If you all hate it then why do you watch it?
Darren Amato
every episode of TNG and harp on what the didn't like about it. And in
the wrap up of the postings they decide that it wasn't a good episode.
This seems to be the general trend of EVERY episode lately. If you don't
like the show then why do you continue to watch it? It would seem
to me that if one didn't enjoy a TV show after viewing 5 or 6 shows,
that they might consider not watching it anymore.
Michael Rawdon
You must have missed my reviews of "Family" and "Remember Me" both of which
were fantastic episodes.
I watch the series partly because I'm a Trekkie, and partly because I don't
want to miss episodes like those two.
--
Michael Rawdon
Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu | Knowledge may be power, but
Usenet: rex!rawdon.uucp | withholding knowledge can be a
Bitnet: CS6FECU@TCSVM | dangerous thing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions mine, typos and grammar errors someone else's.
D. Joseph Creighton
>In <15...@brahms.udel.edu> scr...@brahms.udel.edu (Darren Amato) writes:
>>It seems to me that many of the posters on this newsgroup pull apart
>>every episode of TNG and harp on what the didn't like about it.
>
>want to miss episodes like those two.
You, Michael? A Trekkie? I could have sworn you were a Trekker... ;)
---
___---
+------__--~~~ _~--------------------------------------------------------+
| __-~~ _~ "Starfleet is not a military organization; its purpose |
_-~ ~_ is exploration." |
~-_ ~_ - Picard to Sirna Kolrami, "Peak Performance" |
|~--_ ~_ "Our missions are peacful - not for conquest." |
| ~~--__ ~_ - Kirk to Trelane, "Squire of Gothos" |
+----------~~~---_~_-------------------------------------------------------+
| Hailing Frequencies Closed. "Captain" D. Joseph Creighton |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Atsushi Kanamori
>It seems to me that many of the posters on this newsgroup pull apart
>every episode of TNG and harp on what the didn't like about it. And in
>the wrap up of the postings they decide that it wasn't a good episode.
>This seems to be the general trend of EVERY episode lately.
I lay down FAMILY and REUNION as counterexamples.
. . . .
: : : :. : : :.. .:
::::::::::.: :::::::
------------ ---------------------------------------------------------
TNG Lifelines: From Yesterday's Enterprise To Reunion ("Warriors do not
ask so many questions." - Worf)
Bruce Matthews
This could just as easily have said:
It seems to me that many of the posters on this newsgroup pull apart
every posting of r.a.s and harp on what the didn't like about it. And in
the wrap up of the postings they decide that it wasn't a good posting.
This seems to be the general trend of EVERY thread lately. If you don't
like the group then why do you continue to subscribe to it? It would seem
to me that if one didn't enjoy a newsgroup after viewing 500 or 600 items,
that they might consider not reading it anymore.
To which I would say, by God you're right! The signal:noise ratio on
r.a.s has become intolerable and attempting to read the group is both
frustrating and an incredible waste of time.
Therefore....
I'm out of here!!!!
--
Bruce G. Matthews, P.Eng. Skybird, make your sail - and every
BGM Human Factors Engineering heart will know of the tale.
b...@dretor.dciem.dnd.ca - Neil Diamond from J.L.S.
Phil Ritzenthaler
HEAR, HEAR!!
I don't post too often, but I've been reading netnews for 7 years. The
trend of the postings in this newsgroup have been decidedly negative
with SO many reviews that it gets:
1.) Old real fast
2.) pretty heavy on the disk usage.
Why so many feel that they MUST look at TNG with such a severe critical
bias, I don't know. Personally, I've enjoyed the last 4 years. Agreed
that there were a couple shows that probably shouldn't have hit the can,
but this current year, all have been fine entertainment.
And, don't forget what TNG , TOS, and anything else in this venue is:
ENTERTAINMENT! Sheesh, it seems that some on this group take it so
seriously. This is science-FICTION:
1. An imaginative creation or a pretense that does
NOT represent actuality but has been INVENTED.
I think that a few more of the REGULAR posters need to re-read that
monthly reality check. It seems that, from some articles, they
sometimes seem to forget . . .
flames to /dev/null . . .
--
Phil Ritzenthaler The Advanced Computing Center for the Arts & Design (ACCAD)
Systems Manager The Ohio State University
UUCP: ...!{pyramid,killer}!grumpy.cgrg.ohio-state.edu!phil
(614) 292-3416 ARPA: ph...@grumpy.cgrg.ohio-state.edu
Kathy Knight
> From article <15...@brahms.udel.edu>, by scr...@brahms.udel.edu (Darren Amato):
> > It seems to me that many of the posters on this newsgroup pull apart
> > every episode of TNG and harp on what the didn't like about it. And in
>
> HEAR, HEAR!!
>
I've often wanted to post the question "Is there anyone else like
me out there?". To be honest, I'm not usually brave enough to invite
barbed comments.
First of all, I really do like the exchanges about the different
episodes. Sometimes, they're more entertaining that the actual
episodes themselves! I'm not saying that the episodes shouldn't be
picked apart because, after all, isn't that what this newsgroup is
all about? But I'd like to think that there might be other's out
there who watch it and enjoy it without worrying about all the
little (and not so little) things that seem to drive most of you
crazy!
I have been a devoted Star Trek fan for years. I've seen every
episode, both original and new, and have paid to see all the movies.
I don't watch that much television because I think that most of what
is offered is garbage! I enjoy each episode of Star Trek. If
one of them (and I'll admit there've been a few) happens to be a
little disappointing...well, I consider it to be infinately better
than watching something else!
--Kathy Knight
Atsushi Kanamori
>From article <15...@brahms.udel.edu>, by scr...@brahms.udel.edu (Darren Amato):
>
>
>I don't post too often, but I've been reading netnews for 7 years. The
>trend of the postings in this newsgroup have been decidedly negative
>with SO many reviews that it gets:
> 1.) Old real fast
> 2.) pretty heavy on the disk usage.
>
>Why so many feel that they MUST look at TNG with such a severe critical
>bias, I don't know.
Perhaps because its predecessor and the movies have set up a standard
of quality for NG to follow: one that it often doesn't. That's just my
opinion, of course, but NG has a lot of potential that it doesn't
achieve: which is why I'm critical.
Furthermore, and I don't know how many would agree with me, I think
some of the regulars regard r.a.s. as BEING the main entertainment -
and watching NG is merely the prerequisite for participating. Mr. Rawdon
has said that he finds r.a.s. more dramatic than most TV drama, and
funnier than most TV sitcoms - and I agree with him. And if that's so,
it usually more interesting to discuss problems with the show than
it is to have twenty drooling postings saying "I love it! Great episode!"
every week.
Personally, I enjoy r.a.s. as much as, or more, than NG itself. I wouldn't
do this if I absolutely hated NG, but I don't absolutely hate it.
>Personally, I've enjoyed the last 4 years. Agreed
>that there were a couple shows that probably shouldn't have hit the can,
>but this current year, all have been fine entertainment.
I can't really agree with a blanket statement like this: spectres of
BOBW2 and FUTURE IMPERFECT keep floating before my eyes.
>
>And, don't forget what TNG , TOS, and anything else in this venue is:
>ENTERTAINMENT! Sheesh, it seems that some on this group take it so
>seriously. This is science-FICTION:
> 1. An imaginative creation or a pretense that does
> NOT represent actuality but has been INVENTED.
>
>I think that a few more of the REGULAR posters need to re-read that
>monthly reality check. It seems that, from some articles, they
>sometimes seem to forget . . .
I suggest YOU go reread the MRR - it's very purpose is to eliminate
postings like yours - by reading r.a.s., you've implicitly agreed to
accept the existence of postings that talk as if Star Trek was real.
Tom Kuchar
Oh,no. not again. This happens every few months. Instead of reposting
all our standard responses, pro and con ST, why don't we all just save
bandwidth and re-read those posts from a few months back. Then we can
get on to bashing Wesley for next week ;-).
Tom Kuchar
kuc...@buast7.bu.edu
Department of Astronomy
Boston Univerity
D. Joseph Creighton
>In article <15...@brahms.udel.edu> scr...@brahms.udel.edu (Darren Amato) writes:
>>It seems to me that many of the posters on this newsgroup pull apart
>>every episode of TNG and harp on what the didn't like about it.
>
>This could just as easily have said:
>
>It seems to me that many of the posters on this newsgroup pull apart
>every posting of r.a.s and harp on what the didn't like about it.
>
>To which I would say, by God you're right! The signal:noise ratio on
>r.a.s has become intolerable and attempting to read the group is both
>frustrating and an incredible waste of time.
>
>Therefore....
>I'm out of here!!!!
Well, that's one less poster to worry about... ;)
Pierre Stromberg
>In article <11...@happy.osc.edu> ph...@osc.edu (Phil Ritzenthaler) writes:
>>Why so many feel that they MUST look at TNG with such a severe critical
>>bias, I don't know.
>
>Perhaps because its predecessor and the movies have set up a standard
>of quality for NG to follow: one that it often doesn't. That's just my
>opinion, of course, but NG has a lot of potential that it doesn't
>achieve: which is why I'm critical.
You have GOT to be joking. TOS was such an embarrassment that I wince
every time I see an orginal episode. In fact, I have yet to meet a SINGLE
person where I live who prefer TOS over TNG. TOS started with a good,
restrained performance in the first season and went down fast. The combined
egos of William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy as well as every supporting cast
member itching for their "special part" was a disaster and an insult to the
viewer. The only thing that kept Star Trek alive was its magnificent premise.
Patrick Stewart has the grace to show a vulnerable side of a starship
captain that William Shatner would never have allowed. And the supporting
cast of TNG have performance talents the originals could never match. When
you combine this with excellent writing, editing, and special effects, the
contest isn't even close.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Pierre Stromberg Microsoft Corporation Bellevue, Washington.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
uunet!microsoft!pierres pie...@microsoft.UUCP decvax!microsoft!pierres
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" - Karl Marx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Rawdon
>From article <15...@brahms.udel.edu>, by scr...@brahms.udel.edu (Darren Amato):
>> It seems to me that many of the posters on this newsgroup pull apart
>> every episode of TNG and harp on what the didn't like about it.
