• MT VOID, 11/14/25 -- Vol. 44, No. 20, Whole Number 2406

    From Evelyn C. Leeper@evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Sun Nov 16 08:09:27 2025
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    THE MT VOID
    11/14/25 -- Vol. 44, No. 20, Whole Number 2406

    Editor: Evelyn Leeper, evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com
    All material is the opinion of the author and is copyrighted by
    the author unless otherwise noted.
    All comments sent or posted will be assumed authorized for
    inclusion unless otherwise noted.

    To subscribe or unsubscribe, send mail to
    evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com
    The latest issue is at <http://www.leepers.us/mtvoid/latest.htm>.
    An index with links to the issues of the MT VOID since 1986 is at <http://leepers.us/mtvoid/back_issues.htm>.

    Topics:
    Mini Reviews, Part 27 (DARK INTRUDER, THE LOVES OF COUNT
    IORGA VAMPIRE (COUNT YORGA, VAMPIRE), QUEST FOR
    LOVE) (film comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
    Secondary Characters (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
    THE GREAT GATSBY (letter of comment by Scott Dorsey)
    Peter Watkins (letter of comment by Paul Dormer)
    This Week's Reading (Minute Mysteries)
    (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)

    ===================================================================

    TOPIC: Mini Reviews, Part 27 (film comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)

    More films from Mark's "Neglected Gems" list.

    [I'm skipping BEDAZZLED (1967) and QUATERMASS AND THE PIT (1967)
    because I've watched them too recently to watch again, but not
    recently enough to make comments on them.]

    DARK INTRUDER (1965): Originally a pilot for a never-produced
    television series, this shows Leslie Nielson as a "serious" actor,
    rather than the master of deadpan humor he became in such films as
    AIRPLANE!, although this film does have some humor. For that
    matter, Werner Klemperer is also featured, before he became
    inextricably linked with Colonel Klink of HOGAN'S HEROES. The plot
    involves a series of Ripper-like murders in 1890 San Francisco,
    each marked by a statuette from the ancient Sumerian religion. (As
    Mark described it, "[Screenwriter] Barre Lyndon fills the
    underworld of San Francisco with pacts with Lovecraftian gods and
    weird statues made of mummified flesh." Nicely atmospheric, and
    well-written, this film is not easy to find, but worth watching if
    you get the chance.

    Released theatrically 14 July 1965.

    Film Credits:
    <https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059083/reference>

    What others are saying:
    <https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dark_intruder>


    THE LOVES OF COUNT IORGA VAMPIRE (1970): Well, that's what the
    opening credits say. It is more commonly known as COUNT YORGA,
    VAMPIRE. So why the strange credits? According to the IMDb, "This
    film was originally conceived as a low budget soft-core
    pornography film titled 'The Loves of Count Iorga, Vampire'.
    Later, however, the decision was made to film it as a regular
    horror film with the less erotic title 'Count Yorga, Vampire'. ...
    The original title and original Iorga spelling were both restored
    to the film by the 1990s..."

    Frankly, I'm not sure why this should be considered a "neglected
    gem". Yes, it pioneered the idea of a faster, more vicious vampire
    rather than the courtliness and elegance of the Universal and
    other earlier vampires. And it does have shots from the point of
    view of the vampire. But in every other aspect it is a fairly
    mediocre film.

    Released theatrically 12 June 1970.

    Film Credits:
    <https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066952/reference>

    What others are saying:
    <https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/count_yorga_vampire>


    QUEST FOR LOVE (1971): This is a little-known alternate history
    film, based on John Wyndham's "Random Quest". As an alternate
    history, the problem is that there just isn't enough change. Colin
    Trafford seems to have many of the same friends, belongs to the
    same club, and so on. Instead, the script gives us some obvious
    signals of difference: Everest hasn't been climbed, Kennedy wasn't assassinated, there was no World War II. And there are personal
    changes: he went to Cambridge, not Oxford, the porter at the club
    is different, Colin is a playwright, not a scientist, and there is
    a key plot point about a scar.

    And his attempts to explain the situation are ludicrous, although
    one can argue that at the party he is drunk, so wouldn't make
    sense in any case. However, even when he explains it very clearly,
    Ottilie doesn't believe him.

    The underlying story is a bit contrived, with the alternate Colin
    turning out to be a cad, while the "primary" Colin instantly falls
    in love with the alternate Ottilie, but of course she thinks he
    still the cad, and totally insincere. This is quite similar to the
    idea that a cad has reformed, but his old girlfriend doesn't
    believe it. It just adds a science fiction twist to it.

    There are aspects to the film that make it more a romance than a
    science fiction film. Unfortunately, what makes alternate
    histories interesting (at least to me) is the logical working out
    of the alternate world, and that is what is lacking. There are a
    couple of extrapolations (apparently taxis and drinks are cheaper
    for some reason, and there is no new construction on what had been
    bomb sites in ourWorld War II), but no changes in clothing, social
    structure, or anything else. For a better-constructed English
    alternate history, see AN ENGLISHMAN'S CASTLE. (I wonder why that
    wasn't on Mark's list; I know he liked it a lot.)

    [There is a 2022 film titled QUEST FOR LOVE. It is totally
    unrelated to the 1971 film being recommended here.]

    Released theatrically 29 October 1971.

    Film Credits:
    <https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067645/reference>

    What others are saying:
    <https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/quest_for_love>

    [-ecl]

    ===================================================================

    TOPIC: Secondary Characters (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)

    Why are so many of the secondary characters in television series
    more interesting than the main characters?

