From: schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder)
Subject: Re: Star Trek's Classics - Top 10 List
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 19:21:42 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.230509.28946@acsu.buffalo.edu> v075q5fr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott J Gorcey) writes:
>
>Gorcey and Kanamori discussing...
>
>[Stuff about how Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan can't be beat and that
> TNG will probably never come up with a movie to equal it...]
>
>>I tend to agree here -- I don't know what they're planning for the TNG
>>movies (and I'm not sure that a TNG film is artistically even a good idea.)

Gee, I really like Trek II, but....I'm not sure that it's such a
towering monolith.


>     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.

Hmmm.  Possibly.  I'd like to see some material that gets deep into
Picard's head, past his shroud of privateness.  Arguably, "Sarek" and
"Family" achieve this to some extent, but I'd like to see more.  His
potential to act out _forceful_ drama is vast (and largely untapped)
mostly because Picard's character is written to be so guarded.  As a
starship captain, he must be professional and aloof when in the Big
Chair, but off the bridge it should be a different story.  Then again,
how often does he get off the bridge?  Ha.  

[discussion of City on the Edge... deleted]

>>>     I will say that Shatner gave the performance of his
>>>     career in TWOK - nicely layered, and for him, that's a compliment.

I have to come to Shatner's defense here as well.  I think he's too
often lumped in the "incompetant actor" stack.  Trek II clearly shows
that he posesses acting talent.  I think the man in the director's chair
makes a big difference in the quality of Shatner's performances.  For
instance, when directing himself, he turns Kirk into a cartoon
character, a la Trek V.  Nimoy brings out a similarly less satisfying
Kirk, but _Meyer_.  Yes, this man understands the Kirk character as
demonstrated by Trek II and The Real Kirk's return in Trek VI.  I found
his portrayal of Kirk in VI to be every bit as true as in II.  He was
returned to realism in this film, a believable character, not a comic
book hero.

>
>>>>>         _Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country_
>
>>>>Urgh. Definitely not top 10 for me, not even top 20. Once the immediate
>>>>impact passed, I found it a supremely forgettable movie. The perestoika
>>>>allegory was a bad idea, IMO: it tried to score points with those who like

I don't need a film to be topically relevant.  It was just good Trek.  I
look forward to its release on tape.


>>>>"Relevant" films but as far as I'm concerned, it's unimaginative
>>>>bandwagon jumping. Its treatment largely concerned itself with surface
>>>>allegory and largely missed the boat in treating the underlying themes.

What Trek story isn't topical allegory?  What are the underlying themes
you're referncing?


>
>>>     I don't see it that way at all.  _Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home_
>>>     was a supremely forgettable movie.  _Star Trek: The Motion Picture_
>>>     is a supremely forgettable movie.  What's V?   
>
>>>     TUC, I think, was imaginative 
>
>>I disagree. A cold war termination allegory, Enterprise and Klingon
>>shoot'em-up action -- these are old and obvious. Which wouldn't matter

And everyone constantly bitches because they're action-starved in TNG.
Besides which, the movie was not nearly so simplistic a story as you
describe it.  It was no more a mere "shoot-em-up" than was (the
Universally Accepted) Trek II. 

>>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.

The pacing was just fine.  It carried me right along well enough that I
never felt "gosh, this is dragging".

>     Kirk, Spock and McCoy were at their best since TWOK.  Spock was
>     wittier than he's ever been - a character, as in II, at peace
>     with himself: "There is an ancient Vulcan proverb: Only Nixon 
>     could go to China."  "I've been dead before.  Contact Excelsior."

Agreed.  Many have complained that Spock was out of character here.  I
disagree with this.  We saw Spock's character develop, mature, come to
terms with his humanity, etc. right through Trek I, II and IV.  In each
movie his character and personality evolved.  I see his action in VI as
the logical (pardon) conclusion of this sequential development.

>     Etc.  Kirk is an aged commander, with a lifetime of service
>     behind him, pressed into one final, incredibly important exploration:
>     an exploration into his deepest held belief: his hatred of the 
>     Klingons.  They are the villains.  They are merciless animals.
>     They killed David.  
>     Kirk in The Undiscovered Country proves himself not just an
>     unthinking, lucky hero of the hunch.  He proves himself a hero
>     of trancendence and thought.  He is able to overcome and triumph
>     even when the barrier to success is within himself.  

Excellent summation.  I agree on all counts.

>
>     Kirk is able to grab hold and give a good push off as history
>     passes his generation by.  His time, and the time of his generation,
>     is over.  The (sorry bout this) next generation is taking over and
>     implementing their ideas.  Kirk is one of the few of the old
>     generation brave enough to accept that his time is done and,
>     more, to help bring about the world desired by the new.
>
>     That's just the tip of The Undiscovered Country's iceberg.
>
>     The _Hamlet_ allegory.  Meyer took a speech about death and 
>     transformed it into a metaphor on life.  He took words that
>     describe death and applied them to description of the future -
>     because the fear of what the future will bring is, for many
>     (if not most), more horrific than the fear of death.
>
>     How can you call all this shallow?  (And there is loads more!) 
>
>>They could. They didn't, IMO. The "thawing" was handled in a pat and 
>>simplistic manner; there was no sacrifice, no tough decisions, no effort on 

As described above, Kirk's character sacraficed plenty.  He came to
terms with his own hatred.  I found that powerful.  Granted, his little
speech at the end of the assassination scene was too cutsey.


>>the part of our heroes. They simply rambled on about how they must face 
>>the future, then decided to do so (and heavens, did Kirk's speech at the 
>>peace meeting ring of lecturing at the audience.) 
>


-- 
--------------
Gary Schroeder		
schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov 
Brookhaven National Laboratory     "Home of the Big BNL Burger."