.  Also, it is a very interesting
exercise to compare them with the usual definition of Space Opera, of
which Doc Smith is usually cited as the most standard example.

( Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V6 #39 )

(P.PHIGMENT at SU-LOTS) "Does anyone else out there love E.E."Doc"
Smith?"  Guilty.  (Not that I feel guilty about it).  This should be
apparent from various remarks above and in previous digests.
   --------
- - - - - - - End forwarded message
   --------
Date: 18 Aug 1982 1323-EDT
From: ECG.RICH.ALA at DEC-MARLBORO
To: SF-LOVERS at MIT-AI
Reply-to: ECG.ALA at DEC-MARLBORO
Subject: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ENET SF-LOVERS
Message-ID: <"MS10(2055)+GLXLIB1(1056)" 11848836640.51.332.3290 at DEC-MARLBORO>

Posted-date: 14-Aug-1982
To:	SF-LOVERS @KIRK
Subject: Blade Runner Anachronism (non-spoiler)
From:	PAUL WINALSKI AT METOO 

I think that Deckerd having a smallpox vaccination scar is a true anachronism,
if he's supposed to have been born in the late 1980's.  Sporadic individual
cases of smallpox are still reported from the last few endemic pockets in
Ethiopia and Somalia, but the disease has been eradicated in the rest of the
world.  The NIH and AMA now recommend that people NOT be vaccinated unless
they are travelling to one of the endemic areas.  At the present time, the
death rate from vaccination complications far exceeds the risk of contracting
smallpox.  The smallpox vaccination is already a thing of the past.

--Paul W.

------------------------------

Posted-date: 16-Aug-1982
To:	SF-LOVERS @KIRK
Subject: PAC MAN and TRON
From:	PAUL KARGER AT RDVAX 

Did anyone else catch the image of PAC-MAN in TRON on a screen to which 
SARK pointed?  


------------------------------

Posted-date: 27-Jul-1982
To:	SF-LOVERS @KIRK
Subject: TRON (minor spoiler) & a comment on Reviewers
From:	DJLONG AT MERLIN

Realising that TRON has already gotten a plethora of reviews, I would like 
to add mine AND review the reviewers.

	Personally, I thought TRON was the most innovative movie of the 
century(short of the Jazz Singer, the first full talkie).  SW, TESB & ST
showed what computers could do if you let them help with the expensive
process of sfx.  As everyone must, by now, know, TRON takes that to it's
next logical step.

	TRON came across to me as what 'Revenge of the Jedi' is going to 
be.  Basically, a couple of swashbucklers go to defeat the opressor of the 
opressed.  However, I liked the twists given here.  There is a touch of 
religious tastes here that make you think a bit upon leaving the theater.

	Although TRON may be a bit weak in it's plot in some places, I 
thought that it was pretty well done considering the circumstances.

For example:

1) TRON's (our hero's) comment when he finds out that Flynn (our hacker) is a
User, the Gods of the Programs. "Well, then everything you do is according
to a plan!". I think we humans are accustomed to the same thoughts on our
diety.

2) When Sark (our enforcer) learns that Flynn is a user, keeping in mind that
it is the belief in the Users that he (Sark) and MCP (our evil emperor) are
trying to wipe out.  "Well....  I mean....  Users..... wrote us..."

3) When RAM (the local expendable renegade) is 'de-rezzing'.
	"Oh my User...  Users users......"

4) Considering the circumstances (i.e. if YOU were zapped into a computer's 
world), I think that the reactions by all parties (programs & users alike)
were viable.  Flynn: "On the other side of the screen, it all looks so easy."

That left me thinking for a while.  What if........?

The film has other areas where some thought was actually used for a change. 
I have never seen a hacker better portrayed than the way Jeff Bridges did 
Flynn.  All of the real hot-shots I know act in that cocky, self-assured 
manner.

The bottom line is - Anyone who has an open mind should be prepared to have 
their socks knocked off.

That brings me to the second part of this review.  The Reviewers.

I know of very few reviewers that maintain an open mind.  When something 
new comes out, they call it 'chaotic and disjointed'.  If it's not new, 
they call it 'the same tired old story that started with ______'.  Nothing 
seems to please them nowadays.  Most notable of the Reviewers is Freedman.  
>From the submissions to the SFL I can only gather that his like are geared 
towards the conservative and unchallenging.  Sometimes I and many others 
get the feeling that the Reviewers are really unaware of whats going on.  
They seem to be sitting in the proverbial ivory tower, ignorant to 
societies that are constantly changing.  Even more infuriating is that in 
many cases, the plot details that are given are WRONG.  That fact is not 
isolated to just the Reviewers, but many of the independants have been 
guilty of it (I must admit that the Reviewers do it more often and the 
mistakes are frequently big ones).  ST:TWoK was reviewed by one of our
'pros' as having 'an ultra-galactic bomb that could wipe out the universe'.
While that is true, I would like to see the other side of the Genesis
device put there.  What about it's life-creating possibilities??? 
Sometimes, I would like to see these guys plucked out of their towers and
placed somewhere in the real world and let them see how some people
live and what peoples views on entertainment are.  Yes, we have a lot of
nit-pickers and it's good to see that many people keep their brains engaged
when talking about 'bloopers', but there are limits.  I would like to see 
the Reviewers go into a theatre without pre-conceived notions of what films 
are supposed to be.  I don't know why but SF movies are especially prone to 
bad reviews.  It seems to me that the Reviewers have made a deal with 
Senator William Proxmire ("... the space program is the biggest waste of 
money in the government").  How do you get to these people?

		GO SEE THE MOVIE ANYWAY!!

I usually value the reviews in SFL more than the 'wire-service' reviews.
Does anyone else out there feel this way?

Thanx for the forum,
David J. P. Long
(MERLIN::DJLONG, DJLONG @ MERLIN)


End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************