On Fri, 4 May 2001, Joshua Bell wrote:
> "Marvin Long, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >The last time I looked, Gene Roddenberry was dead. And he had a pretty
> >free hand creating STI, otherwise it wouldn't have had that slow artistic
> >pace that that latter-day ST fans always complain about; otherwise, the
> >studio would have cut a lot of the movie.
>
> But Roddenberry wasn't the *director*. That was Robert Wise. Who's the guy
> coming back to finish the film:
>
> http://www.dvdfile.com/news/special_report/events/startrek/sttmp_directorscut_1.html
>
> Joshua
So what? Whose vision of Star Trek matters? Roddenberry's or Wise's?
Ok, it's too early to poo-poo this "Director's Cut," since I haven't seen
it yet. Maybe Roddenberry shared Wise's reservations, and Wise's edits
will be what GR would have approved.
The thing is, even without those improvements STI is still the best of the
bunch. Why? 'Cause I say so, of course. :-) The article you cite
compares STI to 2001, and I'd argue that the two films are "unwatchable"
for the same reason: slow pacing & wooden acting (no worse than on the TV
series for the most part, but still). The special effects were't bad by
1979 standards, and IMO STI has a sensawunda payoff similar to that
provided by 2001. At least STI isn't a gratuitous act of
kitsch--something that can't be said for any of the other movies save
STII (mostly).
Marvin Long
Austin, Texas
