From: v075q5fr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott J Gorcey)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Subject: Re: Star Trek's Classics - Top 10 List
Date: 13 Apr 92 01:27:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


Gorcey and Kanamori discussing...

>>     If you know what is involved in changing a tv series into a
>>     good movie, and if you think about it, you'll realise that
>>     a TNG movie is a very, very interesting concept.
>>     Picard begs to be given a dramatic need, as Kirk was most
>>     successfully in II and VI (to get over his midlife crisis,
>>     to get over his prejudice).  Picard is a romantic, a thoughtful
>>     but no less strong hero.  I can't wait to see him given
>>     feature film treatment.
>>     What I was saying was that TNG's films will be very different
>>     than TOS' movies.  High naval adventure and hunches and "His
>>     pattern indicates two dimensional thinking" (telling Kirk exactly
>>     where Khan is - for some reason) are acceptable in TOS and
>>     riveting when done right.  Not so much in TNG.

>This much is true. They'll have to take a less mainstream approach
>to stay true to TNG -- it'll be interesting to see whether they'll
>do that or succumb to box office draw.

     The challenge is to create a dynamic combination of the two.

>>      He was doing something right.  He was being Kirk.  Part and 
>>      parcel of Kirk is BAD ACTING.  

>Oh come on -- you're defining "bad acting" as "the kind of acting that Kirk
>does". Sure, Kirk is showy and flamboyant -- that's the kind of man Kirk
>is and if he succeeds in projecting the emotions I'm supposed to be feeling,
>it's in no way "bad acting".

     Come on yourself.  Are you telling me one of the signatures of
     James T. Kirk isn't the bad acting of William Shatner?  Sure,
     he "projects the emotions" you are supposed to be feeling, 
     but he does it by SMASHING YOU OVER THE HEAD with them.  He
     services the script, but we rarely - NOT NEVER, mind you - get
     that this is Kirk, a real man; we get, this is William Shatner
     playing a guy named Kirk.  Watch his eyes - his eyes are never
     involved in the portrayal.  Only his voice, his exxageratedly
     boxy body movements.  The eyes are off somewhere else most of
     the time.

>>>I disagree. A cold war termination allegory, Enterprise and Klingon
>>>shoot'em-up action -- these are old and obvious. Which wouldn't matter
>>>if they carried it off with any depth, but on the whole, it seemed to
>>>be largely going through the motions.

>>     I disagree.  I can see why you may think that.  The pacing was
>>     much faster than any other Star Trek film.  I think everyone
>>     was hoping, with Nick Meyer involved again, that this would be
>>     another heavy dramatic Wrath of Khan.  
>>     Wrath of Khan focused on the drama of the situation, not the
>>     action.  The drama dictated the pacing.
>>     The Undiscovered Country focused on the action of the situation,
>>     the speed with which the "final mission" of these characters
>>     went by, not the drama of the situation.  The action dictated
>>     the pacing.

>Yes, that's my complaint. It was high on action and low on drama.

     I don't think that the action dictating the pacing is such
     a bad thing.  If the drama dictated the pacing, the result
     would have been a movie that feels a lot like The Wrath of
     Khan -- so much so that everyone would have called it, rightly,
     a solid rip off.  (And a comparatively boring one at that).

     I love drama, but why is it a necessarily bad thing that TUC
     focused its pacing on action?  There is plenty of drama in
     TUC - not in the same way as you were apparently expecting,
     but it is there.

>>     See above.  I think you missed the point of the movie if you
>>     can call it "simplistic."  The sacrifice was MAMMOTH: the
>>     sacrifice Kirk had to make was the biggest of his life (arguably).
>>     He had to sacrifice CONTROL: control of the Enterprise, control
>>     of his crew, control of his destiny.

>He had to face this sacrifice in ST2/3. He wriggled out of it in ST4,
>but what was important was the confrontation. 