Well, of course, if there were more episode like "Remember Me" then I'd
spend more time discussing what I *do* like about it. With stuff like
"Legacy" and "Future Imperfect" being aired every other week, it's hard
NOT to spend some time (if not a LOT of time) discussing what I don't
like about it.
>> And in
>> the wrap up of the postings they decide that it wasn't a good episode.
>> This seems to be the general trend of EVERY episode lately.
That's because three of the last five episode haven't been anything to
write home about (IMHO), and there were some sharp divisions on aspects
of "Reunion". Now, if every episode were a "Family" or a "Remember Me",
things would be decidedly different from THIS corner, I can assure you.
>> If you don't
>> like the show then why do you continue to watch it? It would seem
>> to me that if one didn't enjoy a TV show after viewing 5 or 6 shows,
>> that they might consider not watching it anymore.
>I don't post too often, but I've been reading netnews for 7 years. The
>trend of the postings in this newsgroup have been decidedly negative
>with SO many reviews that it gets:
> 1.) Old real fast
> 2.) pretty heavy on the disk usage.
Obviously, I disagree. I enjoy almost every review that turns up on the
net, with the exception of some of the ones that only say "I liked it"
or "I didn't like it" and don't go into any real detail.
>Why so many feel that they MUST look at TNG with such a severe critical
>bias, I don't know.
Well, I certainly don't feel this way. I just find myself not enjoying
a lot of the shows, and so I then turn my critical eye to figuring out
why this is so.
> Personally, I've enjoyed the last 4 years. Agreed
>that there were a couple shows that probably shouldn't have hit the can,
>but this current year, all have been fine entertainment.
I disagree, which is why I do post negative reviews.
>And, don't forget what TNG , TOS, and anything else in this venue is:
>ENTERTAINMENT! Sheesh, it seems that some on this group take it so
>seriously. This is science-FICTION:
> 1. An imaginative creation or a pretense that does
> NOT represent actuality but has been INVENTED.
>I think that a few more of the REGULAR posters need to re-read that
>monthly reality check. It seems that, from some articles, they
>sometimes seem to forget . . .
I'm not one of these people either. I'm fully aware that Star Trek is
entertainment, though I think it's worth judging on some other levels as
well. However, many of my reviews of TNG are negative because I was NOT
entertained by the show. "Future Imperfect" and "Legacy" did NOT
entertain me (with one or two minor exceptions). They were exceedingly
poor episodes (IMHO), and I explained why I felt so.
I had thought this much was obvious from my reviews, but I guess not.
Something I try to alter, I guess...
Steven P. Miale
>>From article <15...@brahms.udel.edu>, by scr...@brahms.udel.edu (Darren Amato):
>>> It seems to me that many of the posters on this newsgroup pull apart
>>> every episode of TNG and harp on what the didn't like about it.
>
>Well, of course, if there were more episode like "Remember Me" then I'd
>spend more time discussing what I *do* like about it. With stuff like
>"Legacy" and "Future Imperfect" being aired every other week, it's hard
>NOT to spend some time (if not a LOT of time) discussing what I don't
>like about it.
But, Michael, it's impossible for the people who work on ST to turn out
something with the acting and script quality of those episodes every
week. You've got to expect a few turkeys in even the best series.
Besides, I think a really good episode (BoBW 1, Brothers for me) is worth
a few losers (Legacy, Suddenly Seymour, er, Human).
>>> And in
>>> the wrap up of the postings they decide that it wasn't a good episode.
>>> This seems to be the general trend of EVERY episode lately.
>
>That's because three of the last five episode haven't been anything to
>write home about (IMHO), and there were some sharp divisions on aspects
>of "Reunion". Now, if every episode were a "Family" or a "Remember Me",
>things would be decidedly different from THIS corner, I can assure you.
"Reunion" was a fine episode IMHO, and "Future" was good until the last,
oh, 10 minutes. A weak ending will hurt the rating (as it did for me), but
won't blow it from the sky.
>>> If you don't
>>> like the show then why do you continue to watch it? It would seem
>>> to me that if one didn't enjoy a TV show after viewing 5 or 6 shows,
>>> that they might consider not watching it anymore.
>
>>I don't post too often, but I've been reading netnews for 7 years. The
>>trend of the postings in this newsgroup have been decidedly negative
>>with SO many reviews that it gets:
>> 1.) Old real fast
>> 2.) pretty heavy on the disk usage.
>
>Obviously, I disagree. I enjoy almost every review that turns up on the
>net, with the exception of some of the ones that only say "I liked it"
>or "I didn't like it" and don't go into any real detail.
I, too, like explanations.
>
>>Why so many feel that they MUST look at TNG with such a severe critical
>>bias, I don't know.
>
>Well, I certainly don't feel this way. I just find myself not enjoying
>a lot of the shows, and so I then turn my critical eye to figuring out
>why this is so.
Then why do you watch? I know you seem to like to criticize these shows,
but sheesh, it seems like a very cynical thing to watch a series just to
criticize it. I know you have episodes you like, but the majority you
don't like.
>
>> Personally, I've enjoyed the last 4 years. Agreed
>>that there were a couple shows that probably shouldn't have hit the can,
>>but this current year, all have been fine entertainment.
>
>I disagree, which is why I do post negative reviews.
See previous.
>
>>And, don't forget what TNG , TOS, and anything else in this venue is:
>>ENTERTAINMENT! Sheesh, it seems that some on this group take it so
>>seriously. This is science-FICTION:
>> 1. An imaginative creation or a pretense that does
>> NOT represent actuality but has been INVENTED.
>
>>I think that a few more of the REGULAR posters need to re-read that
>>monthly reality check. It seems that, from some articles, they
>>sometimes seem to forget . . .
>
>I'm not one of these people either. I'm fully aware that Star Trek is
>entertainment, though I think it's worth judging on some other levels as
>well. However, many of my reviews of TNG are negative because I was NOT
>entertained by the show. "Future Imperfect" and "Legacy" did NOT
>entertain me (with one or two minor exceptions). They were exceedingly
>poor episodes (IMHO), and I explained why I felt so.
>I had thought this much was obvious from my reviews, but I guess not.
>Something I try to alter, I guess...
Michael, I really don't think you realize this, but to me (and a few
others, it seems), it seems like you *like* to poorly rate ST, that you
are looking at every episode with an automatic negative view. You seem
to be a pessimist.
It isn't apparent to me that you begin every episode with an open mind.
Perhaps you should change your ratings. Even better, rank each episode
as a part of Star Trek, rather than the entertainment industry as a whole.
In other words, answer the question: Is it a good episode FOR STAR TREK?
I think, hope, that this will help your reviews.
>
Atsushi Kanamori
>In article <1990Nov19....@Neon.Stanford.EDU> kana...@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>>In article <11...@happy.osc.edu> ph...@osc.edu (Phil Ritzenthaler) writes:
>>>Why so many feel that they MUST look at TNG with such a severe critical
>>>bias, I don't know.
>>
>>Perhaps because its predecessor and the movies have set up a standard
>>of quality for NG to follow: one that it often doesn't. That's just my
>>opinion, of course, but NG has a lot of potential that it doesn't
>>achieve: which is why I'm critical.
>
>
> You have GOT to be joking. TOS was such an embarrassment that I wince
>every time I see an orginal episode.
Geez, yeah, such an embarrassment that thousands of fans kept it alive
with massive letter writing campaigns, and kept the legend going for 20 years
after its cancellation. Sure, such an embarrassment that it spawned off
an entire movie series AND NG.
What an embarrassment. I wish I could claim such embarrassments on my resume.
>In fact, I have yet to meet a SINGLE
>person where I live who prefer TOS over TNG.
Where do you live, the north pole?
>TOS started with a good,
>restrained performance in the first season and went down fast.
Why is "restrained" inherently good? NG's whole problem is that it's
too restrained: the writers are afraid to take risks and the characters
are bland.
> Patrick Stewart has the grace to show a vulnerable side of a starship
>captain that William Shatner would never have allowed.
Guess you've never seen Wrath of Khan, eh?
>And the supporting
>cast of TNG have performance talents the originals could never match.
Yeah: Gates and Wheaton really turn me on.
>When you combine this with excellent writing,
Feh. If the writing is so excellent, how come most of the characters are as
interchangable as potato chips, as memorable as an overcooked egg noodle
and the show keeps delivering stuffed gobblers like BOBW2 and
FUTURE IMPERFECT?
>editing,
If you're watching TOS in syndication reruns, of course it's going to
be butchered because of the way they keep shoehorning the original show
between reams and reams of commercials.
>and special effects,
Ah - you probably thought TMP was the best Star Trek movie as well. Or
did you even see the movies?
NG's visual effects are no better than those of Space 1999 - NG's sound
effects are terminally forgettable, far inferior to TOS's - and the music...
'nuff said.
>the contest isn't even close.
You're right. And TOS wins.
All of the above are MO's.
. . . .
: : : :. : : :.. .:
::::::::::.: :::::::.
------------ ---------------------------------------------------------
TNG Lifelines: From Yesterday's Enterprise To Future Imperfect ("She married
me -- she *had* to have patience." - Captain Riker)
Michael Rawdon
>In article <50...@rex.cs.tulane.edu> raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>>In <11...@happy.osc.edu> ph...@osc.edu (Phil Ritzenthaler) writes:
>>>From article <15...@brahms.udel.edu>, by scr...@brahms.udel.edu (Darren Amato):
>>>> It seems to me that many of the posters on this newsgroup pull apart
>>>> every episode of TNG and harp on what the didn't like about it.
>>Well, of course, if there were more episode like "Remember Me" then I'd
>>spend more time discussing what I *do* like about it. With stuff like
>>"Legacy" and "Future Imperfect" being aired every other week, it's hard
>>NOT to spend some time (if not a LOT of time) discussing what I don't
>>like about it.
>But, Michael, it's impossible for the people who work on ST to turn out
>something with the acting and script quality of those episodes every
>week. You've got to expect a few turkeys in even the best series.
