Article-I.D.: ucbvax.7528
Posted: Fri Jun  4 01:42:00 1982
Received: Sat Jun  5 01:26:17 1982

>From JPM@Mit-Ai Fri Jun  4 01:42:03 1982

SF-LOVERS Digest         Thursday, 3 Jun 1982      Volume 5 : Issue 60

Today's Topics:
            SF Movies - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan &
         Shock Treatment & The Dark Crystal,  SF TV - Dr Who,
                 SF Books - Podkayne of Mars & Hugos,
   Random Topics - Regency Fandom,  Humor - Genderless Video Games
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1-Jun-82 11:27AM-EDT (Tue)
From: David Miller 
Subject: Star Trek II Premier



This may be hard to believe, but...

          The world  premier  of  Star Trek II is in Stamford
          Connecticut on 3  June  '82  (That's  right:   June
          third) tickets  are $15 a seat, and the extra money
          goes to benefit a local Catholic  School.   Anybody
          out  there  have  any  idea  how  this  came to be,
          whether it is a local phenomena or whether Catholic
          schools all  over  the  country  are having special
          premiers.
                                                Dave
                                                (miller@yale)

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 82 14:04-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: Review: Star Trek II

                   Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
                           By JANET MASLIN
                   c. 1982 N.Y. Times News Service

    NEW YORK - Now this is more like it: after the colossal,
big-budget bore that was ''Star Trek: The Motion Picture,'' here comes
a sequel that's worth its salt. The second Star Trek movie is swift,
droll and adventurous, not to mention appealingly gadget-happy. It's
everything the first one should have been and wasn't.
    As its title suggests, ''Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan'' has a 
much stronger plot than its predecessor. That helps, but it's not the 
only improvement. This film also has the gamesmanship that the first 
one lacked, a quality that helped win the ''Star Trek'' television 
series its amazingly devoted following. Maybe it's just that there are
more and brighter blinking lights on the control panels of the 
Starship Enterprise this time, or that the costumes are so much 
cleverer, or that the special effects are so good they don't call 
undue attention to themselves. Perhaps it's the directorial switch 
from Robert Wise (''The Hindenburg'' and ''The Sound of Music'') to 
Nicholas Meyer (''Time After Time'') that has brought the material 
more pep. In any case, this time something has most assuredly gone 
right.
    In addition to its derring-do, ''Star Trek II'' also has the
quality of a sentimental journey. Here they are again - William
Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley and the rest of the crew - 16
years older than they were when the television series began, still
playing the roles for which they are best known.
    Shatner's Captain Kirk is an admiral now, given to ribbing the
young trainees and wistfully saying things like, ''Galloping around
the cosmos is a game for the young.'' Nimoy, a k a Mr. Spock, now has
a pointy-eared protegee, a staggeringly competent young woman named 
Saavik (Kirstie Alley), with whom he converses in their native tongue,
which is Vulcan. Kirk, Saavik confides to Spock, isn't what she
expected. ''He's so - human,'' she says. ''Nobody's perfect, Saavik,''
Spock replies. This passage is translated from the Vulcan by
subtitles.
    This film may not make a new Star Trek devotee out of anyone, but 
it's sure to delight the old ones. Shatner makes the grandest of grand
entrances, surrounded by a halo of blue light. He proves immediately
that he has regained his dry sense of humor, which was markedly absent
the last time around. Here, on his birthday, he is given a bottle of
blue firewater by Kelley, vintage A.D. 2283, and both characters
remark on how long the stuff has aged. (The story is set in the 23d
century.) For his part, Spock presents Kirk with a copy of ''A Tale of
Two Cities,'' saying, ''I know of your fondness for antiques.'' The
novel will later figure quite sentimentally in the plot, which is an
odd blend of mawkishness, mysticism, high adventure and remarks like,
''I suppose it could be a particle of pre-animate matter, caught in
the matrix.'' Even the mumbo jumbo of this latest ''Star Trek'' is
fun.
    Most fun of all is Khan himself, played as the classiest of 
comic-strip villains by Ricardo Montalban, who really is something to 
see. With his fierce profile, long white hair, manful decolletage and 
space-age jewelry, Montalban looks like either the world's oldest rock
star or its hippest Indian chief . Either way, he looks terrific, every
bit as happily flamboyant as the first film's characters - 
notwithstanding the beautiful, bald Persis Khambatta - were drab.
    It is not necessary to have followed Star Trek lore any too 
faithfully to understand some key things about Khan. He has been 
frozen cryogenically in the 20th century, banished to a remote planet 
and deprived of Mrs. Khan. He blames Kirk for all of these injuries 
and plans to get even with the aid of a secret weapon that, by the 
standards of movies like this one, has a modicum of nasty originality.
You see, the one remaining life form on the barren planet to which
Khan was banished is some special-effects cross between a tortoise and
a crustacean. It has scorpion-shaped babies that can be deposited, by
someone as sadistic as Khan, in an enemy's ear. ''Their young enter
through the ears and wrap themselves around the cerebral cortex. This
has the effect of rendering the victim extremely susceptible to
suggestion.'' Khan says this with the greatest imaginable relish.
    ''Star Trek II'' lasts a long time, and it ends on a note that
will seem misty to those who are veteran fans of the series, corny to 
those who aren't. For those who find it corny, the movie may wear out 
its welcome after a while. But it's cheerful and ingenious most of the
way through, with none of the overblown foolishness that spoiled the
first film. The ''Star Trek'' television show lay no real claims to
greatness. This movie can't either, and it doesn't really try. But on
its own simple terms, those of pure escapism, it certainly succeeds.