     This isn't the same sacrifice.  The sacrifices Kirk made - Spock,
     his son, his ship, his dignity - in those movies prepared him for
     the eventual sacrifice of activism; it prepared him, eventually,
     for retirement.  The sacrifice Kirk has already made at the opening
     of Star Trek VI is evident: he has decided to, or allowed Starfleet
     to bully him into, standing down.  
     He has prepared himself to let younger men, men he may consider less
     experienced, less able, take control and make the decisions he, Kirk,
     has made for so long.  They may be the wrong decisions, they may be
     the right decisions.  But Kirk has decided to stand down and let
     them in.
     The sacrifice he must make in Star Trek VI is in ASSISTING, even
     SINGLE-HANDEDLY BRINGING ABOUT, this change that is so unpalatable
     to him - it would be unpalatable to any of us.  Worse: the first
     new idea the young people intend to implement, the one causing
     them so many problems, is the one thing Kirk would NEVER agree to:
     making peace with the Klingons.
     Kirk must confront his prejudice and overcome his demons, make a
     CHANGE within himself, in order to make the outer change and pave
     the way for the younger generation to take over.  
     His sacrifice is HUGE: pressed into doing something he doesn't
     want to do (having a hand in the Klingon peace), Kirk finds that
     to do the job, he first has to confront and destroy a major demon
     within himself.  

>the sacrifice" indeed, but the film gave scant attention to the struggles 
>he went through to overcome that. He seemed rather resigned and accepting
>of his fate.

     Yes, but as I said, this isn't the fate we're talking about,
     or the sacrifice.

"Spock, this crew is due to stand down in 3 months. Don't
>you think we've done our bit for King and country?") We never saw them go 
>through the angst of retirement, at least not to a satisfactory degree..

     The movie is not about the "angst of retirement."  I can't think
     of a more boring topic for a Star Trek movie.  The movie is about
     having the courage to stand at the threshold of change and not only
     not shirk away from it, but conquer your inner fears and demons
     regarding change and USHER it in with open arms.

     Maybe the reason you have a problem with this - and the reason quite
     a few people have a problem with this - is because it is a change
     (we're talking end of TOS now, not Klingon peace) you personally
     DIDN'T want.  ??

>>     Kirk's INCREDIBLE sacrifice was not just that he had no choice
>>     but to hand over those reigns but that he had to do some
>>     EXTRAORDINARY things to HELP the rest of his generation hand
>>     them over as well.  Kirk had to confront a sacred belief within
>>     himself - his hatred of Klingons - and acknowledge it as 
>>     false, before he could do any of this.

>I think the two issues are separate. He was due to let go of the Enterprise
>in any case -- the events in ST6 were really a chance for him to have
>a last hurrah. 

     Partly, sure.  But the reason he is having this last hurrah
     on the Enterprise is so he can participate in ushering in
     the change.  That's the theme.  
     Starfleet is sending the old guard to usher in the new.  It's
     classic in literature.

>Overcoming his hatred of Klingons is fine as a premise, but I found
>the treatment rather obvious and pat. Somewhere between Shatner's
>acting and the writing, I didn't feel any sense of sacrifice there.
>I could see what they were trying to do but to me, Kirk's prejudice
>felt rather overblown...

     What, are you kidding?  Ask any military man from the cold war
     how much he hated the commies, and how much he distrusted 
     Gorbachev's perestroika because of that hatred.
     Forgetting for the moment all the problems Klingons have given
     Kirk in the past, and that they represent "THE ENEMY" in Star
     Trek just as surely as the Commies did in this country for
     so many years, a klingon KILLED Kirk's son.  While Kirk sat
     helplessly listening.  That's reason enough.

>Of course, part of the problem may be that David Marcus never struck me as
>someone worth mourning over anyhow.

     As I said.  I suppose you find Worf's hatred of the Romulans
     okay, though?  

>>     There was a hell of a lot happening in Star Trek VI that I 
>>     think you have missed.  

>I got the major points you outlined above and they're valid. I didn't
>think ST6 handled them in a particularly deep or interesting way, however.

     I'm still not convinced that you either did get the points or
     that you find them valid.  If you did, then I think you'd 
     have a lot more respect - not necessarily "like" - for the
     film.
     How can you at least not appreciate the expertise with which
     the Hamlet metaphor was constructed?


          ^Hot Damn, That Pie Was Good!^
                     Common Phrases Heard at
                     RR Diner #32.

          ^Scott Gorcey, v075q5fr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu^
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc