friedman@uiucdcs.UUCP (06/10/84)
#R:sri-arpa:-41100:uiucdcs:12500084:000:423 uiucdcs!friedman Jun 10 14:09:00 1984 > at one point several actors (no names mentioned) were looking up > at the sky from a planet and seeing something burning (am not saying what it > was), and seeing smoke trailing from it. How can smoke exist in space, where > there is not atmosphere to hold it? Or could that have been light deflected > from particles from the burning object? It wasn't burning in space; it had hit atmosphere, and was burning on entry.
LS.SRB%MIT-EECS@MIT-MC.ARPA (06/12/84)
From: "Stephen R. Balzac" <LS.SRB%MIT-EECS@MIT-MC.ARPA> Of course they destroyed the Enterprise: it was to old and to badly damaged to repair. On the other hand, are you familiar with the a custom of the US Navy: whenever a ship is destroyed in combat, the next one of that class is often given the same name (how many vessels named Enterprise have there been...?).
SANDER@DEC-MARLBORO@sri-unix.UUCP (06/12/84)
From: Warren Sander <SANDER at DEC-MARLBORO> I saw the movie and liked it but I recommend that you read the book to get all the seens that were cut from the movie (or not filmed at all). Isn't to bad that to see the complete movie you have to wait until it is on TV. Movies like SUPERMAN (ecch) had many scenes in the TV version that they didn't have in the theaters (is that because theaters make money by moving people through in the shortest possible time and TV makes money by stretching out the movie so that they can put in more commericals) anyway I would like to see the missing scenes from ST-III. Warren Sander (SANDER at DEC-MARLBORO) --------
butenhof%orac.DEC@decwrl.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (06/13/84)
From: butenhof%orac.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (Dave Butenhof, VAX-11 RSX AME) > 3. How can Spock remember his last words to Kirk, if he > memory-dumped to McCoy *before* then? Easy -- I was visiting my parents over the past weekend and watched STII on my father's RCA videodisk player. I noted with interest that the EXACT same conversation ("The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one; I have been and always will be, your friend") took place at the beginning of the movie! Therefore, Spock was not remembering the final conversation in the engine room, but rather, the EARLIER conversation. Oh, and in line with the now well-known "Remember" line before Spock killed himself (one wonders why they didn't just have him take the time to find a radiation suit before going inside, and save themselves the trouble of resurrecting him, by the way), I noticed after that, as Kirk, McCoy, and others watch the Genesis nebula from the bridge, McCoy comments "Spock will never be dead, as long as we remember him ..." or words closely to that effect. All in all, I liked the movie. I came out of the theatre feeling disappointed, but not quite certain of why. On reflection, and after reading all the messages over the net, I've decided that I liked it: I'd even like to see it again. I think it was a simpler plot line than STII. It was, after all, really only an epilogue to STII -- it simply tied up the remaining plot thread (Spock). There was less of the bold sense of adventure; they were rehashing old things, rather than doing new things. But the characterisations were good, particularly the primary ones, and more like the TV characters than in the other movies. In STII, after the horrendous STI, I felt that we could see our old friends again. With STIII, I feel that they once again walk among us. The old Saavik was indeed better (even though I think the difference is mostly attributable to writing and directing, rather than to the actress herself). I guess we all pay the price of Kirstie's greed. I think Chris Lloyd did well as a Klingon. Indeed, there were uncomfortable shades of Taxi drifting throught the theatre. The problem is not with the actor, but with the audience, however. We've let ourselves type-cast him; not his fault. I think it's too bad they killed him off. On the other hand, maybe he'll be replaced by a Klingon who's had his forehead cleaned and pressed recently ... As for the mess they all should be in at the end, it looks bad. STIV should be interesting. There are some good sides, however -- they prevented a war with the Klingons (had they succeeded in getting Genesis, they would surely have gone to war: that's quite a weapon). They saved the Federation the expense of dismantling (or whatever) an obsolete starship, etc. I have mixed emotions about the Excelsior class ship ... it looks funny, and certainly is not as sleek as the Enterprise; but I'll reserve judgement for now. We'll see, we'll see ... December 85 or bust! /dave orac::butenhof (enet) decwrl!rhea!orac!butenhof (the cold and cruel world outside) (no company name or address 'cause we've been tolded not to! so who really cares, anyway?)