But I *do*. And, since some episodes are good and some episodes are bad,
I judge them accordingly. What else could I do?
>Besides, I think a really good episode (BoBW 1, Brothers for me) is worth
>a few losers (Legacy, Suddenly Seymour, er, Human).
So do I. That's why I'm still watching the series.
>>>Why so many feel that they MUST look at TNG with such a severe critical
>>>bias, I don't know.
>>Well, I certainly don't feel this way. I just find myself not enjoying
>>a lot of the shows, and so I then turn my critical eye to figuring out
>>why this is so.
>Then why do you watch? I know you seem to like to criticize these shows,
They key word there is "seem". I'd much rather hand out praise than
criticism. I mean, yeah, I enjoy posting my reviews (why else would I
do it?), but I don't approach the shows saying "Oh yeah, time to cut up
another episode of TNG!" Really, I don't. I *do* approach every
episode with an open mind.
>but sheesh, it seems like a very cynical thing to watch a series just to
>criticize it. I know you have episodes you like, but the majority you
>don't like.
But, as you said, the good episodes make it worthwhile.
>>>And, don't forget what TNG , TOS, and anything else in this venue is:
>>>ENTERTAINMENT! Sheesh, it seems that some on this group take it so
>>>seriously. This is science-FICTION:
>>> 1. An imaginative creation or a pretense that does
>>> NOT represent actuality but has been INVENTED.
>>I'm not one of these people either. I'm fully aware that Star Trek is
>>entertainment, though I think it's worth judging on some other levels as
>>well. However, many of my reviews of TNG are negative because I was NOT
>>entertained by the show. "Future Imperfect" and "Legacy" did NOT
>>entertain me (with one or two minor exceptions). They were exceedingly
>>poor episodes (IMHO), and I explained why I felt so.
>>I had thought this much was obvious from my reviews, but I guess not.
>>Something I try to alter, I guess...
>Michael, I really don't think you realize this, but to me (and a few
>others, it seems), it seems like you *like* to poorly rate ST, that you
>are looking at every episode with an automatic negative view. You seem
>to be a pessimist.
Well, I'm not. As I said, it sounds like I have to alter something in
my reviews.
>It isn't apparent to me that you begin every episode with an open mind.
Why not? The only episode I've gone into out of the last fifteen or
so where I had any sort of preconception whatsoever was "Future Imperfect"
(and that conception was that I was looking forward to a really good
future episode), but I found enough in the episode I disliked that
WASN'T related to that preconception that I didn't feel that my
conception affected my enjoyment of the episode in any significant way.
What gives you the feeling that I don't watch every episode with an
open mind?
>Perhaps you should change your ratings. Even better, rank each episode
>as a part of Star Trek, rather than the entertainment industry as a whole.
>In other words, answer the question: Is it a good episode FOR STAR TREK?
>I think, hope, that this will help your reviews.
I really don't see any point to doing this. I mean, if I give an episode an
A, then that episode is comparable in my mind to ANY other form of
entertainment which I would also give an A to. It's a GREAT episode.
Likewise, if I give it a D, then it's comparable to any other D. I hated
it.
If I were to rate the episode according to whether or not they're good
Star Trek, I can assure you my ratings would be much lower, because TNG
does not really come very close to what I feel is "good Star Trek". It's
really not very similar in my mind to Star Trek at all, though it has
the same title. It's a completely different series, and I judge it as
such. More precisely, I judge it within the framework of television,
movies, et. al., as a whole. It doesn't exist in a vacuum, so why should
I look at it as if it does?
Vicki Holzhauer
>> It seems to me that many of the posters on this newsgroup pull apart
> ...] Personally, I've enjoyed the last 4 years. Agreed
>that there were a couple shows that probably shouldn't have hit the can,
>but this current year, all have been fine entertainment.
I TOTALLY agree with you!!! I have watched every episode for the last
four years, and I am now watching them all over (and over and over)
again, since Denver's Channel 2 is now showing ST:TNG every night at
10. There are a few that I decide not to re-watch (I decided last
night that I needed sleep more than a rewatching of "Justice"), but
there are none so far that I actually hate. I even like some of the
ones that regularly get blasted on r.a.s. (e.g., "Casino Royale," in
which I just *loved* Data's gambling scene).
>Phil Ritzenthaler The Advanced Computing Center for the Arts & Design
>Systems Manager The Ohio State University
I read r.a.s. regularly and have for almost three years, although I
didn't begin posting until quite recently. I do not let others'
criticisms of an episode take away from my own enjoyment; in fact, I
rather like the opportunity to look for the little, nit-picky details
that others have seen and commented upon. What I do *not* like is the
insinuation that I am somehow of lesser intelligence because I
actually liked an episode that the NetGods have deemed unworthy. You
out there who dislike certain episodes have a right to your opinion,
but you do not have a right to tell me that I am wrong for having
mine.
Please remember that Star Trek and all its various spin-offs are
supposed to promote tolerance, love, and a lack of bigotry. *PLEASE*
tone down your flames of those of us who JUST LOVE TO WATCH STAR TREK,
NO MATTER WHICH EPISODE OR SERIES IT IS!!!!!!
Thank you for your time.
--
Internet: vi...@ncar.ucar.edu
"It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent." --Q
"Quoth the Raven: `Eat my shorts!'" --E.A. Poe/J.E. Jones/B. Simpson
Vicki Holzhauer
In article <17...@oravax.UUCP> ka...@oravax.UUCP (Kathy Knight) writes:
>
>I've often wanted to post the question "Is there anyone else like
You are *definitely* not the only one, Kathy!
>
>[......] I'd like to think that there might be others out
>there who watch it and enjoy it without worrying about all the
>little (and not so little) things that seem to drive most of you
>crazy!
I watch them all with a relatively uncritical eye, even though
I've generally been reading spoilers all week (the only episode I
totally avoided spoilers for was BoBWII, for obvious reasons). I find
the things that people in r.a.s.-land do notice intriguing, and I
enjoy pointing them out to the friends I watch with (to the annoyance
of a few, who tell me that they don't want to *hear* about r.a.s.!
:-)
>I have been a devoted Star Trek fan for years. I've seen every
>episode, both original and new [......]
ME TOO! And I *still* watch it every chance I get!!!!
>I don't watch that much television because I think that most of what
>is offered is garbage! [......]
Generally, I agree with this statement too, but I am partial to The
Simpsons, Twin Peaks, and 60 Minutes (when the latter isn't running
against Star Trek ... :-)
>--Kathy Knight
Live long and prosper, Kathy. You are one of many ...
Steve J White
I think something that needs to be brought up in regards to all the complaing/
non-complaining about TNG is thet it's just a TV show. I have been a ST fan
since my childhood watching the original series. I'm a commited fan, and
I think that ST gets a bt more of dedication than let's say, something like
'Welcome Back Kotter' reruns. Do you see my point here? The reason people
*are* so critical is that they, like myself, are REAL fans. We have to watch
every episode =).
- steve
--
[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []
[] Steve J. White | Read the book "The Handmaid's Tale" by []
[] ara...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu | Margaret Atwood and look at the world. []
[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []
Jeff Sicherman
>
>I think something that needs to be brought up in regards to all the complaing/
>non-complaining about TNG is thet it's just a TV show. I have been a ST fan
>since my childhood watching the original series. I'm a commited fan, and
>I think that ST gets a bt more of dedication than let's say, something like
>'Welcome Back Kotter' reruns. Do you see my point here? The reason people
>*are* so critical is that they, like myself, are REAL fans. We have to watch
>
>- steve
>
'have' is more a definition of addiction/obsession than appreciation:
fanatic rather than fan.
Just another theatre geek...
!In article <50...@rex.cs.tulane.edu> raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
!!In <1990Nov21.0...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> sp...@newton.acc.Virginia.EDU (Steven P. Miale) writes:
!!!Besides, I think a really good episode (BoBW 1, Brothers for me) is worth
!!!a few losers (Legacy, Suddenly Seymour, er, Human).
!!So do I. That's why I'm still watching the series.
!But you *EXPECT* a great episode every week. I don't.
Oho. A man with low expectations. Be careful. You may just get
what you asked for......
!!!It isn't apparent to me that you begin every episode with an open mind.
It is to me. Of course, it is also apparent is that Michael
approaches each episode with high expectations. Essentially, you are
chastising him for expecting great work on each and every episode.
That's not much of a crime, in my book.....
!!What gives you the feeling that I don't watch every episode with an
!!open mind?
!Because you always PICK and HARP on every single error.
An observant mind WILL notice every error; an unobservant one
doesn't. If a person has such capabilities as to notice errors, and if
such errors interfere with enjoyment, then a person would be quite the
fool to ignore those errors.
!You're LOOKING for reasons to insult the people who make ST.
How droll. Pointing out errors is insults? If I make an outrageous
boner in my work, I am insulted if someone points it out? I'd love to have
you as my supervisor.......
!!!Perhaps you should change your ratings. Even better, rank each episode
!!!as a part of Star Trek, rather than the entertainment industry as a whole.
Ah, in other words, it doesn't have to be good, it's Star Trek!
!Because you don't compare sci-fi to Shakespeare. Apples and oranges.
Utter bullshit. That's a patronizing attitude to take.
Obviously, you don't care for a critical approach to Star Trek
because you feel that Trek is utterly unworthy of a critical eye and that
it can't take the same scrutiny that Shakespeare, Proust and Dickens
(or Kubrick and Welles, for that matter) can withstand. Obviously, others
feel differently......
--
Roger Tang, gwan...@blake.u.washington.edu
"Network TV is appalling! COP ROCK? Junk! Singing cops? Ridiculous! Why
can't they put GOOD stuff on like WEST SIDE STORY...."
Typical TV viewer
Games Group 4/Gym Quirk
add some more logs (or perhaps a can of gasoline) to the fire...
