WRIGHT.WBST@sri-unix (07/20/82)
Here are some recent items from the Sci-Fi Digest that I thought I would pass
along in case any of you would care to see. Sorry if you already have seen it.
Some of this might be considered spoiler material for those who have not yet
seen the film. (If you havn't seen the movie by now, why are you on this dl?)
------------------------------
Date: 8 Jul 82 1:28:10-EDT (Thu)
From: the Boris <craig.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay>
Subject: Trek and Star Wars.
Why was Star Trek I bad, Star Trek II OK, but Star Wars great?
Star Trek started as a TV series. The secret of a TV series is to
establish a Formula which allows entertaining fare to be produced by
technically competent but less than inspired people. Trek has a (by
now) well developed universe, set of characters, and a good notion of
what makes a good story. If the formula is followed, entertaining
fare will result. Star wars, on the other hand, was made by Lucas.
Star Trek I was very, very, bad because it violated the
formula. It dragged - Trek was built on pace and action. It violated
character - at the start of the movie, Kirk acted like a jerk. Kirk
is the eternal Hero, and he makes a very poor anti-hero. Also, they
were recycling a past script - no one really wanted to see NOMAD
again. Finally, the film just wasn't very well made. The Earth was
seconds from destruction, and the director STILL couldn't get us us
the slightest bit upset or apprehensive. When I saw the movie, I paid
$1.50 at the Campus movie house, and didn't feel I was getting a
particularly good deal.
Star Trek II was a reasonable film. Now don't get me wrong -
I'm not complaining. Most Science Fiction films are Horrid (e.g. The
Thing, The Black Hole, etc.). Trek II worked, and I look forward to
shelling out $4 ($6? $10? $100 if the economy ...) every year or two
to see another Trek Episode. The movie worked because it followed the
Trek formula: Bad guys get the upper hand. Kirk outsmarts them. Good
guys win. And, along the way, we see the characters being people, not
cardboard imitations. Of course, there was some sloppy film making.
I won't go into the technical things - space battles, scale, and that
sort of stuff, or into dramatic things - Scotty carrying a dead
crewman to the bridge. Sure, it could have been better. But the movie
followed the Trek formula faithfully, and was technically competent
enough to not lose us. It gave us what we expected.
Star Wars was a great film. There is only one reason for
this: George Lucas is a genius. No formula can substitute for
excellence. Lucas is not a literary marvel; he could have stolen the
plot out of any of (all of?) a hundred different books. He is a
master of film. The movie moves: it is full of action, and the
characters pop into focus instantly. How long does it take us to
recognize Darth Vadar as an Evil Heavy? All of two seconds? And
every time we turn around there is something unexpected or somehow
marvelous: Sand-crawlers? Taverns with 50,000 flavors of aliens? THE
DEATH STAR! Finally, Star Wars was well edited - it has no time to
waste on gratuitous anything. Lucas would have cut the gratuitous
shot of Scotty carrying the dead crewman onto the bridge. The result
is a movie which demands, gets, and rewards your constant, undivided
attention.
I look forward to more Star Trek movies. The formula works.
As long as competent people follow the formula, and don't try to be
geniuses when they're not, we will continue to get reasonable,
watchable films that don't leave us feeling cheated. But don't expect
another Star Wars, because you won't get it - genius is, after all, a
rare commodity.
------------------------------
Date: 14 Jul 1982 05:18:43-PDT
From: harpo!floyd!rjs at Berkeley
Subject: Roddenberry and Star Trek In V6 #1 of SF-LOVERS Digest
George Otto asked about the involvement of Gene Roddenberry in Star
Trek: The Wrath of Khan. At Balticon 13 (April '82), prior to a
showing of Star Wreck: The Commotion Picture the creator of this video
tape editing spoof showed some slides of the then upcoming ST:TWoK.
During this preview, she said that Roddenberry's only involvement with
ST:TWoK was to receive a royalty. He did, however, reserve the right
to pull his name from the movie if he didn't approve of the final
product. Thus his appearance as Executive Consultant in the credits
simply indicates his approval of the movie as a whole.
Marcia Snyder / rjs (harpo!floyd!rjs)
------------------------------
Date: 14 July 1982 21:47-EDT
From: Phillip C. Reed <PCR at MIT-MC>
Subject: Star Trek - TWOK Non-Spoiler
I was talking with some friends about the Koborashi Maru (sp?)
test, and Kirk's "cheating", when somebody pointed out that based on
the evidence, Kirk must have gotten into Star Fleet Academy on a
football scholarship.
...phil
------------------------------
Date: Friday, July 16, 1982 3:51AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING! SPOILER WARNING!
All of the remaining messages in this digest discuss some plot details
in the movie and the book Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Some
readers may not wish to read on.
------------------------------
Date: 12 Jul 1982 15:35:31-PDT
From: decvax!duke!mcnc!idis!mi-cec!rwg at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Chekov in ST2 (slight spoiler - haven't you seen it YET?)
It's been pointed out already that the novel fills in many of
the movie's gaps: Chekov had to go outside because beaming was
impossible inside (the atmospheric conditions were such that it would
be "iffy" even in the open). When Chekov sees Khan's people, he
indeed screams to be beamed up, but the ship gets little more than
static.
Besides, if Reliant's crew heard Chekov shout "Beam us up,
Enterprise!," they may have been too confused to act in time (yes,
picky picky picky...).
------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 8 July 1982 15:32-EDT
From: Vince Fuller <VAF at CMU-20C>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING - comment on ST-II TWOK
I suggest that you read the novel ST-II for an answer for this and
other apparent inconsistencies. The reason given in the book is that
the sand and turbulence in the atmosphere of Ceti Alpha (or Alpha
Ceti) V made transporter use marginal even in the open, and definitely
impossible from within a closed structure.
(sorry if this has already been answered earlier)
--vaf
------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 8 July 1982 15:42-EDT
From: Vince Fuller <VAF at CMU-20C>
Subject: STII:TWOK
Again, you should take a look at the novel version. In the novel, the
bridge crew is decimated so one additional, experienced albeit injured
officer, is a great help. Also, I believe Chekov is explicitly
referred to as a Commander in the book.
--vaf
------------------------------
Date: 9 July 1982 00:18-EDT
From: "James Lewis Bean, Jr." <BEAN at MIT-MC>
Subject: Tears in Mr. Saavik's eyes
I saw one at the funeral..
------------------------------
End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************