sf-lovers (06/15/82)
>From JPM@Mit-Ai Tue Jun 15 10:50:31 1982
SF-LOVERS Digest Monday, 14 Jun 1982 Volume 5 : Issue 70
Today's Topics:
SF Movies - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,
Random Topics - Commercials at the movies
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 13 Jun 82 13:11-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: trek article
Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan
By Don McLeese
(c) 1982 Chicago Sun-Times (Field News Service)
BEVERLY HILLS - ''When we were making the series, maybe the second
season, the Spock character was well-established and people were
liking him,'' Leonard Nimoy reminisced. ''There was this whole thing
about this character who has no emotions - or controls his emotions,
which is a better way to put it, I think.
''Dorothy Fontana, who was a writer on the series, said, 'I'm
gonna write a love story for Spock.' I objected. I said, 'I think it's
a mistake; I think it will destroy a major element of the character.
We can never be believable again saying that Spock controls his
emotions if he plays a love story.'
''She went ahead and wrote it, and we did it. It was called 'This
Side of Paradise.' It's still one of my favorite episodes. It was a
wonderful story, very well done, very touching, a poignant love story
that made sense for the character. Instead of destroying the
character, it enhanced it. What it did was redevelop that repressed
side of Spock, exposed it.
''It taught me a big lesson - and that is that if you don't take
chances, then you're limiting yourself to predictable behavior. And if
it's all predictable, why should anybody pay to see it?''
Relaxing in his Beverly Hills hotel room, Nimoy was explaining how
the chances taken within ''Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan'' had him
excited about the series all over again. Just the previous evening,
Nimoy had seen the completed movie for the first time, along with an
enthusiastically appreciative crowd of press and film folk, and he
professed to be as moved by its ending as anyone. While the ending has
created quite a stir as the end of Spock - the half-human, half-Vulcan
master of rationality who has long been one of the series' major draws
- Nimoy talked of Spock as a character reborn.
''I think what's happened here, amazingly enough, is that by doing
what we've done with Spock, we may have created an entirely new future
for 'Star Trek' and Spock. Now, if we can get some imagination going,
we've got the potential for doing some very exciting stuff in the
future,'' he predicted.
''The end, in a sense, may be an entirely new beginning.''
Nimoy's enthusiasm seems to be shared by everyone connected with
the project. Throughout its peculiar history, ''Star Trek'' has been
beset by problems along the timespace continuum. As a
less-than-successful late '60s TV series, it may have offered too
much, too soon. As a sensation in reruns, it offered its participants
too little, too late. As a belated effort to capitalize on the appeal
of the series, 1979's ''Star Trek: The Motion Picture'' attempted too
much, too late. Finally, with the entertaining and intelligently
crafted ''The Wrath of Khan,'' it appears that ''Star Trek's'' time
has come.
Let's backtrack a little. ''Star Trek'' debuted as an NBC-TV
series in September, 1966. More ambitious than most television, its
combination of literate scripts, effective ensemble performances, and
science-fiction intrigue won it critical plaudits and a modest but
loyal following. After three years of less than exceptional ratings,
the Starship U.S.S. Enterprise was grounded, apparently for good.
After its 79 episodes went into syndication, a curious phenomenon
occurred. Year after year, the syndicated reruns attracted larger and
larger audiences, winning a lot more fans than the show had the first
time around. Fanatics, popularly known as ''Trekkies'' (actually, they
consider this a term of disparagement; ''Trekkers'' is the preferred
description), began memorizing everything there was to know about the
series. Conventions where they could share their passion attracted
thousands.
''Beam me up, Scotty'' became a common catchphrase; Nimoy's Mr.
Spock and William Shatner's Capt. Kirk were hailed internationally as
heroes. Today, 13 years after its cancellation, the series is
televised in more than 100 American cities and in almost 150
additional markets worldwide. There are more than 350 fan clubs
throughout the world. The series has inspired more than 50 books and
numerous postgraduate dissertations.
For a while, Shatner and Nimoy considered such belated adulation
less a blessing than an albatross. ''You can imagine, here I was,
working at various and sundry projects,'' explained Shatner. ''And
people would be coming up and saying, 'There's Capt. Kirk.' It got
more and more popular, and the identification became closer and
closer.''