Re: "Get a life" flames. I can't speak for everyone, but I feel that
most r.a.st posters have a firmer grip on life than many other fannish
groups I could name. The vast majority of us are well aware that the
show is merely fiction, but it amuses us to speculate on various
topics such as the "workings" of warp drive, etc. I have mentioned on
several occasions that nit-picking is the semi-official passtime of
trekists (we had very little to do during the decade between the demise
of TOS and the release of ST:TMP). Those of you who find such things
objectionable, you know where the 'n' and 'k' keys are. Please don't
attempt to persuade the net to refrain from picking nits. It would be
as successful as telling rec.games.frp to stop playing D&D. (And as
wasteful of bandwidth.)
Re: Reviewer's opinions. I find it difficult to believe that so many
of you can be swayed by so few opinions. I tend to disagree with the
reviews of the more marginal episodes, but hearing (?) the viewpoint
of others is usually entertaining (at least) and occasionally
enlightening.
Re: Abusive language. I have always maintained that the use of
abusive language does nothing for an argument except make all parties
involved angry and promotes more of the same.
In other words,
CHILL OUT! Read a book! Go get a coke, drink it, and then continue
your argument.
(P.S. Michael R.: Could you send me your review of "Family"? I am
curious about what you find so wonderful about the episode.)
[Shields up! Scan for incomming fire.]
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk, net.terrorist (reformed) at ggr...@hydra.unm.edu
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma)
"If there's nothing wrong with me, there must be something wrong with the
universe." --Bev Crusher [ Wish I'd said that ]
Steven P. Miale
>In article <59...@microsoft.UUCP> uunet!pie...@microsoft.UUCP (Pierre Stromberg) writes:
>> You have GOT to be joking. TOS was such an embarrassment that I wince
>>every time I see an orginal episode.
>
>Geez, yeah, such an embarrassment that thousands of fans kept it alive
>with massive letter writing campaigns, and kept the legend going for 20 years
>after its cancellation. Sure, such an embarrassment that it spawned off
>an entire movie series AND NG.
>
>What an embarrassment. I wish I could claim such embarrassments on my resume.
If you don't like his opinions, put it in a KILL file, like you tell
everybody else to do.
>
>
>
>
>Where do you live, the north pole?
>
Hey, maybe he lives in the *REAL WORLD*? Or maybe he lives in a place
where people like TNG better? The kind of insult you gave him is
better reserved for immature people.
>
>>TOS started with a good,
>>restrained performance in the first season and went down fast.
>
>Why is "restrained" inherently good? NG's whole problem is that it's
>too restrained: the writers are afraid to take risks and the characters
>are bland.
>
Maybe some people like restained episodes. How do you define "risk"?
Major characters dying?
>
>> Patrick Stewart has the grace to show a vulnerable side of a starship
>>captain that William Shatner would never have allowed.
>
>Guess you've never seen Wrath of Khan, eh?
Yeah, you really feel Kirk is vulnerable when he almost loses his
hairpiece...
>
>>And the supporting
>>cast of TNG have performance talents the originals could never match.
>
>Yeah: Gates and Wheaton really turn me on.
>
Yes, I agree, Chekov could scream *MUCH* better that either Gates or
Wheaton. And Uhuru - what talent!
Sheesh...
>
>>When you combine this with excellent writing,
>
>Feh. If the writing is so excellent, how come most of the characters are as
>interchangable as potato chips, as memorable as an overcooked egg noodle
>and the show keeps delivering stuffed gobblers like BOBW2 and
>FUTURE IMPERFECT?
Unlike those CLASSIC TOS episodes, like "Spock's Brain", "The Way to
Eden"...
>
>>and special effects,
>
>Ah - you probably thought TMP was the best Star Trek movie as well. Or
>did you even see the movies?
We're talking about the SERIES, not the movies. Movies have, say,
twenty times as much money available. Any wonder their special effects
are better?
>
>NG's visual effects are no better than those of Space 1999 - NG's sound
>effects are terminally forgettable, far inferior to TOS's - and the music...
>'nuff said.
No better than SPACE 1999? Oh, GIMME A BREAK...
And that "fightin' music" was VERY memorable - same every time...
>
>>the contest isn't even close.
>
>You're right. And TOS wins.
>
This from one of the self-appointed lords of Star Trek? Who seems to
hate EVERY TNG episode? No surprise.
>
>All of the above are MO's.
And the same goes for me.
--
Steven Miale
sp...@virginia.edu
>
Steven P. Miale
>In <1990Nov21.0...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> sp...@newton.acc.Virginia.EDU (Steven P. Miale) writes:
>>Besides, I think a really good episode (BoBW 1, Brothers for me) is worth
>>a few losers (Legacy, Suddenly Seymour, er, Human).
>
>So do I. That's why I'm still watching the series.
But you *EXPECT* a great episode every week. I don't.
>
>>Then why do you watch? I know you seem to like to criticize these shows,
>
>They key word there is "seem". I'd much rather hand out praise than
>criticism. I mean, yeah, I enjoy posting my reviews (why else would I
>do it?), but I don't approach the shows saying "Oh yeah, time to cut up
>another episode of TNG!" Really, I don't. I *do* approach every
>episode with an open mind.
You do SEEM to. In fact, you *DO* approach the episode with the intent
of cutting it up.
>
>>Michael, I really don't think you realize this, but to me (and a few
>>others, it seems), it seems like you *like* to poorly rate ST, that you
>>are looking at every episode with an automatic negative view. You seem
>>to be a pessimist.
>
>Well, I'm not. As I said, it sounds like I have to alter something in
>my reviews.
That's my purpose.
>
>>It isn't apparent to me that you begin every episode with an open mind.
>
>Why not? The only episode I've gone into out of the last fifteen or
>so where I had any sort of preconception whatsoever was "Future Imperfect"
>(and that conception was that I was looking forward to a really good
>future episode), but I found enough in the episode I disliked that
>WASN'T related to that preconception that I didn't feel that my
>conception affected my enjoyment of the episode in any significant way.
That we KNOW of. It seems an episode has to prove itself good, not
prove itself. You start with an auto negative review.
>
>What gives you the feeling that I don't watch every episode with an
>open mind?
Because you always PICK and HARP on every single error.
You're LOOKING for reasons to insult the people who make ST.
>
>>Perhaps you should change your ratings. Even better, rank each episode
>>as a part of Star Trek, rather than the entertainment industry as a whole.
>>In other words, answer the question: Is it a good episode FOR STAR TREK?
>>I think, hope, that this will help your reviews.
>
>I really don't see any point to doing this. I mean, if I give an episode an
>A, then that episode is comparable in my mind to ANY other form of
>entertainment which I would also give an A to. It's a GREAT episode.
>Likewise, if I give it a D, then it's comparable to any other D. I hated
>it.
>If I were to rate the episode according to whether or not they're good
>Star Trek, I can assure you my ratings would be much lower, because TNG
>does not really come very close to what I feel is "good Star Trek". It's
>really not very similar in my mind to Star Trek at all, though it has
>the same title. It's a completely different series, and I judge it as
>such. More precisely, I judge it within the framework of television,
>movies, et. al., as a whole. It doesn't exist in a vacuum, so why should
>I look at it as if it does?
Because you don't compare sci-fi to Shakespeare. Apples and oranges.
Cinderella Man
From sp...@newton.acc.Virginia.EDU (Steven P. Miale) come these immortal words:
>In article <11...@milton.u.washington.edu> gwan...@blake.u.washington.edu
(Just another theatre geek...) writes:
[deleted]
>Because ST is a different genre, a different type of fiction than anything
>else. You compare Shakespeare and Trek? Yes, they're both fiction, but they
>are different, with different goals and different methods.
>>[SPM]!Because you don't compare sci-fi to Shakespeare. Apples and oranges.
>> Utter bullshit. That's a patronizing attitude to take.
>No, it isn't bullshit. OK, you compare "Comedy of Errors" to "Hunt for
>Red October", do you? You compare "Jude the Obscure" to "Spaceballs"
>too, I suppose?
>DIFFERENT! NOT THE SAME!!
They are all dramatic forms of entertainment and can be compared
on that basic level. You wouldn't compare them on deeper levels (for
example, looking at your first two examples both as comedies), but you can
compare them for their relative merits as entertainment.
>> Obviously, you don't care for a critical approach to Star Trek
>>because you feel that Trek is utterly unworthy of a critical eye and that
>>it can't take the same scrutiny that Shakespeare, Proust and Dickens
>>(or Kubrick and Welles, for that matter) can withstand. Obviously, others
>>feel differently......
>I.e. 3 people on r.a.s. feel differently...
More than that.
>Trek isn't Shakespeare. Trek isn't Dickens. Trek isn't Kubrick.
>TREK IS TREK!!!
>(Brain is brain... arghh!!!)
>They have different goals, different methods of carrying them out, different
>schedules; they are COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY DIFFERENT.
>It is DUMB to compare two completely different forms of literature.
Actually, Star Trek isn't just Star Trek; that is, it is not a
creation separate and distinct from any other work of television,
science-fiction, literature or drama in general. It owes quite a bit to
older SF concepts, war movies, the Horatio Hornblower saga, adventure
fiction, and yes, even Shakespeare! (Ever see "Conscience of the King"?)
ALL of these connections are discussed regularly on the net, and they're
all relevant. It is perfectly reasonable to compare Shakespeare and
Star Trek. Hey, if you give special effects the same weight as well-written
dialogue, the two might even come out even!
I am really sick of reading this argument (note: I don't say you
can't HAVE this argument). Mr. Miale, you are telling people what to do.
At the very worst, all Messrs Rawdon, Lynch, Kanamori, Tang and the rest
are doing are stating their opinions forcefully. Your statement that they
are influencing the general opinions of this group is not wrong, but they
are PART of this group and have every right to do so, as have you, as have
I. It wouldn't be nearly so much fun to read if it weren't for their
reviews, and subsequent arguments about said reviews -- I'd join in myself
if I had the time. So stop telling them to shut up.
Derek L.
