From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!sf-lovers Newsgroups: fa.sf-lovers Title: SF-LOVERS Digest V6 #35 Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8242 Posted: Tue Aug 10 05:47:37 1982 Received: Thu Aug 12 05:20:13 1982 >From JPM@MIT-AI Tue Aug 10 05:39:31 1982 SF-LOVERS Digest Saturday, 7 Aug 1982 Volume 6 : Issue 35 Today's Topics: SF Topics - Movie Reviews, SF Movies - The Secret of NIMH & TRON & Blade Runner & Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Random Topics - Violence in Movies, Spoiler - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Aug 82 15:47:57-EDT (Mon) From: Dsn.umcp-cs at UDel-Relay Subject: movie reviews from the press I strongly disagree with mwm@ucb's tirade against reviews from the press. I would like to see such reviews continue to appear. In my opinion, they are often the most worthwhile contributions to SFL. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 1982 02:26:33-PDT From: decvax!duke!uok!uokvax!jejones at Berkeley Subject: The Secret of NIMH The animation was excellent, without a doubt. However, I found the movie ethically offensive for the same reason I found Richard Adams's *The Plague Dogs* offensive. While I am perhaps hypocritical to the extent that I would find it hard to pith a frog (being brought up with the "Bambi syndrome"), I wonder how many of the people who hold the position seemingly espoused in the movie would be able to say explicitly to a human suffering from some disease "I think it better that you suffer and die than that a rat or mouse suffer and die"? Ben Bova's comments on *Star Wars* (made way back when in *Analog*) apply also to *The Secret of NIMH*; there is enough irrationality in the world without propagandizing it to children. James Jones (duke!uok!uokvax!jejones) ------------------------------ Date: 2 Aug 1982 (Monday) 1735-EDT From: OSTER at Wharton-10 (David Oster) Subject: Sequel to TRON In-reply-to: James Jonesof 17 Jul 1982 Subject: Sequel to TRON Re: Anyone who has used Microsoft Basic can tell you that TRON is the command that turns on statement execution tracing, listing the line numbers of statements as they are executed. (I hope no one makes a movie called TROFF...) Ah yes..., troff - the sinister program that tries to prevent users from communicating with each other by restricting them to a line length of 7.54" and a maximum of 4 fonts. ------------------------------ Date: 29 July 1982 00:37-EDT From: Charles F. Von Rospach Subject: TRON as Disney allegory As a person who did work within the Disney organization for four years, if there is an allegory to the actual 'takeover', it is unconscious and/or a great secret from the Disney management. They would NEVER allow a movie out that might imply they weren't doing things in the way the great God Walter intended (which I think says it all about the 'takeover' itself. Walt was NEVER afraid of critisicm. He just never paid any attention). The Biggest problem with Disney studios today is not that they are not doing things Walts way, they are still trying to do it his way. They have not changed as the times changed (which Walt was very good at), and they are mostly MBA types that simply don't have the vision that Walt did. Chuck ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 4 Aug 1982 10:28-PDT From: jim at RAND-UNIX Subject: Smallpox in Bladerunner Apparently I need to support my assertion that a smallpox vaccination scar in 2019 is an anachronism. Let me point out that my kids and their classes have not been vaccinated. My older boy is 14, which will make him (don't tell me ...) 51 in 2019, clearly older than Deckard. The World Health Organization has declared smallpox eliminated; Smithsonian had a picture of the last man to have smallpox (a Somalian, I think) a few months ago. I'll grant that there may be a few more cases of smallpox that they don't know about, probably all in the Ethiopia/Somalia area, but will assert that even if they exist they're extremely unlikely to get out of hand. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that for many years the only people to get smallpox vaccinations have been scientists working in labs that keep live smallpox cultures in order to keep vaccines available... Now don't get me wrong. I think Bladerunner was a really excellent movie that addressed an interesting moral issue with which humanity has not yet been faced. I'm sure few more trivial points than this have been raised on the List (excluding ST2:TWoK, of course); I just want to keep the facts clear... Jim Gillogly ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 82 9:52:56-EDT (Wed) From: Earl Weaver (VLD/VMB) Subject: Violence People don't seem to mind the violence on the Roadrunner cartoons, or even in Bugs Bunny's life. But when they perceive violence in Bladerunner for instance, they get all bent out of shape. (not all people of course...) ------------------------------ Date: Monday, August 9, 1982 3:57AM From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) Subject: SPOILER WARNING! SPOILER WARNING! The last message in this digest discuss some plot details in the movie Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Some readers may not wish to read on. ------------------------------ Date: 29-JUL-1982 13:21 From: TSC::COORS::VICKREY Reply-to: "TSC::COORS::VICKREY c/o" Subject: Star Trek N Now that we've flamed on Star Trek I (The Motion Picture), raved over Star Trek II (The Wrath of Khan), and deduced the plot of Star Trek III (In Search of Spock), surely we can extrapolate the story of Star Trek IV (???). Any mathematicians out there care to put together the equation? susan ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 29 Jul 1982 09:37-PDT From: jim at RAND-UNIX Subject: ST:TWoK - Who was that masked target? (spoiler?) In answer to the perennial question of who the guy was that Tyrell shot before shooting himself while in the middle of the Genesis phase II planet: It was Dr. Hagrot, one of the few (i.e. 3) people to escape from the station via transporter while Khan was torturing the others. The other 2 were, of course, Bibi Besch and her idiot boy. The name may not really be Hagrot, of course... it comes from an old cartoon (which I unfortunately haven't seen, but which we have all seen innumerable times in the episodes): the landing party beams down to a planet, and consists of Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Sulu, Scotty, and some ensign that we've never seen before. They materialize at the top of a cliff, with all except the unknown ensign on solid ground and the ensign in thin air above the N-meter drop (for large N). Kirk looks over and says, "Tough luck, Hagrot." So now when I and my friends are watching an episode (or ST:TWoK) and somebody unknown gets it, we look at each other, say "Tough luck, Hagrot" in unison, and snigger. Jim Gillogly ------------------------------ Date: 2 August 1982 09:22-EDT (Monday) From: David H. Kaufman Subject: Chekov and the creepy crawly Jsol, I have one question. How was it that McCoy managed to know, without examining the patient or any such (outdated?) medical procedure, exactly the right tool to force out of Chekov's head a creature from a planet that McCoy hadn't been on for at least 20 years, if ever? I guess that's why he's a doctor and I'm not. Dave Kaufman P.S. For those of you who don't know, that tool was a Sub-Etha Electro-Magnetic Cattleprod, produced by Megadodo Publications for removing Babel fish from Hitch-hikers' ears. McCoy had it because he's a closet HHG fan . . . ------------------------------ Date: 29 July 1982 10:46-EDT (Thursday) From: David H. Kaufman Subject: Spock Must Die Some friends and I have been speculating on the Genesis Effect, and the form in which Spock will return. Can't you just see a giant rootabaga (sp?) sitting on the bridge of the Enterprise, saying 'Logic suggests ....'? Dave Kaufman ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 1982 at 0952-PDT From: chesley.tsca at SRI-Unix Subject: STII: Starship superuser passwords (spoiler) I assumed that the reason starships have remote control capabilities is so that several ships can be slaved to one another during battles, etc. This facility is naturally turned off when one suspects one's own ships of being under the control of the bad guys; the M5 knew enough to turn it off. Under normal, non-battle circumstances, the facility is left enabled just in case something bad happens (the entire crew getting food poisoning, for instance), so a friendly ship can take over and guide you out of danger, or at least open the air-locks for rescue. This is why the ship Khan stole was enabled for remote control; he didn't have time to figure out all the obscure corners of the ship, and this part is no doubt a closely guarded Starfleet secret, heavily encrypted somewhere deep inside the ship's computer. --Harry... ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 29 July 1982 14:49-EDT From: Vince Fuller Subject: Why M5 did not know the prefix codes to disable ships. Oh really? I am a little confused. As I recall, in the movie, Spock queried the computer for the prefix code for the Reliant. Is my memory mistaken? --vaf ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 1982 12:11:22-PDT From: ihuxl!rjnoe at Berkeley I was very disturbed by some of the comments made in SFL Digest V6 #27 regarding Star Trek II. Some of this same irresponsible (and incorrect) guesswork went on USENET as well and I make an attempt to curtail it, as such ridiculous speculations only serve to confuse others. It is my intention to *answer* questions rather than create new ones. No ship in Starfleet has an M-5 computer. Further, the control console prefix codes ARE stored within the ships' computers. But to obtain the code itself from the computer, one needs proper authori- zation, something the computer does not have by itself. Roger Noe ARPA: ...!ucbvax!ihuxl!rjnoe at berkeley [I think that's right] ------------------------------ End of SF-LOVERS Digest ***********************