dossamg (03/24/83)
The following article was written for LEEPERCON VIII: SSSSTTTTAAAARRRR TTTTRRRREEEEKKKK aaaannnndddd SSSSTTTTAAAARRRR TTTTRRRREEEEKKKK IIIIIIII TTTThhhheeee GGGGoooooooodddd,,,, TTTThhhheeee BBBBaaaadddd,,,, aaaannnndddd TTTThhhheeee DDDDiiiiffffffffeeeerrrreeeennnncccceeee by Alan M. Gopin STAR TREK was a movie that was eagerly awaited for years by trekkies and non trekkies alike. When it finally came out, there were many who were disappointed by it, including myself. However, after having seen it a few times, my opinion is changing. STAR TREK II was a movie that most people had low expectations for after the "debacle" of STAR TREK I. When it came out, most people were pleasantly surprised, including myself. However, after having seen it a few times, I am less impressed with it than I was at the beginning. I still like the movie, but I no longer think it is a better movie than STAR TREK I. The major raps against STAR TREK I are that its plot was a simple rehash of a TV episode "The Changeling," and that it is too slow moving. While there are similarities between STAR TREK I and "The Changeling," STAR TREK I takes the idea of the TV episode and greatly expands on it. V'GER is not just a bigger and better NOMAD. V'GER is a very much like a child that is discovering for the first time that the world is a much more complex and much less controllable place than he/she imagined possible. V'GER is searching for the answer to the enternal question: "What does it all mean?" It is a question that can never be answered. But by asking it, V'GER is moving beyond the realm of machine and into the realm of being, in the same way that man moves beyond the realm of animal by asking the same question. V'GER is not returning to Earth merely because it was programmed to, but because it is looking for its roots. It has to find the Creator, because it must have the answer to that question. The tragedy is that V'GER has not completely made the leap required to become an adult. It cannot accept the fact that there is no answer. Because of this, the Earth is nearly destroyed, and Capt. Decker must sacrifice himself. This brings me to one of the reasons that I believe people did not like this movie. To appeciate V'GER's saga requires a certain amount of thought. The audience has to work at this movie. That is the problem. Contemporary movie audiences, besides usually being rude, are lazy. They are not willing to make the effort required to appeciate something at the level of abstraction represented by V'GER and its needs. The second rap against STAR TREK I is its lack of pace. I agree with this to a certain extent. There are some scenes in this movie that were not well edited. The particular offender that comes to mind is the scene involving Scotty ferrying Admiral Kirk to the Enterprise. This scene was about twice as long as it needed to be to be effective. By the time it is finished, the image invoked by the scene is one of mental masturbation. After all, you can only stroke the Enterprise so many times. Overall, however, I feel that the pace of the movie was appropriate to reflect the mood. Also, the pace allows the viewer to linger over the special effects, which can only be described as awesome. The movie truly is a visual experience. When I first saw this movie, I gave it a +1 on the Leeper Scale. After several more viewings, my opinion of this movie has gone up. Now I give it a +3. STAR TREK II makes no bones about being the sequal to a TV episode, specifically "Space Seed." It was a more popular movie than STAR TREK I precisely because it is a movie that is basically an expanded TV episode. It has more action and a more entertaining plot than STAR TREK I, but it is certainly a more shallow movie at first glance. Notice that I say at first glance. The depth is there in this movie, but the viewer has to look beyond the cheap thrills to find it. And the cheap thrills abound in this movie, in fact, they are the major problem I have with it. This movie takes steps into the realm of the genre that I call "Gory, Graphic, and Disgusting" that are both unnecessary and unfaithful to the Star Trek tradition. The sad fact is that gore sells tickets these days, and STAR TREK II prostitutes itself to a certain extent to appease the gore freaks. STAR TREK II is a movie that can be enjoyed totally mindlessly, perfect for today's average audience. For those of us with I.Q.s larger than our shoe size, there is something to think about in this movie if we are willing to look. This movie is about living with growing old and learning to accept Death. Kirk finally has to look Death in the face. When the movie begins Kirk is beginning to feel old. When the movie ends he says " I feel young, very young." There is certainly something to think about here. What is it about Spock's death that makes Kirk's attitude change? This is a question that gives the audience something to think about, if they are willing to look for it. My opinion of this movie has not changed much after repeated viewings. I give it a +2 on the Leeper Scale. It would have gotten a +3, but it has sold out to the masses.
