sf-lovers (07/02/82)
>From JPM@Mit-Ai Fri Jul 2 03:50:40 1982 SF-LOVERS Digest Thursday, 1 Jul 1982 Volume 6 : Issue 1 Today's Topics: SF Movies - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, SF Books - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Spoiler - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue Jun 29 00:44:06 1982 From: decvax!watmath!jcwinterton at Berkeley Subject: TWOK - enough, please. There has been enough discussion of this topic to last all of us for a life time. In fact, lately most of the discussion has been on motion pictures. Anyone noticed that ACE seems to be indulging in a Randall Garrett festival? Does anyone read books anymore? John Winterton at watmath!jcwinterton ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 1982 (Tuesday) 0933-EDT From: PUDER at Wharton-10 (Karl Puder) Subject: Wooden Kirk? Did anyone else notice how many times someone asked Kirk "how do you feel Jim? "? It seems like they heard the critics picking on Shatner's acting and decided to demonstrate that Kirk has feelings by \asking/ him. ------------------------------ Date: 21 June 1982 09:20 edt From: CLJones.Multics at MIT-MULTICS Subject: tWoK: Kahn vs. Khan? It is certainly quite true that the title of the movie has the name spelled "Khan", and I was annoyed at seeing the constant misspelling in SFL. However, Ias the name spelled "Khan", and I was annoyed at seeing the constant misspelling in SFL. However, I looked in James Blish's adaptation of "Space Seed" in the anthology 'Star Trek 2', and he had it spelled as "Kahn". I guess this is another example (albeit a small one) of an inconsistency between the movie (excuse me, motion picture) and TV versions of ST. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 1982 1712-EDT From: DD-B <DYER-BENNET at KL2137> Reply-to: "DYER-BENNET at KL2137 c/o" <YOUNG at DEC-Marlboro> Subject: SFL contribution ( Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest V5 #70 ) (Reed.ES at PARC-MAXC) On Khan versus Kahn -- I looked up the name in the Blishelization of Space Seed to come up with Kahn. It surprised many of us, as we thought we'd seen it as Khan in the movie. Blame Blish, we went out of our way to check up on it. [ Khan is traditionally spelled KHAN, not KAHN. The latter is perhaps an attempt at an angloization of the original spelling. -- Jim ] ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 1982 0851-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Mister Saavik "Mister" is the standard form of address for cadets at military academies. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 82 11:51:26-EDT (Mon) From: Earl Weaver (VLD/VMB) <earl@BRL> Subject: Saavik I like Saavik. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jun 1982 1443-PDT From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL> Subject: Roddenberry movie rumors That's right, the original idea was to have the Enterprise encounter god. At one point, Bones would use one of those marvelous hand held diagnostic things on him, and announce "He's dead, Jim!". This may explain why the title was originally "Sartrek: The Motion Picture". ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, July 1, 1982 1:43PM From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI> Subject: SPOILER WARNING! SPOILER WARNING! All of the remaining messages in this digest discuss some plot details in both the movie and the book Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Some readers may not wish to read on. ------------------------------ Date: 16-JUN-1982 16:49 From: TSC::COORS::VICKREY Reply-to: TSC::COORS::VICKREY <Young at DEC-Marlboro> Subject: For the record . . . . Chekov was the first officer of the Reliant, not the captain as was stated in a recent extended discussion on this list. How come Chekov and Khan recognized each other, as "Space Seed" was first season and Chekov didn't appear until the second? Well, according to the book, he was on the Enterprise at the time of "Space Seed", doing night watches. And finally, Khan is NOT Kahn, but KHAN! ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 1982 10:00 PDT From: kolling at PARC-MAXC Subject: ST:TWOK bloopers 1. "I'll bet the movie-makers knew all along that Chekhov didn't come on board until after the Kahn episode." Sure, after all, "Chekhov" must have remembered if no one else did. 2. "it is hard to believe that [the computer] wouldn't have remembered that Khan had been exiled in that system". It states in the book that Kirk specifically didn't record this info in the computers, so that no one would be tempted to free Khan (or some similar reason, I forget exactly what). ------------------------------ Date: 15-Jun-82 1:17PM-EDT (Tue) From: David Miller <Miller at YALE> Subject: ST-TWO-k Remember... ***************SPOILER*********** This gives away plot details of Star Trek III "In Search Of Spock" Well of course I'm not sure that this is really what is going to happen, but then a did predict that a certain Sithian Lord had an abandoned child on Tatooine within two weeks of "Star Wars" coming out. What is the possible reason for having a genesis machine in the movie when a super-bomb would have been just as good, and a lot more believable? Why to enable Spock's body to be recreated from his dead corpse of course. But what good is Spock's body without his mind? True, but what better place to hide Spock's mind then in along with McCoy's consciousness. We've seen it before in the "Never fear Sargon's here" episode, where Spock spent half the show in Nurse Chapel's mind. Proof: "He's not really dead Jim, not as long as we remember him." That is McCoy's last line in the movie, and I don't think it was an accident. Reactions?? --Dave (miller@yale) ------------------------------ Date: 28 June 1982 15:18 edt From: York.Multics at MIT-MULTICS (William M. York) Subject: "remember" what? Perhaps it is no accident that Spock chose the doctor to mind meld, and that McCoy will "remember" something critical about Vulcan physiology or psychology at the appropriate time in the next movie. ------------------------------ Date: 28 June 1982 14:21-EDT From: Daniel F. Chernikoff <DFC at MIT-MC> Subject: Star Trek II: Why they needed a lifeless planet for the Subject: genesis device I got the impression, from conversations among the Genesis scientists and the Star-Fleet officers that were hunting out the planet (Checkov et al) that since this was the first planet-scale test of the Genesis device, they wanted to use a completely lifeless planet to PROVE that it would create life out of lifeless matter. Not so much that it wouldn't work with a life-full planet, or that it was immoral -- it would just throw the results of the experiment into doubt. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 1982 2030-PDT From: Bill <YEAGER at SUMEX-AIM> Subject: ST: TWOK The other interesting point concerning the newly created planet is that Khan's molecules were floating around when it was formed. What effect will this have on the newly created life forms(including Spock's)? Also, from all that we've read here (the recent interview with Nimoy and Shatner) and from what I've read elsewhere, Spock will indeed be back for STIII, even if he has to wait until "1994!" Bill ------------------------------ Date: 24-Jun-1982 From: AL LEHOTSKY AT METOO Reply-to: "AL LEHOTSKY AT METOO c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro> Subject: Star Trek II If you haven't seen ST2 - tWoK yet, drop whatever you're doing and go see it! While it does have a few minor flaws (both in technology and in military matters), it's a solid movie with an engrossing plot. --- (Spoiler Warning??) --- On the "flaws", can anyone think of a justification as to why the ships are so close when they are firing on one another? In the first battle-scene, I was half-expecting Khan and a boarding party to come "swarming over the gunwales, cutlasses in hand....". Also, how did Chekhov manage to survive the "earwigs"? Khan said that some large number of his group (20?) had been killed by the larvae. But Chekhov managed to survive. I suppose you could chalk it up to superior medical treatment by McCoy.... ------------------------------ Date: Mon Jun 28 23:41:40 1982 From: decvax!watmath!bstempleton at Berkeley Subject: Star Trek - Spoiler On the radiation suit idea: The Enterprise escapes the effect with a fraction of a second to spare - they would have died if he had put on a suit. Spock did the only logical thing - either he would die with everybody or he would die alone. In my opinion, that planet must be the one that was outside the nebulosity. Formation of a sun and planet is just too much. After all, if you trust the sfx, the genesis effect spread almost as fast as a star ship at warp speed, and latched on to the first planet it could find. Complete transfer of all of Spock's mind in 1/3 of a second into McCoy? Are you kidding??? Brad ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 1982 11:59 EDT From: Stevenson.WBST at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest V5 #71 "When Spock went into the radiation chamber, why didn't he wear a protective suit? ... why weren't there waldoes available?" -- Paul Karger at RDVAX Well, I assume Spock didn't have time to properly put on and seal a radiation suit in the <4 minutes he had to fix the warp drive. I do agree, though, that by the 23rd century (even with some setbacks from the wars of the late 20th and early 21st centuries) there should have been waldoes capable of doing such work. (In the paperback, it's said that there was a robot to do repairs, but it had already been put out of action by radiation damage or something. (What? no backup robot?!?!)) ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 1982 20:01 PDT From: SJohnson.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Spoiler Warning - ST:TWoK (SF-Lovers #71 & #72) PAUL KARGER AT RDVAX asked, "When Spock went into the radiation chamber, why didn't he wear a protective suit? Such suits have existed since the 1940's, and surely would have been made better by the 23rd century. Why wasn't such a suit kept for emergency purposes. Alternately, why weren't there waldoes available? Again - 1940's technology." You seem to be assuming that the radiation was NUCLEAR. Perhaps this new radiation can only be cut off by a material which can not be made flexible enough for a garment. As for waldoes, there just wasn't enough time. >From ihuxi!otto (George Otto) at Berkeley, "In the original TV episode of Star Trek (or was it in the pilot that was turned into the two-episode show: Menagerie) the science officer was a woman identified as "Number One." Audience reaction to this character was not positive." It was indeed the first ST pilot (there were two), which was shown to network officials. THEY decided that the public would not accept Number One, not a TV audience. In fact, they also thought that the Spock character was a bad idea, until viewers made it clear that he was one of the show's major attractions. You speak of decisions made by "Roddenberry & Company". How much involvement did Roddenberry have in this movie ? I thought I heard sometime back that he had sold his rights to ST over to Paramount (I know, I know, his name is on the credits. But "Executive Consultant" (or whatever) sounds like some legal technicality to me, not an active contribution). ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jun 1982 0142-EDT From: Gene Hastings <HASTINGS at CMU-20C> Subject: Star Trek-spoiler Why do they show the crew readying a coffin BEFORE the battle? Or is that thing I saw something else? Gene Hastings [ What they were readying before the battle was a photon torpedo. Spock's body was placed in the casing of a torpedo for launching into space.
sf-lovers (07/02/82)
>From JPM@Mit-Ai Fri Jul 2 03:50:40 1982 SF-LOVERS Digest Thursday, 1 Jul 1982 Volume 6 : Issue 1 Today's Topics: SF Movies - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, SF Books - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Spoiler - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue Jun 29 00:44:06 1982 From: decvax!watmath!jcwinterton at Berkeley Subject: TWOK - enough, please. There has been enough discussion of this topic to last all of us for a life time. In fact, lately most of the discussion has been on motion pictures. Anyone noticed that ACE seems to be indulging in a Randall Garrett festival? Does anyone read books anymore? John Winterton at watmath!jcwinterton ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 1982 (Tuesday) 0933-EDT From: PUDER at Wharton-10 (Karl Puder) Subject: Wooden Kirk? Did anyone else notice how many times someone asked Kirk "how do you feel Jim? "? It seems like they heard the critics picking on Shatner's acting and decided to demonstrate that Kirk has feelings by \asking/ him. ------------------------------ Date: 21 June 1982 09:20 edt From: CLJones.Multics at MIT-MULTICS Subject: tWoK: Kahn vs. Khan? It is certainly quite true that the title of the movie has the name spelled "Khan", and I was annoyed at seeing the constant misspelling in SFL. However, I looked in James Blish's adaptation of "Space Seed" in the anthology 'Star Trek 2', and he had it spelled as "Kahn". I guess this is another example (albeit a small one) of an inconsistency between the movie (excuse me, motion picture) and TV versions of ST. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 1982 1712-EDT From: DD-B <DYER-BENNET at KL2137> Reply-to: "DYER-BENNET at KL2137 c/o" <YOUNG at DEC-Marlboro> Subject: SFL contribution ( Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest V5 #70 ) (Reed.ES at PARC-MAXC) On Khan versus Kahn -- I looked up the name in the Blishelization of Space Seed to come up with Kahn. It surprised many of us, as we thought we'd seen it as Khan in the movie. Blame Blish, we went out of our way to check up on it. [ Khan is traditionally spelled KHAN, not KAHN. The latter is perhaps an attempt at an angloization of the original spelling. -- Jim ] ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 1982 0851-EDT From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO> Subject: Mister Saavik "Mister" is the standard form of address for cadets at military academies. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 82 11:51:26-EDT (Mon) From: Earl Weaver (VLD/VMB) <earl@BRL> Subject: Saavik I like Saavik. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jun 1982 1443-PDT From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL> Subject: Roddenberry movie rumors That's right, the original idea was to have the Enterprise encounter god. At one point, Bones would use one of those marvelous hand held diagnostic things on him, and announce "He's dead, Jim!". This may explain why the title was originally "Sartrek: The Motion Picture". ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, July 1, 1982 1:43PM From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI> Subject: SPOILER WARNING! SPOILER WARNING! All of the remaining messages in this digest discuss some plot details in both the movie and the book Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Some readers may not wish to read on. ------------------------------ Date: 16-JUN-1982 16:49 From: TSC::COORS::VICKREY Reply-to: TSC::COORS::VICKREY <Young at DEC-Marlboro> Subject: For the record . . . . Chekov was the first officer of the Reliant, not the captain as was stated in a recent extended discussion on this list. How come Chekov and Khan recognized each other, as "Space Seed" was first season and Chekov didn't appear until the second? Well, according to the book, he was on the Enterprise at the time of "Space Seed", doing night watches. And finally, Khan is NOT Kahn, but KHAN! ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 1982 10:00 PDT From: kolling at PARC-MAXC Subject: ST:TWOK bloopers 1. "I'll bet the movie-makers knew all along that Chekhov didn't come on board until after the Kahn episode." Sure, after all, "Chekhov" must have remembered if no one else did. 2. "it is hard to believe that [the computer] wouldn't have remembered that Khan had been exiled in that system". It states in the book that Kirk specifically didn't record this info in the computers, so that no one would be tempted to free Khan (or some similar reason, I forget exactly what). ------------------------------ Date: 15-Jun-82 1:17PM-EDT (Tue) From: David Miller <Miller at YALE> Subject: ST-TWO-k Remember... ***************SPOILER*********** This gives away plot details of Star Trek III "In Search Of Spock" Well of course I'm not sure that this is really what is going to happen, but then a did predict that a certain Sithian Lord had an abandoned child on Tatooine within two weeks of "Star Wars" coming out. What is the possible reason for having a genesis machine in the movie when a super-bomb would have been just as good, and a lot more believable? Why to enable Spock's body to be recreated from his dead corpse of course. But what good is Spock's body without his mind? True, but what better place to hide Spock's mind then in along with McCoy's consciousness. We've seen it before in the "Never fear Sargon's here" episode, where Spock spent half the show in Nurse Chapel's mind. Proof: "He's not really dead Jim, not as long as we remember him." That is McCoy's last line in the movie, and I don't think it was an accident. Reactions?? --Dave (miller@yale) ------------------------------ Date: 28 June 1982 15:18 edt From: York.Multics at MIT-MULTICS (William M. York) Subject: "remember" what? Perhaps it is no accident that Spock chose the doctor to mind meld, and that McCoy will "remember" something critical about Vulcan physiology or psychology at the appropriate time in the next movie. ------------------------------ Date: 28 June 1982 14:21-EDT From: Daniel F. Chernikoff <DFC at MIT-MC> Subject: Star Trek II: Why they needed a lifeless planet for the Subject: genesis device I got the impression, from conversations among the Genesis scientists and the Star-Fleet officers that were hunting out the planet (Checkov et al) that since this was the first planet-scale test of the Genesis device, they wanted to use a completely lifeless planet to PROVE that it would create life out of lifeless matter. Not so much that it wouldn't work with a life-full planet, or that it was immoral -- it would just throw the results of the experiment into doubt. