sf-lovers (06/12/82)
>From JPM@Mit-Ai Fri Jun 11 18:30:15 1982
SF-LOVERS Digest Wednesday, 9 Jun 1982 Volume 5 : Issue 66
Today's Topics:
SF Books - Podkayne of Mars & Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,
SF TV - Dr Who, Humor - Genderless Video Games,
Random Topics - Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance &
How To Solve It & Halliwell's Filmgoers Companion,
SF Movies - Movie Reviews & Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,
Spoiler - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 08-Jun-1982
From: ANDY VESPER at EVE
Reply-to: "ANDY VESPER at EVE c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: Life imitates art
Reference: Eric P. Scott at MIT-AI (SF-LOVERS Digest vol 5 # 59)
Vita imitaret artes. ("Life imitates art" in Latin.)
Reference: Podkayne of Mars
I must agree she is a twit - but she is a very believable twit.
Should a hero be larger than life - or human? I have always admired
RAH's characterizations - I can see people like them all around. Even
Lazarus Long has his foibles - his \ridiculous/ sexual hangups (which,
come to think, might have helped him stay alive all those years).
------------------------------
Date: 8-JUN-1982 17:58
From: TSC::COORS::VICKREY
Reply-to: "TSC::COORS::VICKREY c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: The Fifth Doctor Who
Saw a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a video tape of
Castrelvalva, the first Dr. Who with Peter Davison as the Doctor, this
weekend. The story (from what I could see & hear - nth generation
tapes are hard to watch) was about the Doctor's problems with his
latest re-generation: his memory is extremely erratic, making it
difficult to find his way around the Tardis (he has to leave a trail
of clothing); a quarter of the Tardis has to be jettisoned in order to
get sufficient thrust to get away from the Big Bang (unfortunately
including the Zero Room, which was the only place where his dendrites
could heal properly); and the Master is still after him.
The Tradition Continues!
------------------------------
Date: Wednesday, 9 June 1982 14:14-PDT
From: KING at KESTREL
Subject: video games
What do you call <going out into the woods and using a
battery-powered Atari>?
PacPacing
------------------------------
Date: 8 Jun 1982 22:59:13-PDT
From: Cory.caro at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Pirsig's "Zen..."
(HEDRICK at RUTGERS) I must take exception to your brief summary of
"Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." Although it is many
things, I would not call it "fiction". At the very least, it is
semi-autobiographical. At the most, it is a serious philosophical
teatise (but that is REALLY stretching things.) That Pirsig chose to
present his ideas in a "mainstream" literary format reflects the fact
that he wanted people, all people, to hear his "message". Also, I
think the literary approach has more "Quality".
In any case, it has as little to do with SF as this letter.
Perry A. Caro
ucbvax!ucbcory!caro
------------------------------
Date: 9 June 1982 10:20 edt
From: Boebert.SCOMP at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: Misc. Nonfiction
1. "How To Solve It" was written by Polya, not Polyani. His lectures
were wonderful. His work was extended by Imre Lakatos in an excellent
book called "Proofs and Refutations" (Cambridge U Press).
2. "Halliwell's Filmgoers Companion" is popping up on the B. Dalton
remainder tables at half price. These are actual 1980 editions, not
shlock (e.g. Crown) reprints. Only a little SF in this, but everthing
about everthing about movies, especially those of the thirties and
forties.
Earl
------------------------------
Date: 8 Jun 1982 1113-EDT
From: John Redford <VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO>
Subject: Outside movie reviews
Lately it seems that most of the movie and book reviews on this list
have come from newpapers and wire services. Although I appreciate the
effort that people have gone to in typing them in or in transferring
the files, I would really rather hear what fellow fans have to say. A
reviewer like Richard Freedman is obviously not a fan, and on the
whole he seems to despise this sci-fi stuff. After reading three or
four pieces from professional reviewers, I think people are a little
reluctant to express their own opinions. So come on out there! What
do you think of Spielberg making another sentimental and stupid movie
about aliens? Should Trekdom be revived? Is the Conan movie fascist
or merely brutal? Surely we can do better than "Wonderful special
effects and such fun for the kids".
------------------------------
Date: 9 Jun 1982 1335-PDT
From: Stuart McLure Cracraft <McLure at SRI-KL>
Subject: objections to mainstream movie critics
Redford raised an objection about the newswire reviews of SF movies
(and books presumably) that have appeared on this mailing list. I,
for one, *WANT* someone's view other than a hardcore SF fanatic's who
generally has little or no care for characterization, often being
interested in spectacular effects alone. A Trekkie's view of the Star
Trek movie is practically worthless. I want to know if the movie
stands on its own, what is the level of the acting, how does the plot
hang together, etc. If Freedman, Maslin and Ebert decry the stupidity
of a SF movie, rest assured that the film *is* stupid. The fact that
several SF movies have received good reviews from them lately is
reassuring.
[ Two points: first, we can only print what we get submitted. So if
people want to hear from the readers of the list on your favorite
movie or book, then contribute! Remember, send all messages to
SF-LOVERS@MIT-AI . Second, the news wire stories are not only
useful for an alternate veiwpoint, but they also come out up to
one week before the movie opens to the public. Thus, since many
people seem to appreciate reveiws as soon as a movie opens, we
try to time the distribute this material to coincide with the
opening of the movie. After it has opened, the amount of material
available from the outside press naturally decreases, while the
contributions from the readership naturally increases as more people
see the movie. -- Jim ]
------------------------------
Date: 5 Jun 1982 1102-EDT
From: DD-B <DYER-BENNET at KL2137>
Reply-to: "DYER-BENNET at KL2137 c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: For SFL: TWoK Review
I saw Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn at the official opening last night.
There will probably be lots of reviews floating around, but I'm going
to contribute mine anyway.