PS -- Mike and Tim, you're agreeing with each other much too much! If
you don't start arguing again soon this newsgroup's going to hit
the skids! :-)
--
+ + "When nothing else remains, one must scream. Silence is the ultimate + +
+ crime against humanity." -- Nadezhda Mandelstam +
+ _________________________ [Affix disclaimer here] _________________________ +
+ + + + Each one's life a novel no one else has read -- Peart + + + +
Steven P. Miale
>!In article <50...@rex.cs.tulane.edu> raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>!But you *EXPECT* a great episode every week. I don't.
>
> Oho. A man with low expectations. Be careful. You may just get
>what you asked for......
>
every week. Why - do you?
>
>!!!It isn't apparent to me that you begin every episode with an open mind.
>
> It is to me. Of course, it is also apparent is that Michael
>approaches each episode with high expectations. Essentially, you are
>chastising him for expecting great work on each and every episode.
>That's not much of a crime, in my book.....
Yes it is! I don't expect the best episode ever made every single week!
A series has good shows and bad shows; you have to expect them!
>
>!!What gives you the feeling that I don't watch every episode with an
>!!open mind?
>!Because you always PICK and HARP on every single error.
>
> An observant mind WILL notice every error; an unobservant one
>doesn't. If a person has such capabilities as to notice errors, and if
>such errors interfere with enjoyment, then a person would be quite the
>fool to ignore those errors.
Look, if you want to insult me by calling me unobservant, do it e-mail.
I do notice errors, but I don't get all hyped up about them. Like you
apparently do.
>
>!You're LOOKING for reasons to insult the people who make ST.
>
> How droll. Pointing out errors is insults? If I make an outrageous
>boner in my work, I am insulted if someone points it out? I'd love to have
>you as my supervisor.......
I'd love to BE your supervisor.
>
>!!!Perhaps you should change your ratings. Even better, rank each episode
>!!!as a part of Star Trek, rather than the entertainment industry as a whole.
>
> Ah, in other words, it doesn't have to be good, it's Star Trek!
Because ST is a different genre, a different type of fiction than anything
else. You compare Shakespeare and Trek? Yes, they're both fiction, but they
are different, with different goals and different methods.
>
>!Because you don't compare sci-fi to Shakespeare. Apples and oranges.
>
> Utter bullshit. That's a patronizing attitude to take.
No, it isn't bullshit. OK, you compare "Comedy of Errors" to "Hunt for
Red October", do you? You compare "Jude the Obscure" to "Spaceballs"
too, I suppose?
DIFFERENT! NOT THE SAME!!
>
> Obviously, you don't care for a critical approach to Star Trek
>because you feel that Trek is utterly unworthy of a critical eye and that
>it can't take the same scrutiny that Shakespeare, Proust and Dickens
>(or Kubrick and Welles, for that matter) can withstand. Obviously, others
>feel differently......
>
I.e. 3 people on r.a.s. feel differently...
Michael Rawdon
>In article <50...@rex.cs.tulane.edu> raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>>In <1990Nov21.0...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> sp...@newton.acc.Virginia.EDU (Steven P. Miale) writes:
>>>Besides, I think a really good episode (BoBW 1, Brothers for me) is worth
>>>a few losers (Legacy, Suddenly Seymour, er, Human).
>>So do I. That's why I'm still watching the series.
>But you *EXPECT* a great episode every week. I don't.
I don't EXPECT anything of the series. If they don't produce great episodes
every week, I say so. What's wrong with this?
>>>Then why do you watch? I know you seem to like to criticize these shows,
>>They key word there is "seem". I'd much rather hand out praise than
>>criticism. I mean, yeah, I enjoy posting my reviews (why else would I
>>do it?), but I don't approach the shows saying "Oh yeah, time to cut up
>>another episode of TNG!" Really, I don't. I *do* approach every
>>episode with an open mind.
>You do SEEM to. In fact, you *DO* approach the episode with the intent
>of cutting it up.
Where's your proof? Do you film me while I watch the episode every week
and catch me during some mental blackout at a commercial break where I'm
chortling "Hehehehhh... I can't wait to waste THIS one on rec.arts.startrek"?
I still have the feeling that you don't even bother to read my reviews. Do
you even REMEMBER what I said in my "Remember Me" or "Family" reviews?
>>>It isn't apparent to me that you begin every episode with an open mind.
>>Why not? The only episode I've gone into out of the last fifteen or
>>so where I had any sort of preconception whatsoever was "Future Imperfect"
>>(and that conception was that I was looking forward to a really good
>>future episode), but I found enough in the episode I disliked that
>>WASN'T related to that preconception that I didn't feel that my
>>conception affected my enjoyment of the episode in any significant way.
>That we KNOW of. It seems an episode has to prove itself good, not
>prove itself. You start with an auto negative review.
This is false. I usually start with no expectations.
>>What gives you the feeling that I don't watch every episode with an
>>open mind?
>Because you always PICK and HARP on every single error.
I also point out the good points. I'm fair, or I try to be. I'm sorry that
completeness so distrubs you.
>You're LOOKING for reasons to insult the people who make ST.
Could you please provide your proof of this slanderous statement in two
areas?
1) That I look for such reasons.
2) That I am actively interested in insulting people who make Star Trek.
>Because you don't compare sci-fi to Shakespeare. Apples and oranges.
I disagree. If I don't think a TNG episode isn't as good as a Shakespeare
play, I say so. I see no reason why I can't compare the quality of the two.
Michael Lee
matter). I'm not very critical of the series (or television in general)
- I just know if I like it or not. However, I make a point of reading
Lynch's and Rawdon's reviews after I've seen the episode because of the
variety (well, except for this season :) ) of their reviews.
What I don't like to see (and quickly kill any threads that deal with it)
are "I hate Wesley, Wil Wheaton should be shot, Troi's only has two assets
two TNG, Riker is awful" and don't explain a thing.
Michael Lee
--
"Everyday, once a day, give yourself a present. Don't plan it, don't wait for it
just let it happen. It could be a new shirt from the men's store, a cat nap in
your office chair, or two cups of hot black coffee." - Agent Dale Cooper, TP
Michael Rawdon
>In article <1990Nov26.0...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> sp...@newton.acc.Virginia.EDU (Steven P. Miale) writes:
>>In article <1990Nov21.1...@Neon.Stanford.EDU> kana...@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>>>In article <59...@microsoft.UUCP> uunet!pie...@microsoft.UUCP (Pierre Stromberg) writes:
>>>Where do you live, the north pole?
>>Hey, maybe he lives in the *REAL WORLD*? Or maybe he lives in a place
>>where people like TNG better? The kind of insult you gave him is
>>better reserved for immature people.
> To be perfectly honest I haven't met ANYBODY who prefers TOS over TNG.
>Atsushi, are you an anamoly where you live or do you really meet people who
>see the same way you do ?
Actually, I prefer TOS to TNG, and I can introduce you to two other
people I know prefer TOS (neither of them can even stand to WATCH TNG,
unlike Atsushi and me).
>>>>TOS started with a good,
>>>>restrained performance in the first season and went down fast.
>>>Why is "restrained" inherently good? NG's whole problem is that it's
>>>too restrained: the writers are afraid to take risks and the characters
>>>are bland.
>>Maybe some people like restained episodes. How do you define "risk"?
>>Major characters dying?
> When I say "restrained", I refer to William Shatner's embarrassing
>self-righteous sermons, his seduction of every female alien to the point
>of borderline bestiality and the continuous three stooges playing off
>eachother routine.
This smacks of someone who hasn't paid very much attention to the series.
>>>> Patrick Stewart has the grace to show a vulnerable side of a starship
>>>>captain that William Shatner would never have allowed.
>>>Guess you've never seen Wrath of Khan, eh?
>>Yeah, you really feel Kirk is vulnerable when he almost loses his
>>hairpiece...
> That's right. It WAS a phenomenon when William Shatner would display a
>different side to Kirk. Too bad he didn't take chances more often. Patrick
>Stewart does it every week. Don't get me wrong, I think William Shatner is/was
>a great actor. But he let his fame go to his head and it hurt the show.
Welll... I don't think it hurt the SHOW (i.e., the TV series), because there
was not, at the time, much to let go to his head. TOS was a ratings
fiasco, and most of its support came from a comparatively small segment of
the American public. Now, it may have hurt some of the MOVIES...
>>>>And the supporting
>>>>cast of TNG have performance talents the originals could never match.
>>>Yeah: Gates and Wheaton really turn me on.
>>Yes, I agree, Chekov could scream *MUCH* better that either Gates or
>>Wheaton. And Uhuru - what talent!
>>Sheesh...
> In spite of Wil Wheaton's relentless science projects I still think he
>does a better job than the original supporting cast. It's a difficult
>comparison of course because the original supporting cast was squeezed out
>by the McCoy/Spock/Kirk fixation. The new show's writers fortunately are
>not focusing on the same characters week after week. That was another flaw
>of the original and led to its demise.
I disagree that it led to the series demise. Focusing on a few characters
has never, that I'm aware of, inherently hurt a TV show. Just look at
all the shows which focus on only a single character. The Incredible
Hulk, which WAS fairly successful, is a good example.
I do agree that the TNG supporting cast is more fleshed out than the TOS
supporting cast, and precisely because TNG is more of an ensemble show
than TOS was. However, I don't think either approach is better than the
other. Each is right for the show it's used in.
Now, I rather wish the TNG cast were MORE fleshed out, because the ensemble
approach, as well as generally poor stories, has resulted in IMHO a cast
packed with comparatively dull characters, even among the "leads".
>>>>When you combine this with excellent writing,
>>>Feh. If the writing is so excellent, how come most of the characters are as
>>>interchangable as potato chips, as memorable as an overcooked egg noodle
>>>and the show keeps delivering stuffed gobblers like BOBW2 and
>>>FUTURE IMPERFECT?
>>Unlike those CLASSIC TOS episodes, like "Spock's Brain", "The Way to
>>Eden"...