Nimoy expressed even more resistance, venting his spleen in an
autobiography entitled ''I Am Not Spock'' (leading some to wonder, if
he were not Spock, why anybody would want to read the autobiography of
Leonard Nimoy). As both attempted to push forward, being tied to a
long-dead television series was holding them back.
Still, neither man resented the typecasting enough to reject the
offer for ''Star Trek: The Motion Picture.'' The continued popularity
of the series and the overwhelming success of the ''Star
Trek''-influenced ''Star Wars'' convinced everyone concerned that the
film couldn't help but be a smash.
''It didn't take me long to make the decision to do Capt. Kirk
(again),'' said Shatner. ''It was hard not to be a part of a
large-budget motion picture. The script hadn't been written, but I was
thinking if the people who had written the series were going to be
part of the film, I was expecting the best.''
With Gene Roddenberry, the man who had created ''Star Trek,'' in
charge of the production, there was every reason to assume that the
film would build on the values that gave the series its appeal. Where
the series had depended on the interaction of well-rounded,
well-defined characters, however, the film seemed both more ambitious
and more hollow - an expensive special-effects demonstration. Costing
almost $50 million, it more than doubled its money, but it didn't have
quite the impact expected.
Did the film somehow get off the track?
''I think it was set down that track intentionally,'' said Nimoy.
''I wasn't there, but some people decided that to do 'Star Trek' as a
motion picture, it had to be different (from the television series).
I got the feeling that someone had seen an awful lot of '2001.'''
According to Shatner, the project was plagued by problems: ''The
filming took a lot longer than expected. The film had been promised to
distributors for a particular date, and through accidents of
production and post-production, that time slipped away. There was no
preview time.
''Essentially, there were two films being made: one in the
special-effects houses under Doug Trumbull and one in the studios
under Bob Wise. The two (films) were married, but it was a shotgun
marriage.''
When the principal actors returned for the new ''Star Trek'' film,
there was a new team at the helm. Gone were Wise, Trumbull, and
Roddenberry (who's listed as ''executive consultant'' for the film,
but whose participation on the project was minimal). In their places
were people who had proven that they could deliver quality work within
strict time and budget limitations.
Executive producer Harve Bennett, who exerted most of the control
over ''The Wrath of Khan,'' came from a strong television background
(''Mod Squad,'' ''Rich Man, Poor Man,'' et al.), and was originally
offered the project as a made-for-TV film. Producer Robert Sallin was
an award-winning producerdirector of television commercials. Director
Nicholas Meyer, something of a 36-year-old whiz kid, penned the
best-selling ''The Seven Per-Cent Solution'' and wrote and directed
''Time After Time.''
''They showed me the (first) movie, and I thought it would be
impossible to make a movie as boring as this one,'' said Meyer, when
asked whether the task of making a successful sequel had intimidated
him. Made for a quarter of the budget, ''The Wrath of Khan'' is not
only better entertainment than its predecessor, but it's expected to
do better at the box office as well.
''There was obviously a very conscious attempt to go back to the
best qualities of the series,'' said Shatner, ''and to use the special
effects as an escape valve, to keep the audience on the edge of its
seats, but never to forget that relationships were what made the
series popular.''
Beyond such superficialities, neither Shatner nor Nimoy is much
for analyzing what specific qualities have given ''Star Trek''
longevity. ''It's so hard to answer the question,'' responded Nimoy.
''You put an actor together with the role and you hope it'll work.
What is the appeal of Sylvester Stallone in 'Rocky'? Can you put
somebody else into the role and make it work? Is it the role? Is it
the man? A combination of both?
''It's chemistry. At the same time, it's not scientific. If it
were scientific, you could repeat it.''
Both agree, however, that ''Star Trek'' aims a little higher than
most space-adventure fare.
''I think that science-fiction films as a rule, for example the
Lucas films - 'Star Wars,' 'Raiders of the Lost Ark,' even - are pure,
wonderful, fantasy entertainment,'' said Shatner. '''Star Trek' treads
both categories: It is a film about the human condition, mixed with
pop villians and science-fiction paraphernalia. But the reason people
cried in that theater last night is because it touches something
universal in them.''
