XPost: rec.arts.movies.current-films, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: bob@bob.com   
      
   "Mark Bertenshaw"  wrote in message   
   news:de92ee42.0405040405.346de804@posting.google.com...   
   > 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.   
      
   Financially successful - which is why the studio was willing to produce a   
   superiour sequel and an ongoing television series.  ST:TMP made a profit.   
      
      
   > >   
   > > 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.   
   >   
   > -   
   > Mark Alexander Bertenshaw   
   > Kingston upon Thames   
   > UK   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)