    Spock is more interesting than Kirk.

    Ilya Kuryakin is more interesting than Napoleon Solo.

    Ivanova is more interesting than Sheridan.

    Lennier is more interesting than Delenn.

    Vir is more interesting than Londo.

    (I will admit that Riker is *not* more interesting than Picard.)

    And semi-related trivia: David McCallum's father was the violin
    player in THE LAST HOLIDAY (1950). He was primarily a classical
    musician, and THE LAST HOLIDAY was his only film role. [-ecl]

    ===================================================================

    TOPIC: THE GREAT GATSBY (letter of comment by Scott Dorsey)

    In response to Evelyn's comments on THE GREAT GATSBY in the
    11/07/25 issue of the MT VOID, Scott Dorsey writes:

    [Evelyn wrote,] "Also, note that Meyer Wolfsheim says Gatsby was
    educated at 'Oggsford College'. Aside from the pronunciation, it's
    not Oxford College, it's the University of Oxford, which consists
    of forty-three 'colleges' of varying sorts." [-ecl]

    I think this is very deliberate in terms of showing who Wolfsheim
    is, much in the way that the unused library helps show who Gatsby
    is.

    For an interesting sidelight, read the book and note every use of
    the telephone. [-sd]

    Evelyn replies:

    That was my (apparently too subtle) point about Wolfsheim. [-ecl]

    ===================================================================

    TOPIC: Peter Watkins (letter of comment by Paul Dormer)

    In response to Mark's comments on Peter Watkins and THE WAR GAME
    in the 11/07/25 issue of the MT VOID, Paul Dormer writes:

    Before THE WAR GAME, Watkins did what I remember being a rather
    good film about the battle of Culloden, done in a similar style to
    THE WAR GAME. I haven't seen it for years but I see it's available
    on Youtube. [-pd]

    Evelyn responds:

    We saw that at Culloden in 1987 when we did a driving tour of
    ancient and historical sites in Scotland. Needless to say, I don't
    remember it all that clearly; all I remember is that Mark pointed
    out it was the same director as THE WAR GAME. [-ecl]

    ===================================================================

    TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)

    I ran across a bunch of "Minute Mysteries" books. You know the
    sort: they give you a one- or two-page account of a crime and the investigation, and then you're supposed to say who the criminal
    is, or how you know the witness is lying, or some such.

    The problem is that many of them just don't work any more. No, the
    hood of the car might still be cool after driving ten hours--it
    could be an electric vehicle. No, the person who said he mailed a twenty-six-pound package might be telling the truth--whatever the twenty-five-pound limit was, it isn't any more. And so on.

    Or it assumes some relatively arcane knowledge, such as that
    horseshoe games have innings, or what the weight limit is for a
    middleweight, or what some weird baseball slang means.

    Then there are the predictable ones: someone describes a liquid
    that should have been frozen given the weather, or things seen in
    total darkness, or deaf people saying someone was whispering what
    they lip-read.

    But the really out-of-place ones are the ones that are just logic
    puzzles: Mary and the killer both have red hair. Diane had only
    recently arrived in town. The waitress and Suzanne use the same
    hairdresser. And so on, until you are asked, "Who is the killer?"
    The problem is that the police would only know this set of things
    if they already *knew* who the killer was.

    Oh, many of the mysteries show up in multiple books, even when the
    books are by different authors. (Since at least two of the
    authors--Austin Ripley and Donald J. Sobol--are well-known, it is
    highly unlikely that the different names are all pen names for the
    same author.) [-ecl]

    ===================================================================

    Evelyn C. Leeper
    evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com


    Nothing works the way it was supposed to. They keep
    changing things, but still nothing works right.
    --THX-1138

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Gary McGath@garym@mcgath.com to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Sun Nov 16 08:52:09 2025
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    On 11/16/25 8:09 AM, Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
    Why are so many of the secondary characters in television series
    more interesting than the main characters?

    Spock is more interesting than Kirk.

    Ilya Kuryakin is more interesting than Napoleon Solo.

    Ivanova is more interesting than Sheridan.

    Lennier is more interesting than Delenn.

    Vir is more interesting than Londo.

    (I will admit that Riker is *not* more interesting than Picard.)

    The main characters listed here are all leaders. That gives them fewer
    options than their subordinates. Leaders can turn rebel (Sheridan
    certainly does), but more often the leader gives stability to the story
    while the others can play more against the norm.

    However, I would dispute Londo's being less interesting than Vir.
    --
    Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From prd@prd@pauldormer.cix.co.uk (Paul Dormer) to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Sun Nov 16 17:00:00 2025
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    In article <10fcie7$2pgk$1@dont-email.me>, evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) wrote:


    QUEST FOR LOVE (1971): This is a little-known alternate history
    film, based on John Wyndham's "Random Quest".

    I first came across the Wyndham story in the BBC anthology series Out of
    the Unknown in 1969. There was also a BBC version in 2006.

    There was one interesting change to the original story in Quest for Love.
    In the story, it turns out that Ottilie was actually the daughter of a
    racing driver killed before the war and her mother married another man
    whilst pregnant and therefore Ottilie had the surname of the husband, and
    the pregnancy out of wedlock was not known. Similarly, in the first BBC version, the father was an RAF pilot killed in the war, again a new
    husband. In the film, Ottilie survived an air raid as a new born and was assumed to be the child of another family that was wiped out. No
    suggestion of illegitimacy.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2