mimus wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:45:31 -0400, Sea Wasp wrote:
>
>
>>mimus wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:28:54 -0400, Sea Wasp wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:02:39 +0000, GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Bitstring <fs7m0v11rjf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, from the wonderful person
>>>>>>ravenlynne <ravenlynne@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Christ is risen indeed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well, this was posted to sci fi groups, so I suppose it's on topic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But crossposted to rec.arts.startrek.current, which nobody seems to
>>>>>>have bothered to snip (until now).
>>>>>
>>>>>Let the Trekkies suffer.
>>>>>
>>>>>Case in point: I just saw a post a bit back on another group about
>>>>>Clarke's death that listed SF "greats" and had Roddenberry in the
>>>>>list . . . .
>>>>
>>>>Works for me.
>>>
>>><mildly, after typing and then deleting diatribe>
>>>
>>>If Roddenberry was a "great", who would you consider a "hack"?
>>
>>I don't generally use the term, except for the latter George Lucas --
>>and even for him, I've discovered that it's clearly a matter of the evil
>>influence of his neck.
>
>
> "Neck"?
Google "George lucas' neck". His neck is clearly an evil alien lifeform.
>
>
>>But if you insist, how about the people
>>who took Harlan Ellison's material and from it produced "The
>>Starlost"? The writers of "Voyagers"?
>>
>>Roddenberry created one of the most influential and enduring SF
>>properties of all time. Like it or hate it, Star Trek is one of two,
>>and only two, SF properties which can reasonably claim to have changed
>>the world's perception of SF to the point that it became part of the
>>mainstream instead of an isolated fringe group activity. The other,
>>even more powerful, property is of course Star Wars.
>>
>>The influence of Star Trek -- especially through the original series,
>>which was at the time a quite edgy and risk-taking show -- can
>>certainly justify calling its creator one of the greats.
>
>
> Popular TV/movie SF != "greatness in SF" to me.
I did not say "popular".
>
> And even at that I'd say Kubrick's _2001_ did more for the genre in that
> respect than _Star Trek_ or _Star Wars_, both of which were moronically
> and disgracefully cheesy from the first. Kid stuff.
I point and laugh at you. Sorry, but I really do. There's no possible
other reaction.
2001 was a lovely bit of dull cinema which did NOTHING for the genre
as a whole, except to provide a thin, illusory thread of hope for the
SF snobs to cling to that, in fact, Star Trek and Star Wars did NOT
cause the revolution of the standing of the genre.
But illusory it is. Star Trek laid the way, and Star Wars sent a ten
thousand ton train thundering down those tracks, shattering barriers
before it like glass. 2001 did NOTHING on any scale vaguely like
either of them. It had some nice effects. That was about it. Even if
one argues, somehow, that 2001 might have had some behind-the-scenes
influence that eventually led to the green-lighting of Star Wars
(which would be one hell of a long stretch), that still leaves 2001
barking far, far back in the dust behind those two. Probably also
behind D&D, for that matter, which created an entire geek industry.
I don't know how old you are; perhaps you remember those days
vividly, but in that case you aren't remembering the transition
clearly. Especially the Star Wars transition. Before Star Wars, liking
ANY of that SF/Fantasy stuff was For Wierdos. I got books taken away
from me and ripped up. After Star Wars, it might be still sorta for
wierdos, but you COULD like it without being a pariah -- and it just
kept getting better.
> I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
>
You can disagree, but you'll be wrong.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
|