> If you compare BOBW2 and FUTURE IMPERFECT to the worst the original has
>to offer, there's going to be very few people left in your camp. And I might
>add that there were a hell of a lot of people who liked BOBW2 and FUTURE
>IMPERFECT. Can't say the same for Spock's Brain. And am I the only one who
>found the original's stories repetitive ? Enterprise gets captured or
>trapped. Kirk, Spock and McCoy beam down. Kirk gets laid. Kirk defeats the
>enemy. Kirk gives self-congratulatory speech. Run credits. Jeez.
Ah, another indication that you never really paid much attention to the
series.
Pierre Stromberg
>>In article <59...@microsoft.UUCP> uunet!pie...@microsoft.UUCP (Pierre Stromberg) writes:
>>
>>Where do you live, the north pole?
>>
>Hey, maybe he lives in the *REAL WORLD*? Or maybe he lives in a place
>where people like TNG better? The kind of insult you gave him is
>better reserved for immature people.
To be perfectly honest I haven't met ANYBODY who prefers TOS over TNG.
Atsushi, are you an anamoly where you live or do you really meet people who
see the same way you do ?
>>
>>>TOS started with a good,
>>>restrained performance in the first season and went down fast.
>>
>>Why is "restrained" inherently good? NG's whole problem is that it's
>>too restrained: the writers are afraid to take risks and the characters
>>are bland.
>>
>Maybe some people like restained episodes. How do you define "risk"?
>Major characters dying?
When I say "restrained", I refer to William Shatner's embarrassing
self-righteous sermons, his seduction of every female alien to the point
of borderline bestiality and the continuous three stooges playing off
eachother routine.
>>
>>> Patrick Stewart has the grace to show a vulnerable side of a starship
>>>captain that William Shatner would never have allowed.
>>
>>Guess you've never seen Wrath of Khan, eh?
>
>Yeah, you really feel Kirk is vulnerable when he almost loses his
>hairpiece...
That's right. It WAS a phenomenon when William Shatner would display a
different side to Kirk. Too bad he didn't take chances more often. Patrick
Stewart does it every week. Don't get me wrong, I think William Shatner is/was
a great actor. But he let his fame go to his head and it hurt the show.
>>
>>>And the supporting
>>>cast of TNG have performance talents the originals could never match.
>>
>>Yeah: Gates and Wheaton really turn me on.
>>
>Yes, I agree, Chekov could scream *MUCH* better that either Gates or
>Wheaton. And Uhuru - what talent!
>Sheesh...
In spite of Wil Wheaton's relentless science projects I still think he
does a better job than the original supporting cast. It's a difficult
comparison of course because the original supporting cast was squeezed out
by the McCoy/Spock/Kirk fixation. The new show's writers fortunately are
not focusing on the same characters week after week. That was another flaw
of the original and led to its demise.
>>>When you combine this with excellent writing,
>>Feh. If the writing is so excellent, how come most of the characters are as
>>interchangable as potato chips, as memorable as an overcooked egg noodle
>>and the show keeps delivering stuffed gobblers like BOBW2 and
>>FUTURE IMPERFECT?
>
>Unlike those CLASSIC TOS episodes, like "Spock's Brain", "The Way to
>Eden"...
If you compare BOBW2 and FUTURE IMPERFECT to the worst the original has
to offer, there's going to be very few people left in your camp. And I might
add that there were a hell of a lot of people who liked BOBW2 and FUTURE
IMPERFECT. Can't say the same for Spock's Brain. And am I the only one who
found the original's stories repetitive ? Enterprise gets captured or
trapped. Kirk, Spock and McCoy beam down. Kirk gets laid. Kirk defeats the
enemy. Kirk gives self-congratulatory speech. Run credits. Jeez.
>hate EVERY TNG episode? No surprise.
>>
>>All of the above are MO's.
>
>And the same goes for me.
>
Look, if you think we're so warped then start an informal poll on the
net and see what happens. I think you'll be dissappointed. Quite honestly
I really don't understand how you can be so livid about TNG. Convince me.
Atsushi Kanamori
Well, it's a bit late coming but at least it doesn't start out "You
have GOT to be kidding..." so I figure I'll respond to this.
In article <59...@microsoft.UUCP> pie...@microsoft.UUCP (Pierre Stromberg) writes:
>
> To be perfectly honest I haven't met ANYBODY who prefers TOS over TNG.
>Atsushi, are you an anamoly where you live or do you really meet people who
>see the same way you do ?
Fair enough - I believe you. But numbers don't change my beliefs one iota.
>>>
>>>>TOS started with a good,
>>>>restrained performance in the first season and went down fast.
>>>
>>>Why is "restrained" inherently good? NG's whole problem is that it's
>>>too restrained: the writers are afraid to take risks and the characters
>>>are bland.
>>>
>>Maybe some people like restained episodes. How do you define "risk"?
>>Major characters dying?
>
> When I say "restrained", I refer to William Shatner's embarrassing
>self-righteous sermons, his seduction of every female alien to the point
>of borderline bestiality and
Okay, the sermons and the seductions annoyes me too, but not to the extent
that it apparently annoys you. 99% of the time, I can just ignore it and
concentrate on the show's positives.
>the continuous three stooges playing off
>eachother routine.
But here, you've hit upon the fundamental difference between you and me (and
probably between many in the TOS/NG factions) The lack of dramatic and
interesting interactions between regulars ("three stooges" in your lexicon)
is the thing I think is MOST missing from NG.
If they could fix that, my estimation of the show would go up an order of
magnitude.
>>>>And the supporting
>>>>cast of TNG have performance talents the originals could never match.
>>>
>>>Yeah: Gates and Wheaton really turn me on.
>>>
>>Yes, I agree, Chekov could scream *MUCH* better that either Gates or
>>Wheaton. And Uhuru - what talent!
>>Sheesh...
>
> In spite of Wil Wheaton's relentless science projects I still think he
>does a better job than the original supporting cast. It's a difficult
>comparison of course because the original supporting cast was squeezed out
>by the McCoy/Spock/Kirk fixation.
Sorry, but I completely disagree. I sure can't place Wheaton, McFadden or
Sirtis in the same category as Doohan or Koenig. The comedy factor alone
elevates the latter two in my book. Your mileage may differ.
>The new show's writers fortunately are
>not focusing on the same characters week after week. That was another flaw
>of the original and led to its demise.
Obviously, you consider it a flaw... I don't. Not a crippling one, at least.
It's also strange that you call it a demise given the 20 years of
fiercely loyal fan following it's generated (not to mention five movies
and NG.)
As for it's cancellation, it sure wasn't because of the Big 3. It was
because it had to compete in prime time, unlike NG (NG's ratings still aren't
that impressive in prime terms) and it didn't have a presold audience due
to the tremendous popularity of the original series (do you honestly
believe NG would have gotten past the first season without it?) But this
is beside the point - as I stated above, I don't believe that majority
makes right. I just hope it makes you think about just how TOS
is an "embarrassment."
>>>>When you combine this with excellent writing,
>>>Feh. If the writing is so excellent, how come most of the characters are as
>>>interchangable as potato chips, as memorable as an overcooked egg noodle
>>>and the show keeps delivering stuffed gobblers like BOBW2 and
>>>FUTURE IMPERFECT?
>>
>>Unlike those CLASSIC TOS episodes, like "Spock's Brain", "The Way to
>>Eden"...
>
> If you compare BOBW2 and FUTURE IMPERFECT to the worst the original has
>to offer, there's going to be very few people left in your camp. And I might
>add that there were a hell of a lot of people who liked BOBW2 and FUTURE
>IMPERFECT.
Probably there were worse episodes from season 1 and 2 (which I haven't
seen) - I'm mostly picking stuff from this season - and these were the
worst, in MY opinion. That's why I picked them - I'm stating my opinions -
I'm not running a popularity contest.
The plots aren't my main objection, anyway - not this season at least.
It's the characters. And that's a more serious objection because a bad
episode only smells up one week, but the characters permeate every
episode.
>Can't say the same for Spock's Brain. And am I the only one who
>found the original's stories repetitive ? Enterprise gets captured or
>trapped. Kirk, Spock and McCoy beam down. Kirk gets laid. Kirk defeats the
>enemy. Kirk gives self-congratulatory speech. Run credits. Jeez.
Except for the "laid down" bit, the framework you're describing is so
general (it's only a few steps away to "Problem - Attack - Resolve") that
you can generate many stories in that mold without getting "repetitive."
>>hate EVERY TNG episode? No surprise.
>>>
>>>All of the above are MO's.
>>
>>And the same goes for me.
>>
>
> Look, if you think we're so warped then start an informal poll on the
>net and see what happens. I think you'll be dissappointed. Quite honestly
>I really don't understand how you can be so livid about TNG. Convince me.
Interesting that you keep utilizing mass opinion to back up your views.
I'm not interested in which show majority opinion favors, (by the way,
the survey you're proposing was already taken this summer.) My preferences
are determined by what I see on the show. The main reason I bother to
engage in these threads is (1) it's interesting conversation and (2)
sometimes people point out things that I haven't seen before, which
may help me better understand the two shows and what each offers.
For the record, the past discussions I've held over the past few weeks have
only strengthened my conviction that I prefer the TOS characters. That's
not the same thing as saying "you're warped if you like NG", by the way.
It's a matter of personal taste.
. . . .
: : : :. : : :.. .: :
::::::::::.: :::::::.:
------------ ---------------------------------------------------------
TNG Lifelines: From "Yesterday's Enterprise" To "Final Mission" ("Dirgo,
I would appreciate it if you didn't bury me before I'm gone." - Capt. Picard)
Steven P. Miale
>
>Well, it's a bit late coming but at least it doesn't start out "You
>have GOT to be kidding..." so I figure I'll respond to this.
You have GOT to be kidding... <grin>
>In article <59...@microsoft.UUCP> pie...@microsoft.UUCP (Pierre Stromberg) writes:
>>
>> To be perfectly honest I haven't met ANYBODY who prefers TOS over TNG.
>>Atsushi, are you an anamoly where you live or do you really meet people who
>>see the same way you do ?
>
>Fair enough - I believe you. But numbers don't change my beliefs one iota.
Good for you. Don't let the "majority" control the "minority".
(Or the other way around.)
