From: kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori)
Subject: Re: Star Trek's Classics - Top 10 List
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 23:30:15 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.230509.28946@acsu.buffalo.edu> v075q5fr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott J Gorcey) writes:
>
>Gorcey and Kanamori discussing...
>
>>But then, this isn't art, it's business.
>
>     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.



>>That scene was supposed to be goofy -- I was laughing, which was the intended
>>effect. As you said, I *did* feel Kirk's emotions at the climax as well as
>>his feelings for Ms. Keeler -- there's no way I would have felt that if
>>Shatner hadn't been doing something right.
>
>      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".



>
>>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.


>
>     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. In ST6, he "made
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, ("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.



>
>     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. 

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, the same way Spock did in UNIFICATION 2 (the
guy's still anguishing because two of his friends spent a couple of
days on a prison asteroid?) 

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



>     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.




. .        .       .                .        
: : : :. : :  :....: : .  ::.: .  ..: :    ..     : :    .:
::::::::::.: :::::::.:::::::::::.:::::: :?.:::::..::::.:.::
------------ -------------------------- --------------------------
TNG Lifelines: From "Yesterday's Enterprise" To "The First Duty" --
  "Prior to Starfleet Academy commencement ceremonies, an in-flight
   accident destroys five ships, including the one carrying Wesley
   Crusher" -- TV Guide: Mar. 28 - Apr. 3

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc