Comments on: AFI Feels Wrath of Khan

By: Gene L. Coon (was the better Gene because he) was a U. S. Marine

Gene L. Coon (was the better Gene because he) was a U. S. Marine — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:46:15 +0000

Can’t let the opportunity to take 2001 down a few notches go by. Please include my name on the list of those poor unenlightened souls who don’t worship 2001. Oh, don’t get me wrong, I understand all the allegory, and picked up all the nuance. I just can’t stay awake through all the meaningfulness. Mother of God, is it ever boring. I always got a kick out of the criticism of TMP as the “motionless” picture, and being a rip-off of 2001. I’m sorry, but compared to 2001, TMP is a rip-snorting, Raiders-of-the-Lost-Arkesque, slam-bam, adrenaline-soaked actionfest. (I’d argue that 2001 wasn’t even the best sci-fi film of 1968, Planet of the Apes was)
I’d further argue that TMP’s themes of self-discovery (Is this all that I am, is there nothing more?) are better written, better delivered by a larger than life sci-fi icon (Spock), more relevant, more accessible, and more deeply affecting than those of 2001. Not to mention more entertaining, which is of no small importance to a movie.

Having said all that, TMP is no TWOK. I saw TWOK. TWOK was a friend of mine. TMP is no TWOK. (Lloyd Benson reference!) Simply not as entertaining. But my beef is with 2001. Have at you! Tis but a flesh wound.

By: MikeG

MikeG — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 04:17:39 +0000

104 – Closettrekker
You make good points, and I completely understand where you are coming from. I’m not 100% convinced, however, but I do get it. I’ll try to clarify my position, while admitting that perhaps I’m splitting hairs.
It is my understanding that the essence of “story” is about a character (or characters) trying to solve a problem. In a sci-fi story, that problem is of a science-fictional nature… meaning that the hero’s problem, itself, has to do with one of the various staples of sci-fi, such as aliens, robots, advanced technology, and so forth. So, in such a story, if you took the sci-fi away the hero would have no problem to solve.
In TWOK, you could, potentially, write this story without any sci-fi elements at all, and you would still have a Kirk/Kahn story (Master & Commander, perhaps?). I believe if TWOK were a TRUE sci-fi story, the whole thing would fall apart without the sci-fi elements. Now, it could be argued that in TWOK, the Genesis device is the primary sci-fi element, but it is, I believe, a “MacGuffin” — a plot device which is not essential to the ESSENCE of the story. It is a distraction, to some degree. If you took the Genesis device out of the story, you could still have a story. In a true sci-fi story, the Genesis device would be the center of the plot. The story (meaning the hero’s problem) would entirely revolve around the Genesis device. If the Genesis device is removed from the story, the true sci-fi story should collapse.
These are the kinds of sci-fi stories I read from Asimov, Clarke, etc. where the hero’s problem entirely revolved around a science-fictional element… In 2001, for example, David Bowman’s (and crew’s) problems were entirely connected to advanced technology (the HAL9000), and the aliens (their monolith). Without these elements, David Bowman is just floating in space.
Finally, I believe that we each develop numerous ideas about (in this case) what sci-fi is, and what it is not, mostly based on everything we have read, seen and heard. We develop a particular logic about it all. And then, on the basis of those ideas, we decide what we think of as sci-fi, or fantasy, or whatever… this is true of everything, isn’t it? So, what I think of as sci-fi is, possibly, quite different than what others may think of as sci-fi, simply on the basis of what we have been exposed to. I don’t think it makes one right and one wrong… it just makes us different.
Anyway, I love Star Trek too… :-)

By: Garovorkin

Garovorkin — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:22:16 +0000

113 read the graphic novel loved it, never got aound to seeing the movie. Oh movie of interest that almost everyone has forgotten about Moontrap staring Walter Koenig and Bruce Campbell, this is movie that should have had a sequel. but the studio for some reason buried it.

By: The Vulcanista

The Vulcanista — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:09:18 +0000

#91

V for Vendetta

Great movie, and incredibly romantic in a very dark way. I *love* that stuff!

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

By: The Vulcanista

The Vulcanista — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:51:20 +0000

#111

Probably so regarding the blender argument. You gotta figure Roddenberry and some of the writers and folks associated with TOS grew up reading that stuff. It obviously rubbed off.

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

By: Garovorkin

Garovorkin — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:32:08 +0000

Actually you could make a somewhat similar blender arguement with regard to Trek. One film in particular that is considered a model for trek is The Forbiden Planet, then there are the Golden age scifi stories Foundation series by Asmov, The Lensmen Series by Ee Doc Smith, Space Cadet and other Novels by Heinlein. lots of others I would Image that Gene Roddenberry was quite familar with them. There elements of these stories in trek. In all scifi there is a borrowing
Example Babylon 5 The Psycop concept and Mindwiping was inspired by the great scifi novel The Demolished Man By Alfred Bester. Hell walter Koenigs Charater a Psycop was named Alfred Bester In Besters .

By: The Vulcanista

The Vulcanista — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:02:56 +0000

#109

And Tolkien put it all in a blender, and we got LOTR & associated mythos!

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

By: Garovorkin

Garovorkin — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:54:43 +0000

Vulcanista a point on Tolken LOTR was base on some Scandinavian Myths and Folk tales He also drew Inspiration from William Morris George Macdonald, Evelyn Nesbit Lord Dunsany and others as Ithink one could argue that Star was was influenced a bit by LOTR . Iknow its off topic but just a point of interest

By: The Vulcanista

The Vulcanista — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:19:37 +0000

#104 “Star Trek has always been a rather optimistic look at OUR potential future–not a glimpse into a “fantasy world” with no ties to our own. That seperates it, IMO, from Star Wars or Lord Of The Rings.”

Agree overall, but actually, LOTR does have a tenuous connection to our world. According to one of the Tolkien scholars on one of my Geek — er, Collector’s Edition DVDs of LOTR, Tolkien had imagined this whole world of Middle Earth as England’s very ancient history/mythology. This doesn’t, of course, negate any of the fantasy element you refer to.

We now return you to our regularly scheduled discussion.

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

By: Closettrekker

Closettrekker — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:40:34 +0000

This is very easy for me.

1. TWOK–even non-fans can dig it.

2.TMP–truest Trek film.

3.THV–light-hearted movie with a nice “Trek-like” message.

4.TSFS–some “canon” issues(Klingon Bird Of Prey?/ 20 year old Enterprise?), but very entertaining.

5.TUC–decent rebound.

6.FC–unquestionably the best of the TNG movies.

7.INS–big screen tv episode.

8.GEN–the subject of alot of heartburn aroundhere.

9.NEM/TFF (a clear toss up)–should be wiped from existence. Can we pretend these never happened?

The only question remaining is, where will ST XI belong?