karn (03/25/83)
I have noticed a parallel between the two Star Trek movies and the two TV pilots: the first was rejected as being too "cerebral" by NBC, but the second had more action to appeal to the masses and was accepted. However, The Menagerie has become one of my favorite episodes. Phil
dossamg (03/28/83)
The following article was written for LeeperCon VIII: SSSSTTTTAAAARRRR TTTTRRRREEEEKKKK aaaannnndddd SSSSTTTTAAAARRRR TTTTRRRREEEEKKKK IIIIIIII TTTThhhheeee GGGGoooooooodddd,,,, TTTThhhheeee BBBBaaaadddd,,,, aaaannnndddd TTTThhhheeee DDDDiiiiffffffffeeeerrrreeeennnncccceeee by Alan M. Gopin STAR TREK was a movie that was eagerly awaited for years by trekkies and non trekkies alike. When it finally came out, there were many who were disappointed by it, including myself. However, after having seen it a few times, my opinion is changing. STAR TREK II was a movie that most people had low expectations for after the "debacle" of STAR TREK I. When it came out, most people were pleasantly surprised, including myself. However, after having seen it a few times, I am less impressed with it than I was at the beginning. I still like the movie, but I no longer think it is a better movie than STAR TREK I. The major raps against STAR TREK I are that its plot was a simple rehash of a TV episode "The Changeling," and that it is too slow moving. While there are similarities between STAR TREK I and "The Changeling," STAR TREK I takes the idea of the TV episode and greatly expands on it. V'GER is not just a bigger and better NOMAD. V'GER is a very much like a child that is discovering for the first time that the world is a much more complex and much less controllable place than he/she imagined possible. V'GER is searching for the answer to the enternal question: "What does it all mean?" It is a question that can never be answered. But by asking it, V'GER is moving beyond the realm of machine and into the realm of being, in the same way that man moves beyond the realm of animal by asking the same question. V'GER is not returning to Earth merely because it was programmed to, but because it is looking for its roots. It has to find the Creator, because it must have the answer to that question. The tragedy is that V'GER has not completely made the leap required to become an adult. It cannot accept the fact that there is no answer. Because of this, the Earth is nearly destroyed, and Capt. Decker must sacrifice himself. This brings me to one of the reasons that I believe people did not like this movie. To appeciate V'GER's saga requires a certain amount of thought. The audience has to work at this movie. That is the problem. Contemporary movie audiences, besides usually being rude, are lazy. They are not willing to make the effort required to appeciate something at the level of abstraction represented by V'GER and its needs. The second rap against STAR TREK I is its lack of pace. I agree with this to a certain extent. There are some scenes in this movie that were not well edited. The particular offender that comes to mind is the scene involving Scotty ferrying Admiral Kirk to the Enterprise. This scene was about twice as long as it needed to be to be effective. By the time it is finished, the image invoked by the scene is one of mental masturbation. After all, you can only stroke the Enterprise so many times. Overall, however, I feel that the pace of the movie was appropriate to reflect the mood. Also, the pace allows the viewer to linger over the special effects, which can only be described as awesome. The movie truly is a visual experience. When I first saw this movie, I gave it a +1 on the Leeper Scale. After several more viewings, my opinion of this movie has gone up. Now I give it a +3. STAR TREK II makes no bones about being the sequal to a TV episode, specifically "Space Seed." It was a more popular movie than STAR TREK I precisely because it is a movie that is basically an expanded TV episode. It has more action and a more entertaining plot than STAR TREK I, but it is certainly a more shallow movie at first glance. Notice that I say at first glance. The depth is there in this movie, but the viewer has to look beyond the cheap thrills to find it. And the cheap thrills abound in this movie, in fact, they are the major problem I have with it. This movie takes steps into the realm of the genre that I call "Gory, Graphic, and Disgusting" that are both unnecessary and unfaithful to the Star Trek tradition. The sad fact is that gore sells tickets these days, and STAR TREK II prostitutes itself to a certain extent to appease the gore freaks. STAR TREK II is a movie that can be enjoyed totally mindlessly, perfect for today's average audience. For those of us with I.Q.s larger than our shoe size, there is something to think about in this movie if we are willing to look. This movie is about living with growing old and learning to accept Death. Kirk finally has to look Death in the face. When the movie begins Kirk is beginning to feel old. When the movie ends he says " I feel young, very young." There is certainly something to think about here. What is it about Spock's death that makes Kirk's attitude change? This is a question that gives the audience something to think about, if they are willing to look for it. My opinion of this movie has not changed much after repeated viewings. I give it a +2 on the Leeper Scale. It would have gotten a +3, but it has sold out to the masses.
bis (03/30/83)
If you look hard enough, you can find something profound in anything. Thus, TRON really has a much deeper meaning: the relationship between man and technology and the dichotomy inherent in a juxtaposition of reality and fantasy. Who is to say which of us is sane? Kind of makes you stop and think, huh? That is, it will if "your IQ is larger than your shoe size". Andrew Shaw BTLHO x4715 houxq!bis (possible) houxm!hocpc!ams (possible)