Micro review: This is a good movie, even taken apart from any special
appeal it may have for Star Trek fen. See it.
Mini review: I didn't expect to like the movie much. I felt that the
last one was of no interest except to hard boiled Trekfen, because it
contained almost no story. This one, on the other hand, had
sufficient plot for the length, and as a bonus contained more of the
feel of the television Star Trek episodes than the first movie did.
A couple of caveats: the ST universe contains many magic artifacts,
such as the transporter, which must be accepted without an attempt at
explanation. ST:TWoK contains a new one, but it isn't pulled out of a
hat at a crucial moment or anything obnoxious like that. There are
certain "standing stupidities" built into Star Trek, such as always
sending the highest-ranking officers around on landing parties, and
failing to keep up communications between the landing party and the
ship, which figure in this movie as well. People who have not become
inured to these by now will probably not like the movie.
Mainframe review: See spoiler section.
------------------------------
Date: Thursday, June 10, 1982 8:32AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING! SPOILER WARNING!
The following messages are the last in the digest. They 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: 5 Jun 1982 1134-EDT
From: DD-B <DYER-BENNET at KL2137>
Reply-to: "DYER-BENNET at KL2137 c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: SFL: ST:TWoK Mainframe review **SPOILER**
I'm writing this part of my review for people who have seen the movie.
I assume that most will either see the movie before reading spoilers,
or skip them entirely if they don't care about the movie.
Someone mentioned Spock "slipping" once and addressing Lt. Saavik as
"Mr. Saavik" (for those who haven't seen the movie, she's female). I
was looking for this. I found it, not once but each time. It seemed
as if they were using "Mr." as the title of address for officers on
the bridge without regard to sex (was Uhura ever addressed by anything
but name or rank?).
I always keep a "list" of "idiot steps" in the plot: connections that
wouldn't be there if the characters weren't idiots. This movie did
better than most (really better: it had fewer idiots):
1. Chekov and the captain should have stayed in communication with
the ship when they were down examining Kahns community.
2. Kirk should have raised shields earlier when approaching the
Reliant. The fact that he acknowledges this himself later makes this
much less bothersome to me. Certainly people make mistakes; but if
the entire plot of a story hinges on a mistake, it should be explained
as "justified" somehow, or at the very least acknowledged as having
been a mistake.
3. The story Chekov tells about Kahn putting "creatures" into them to
make them obey should have been checked out. Either it was true, or
Chekov was hallucinating; it's clearly important to determine which,
since both are serious. This should be settled before he goes back on
duty.
These did not manage to spoil the film for me.
I thought the plot was very good. Kahn has always been portrayed as a
superman with emotions sized to match, which fit well with his
appearance here. The threat was real and convincing, the responses
were reasonable. Kahns people put up a plausible amount of opposition
to his insistence on revenging himself against Kirk before making
themselves a paradise.
I found the acting superior. Lt. Saavik did particularly well in the
opening sequence (no-win scenario). I thought her reactions were
perfect for an officer placed in a test which she sees as unfair, and
yet knows is very important for her career. Her Vulcan heritage
(deduced from ears plus the fact that she and Spock speak together in
some foreign language) explains the subtlety of the reactions.
Kirk and McCoy were in top form. Spock was Spock (not to denigrate
Nimoy's acting, but I've found less variation in Spock than in any of
the other major characters).
Kahn was Kahn. I'd have preferred a more rational opponent, but the
one we were given was well acted.
The alien life-form that just happens to parasitize humans, and just
happens to make them subject to command before it kills them, is of
course grossly implausible. Don't ask me why it didn't bother me.
Perhaps my sensibilities have been damaged by too many bad movies.
I'm also bothered by the lack of explanation for Chekov's recovery --
Kahn had said that the creatures killed the hosts eventually. Oh
well. Maybe he lied.
Overall, I felt that this was a good movie, and at the same time a
good Star Trek movie. It was MUCH better than I expected.
Oh, yes, they did kill Spock in the end, but then beat very heavily on
the idea that he would probably be back. That part was a bit clumsy
and came close to spoiling an otherwise very good ending (the memorial
service and burial-in-space were particularly good).
I have low expectations for the next film. It seems as if they have
created a situation low on plot to work from. From things Kirk says,
it appears that he intends to come back to the newly-formed (by the
Genesis bomb, from a nebula) planet where Spock's coffin miraculously
lands (without reentry gear) in hopes of finding Spock brought back to
life (presumably by the residual magic from the creation of the
planet). Since the announced title for the next film is In Search of
Spock, it seems likely that that's what it will be about. But I don't
see a Star Trek type action story there.
------------------------------
Date: 9 Jun 1982 16:23 EDT
From: WRIGHT.WBST at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Star Trek II
Not to mention "the usual"
i.e. "half a gallon of scotch"
"Spectre of the Gun"
------------------------------
Date: 9 June 1982 2159-EDT (Wednesday)
From: Mark.Sherman at CMU-10A
Subject: ST:TWOK - Origin of Saavik
One thing that bothered me during the movie was the implication that
Saavik was Vulcan while the reviews I read claimed that she was only
part Vulcan. In either event, she certainly didn't act like Vulcans
seen during the series, e.g., all of those Vulcans at Spock's
"wedding". Having gotten and read the book, the details are
available. She is half Vulcan, half Romulan and brought up as a
Romulan (as opposed to Spock who was brought up as a Vulcan).
------------------------------
Date: 10-JUN-1982 08:45
From: VAX4::MCCOY
Reply-to: "VAX4::MCCOY c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: ST:TWOK
I finally managed to see ST:TWOK last night (after all it's been out
almost a week now). It was quite an improvement over ST:TMP, less time
spent showing off the special effects and more time developing the
plot. I