>
>>>>>TOS started with a good,
>>>>>restrained performance in the first season and went down fast.
>>>>
>>>>Why is "restrained" inherently good? NG's whole problem is that it's
>>>>too restrained: the writers are afraid to take risks and the characters
>>>>are bland.
>>>>
>>>Maybe some people like restained episodes. How do you define "risk"?
>>>Major characters dying?
>>
>> When I say "restrained", I refer to William Shatner's embarrassing
>>self-righteous sermons, his seduction of every female alien to the point
>>of borderline bestiality and
>
>Okay, the sermons and the seductions annoyes me too, but not to the extent
>that it apparently annoys you. 99% of the time, I can just ignore it and
>concentrate on the show's positives.
Did you ever read the parody "Where No Man Has Acted Before"
(#54 in the parody collection)? GREAT characterization of all the
main characters (Kirk Look #5, reading the constitution, alien
being with no hair and silver robe takes over the big-E, Chekov
screams, etc.)
>
>>the continuous three stooges playing off
>>eachother routine.
>
>But here, you've hit upon the fundamental difference between you and me (and
>probably between many in the TOS/NG factions) The lack of dramatic and
>interesting interactions between regulars ("three stooges" in your lexicon)
>is the thing I think is MOST missing from NG.
Depends on what you want - a focus on a single character or on the
interaction. I would like to see more interaction, but it doesn't
annoy me like it apparently annoys you.
>
>>>>>And the supporting
>>>>>cast of TNG have performance talents the originals could never match.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah: Gates and Wheaton really turn me on.
>>>>
>>>Yes, I agree, Chekov could scream *MUCH* better that either Gates or
>>>Wheaton. And Uhuru - what talent!
>>>Sheesh...
>>
>> In spite of Wil Wheaton's relentless science projects I still think he
>>does a better job than the original supporting cast. It's a difficult
>>comparison of course because the original supporting cast was squeezed out
>>by the McCoy/Spock/Kirk fixation.
>
>Sorry, but I completely disagree. I sure can't place Wheaton, McFadden or
>Sirtis in the same category as Doohan or Koenig. The comedy factor alone
>elevates the latter two in my book. Your mileage may differ.
>
The original show had more humor; the NG has more cleavage... <grin>
I think we've learned MORE about the supporting cast than we did
in TOS (what did we REALLY know about Sulu, Chekov, etc.)
>
>>The new show's writers fortunately are
>>not focusing on the same characters week after week. That was another flaw
>>of the original and led to its demise.
>
>Obviously, you consider it a flaw... I don't. Not a crippling one, at least.
>It's also strange that you call it a demise given the 20 years of
>fiercely loyal fan following it's generated (not to mention five movies
>and NG.)
I enjoy a little variety in character studies. But even TNG has found
certain characters it does a LOT of episodes on (Data, Picard especially;
Worf and Riker seem to be popular now, too)
>
>As for it's cancellation, it sure wasn't because of the Big 3. It was
>because it had to compete in prime time, unlike NG (NG's ratings still aren't
>that impressive in prime terms) and it didn't have a presold audience due
>to the tremendous popularity of the original series (do you honestly
>believe NG would have gotten past the first season without it?) But this
>is beside the point - as I stated above, I don't believe that majority
>makes right. I just hope it makes you think about just how TOS
>is an "embarrassment."
If they put TNG in prime time, I bet it could hold its own, and probably
do better than the original.
In terms of ratings, that is.
>
>>>>>When you combine this with excellent writing,
>>>>Feh. If the writing is so excellent, how come most of the characters are as
>>>>interchangable as potato chips, as memorable as an overcooked egg noodle
>>>>and the show keeps delivering stuffed gobblers like BOBW2 and
>>>>FUTURE IMPERFECT?
>>>
>>>Unlike those CLASSIC TOS episodes, like "Spock's Brain", "The Way to
>>>Eden"...
>>
>> If you compare BOBW2 and FUTURE IMPERFECT to the worst the original has
>>to offer, there's going to be very few people left in your camp. And I might
>>add that there were a hell of a lot of people who liked BOBW2 and FUTURE
>>IMPERFECT.
>
>Probably there were worse episodes from season 1 and 2 (which I haven't
>seen) - I'm mostly picking stuff from this season - and these were the
>worst, in MY opinion. That's why I picked them - I'm stating my opinions -
>I'm not running a popularity contest.
Oh yeah, you missed "Justice". Even I admit it was worse than ANYTHING
cooked up by TOS. And to think they could have killed off Wesley
years earlier... <grin>
>
>The plots aren't my main objection, anyway - not this season at least.
>It's the characters. And that's a more serious objection because a bad
>episode only smells up one week, but the characters permeate every
>episode.
Maybe we should introduce Capt. Limburger...
>
>>Can't say the same for Spock's Brain. And am I the only one who
>>found the original's stories repetitive ? Enterprise gets captured or
>>trapped. Kirk, Spock and McCoy beam down. Kirk gets laid. Kirk defeats the
>>enemy. Kirk gives self-congratulatory speech. Run credits. Jeez.
>
>Except for the "laid down" bit, the framework you're describing is so
>general (it's only a few steps away to "Problem - Attack - Resolve") that
>you can generate many stories in that mold without getting "repetitive."
Yes, but it's SO similar for the most part:
1. Enterprise gets caught by bald aliens wearing silver robes.
2. Kirk & co. find a planet to beam down to. This planet usually consists
of LOTS and LOTS of rocks on a barren plain. The rocks are very
odd, because they are all made of paper mache.
3. Kirk seduces a female of ANY race he can find. I'm surprised he
didn't go after the alien in "Is there no truth in beauty?"
4. Kirk gives a few determined looks (these have been officially
cataloged).
5. Kirk blows up computer (even a calculator will do - he'd be a
prime leader for the Butlerian Jihad)
6. McCoy picks on Spock.
7. Spock picks on McCoy.
8. Kirk gets the big-E back from evil aliens.
9. End of episode
Now of course, this is very general, and can change; Spock might
pick on McCoy first...
<Note: PLEASE don't take the previous episode synopsis seriously;
just a bit of humorous observation. And don't flame me for
spoiling ALL of TOS <grin>>
>
>>>hate EVERY TNG episode? No surprise.
>>>>
>>>>All of the above are MO's.
>>>
>>>And the same goes for me.
>>>
>>
>> Look, if you think we're so warped then start an informal poll on the
>>net and see what happens. I think you'll be dissappointed. Quite honestly
>>I really don't understand how you can be so livid about TNG. Convince me.
>
>Interesting that you keep utilizing mass opinion to back up your views.
>I'm not interested in which show majority opinion favors, (by the way,
>the survey you're proposing was already taken this summer.) My preferences
>are determined by what I see on the show. The main reason I bother to
>engage in these threads is (1) it's interesting conversation and (2)
>sometimes people point out things that I haven't seen before, which
>may help me better understand the two shows and what each offers.
We also participate because Star Trek isn't on; what else is there
to do? <grin>
PS: What was the result of the poll?
>
>For the record, the past discussions I've held over the past few weeks have
>only strengthened my conviction that I prefer the TOS characters. That's
>not the same thing as saying "you're warped if you like NG", by the way.
>It's a matter of personal taste.
Absolutely.
>
>. . . .
>: : : :. : : :.. .: :
>::::::::::.: :::::::.:
>------------ ---------------------------------------------------------
>TNG Lifelines: From "Yesterday's Enterprise" To "Final Mission" ("Dirgo,
> I would appreciate it if you didn't bury me before I'm gone." - Capt. Picard)
I assume these are the ratings; what is the highly rated episode
between "YE" and "BOBW1"?
--
Steven Miale
sp...@virginia.edu
Atsushi Kanamori
>>
>>But here, you've hit upon the fundamental difference between you and me (and
>>probably between many in the TOS/NG factions) The lack of dramatic and
>>interesting interactions between regulars ("three stooges" in your lexicon)
>>is the thing I think is MOST missing from NG.
>
>Depends on what you want - a focus on a single character or on the
>interaction. I would like to see more interaction, but it doesn't
>annoy me like it apparently annoys you.
Good response. No way to refute this.
>>Sorry, but I completely disagree. I sure can't place Wheaton, McFadden or
>>Sirtis in the same category as Doohan or Koenig. The comedy factor alone
>>elevates the latter two in my book. Your mileage may differ.
>>
>The original show had more humor; the NG has more cleavage... <grin>
>I think we've learned MORE about the supporting cast than we did
>in TOS (what did we REALLY know about Sulu, Chekov, etc.)
Probably, but then TOS wasn't an "ensemble" show like NG. The fact that
only the Big Three got their names on the opening credits (the Big Two
in season 1, I believe) leads me to expect that the show will be focused
on them.
>>As for it's cancellation, it sure wasn't because of the Big 3. It was
>>because it had to compete in prime time, unlike NG (NG's ratings still aren't
>>that impressive in prime terms) and it didn't have a presold audience due
>>to the tremendous popularity of the original series (do you honestly
>>believe NG would have gotten past the first season without it?) But this
>>is beside the point - as I stated above, I don't believe that majority
>>makes right. I just hope it makes you think about just how TOS
>>is an "embarrassment."
>
>If they put TNG in prime time, I bet it could hold its own, and probably
>do better than the original.
>In terms of ratings, that is.
Now, perhaps, but I wonder if it would have done as well if it were
an original. SF has had a poor record on TV in general.
Don't worry, I won't (take it seriously, that is.)
>
>We also participate because Star Trek isn't on; what else is there
>to do? <grin>
:-) - but definitely true. I'd propose a new topic myself but I'm
fresh out of ideas.
>PS: What was the result of the poll?
Approximately 1/3rd preferred TOS to NG. So we may be the minority on r.a.s.
but we're not an "anomaly" like Pierre says.
>>. . . .
>>: : : :. : : :.. .: :
>>::::::::::.: :::::::.:
>>------------ ---------------------------------------------------------
>>TNG Lifelines: From "Yesterday's Enterprise" To "Final Mission" ("Dirgo,
>> I would appreciate it if you didn't bury me before I'm gone." - Capt. Picard)
>
>I assume these are the ratings; what is the highly rated episode
>between "YE" and "BOBW1"?
