From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!npois!ucbvax!sf-lovers Newsgroups: fa.sf-lovers Title: SF-LOVERS Digest V5 #60 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 MillerSubject: 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 ***********************