cmm@pixadv.UUCP (07/05/84)
I have been watching the corespondance over the net for a few weeks now,
and feel a desire to put my cent and a half forward.
1) StarTrek is a story about a small network of friends working with
the universe and each other. It is not a story about the technology, it
is about the people, and the "nobility" and "good causes" people can
represent. StarTrek is a fable, with a moral, and is prey to all the
self-rightous depths "moral media" can sink to. The people in StarTrek
(many who almost seem like friends after all these years), are just
people.
2) I think destroying the Enterprise was an acceptable idea.
The maintainance of the Enterprise as the best/fastest/
most exciting ship in the fleet requires that a new model be created.
The Enterprise is old, and must be replaced with the new technology.
I think that there wasn't enough emotion when it was destroyed, (there
was more emotion when the PDP-1x was powered down), but that can be
fixed in later movies. After all, there was a certain amount of tension
happening at the moment when Enterprise was destroyed, and they were
concerned about *themselves* more than the ship.
3) StarTrek, although set in the future, MUST deal with problems of
today to be relevant to the audience. A Federation-Klingon war could
be the setting for a very powerful anti-war message. I would prefer
not to see too much blood, but I think a good director could make a
blood-less statement.
4) StarTrek fans are not a vocal as they were because they have gotten
older, with many more things to distract them from their fantasy
interests. I would say from the volume of traffic on this sub-net, that
StarTrek fans are still very much in evidence. It is hard to maintain
full enthusiasm when you can only get a StarTrek fix every couple of
years.
5) To summarize, I very much have enjoyed all three of the StarTrek movies,
and expect to enjoy the next "n" (may n be large!). I did think that
ST:tSFS was too short, and that it left most of the story untold, but
that will undoubtably be the purpose of the next set of sequels.
--
____________________________________________________________________________
cmm (carl m mikkelsen) | (617)657-8720x2310
Pixel Computer Incorporated |
260 Fordham Road | {allegra|ihnp4|cbosgd|ima|genrad|amd|harvard}\
Wilmington, Ma. 01887 | !wjh12!pixel!pixadv!cmmmerchant@dartvax.UUCP (Peter Merchant) (07/08/84)
{ Might is right... }
I will agree that a Klingon-Federation War could be used to make
an interesting story, but the avenue has been shut off by the
Organians. (For that matter, in STIII, why didn't the Organian's
blow up the Klingons for nuking that Federation ship?)
The Romulans could be done, but they aren't as much fun as the
Klingons are. The make-up is far less flashy.
And as for the comment about "I don't want to see much blood,"
phooey. War is blood. War is dead burnt bodies. "Star Wars"
and the like make a marvelous show of making war in space look
galant. Let's add a touch of reality here. If there's a war,
there better be blood. No, I don't want to see it "over-used",
but let's not make it "pretty", either. That, to me, would be
a marvelously strong anti-war statement right there.
--
Peter Merchant