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)