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 1982 2030-PDT From: Bill <YEAGER at SUMEX-AIM> Subject: ST: TWOK The other interesting point concerning the newly created planet is that Khan's molecules were floating around when it was formed. What effect will this have on the newly created life forms(including Spock's)? Also, from all that we've read here (the recent interview with Nimoy and Shatner) and from what I've read elsewhere, Spock will indeed be back for STIII, even if he has to wait until "1994!" Bill ------------------------------ Date: 24-Jun-1982 From: AL LEHOTSKY AT METOO Reply-to: "AL LEHOTSKY AT METOO c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro> Subject: Star Trek II If you haven't seen ST2 - tWoK yet, drop whatever you're doing and go see it! While it does have a few minor flaws (both in technology and in military matters), it's a solid movie with an engrossing plot. --- (Spoiler Warning??) --- On the "flaws", can anyone think of a justification as to why the ships are so close when they are firing on one another? In the first battle-scene, I was half-expecting Khan and a boarding party to come "swarming over the gunwales, cutlasses in hand....". Also, how did Chekhov manage to survive the "earwigs"? Khan said that some large number of his group (20?) had been killed by the larvae. But Chekhov managed to survive. I suppose you could chalk it up to superior medical treatment by McCoy.... ------------------------------ Date: Mon Jun 28 23:41:40 1982 From: decvax!watmath!bstempleton at Berkeley Subject: Star Trek - Spoiler On the radiation suit idea: The Enterprise escapes the effect with a fraction of a second to spare - they would have died if he had put on a suit. Spock did the only logical thing - either he would die with everybody or he would die alone. In my opinion, that planet must be the one that was outside the nebulosity. Formation of a sun and planet is just too much. After all, if you trust the sfx, the genesis effect spread almost as fast as a star ship at warp speed, and latched on to the first planet it could find. Complete transfer of all of Spock's mind in 1/3 of a second into McCoy? Are you kidding??? Brad ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 1982 11:59 EDT From: Stevenson.WBST at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest V5 #71 "When Spock went into the radiation chamber, why didn't he wear a protective suit? ... why weren't there waldoes available?" -- Paul Karger at RDVAX Well, I assume Spock didn't have time to properly put on and seal a radiation suit in the <4 minutes he had to fix the warp drive. I do agree, though, that by the 23rd century (even with some setbacks from the wars of the late 20th and early 21st centuries) there should have been waldoes capable of doing such work. (In the paperback, it's said that there was a robot to do repairs, but it had already been put out of action by radiation damage or something. (What? no backup robot?!?!)) ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 1982 20:01 PDT From: SJohnson.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Spoiler Warning - ST:TWoK (SF-Lovers #71 & #72) PAUL KARGER AT RDVAX asked, "When Spock went into the radiation chamber, why didn't he wear a protective suit? Such suits have existed since the 1940's, and surely would have been made better by the 23rd century. Why wasn't such a suit kept for emergency purposes. Alternately, why weren't there waldoes available? Again - 1940's technology." You seem to be assuming that the radiation was NUCLEAR. Perhaps this new radiation can only be cut off by a material which can not be made flexible enough for a garment. As for waldoes, there just wasn't enough time. >From ihuxi!otto (George Otto) at Berkeley, "In the original TV episode of Star Trek (or was it in the pilot that was turned into the two-episode show: Menagerie) the science officer was a woman identified as "Number One." Audience reaction to this character was not positive." It was indeed the first ST pilot (there were two), which was shown to network officials. THEY decided that the public would not accept Number One, not a TV audience. In fact, they also thought that the Spock character was a bad idea, until viewers made it clear that he was one of the show's major attractions. You speak of decisions made by "Roddenberry & Company". How much involvement did Roddenberry have in this movie ? I thought I heard sometime back that he had sold his rights to ST over to Paramount (I know, I know, his name is on the credits. But "Executive Consultant" (or whatever) sounds like some legal technicality to me, not an active contribution). ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jun 1982 0142-EDT From: Gene Hastings <HASTINGS at CMU-20C> Subject: Star Trek-spoiler Why do they show the crew readying a coffin BEFORE the battle? Or is that thing I saw something else? Gene Hastings [ What they were readying before the battle was a photon torpedo. Spock's body was placed in the casing of a torpedo for launching into space. -- Jim ] ------------------------------ End of SF-LOVERS Digest ***********************