GLUECK@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA (07/06/84)
From: Vivian R. Glueck <GLUECK@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA>
Sorry to come into the debate so late but...
1) The Vulcan high priestess is not T`Lon but T`Lar.
2) "Leonard Nimoy will write, direct and star in Paramounts`
Star Trek IV" New York Post, June 18, 1984
Vivian Glueck
glueck@columbia-20.arpa
-------BALZAC%YKTVMZ.BITNET%Berkeley@sri-unix.UUCP (07/17/84)
From: Stephen R. Balzac <BALZAC%YKTVMZ.BITNET@Berkeley>
>From a friend of mine not on the network:
If you could, how about piping this into the net.
Regarding comments about Kirk's fate as will be determined by Starfleet
(no doubt). First of all, Kirk will not be executed. As we know from the
episode, "The Menagerie," there is just one death penalty left on
Starfleet's books: General Order Number Seven--visitation of Talos IV.
So Kirk will not be executed. But, what then?
The problem is, the producers of Trek have put viewers on an emotional
roller coaster which--in all fairness and in all likelihood--will stop
with the upcoming movie(s). I mean, first Spock is cold and heartless
(apparently) in STTMP and Kirk can not command as he used to. Then Kirk
meets his son and Spock dies in STII. But wait. Miracle of miracles,
Spock has been (in some sense, and no comments, please, because I am
generalizing terribly) brought back to life.
Come on. Enough already. I mean, I haven't even mentioned David's
seemingly unnecessary death, or Enterprise's demise. Let's stabilize,
if only just for one movie.
But if we stabilize events to quickly in STIV, the movie will probably
be awful. Witness: "Oh hi, Jim. How's it going? By the way, nice job
out at Genesis. 'Preciate it. Oh, one more thing. Would you like
another ship? Yes? Sure, no problem, here are the keys."
Of course, under (almost) no circumstances will it be that bad, but
it could be close. So, will Kirk hang (figuratively) or not? If he
does, Trek suffers and we are back on the roller coaster. If not, Trek
might suffer because of complete and utter lack of realism.
Question for the person on the net with the naval knowledge: If Kirk
were to, say, go on an incredibly dangerous and important mission
(Starfleet having absolutely no recourse but to use Kirk), and he succeeded,
could there realistically be some lesser sentence levied against Kirk?
Say a year or two in prison, or some such punishment?
With any luck at all, by the way, Excelsior will blow up on its first
trial run. (My apologies to those of you who found the ship beautiful
and exciting.) I loved Enterprise and was sorry to see it go. But I have
accepted her demise now, and I think it was good because it was drastic
and unexpected, and that made for good drama. But Excelsior represents
the cause of NCC 1701's demise, in my imagination--gotta blame it on
something, don't you?
Also, it was obvious to me that Enterprise was decommissioned so as
not to add to Kirk's charges. I mean, at least he destroyed a ship which
was to be decommissioned, not one that was going out again. Of course, I
also found it hard to swallow that Starfleet would decommission Enterprise.
It just didn't seem to make sense, But it has been suggested that Fleet
has been attempting to break up the Enterprise crew; this could be their
way of doing just that. And maybe, just maybe, Enterprise would have
ended up being REcommissioned instead. Get Kirk out of the way, and then
make a spontaneous (planned) decision to put Enterprise back in space.
Star Trek IV already has a great responsibilty: it must answer the many
questions raised in ST III. If ST IV fails--and it might--then ST III
might be classified a waste of time and money, and the cause of Trek's
eventual decommissioning. And knowing Paramount, and some others involved
in production, ST IV has a very good chance of failing, and failing badly.
