From: kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori)
Subject: Re: Star Trek's Classics - Top 10 List
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 01:15:29 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.002750.959@acsu.buffalo.edu> v075q5fr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott J Gorcey) writes:
>
>>>      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.  

That Shatner often overacts is not in dispute. That he overacted in
CoE (or that it made for bad acting in CoE) is. 

I'd have to watch CoE again to be more specific on that point -- my
main objection was to the implication made by your statement that
"doing something right" for Kirk was "bad acting".



>>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).

On the surface, yes. But if the underlying story and themes are different,
I don't see the problem. CAUSE & EFFECT had a lot of elements from previous
episodes but I don't recall anyone calling it a ripoff after the fact.


>     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.  

My question was: What exactly was he doing to ASSIST or SINGLE-HANDEDLY
BRINGING ABOUT? His retirement was a fact of life -- he's not doing anything
to assist or bring it about, other than by aging.


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.

My reply to all this is basically the same: the dramatic premise was there
but that's all it was, *there*. They needed to flesh it out and deal with
it better than it did. They had some interesting ideas, but that's not
enough. They have to tell that story in a compelling manner. That's where
they fell short, IMO.


>     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.  ??

I've long stopped carrying the torch for TOS, believe me. I did feel
rather apocalyptic at the time I left the theater, yes -- but the
feelings about ST6 I'm evincing are the feelings I have *now* -- namely
about three and a half months after I buried the TOS/TNG battle-axe.




>>>     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.

Again, I fail to see the connection. He was there to usher in a change
in *Federation/Klingon relations*, but that had nothing to do with his
retirement.


>>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.

I'm not a military man. Nor are most of the people who watch the movie.
As a dramatic movie, it's the film's responsibility to make me identify
with Kirk's emotions, despite my not being a military man. If it doesn't, 
the dramatic impact fails.


>>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?  

Uh no. I thought Worf's prejudice was extremely uncalled for.


>>>     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.

I respect part of what they tried to do, but not what they accomplished. 
Good intentions aren't enough: if so, I'd have to give JUSTICE a 5 out of 5. 
Don't get me wrong, I don't think ST6 was a *bad* movie -- I had a lot
of fun with it. But I do think it's a mediocre movie -- and that the TOS
era deserved a far better end.


. .        .       .                .        
: : : :. : :  :....: : .  ::.: .  ..: :    ..     : :    .:
::::::::::.: :::::::.:::::::::::.:::::: :?.:::::..::::.:.::
------------ -------------------------- --------------------------
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