XPost: rec.arts.movies.current-films, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: g_d_pusch_remove_underscores@xnet.com   
      
   mark.bertenshaw@virgin.net (Mark Bertenshaw) writes:   
      
   > g_d_pusch_remove_underscores@xnet.com (Gordon D. Pusch) wrote in message   
   news:...   
   >> John Duncan Yoyo  writes:   
   >>   
   >>> On Sun, 02 May 2004 20:13:20 GMT, Michael Johnson    
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> Lets go with ST as your example. Their fanbase before ST:TMP was made   
   >>>> was the same 'loyal but devoted' fans that plugged for a film. It was   
   >>>> only until the release of that movie and the subsequent sequels that   
   >>>> the fanbase became more mainstream enough to warrant ST:TNG.   
   >>>   
   >>> IMS ST:TMP was not all that successful.   
   >>   
   >> In part, that was because the studio execs totally misundertood the   
   >> principle reasons why _ST:TOS_ was so successful, and insisted that   
   >> huge chunks of dialog and plot development be relegated to the cutting-   
   >> room floor in favor of mindbending SFX --- thus leading to its nickname,   
   >> _Star Trek: The Motionless Picture_.   
   >>   
   >> The original release of ST:TMP hardly even made _sense_ unless one had   
   already   
   >> read the novelization _before_ seeing the movie. The later "directors's cut"   
   >> was somewhat better, but still had huge gapping plot holes in it (for   
   example,   
   >> neither Spock's pursuit of Kohlinohr nor the reason why that path was closed   
   >> to him make sense without the backstory in the novel, nor his conveniently   
   >> abrupt arrival aboard the refitted _Enterprise_ already knowing so much   
   >> about the situation and the mission, nor much of his subsequent behavior.   
   >   
   >    
   >   
   > Whilst I completely agree with you that ST:TMP had big plot holes in   
   > it, I think that it is wrong to assume that all this backstory was in   
   > the original screenplay.  It is a known fact that when novelising a   
   > screenplay, the author has to invent new material just so he or she   
   > can make the page count that publishers normally require.  In some   
   > cases, such as many of the Trek film novelisations, the author does   
   > this well, and manages to compensate for the deficiencies in the   
   > original scripts from which they take the story.  In any case, readers   
   > tend to notice plot holes more than viewers, because they can read the   
   > book at their own pace, rather than being dragged along.   
      
   In this case, the author of the novelization was Gene Roddenberry himself,   
   who also had a hand in writing the screenplay, so it is reasonable to presume   
   that the details of the backstory he "invented" _may_ have been "legitimate"...   
      
      
   -- Gordon D. Pusch   
      
   perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)