Added Nimoy, ''I think that when 'Star Trek' is at its best, there
are some ideas involved. They're not pretentious, they're not pounded
into your head, but there are ideas that resonate. As long as we have
that, it sets us apart.''
Sixteen years after the original series began, Shatner and Nimoy
are busier than ever. Shatner is starring in the ''T.J. Hooker''
television series, and continues to act in and direct a variety of
theatrical projects. With featured roles in ''Marco Polo'' and
''Golda,'' and as host of ''In Search of...,'' Nimoy has recently been
all over the tube.
As busy as both are, each indicated that he'd be eager to
participate in further ''Star Trek'' sequels, especially after the
creative resurgence evinced by ''The Wrath of Khan.'' While no one has
signed anything yet (and director Meyer has already indicated he's
done with ''Star Trek''), there's little doubt that a new ''Star
Trek'' film will be made.
How long can the series continue?
''If you had said to me in 1970 that we'd still be dealing with
this in 1982, I'd have said you're crazy,'' said Nimoy. ''So now, if
you say to me in 1994 we'll meet again and have a discussion about the
new 'Star Trek' movie, I'm not gonna laugh.''
------------------------------
Date: 14-Jun-82 10:51:55 PDT (Monday)
From: Reed.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest V5 #65
I have about had it with misspellings:
Star Trek: The WRATH of KHAN.
"The Rath of Kahn" (Dolata at SUMEX-AIM). What is this, 'Morning for
Jews'?
The misspelling 'Kahn' is very widespread - I've seen it in a
newspaper review, and even on the billboard of a local theatre, not to
mention almost every SF-Lovers submission on the subject for the last
10 digests. (It is to JPM's credit that he didn't pass these
misspellings on in the digest titles.) Come on, folks - you are
willing to nitpick the details like "Chekov wasn't in 'Space Seed'"
but you can't even remember the spelling correctly from the movie
title and the ads?
As to David Miller's comment about Khan's foolishness - he suffers
from two problems which conflict with his superior intelligence. First
and foremost, EGO. It is his ego which subverts his intelligence over
and over again. But in the end, it is ignorance which does him in. No
amount of superior intelligence could prepare him for the results of
his ignorance, initially with respect to the operation of the Reliant,
and subsequently with respect to the properties of the nebula.
In any case, the point here is that superior intelligence is nothing
if it isn't backed by a clear head and accurate knowledge.
As for the return of Spock - all they have to do is show an episode
from the past. Spock's final log comment at the end is an indication
of this.
Re: movie theatre commercials. I have been seeing LATimes ads in the
movies for the last year. Disgusting, but at least they don't break
the movie in half like they apparently do in Switzerland. Even "Reds",
which had an intermission, did not have commercials in the midst of
the movie. Remember when they used to show cartoons and newsreels?
Many comments seem to imply that particular commercials go with
particular movies. I have not noticed this to be the case - they seem
to be entirely independent as far as I can tell.
------------------------------
Date: 14-Jun-82 2:27PM-EDT (Mon)
From: B.J. Herbison <Herbison at YALE>
Reply-to: Ben Lotto <C.472.Lotto>
Subject: Commercials at the movies
Date: 10 June 1982 18:11-EDT
From: Thomas L. Davenport <TLD at MIT-MC>
Subject: Commercials at the movies!
And what about commercials IN the movies? I hear that E.T.
features Star Wars "action figures" and a national pizza chain.
A while ago Richard Dreyfuss came to Yale. This was fairly soon after
Close Encounters was released, so naturally I asked him about the film
and about Spielberg. He said that "...Spielberg is in love with the
middle class..." and pointed out the home scenes from Close
Encounters as an example. If you recall, there are coke cans
scattered around, kids watching television all day, all the things
that one would consider Modern American Decedent Middle Class. I
don't recall whether he said that any of these companies paid for
these items showing up, (that was the basis for my question, but we
got sidetracked), but their appearance is attributable more to
Spielberg than to the Coca Cola Corp.
-Ben Lotto
(lotto@yale-comix)
------------------------------
End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************