Let's hope it all works out. ST can die, or it can live. There's no telling
what its fate will be. I am not optimistic, but I am hopeful.
May the wind be at our backs, and at the backs of the producers, writers,
et. al.BALZAC%YKTVMZ.BITNET%Berkeley@sri-unix.UUCP (07/24/84)
From: Stephen R. Balzac <BALZAC%YKTVMZ.BITNET@Berkeley>
>From a friend of mine not on the net:
Date: 24 July 1984, 14:07:01 EDT
From: ELLIS2 at YKTVMT
To: BALZAC
How about putting this sucker in for me, please?
I am continually reading messages about Star Trek in the Digest. Some
comment positively, others comment negatively. Now, I have met plenty of
people who really like Star Trek, and plenty of others who simply do not
like it. I have met still others (very few of these) who have never even
watched ST, and others (even fewer of these) who truly love ST. But I
am surprised at the types of negative comments that have been written about
Trek in this Digest.
The question I have to ask is: why? I can understand people not liking
Trek because they don't like Shatner, or sf, or cult fandom, or just the
whole show itself. I can understand people who like Trek only because
they like Shatner, or sf, or cult fandoms, or just the show itself. It
is easy to understand that some people have never seen Trek. (It is
sometimes hard to believe that there are others who love Trek for the
reasons that I do, but I believe there must be somebody out there.)
But I like Star Trek for very philosophic reasons. Star Trek attempts
to project--and sometimes comment on--different philosophic items: honor,
love, death, friendship, courage, etc. Also included in the philosophies
are moral questions: overpopulation, killing, self-defense, prejudice.
Now, there are episodes when the acting is terrible, or the story, the
dialogue, the effects--everything, in fact--is terrible. You could even
argue that EVERY piece of Trek ever produced is terrible in all of these
ways, and more. (I would not agree, but that is irrelevant.) But Star
Trek is something else entirely.
Star Trek is a commercial product, a vehicle to make certain people
as much money as possible. As we have seen, in Trek and other productions,
this commercialism often comprises stories, characters, and the like. But
through all of Trek's tribulations, it has ATTEMPTED in a very serious
manner to present and examine moral and philosophical entities. Still,
Trek must make money, and these two points are often irreconcilable. I am
sure there are those of you out there that will say that there was not
one instant of Trek that was ever any good. But is that really true? For,
from the outset, Trek has sought to do what no other entity had ever done:
produce a forum for ideas and philosophies for the general public.
I am not a "Trekkie". I was touched when Spock died, felt like I had
lost a friend, in fact. But I accepted it. It was good drama (in my
opinion). For this reason, I did not want Spock to come back; I felt
(and feel) it would (and did) sacrifice some of the impact of ST II. I
mention this because I want to show that I am not a "Trekkie". I am
a Star Treek fan, a science fiction fan, if you must have a label. But
I like the genre of sf for the same reasons I like ST: it provides a means
of presenting and examining philsophies and ideas. Not all sf is good at so
doing; those pieces I do not like, but I do not condemn--they have tried,
but they could have been better. Other pieces of sf I feel are trash: they
do not try to do anything. If you consider Star Wars sf, then (I feel) it
is garbage. I loved Star Wars; I feel it was not trash. But it was not
science fiction.
What it comes down to is this: you might not enjoy Star Trek, or you
might feel that it misses its intended mark (even to 100% innaccuracy),
but can it be CONDEMNED? Some of you have written very biting remarks
about Trek, and those hit home because they concern not just a show or
movie, but a group of philosophies and ideas. Even if you feel that
Trek misses the mark (and I agree that it has, at least sometimes), doesn't
it deserve some measure of appreciation for what it has attempted to be,
and what it has become on different levels?
I mean, can you imagine what Trek would be like--how good, even great,
it would be--if somebody who loved ST and sf produced it. Maybe someday
that might happen. I, for one, am hoping it does.