     ''Star Trek II'' is rated PG (''Parental Guidance Suggested'').
The scorpions-in-the-ear scene may well frighten small children, as
might several other gory scenes.

------------------------------

Date: Tue 1-Jun-1982 17:25-EDT
From: Bill Russell 
Subject: Re: Shock Treatment!

Shock Treatment is still playing midnights at the "Waverly" in the
Village in NY.  After closing for several weeks and moving uptown to
the "New Yorker" (both old RHPS midnight theaters) it is back at both
of them at midnight, Friday and Saturday.

As for the credit of "Book by ...", every musical (for the stage or
film) has a "book" by someone.  This refers to the story that this
being presented.  It has nothing to do with a real book in any sense.

As for the movie itself, I've seen it twice.  The second time to see
the movie, as the first time I was distracted by the "stage show".
It's not a bad movie, but it's not a good movie either .  There are too
many pauses for the audience to react by throwing in their own
"questions" or "answers".

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 1982 11:34:35-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: THE DARK CRYSTAL

   has been the subject of presentations at many SF conventions,
starting (?)  with Denvention last summer. The basic plot is fairly
conventional ([attempted] Overthrow of the Evil Tyrants) but the
development of it looks good and the pictures I've seen of the
[muppets] are spectacular.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 1982 11:06:59-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: Regency Fandom dying out?!?

   No Way! The Heyer Tea at Boskone is always well-attended, as is the
same at most Worldcons and the one Loscon ([Los Angeles]) I've
attended.  A prime mover in Regency fandom tells me that she is
willing to speak well of Jerry Pournelle because, on the way to the
Seacon '79 tea (which was held in Regent's Pavilion) a heckler
accosted Jerry (who was wearing a hussar's uniform), asking him where
his horse was; Jerry's thunderous glare and reply effectively
squelched the heckler.

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday,  1 Jun 1982 14:24-PDT
From: Kevin W. Rudd @ISL at Sumex-Aim
Subject: Dr. Who

Doctor who?

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 1982 at 2242-CDT
From: hjjh at UTEXAS-11
Subject: PODKAYNE: The Book vs. The Character

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ PODKAYNE: The Book vs. The Character ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

CJH's objection to "Heinlein's portrayal of Podkayne" is irrelevant to
the point I was making.

I'm NOT defending Podkayne-the-character.  \My/ thesis is--

   "Give the old gentleman credit!  Not that the fempro
    character was done well, but that, in 1963, it was
    done AT ALL!"

As for juvenile status-- it sure reads like one, tho Wells' SF & 
HEROIC FANTASY INDEX agrees with CJH.  On the other hand, Wells lists
as RAH's "juveniles" only those titles pub'd by Scribner, and RAH
pub'd nothing thru Scribner after 1956.  Somebody in a recent SF-L
message even characterized PUPPET MASTERS as a juvenile, so criteria
must vary wildly.  In \my/ idea of a juvenile book, the protagonist is
typically (tho not necessarily) a teen-ager, as Poddy is.

To me, Greta Forzane IS a twit.  This, tho, is just a personal 
reaction to the character.  But whether she is or not, \I/ say Hats
off! to Leiber and Schmitz and De Camp, etc., AND Heinlein-- who dared
write SF fempros \then/.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 1982 2041-EDT
From: Thomas Galloway 
Subject: 1983 Hugos

It was pointed out by Jack Chalker at Disclave last weekend that the 
competition for best novel Hugo could consist of RAH's Friday, the
Asimov Foundation IV, and the Clarke 2010 (and two poor schmucks
offered up for sacrifice).  Anyone know if this sort of head-to-head
competition between the biggest names in the genre has occured before?

tom galloway @ yale

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 1982 13:56 EDT
From: Becker.Henr at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Pac-man

Actually I have heard that Pacman was designed and made(?) in Japan
and that "Pacman" means to eat something!

Jane

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************