From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!sf-lovers Newsgroups: fa.sf-lovers Title: SF-LOVERS Digest V5 #66 Article-I.D.: ucbvax.7633 Posted: Fri Jun 11 18:33:38 1982 Received: Sun Jun 13 02:03:56 1982 >From JPM@Mit-Ai Fri Jun 11 18:30:15 1982 SF-LOVERS Digest Wednesday, 9 Jun 1982 Volume 5 : Issue 66 Today's Topics: SF Books - Podkayne of Mars & Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, SF TV - Dr Who, Humor - Genderless Video Games, Random Topics - Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance & How To Solve It & Halliwell's Filmgoers Companion, SF Movies - Movie Reviews & Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Spoiler - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 08-Jun-1982 From: ANDY VESPER at EVE Reply-to: "ANDY VESPER at EVE c/o"Subject: Life imitates art Reference: Eric P. Scott at MIT-AI (SF-LOVERS Digest vol 5 # 59) Vita imitaret artes. ("Life imitates art" in Latin.) Reference: Podkayne of Mars I must agree she is a twit - but she is a very believable twit. Should a hero be larger than life - or human? I have always admired RAH's characterizations - I can see people like them all around. Even Lazarus Long has his foibles - his \ridiculous/ sexual hangups (which, come to think, might have helped him stay alive all those years). ------------------------------ Date: 8-JUN-1982 17:58 From: TSC::COORS::VICKREY Reply-to: "TSC::COORS::VICKREY c/o" Subject: The Fifth Doctor Who Saw a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a video tape of Castrelvalva, the first Dr. Who with Peter Davison as the Doctor, this weekend. The story (from what I could see & hear - nth generation tapes are hard to watch) was about the Doctor's problems with his latest re-generation: his memory is extremely erratic, making it difficult to find his way around the Tardis (he has to leave a trail of clothing); a quarter of the Tardis has to be jettisoned in order to get sufficient thrust to get away from the Big Bang (unfortunately including the Zero Room, which was the only place where his dendrites could heal properly); and the Master is still after him. The Tradition Continues! ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 9 June 1982 14:14-PDT From: KING at KESTREL Subject: video games What do you call ? PacPacing ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jun 1982 22:59:13-PDT From: Cory.caro at Berkeley Subject: Re: Pirsig's "Zen..." (HEDRICK at RUTGERS) I must take exception to your brief summary of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." Although it is many things, I would not call it "fiction". At the very least, it is semi-autobiographical. At the most, it is a serious philosophical teatise (but that is REALLY stretching things.) That Pirsig chose to present his ideas in a "mainstream" literary format reflects the fact that he wanted people, all people, to hear his "message". Also, I think the literary approach has more "Quality". In any case, it has as little to do with SF as this letter. Perry A. Caro ucbvax!ucbcory!caro ------------------------------ Date: 9 June 1982 10:20 edt From: Boebert.SCOMP at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Misc. Nonfiction 1. "How To Solve It" was written by Polya, not Polyani. His lectures were wonderful. His work was extended by Imre Lakatos in an excellent book called "Proofs and Refutations" (Cambridge U Press). 2. "Halliwell's Filmgoers Companion" is popping up on the B. Dalton remainder tables at half price. These are actual 1980 editions, not shlock (e.g. Crown) reprints. Only a little SF in this, but everthing about everthing about movies, especially those of the thirties and forties. Earl ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jun 1982 1113-EDT From: John Redford Subject: Outside movie reviews Lately it seems that most of the movie and book reviews on this list have come from newpapers and wire services. Although I appreciate the effort that people have gone to in typing them in or in transferring the files, I would really rather hear what fellow fans have to say. A reviewer like Richard Freedman is obviously not a fan, and on the whole he seems to despise this sci-fi stuff. After reading three or four pieces from professional reviewers, I think people are a little reluctant to express their own opinions. So come on out there! What do you think of Spielberg making another sentimental and stupid movie about aliens? Should Trekdom be revived? Is the Conan movie fascist or merely brutal? Surely we can do better than "Wonderful special effects and such fun for the kids". ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jun 1982 1335-PDT From: Stuart McLure Cracraft Subject: objections to mainstream movie critics Redford raised an objection about the newswire reviews of SF movies (and books presumably) that have appeared on this mailing list. I, for one, *WANT* someone's view other than a hardcore SF fanatic's who generally has little or no care for characterization, often being interested in spectacular effects alone. A Trekkie's view of the Star Trek movie is practically worthless. I want to know if the movie stands on its own, what is the level of the acting, how does the plot hang together, etc. If Freedman, Maslin and Ebert decry the stupidity of a SF movie, rest assured that the film *is* stupid. The fact that several SF movies have received good reviews from them lately is reassuring. [ Two points: first, we can only print what we get submitted. So if people want to hear from the readers of the list on your favorite movie or book, then contribute! Remember, send all messages to SF-LOVERS@MIT-AI . Second, the news wire stories are not only useful for an alternate veiwpoint, but they also come out up to one week before the movie opens to the public. Thus, since many people seem to appreciate reveiws as soon as a movie opens, we try to time the distribute this material to coincide with the opening of the movie. After it has opened, the amount of material available from the outside press naturally decreases, while the contributions from the readership naturally increases as more people see the movie. -- Jim ] ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jun 1982 1102-EDT From: DD-B Reply-to: "DYER-BENNET at KL2137 c/o" Subject: For SFL: TWoK Review I saw Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn at the official opening last night. There will probably be lots of reviews floating around, but I'm going to contribute mine anyway. Micro review: This is a good movie, even taken apart from any special appeal it may have for Star Trek fen. See it. Mini review: I didn't expect to like the movie much. I felt that the last one was of no interest except to hard boiled Trekfen, because it contained almost no story. This one, on the other hand, had sufficient plot for the length, and as a bonus contained more of the feel of the television Star Trek episodes than the first movie did. A couple of caveats: the ST universe contains many magic artifacts, such as the transporter, which must be accepted without an attempt at explanation. ST:TWoK contains a new one, but it isn't pulled out of a hat at a crucial moment or anything obnoxious like that. There are certain "standing stupidities" built into Star Trek, such as always sending the highest-ranking officers around on landing parties, and failing to keep up communications between the landing party and the ship, which figure in this movie as well. People who have not become inured to these by now will probably not like the movie. Mainframe review: See spoiler section. ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, June 10, 1982 8:32AM From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) Subject: SPOILER WARNING! SPOILER WARNING! The following messages are the last in the digest. They discuss some plot details in both the movie and the book Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Some readers may not wish to read on. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jun 1982 1134-EDT From: DD-B Reply-to: "DYER-BENNET at KL2137 c/o" Subject: SFL: ST:TWoK Mainframe review **SPOILER** I'm writing this part of my review for people who have seen the movie. I assume that most will either see the movie before reading spoilers, or skip them entirely if they don't care about the movie. Someone mentioned Spock "slipping" once and addressing Lt. Saavik as "Mr. Saavik" (for those who haven't seen the movie, she's female). I was looking for this. I found it, not once but each time. It seemed as if they were using "Mr." as the title of address for officers on the bridge without regard to sex (was Uhura ever addressed by anything but name or rank?). I always keep a "list" of "idiot steps" in the plot: connections that wouldn't be there if the characters weren't idiots. This movie did better than most (really better: it had fewer idiots): 1. Chekov and the captain should have stayed in communication with the ship when they were down examining Kahns community. 2. Kirk should have raised shields earlier when approaching the Reliant. The fact that he acknowledges this himself later makes this much less bothersome to me. Certainly people make mistakes; but if the entire plot of a story hinges on a mistake, it should be explained as "justified" somehow, or at the very least acknowledged as having been a mistake. 3. The story Chekov tells about Kahn putting "creatures" into them to make them obey should have been checked out. Either it was true, or Chekov was hallucinating; it's clearly important to determine which, since both are serious. This should be settled before he goes back on duty. These did not manage to spoil the film for me. I thought the plot was very good. Kahn has always been portrayed as a superman with emotions sized to match, which fit well with his appearance here. The threat was real and convincing, the responses were reasonable. Kahns people put up a plausible amount of opposition to his insistence on revenging himself against Kirk before making themselves a paradise. I found the acting superior. Lt. Saavik did particularly well in the opening sequence (no-win scenario). I thought her reactions were perfect for an officer placed in a test which she sees as unfair, and yet knows is very important for her career. Her Vulcan heritage (deduced from ears plus the fact that she and Spock speak together in some foreign language) explains the subtlety of the reactions. Kirk and McCoy were in top form. Spock was Spock (not to denigrate Nimoy's acting, but I've found less variation in Spock than in any of the other major characters). Kahn was Kahn. I'd have preferred a more rational opponent, but the one we were given was well acted. The alien life-form that just happens to parasitize humans, and just happens to make them subject to command before it kills them, is of course grossly implausible. Don't ask me why it didn't bother me. Perhaps my sensibilities have been damaged by too many bad movies. I'm also bothered by the lack of explanation for Chekov's recovery -- Kahn had said that the creatures killed the hosts eventually. Oh well. Maybe he lied. Overall, I felt that this was a good movie, and at the same time a good Star Trek movie. It was MUCH better than I expected. Oh, yes, they did kill Spock in the end, but then beat very heavily on the idea that he would probably be back. That part was a bit clumsy and came close to spoiling an otherwise very good ending (the memorial service and burial-in-space were particularly good). I have low expectations for the next film. It seems as if they have created a situation low on plot to work from. From things Kirk says, it appears that he intends to come back to the newly-formed (by the Genesis bomb, from a nebula) planet where Spock's coffin miraculously lands (without reentry gear) in hopes of finding Spock brought back to life (presumably by the residual magic from the creation of the planet). Since the announced title for the next film is In Search of Spock, it seems likely that that's what it will be about. But I don't see a Star Trek type action story there. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jun 1982 16:23 EDT From: WRIGHT.WBST at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Star Trek II Not to mention "the usual" i.e. "half a gallon of scotch" "Spectre of the Gun" ------------------------------ Date: 9 June 1982 2159-EDT (Wednesday) From: Mark.Sherman at CMU-10A Subject: ST:TWOK - Origin of Saavik One thing that bothered me during the movie was the implication that Saavik was Vulcan while the reviews I read claimed that she was only part Vulcan. In either event, she certainly didn't act like Vulcans seen during the series, e.g., all of those Vulcans at Spock's "wedding". Having gotten and read the book, the details are available. She is half Vulcan, half Romulan and brought up as a Romulan (as opposed to Spock who was brought up as a Vulcan). ------------------------------ Date: 10-JUN-1982 08:45 From: VAX4::MCCOY Reply-to: "VAX4::MCCOY c/o" Subject: ST:TWOK I finally managed to see ST:TWOK last night (after all it's been out almost a week now). It was quite an improvement over ST:TMP, less time spent showing off the special effects and more time developing the plot. I