"Sins of the Father" (told you I was a rabid Worf fan :-)
Dave Ochs
>
>> When I say "restrained", I refer to William Shatner's embarrassing
>>self-righteous sermons, his seduction of every female alien to the point
>>eachother routine.
>
>This smacks of someone who hasn't paid very much attention to the series.
>
>>to offer, there's going to be very few people left in your camp. And I might
>>add that there were a hell of a lot of people who liked BOBW2 and FUTURE
>>found the original's stories repetitive ? Enterprise gets captured or
>>trapped. Kirk, Spock and McCoy beam down. Kirk gets laid. Kirk defeats the
>>enemy. Kirk gives self-congratulatory speech. Run credits. Jeez.
>
>series.
These comments smack of someone with a treckier-than-thou attitude. I have
a similar impression as the author of the original comments (whose name I
accidently deleted). I find his comments very accurate (although exagerated,
as are many critiques of TNG) with regard to TOS.
I enjoy both shows, and hardly find them worth comparing, as they are best
enjoyed with reference to their era. TOS was a good example of a period
western (set in space) and the attitude towards women and computers was
typical of the time. TNG is a show of this era, not the 60's. Shows
today tend to have a more fleshed out ensemble cast, and to avoid offending
anyone probably make the characters *too* perfect (lack of prejudice,
etc). They are both good show, and clearly some people will prefer one
type of show over the other, just as some people prefer Cosby to
Murphy Brown ... for reasons which escape me :-)
> Michael Rawdon
Dave Ochs.
da...@hp.cv.com
William Spencer
popularity of Trek. It's POSITIVE. Seriously. Other than Trek,
do you know of ANY book, movie
or TV show where we 1) make it out of the 20th century without blowing the
planet up. 2) Not only is there a future, but man is being all he can be and
going to places where no man/one has gone before.
I didn't think so.
bill S.
William Dee Rudolph
(This info is from ST:TNG EAF).
Secondly there _was_ another show: Buck Rodgers in the 25th century
I think the third season, with the (I think) _Stargazer_?
Everyone can correct me if I am wrong.
William Rudolph
rud...@expert.cc.purdue.edu
Christopher M. Dicely
The entire varied future history of Robert A. Heinlein is the first example
that comes to mind. And according to Trek, there were several wars including
nuclear and biological warfare on a large scale, between the 20th century
and the 23rd. Just they made it through...
Come to think of it, H. Beam Piper's Terro-Human Future History qualifies
to...
Come to think of it, there are big piles of books that do...
>
>I didn't think so.
Think again...
-Chris Dicely
Michael Rawdon
>First of All ST did have problems at the end of the 20th century
>(This info is from ST:TNG EAF).
Well, TOS "Space Seed" places the Mugenics wars around the early 1990s.
TNG "Encounter At Farpoint" implies (loosely) that the wars turned into a
global conflict between nations.
Anyway, it sounds like we have a lot to look forward to! :-)
Aaron
>>William Spencer writes:
>>Comments and a question on positive future histories <DLETE>'d
>The entire varied future history of Robert A. Heinlein is the first example
>that comes to mind. And according to Trek, there were several wars including
>nuclear and biological warfare on a large scale, between the 20th century
>and the 23rd. Just they made it through...
>
in his history the planet was never 'blown up', there were plenty of wars and
other civil upheavals to keep things busy.
>
>Come to think of it, H. Beam Piper's Terro-Human Future History qualifies
>
Never got ahold of this, but I'll have to.
>
>Come to think of it, there are big piles of books that do...
>
Olaf Stapledon. It chronicles the history of man from the time the book
was written (in the mid to late 1800s as I remember) to *billions* of years
in the future (all very speculative, of course, but *not* unreasonable).
In some cases it is very violent, and very early on humanity comes perilously
close to blowing the planet to bits (and indeed partially, though reversably,
succeeds to do so), but still survives. Worthwhile reading, imho.
>
>>I didn't think so.
>
>Think again...
>
--
Success to you, and mnhei'sahe!
Stanley of Essex (NCC-1727)
______________________________________________________________________________
-"Rove your assigned airspace, find the enemy, and shoot him down. Everything
else is rubbish." -Baron Manfred von Richtoffen
-"Use your tractors, dammit!" -sign over doors to training simulator at
StarFleet Academy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**NOTICE**- I claim everything not completely flaming,
and I believe in heat sinks, anyway!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Gibson
>
>Well, TOS "Space Seed" places the Mugenics wars around the early 1990s.
Um, er, ah, excuse me.
Isn't that `Eugenics wars'?
--
******************************************************************************
"We've got a carrot and stick policy, and the carrot is, if he pulls out, he
doesn't get the stick." - James Baker, U.S Secretary of State, 12/5/90
Scott Gibson {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!qip!scott
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are my own, though subject to change.
patrick palmer
2031-2039 Clone Wars
2047 Mind Control Revolt
According to the USS Enterprise Officers Manual and the Star Trek:
The Motion Picture novelization. Then, also acording to the Officers
Manual:
2049 First Kzinti Invasion of Earth
2064 Kzinti Invasions Halt
And according to Encounter at Far Point:
2078 Post-Atomic Age
Woah. First mention of a Nuclear war. Spooky. Unfortunately,
the Officers Manual and this episode are consistant; the New United Nations
was formed in 2036, and the Officers Manual says this happened during the
Clone Wars.
Me? I'm going to be offworld until the 2090's. See ya in a century!
-The Fly that Bugged Me
Mars Needs COFFEE!
Russ Poffenberger
>In article <53...@rex.cs.tulane.edu> raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>>
>>Well, TOS "Space Seed" places the Mugenics wars around the early 1990s.
>
>Um, er, ah, excuse me.
>
>Isn't that `Eugenics wars'?
>
>
>
Probably.
eu.gen.ic \yu.-'jen-ik\ \-i-k(*-)le-\ aj [Gk eugene-s wellborn, fr. eu- +
-gene-s] 1: relating to or fitted for the production of good offspring 2:
of or relating to eugenics - eu.gen.i.cal.ly av
fs...@acad3.alaska.edu
>1992-1997 Eugenics Wars
>2031-2039 Clone Wars
>2047 Mind Control Revolt
any data on that?
Internet: fs...@acad3.alaska.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
////////Long Live Psionics\\\\\\\\ New age answering Machine: *BEEP* ///
\\\ -------------------- /// I'm not in my body right now... \\\
/// \\\ Please leave your name and number ///
\\\ Please reply to: /// land I'll get back to you as soon \\\
/// FS...@ALASKA.BITNET \\\ as I return. ///
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permission to Clean-Up the Bridge, Captain? -Worf -(Encounter at Farpoint!)
The Little Prince
>...
>And according to Encounter at Far Point:
>2078 Post-Atomic Age
>...
Not necessarily... Atomic could indicate the _presence_ of nukes, not
absolutely their use in warfare. If you get enough SALTs going, then
the weapons will all be dismantled/destroyed, leaving some new kind of
nasty to devastate humanity --> a post-atomic age w/o the kaboom...
Just some thoughts...
____________________________________________________________________________
Prem Krishnan \ "When inspiration is silent, reason tires
oc...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu \ quickly." -- Roger Zelazny - Trumps of Doom.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Eric Kuhnen
>ar...@quads.uchicago.edu (patrick palmer) writes...
>>1992-1997 Eugenics Wars
>>2031-2039 Clone Wars
>>2047 Mind Control Revolt
> ???
>any data on that?
Source: ST:TMP (novel). Mentioned in a footnote reference about Kirk's
neural implant for instant communication with Star Fleet. Non canon.
"Q"
Ben Ragunton
writes:
[article about ST:TMP novel being non canon deleted]
>>Non canon? Non Canon? Do you know who wrote ST:TMP (novel). Could
>>it have been.... Gene Roddenberry? How much more canon do you want?
>I want it on film.
I agree with Michael. Also, Richard Arnold(I know. That name is beginning
to annoy me also!)said that Gene doesn't even consider the novel to be canon.
|^^^^^^|
| |
Ben "Quizmaster" Ragunton | |
ragu...@water.llnl.gov | (o)(o) _____________________
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory @ _) _ / |
Livermore, California | ,___| /__ Eat my phaser, dude! |
Voice: (415)422-2461 | / \ |
/___\ \____________________|
/ \
Atsushi Kanamori
>In <Dec.12.18.26....@remus.rutgers.edu> pe...@remus.rutgers.edu (Starbuck) writes:
>>In article <1990Dec12.1...@wdl1.wdl.loral.com> er...@wdl47.wdl.fac.com (Eric Kuhnen) writes:
>> > Source: ST:TMP (novel). Mentioned in a footnote reference about Kirk's
>> > neural implant for instant communication with Star Fleet. Non canon.
>
>>it have been.... Gene Roddenberry? How much more canon do you want?
>
>I want it on film.
>
I want it not written by Roddenberry.
Starbuck
Non canon? Non Canon? Do you know who wrote ST:TMP (novel). Could
it have been.... Gene Roddenberry? How much more canon do you want?
Steve
---
Stephen Pearl (Starbuck) Work: (908)932-3465 Home: (908)246-3927
UUCP: rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!pearl ARPA: pe...@remus.rutgers.edu
US MAIL: LPO 12749 CN 5064, New Brunswick, NJ 08903
QUOTES: "What is Starbuck-ing?" -Adultress 19
"Works for me!" -Rick Hunter (The Cop, not the Robotech Defender)
Michael Rawdon
> > neural implant for instant communication with Star Fleet. Non canon.
>Non canon? Non Canon? Do you know who wrote ST:TMP (novel). Could
>it have been.... Gene Roddenberry? How much more canon do you want?
I want it on film.
--
Michael Rawdon Internet: raw...@rex.cs.tulane
Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana Bitnet: CS6FECU@TCSVM
"...I trusted [Ganelon] like a brother. That is to say, not at all."
- Roger Zelazny; _The_Guns_Of_Avalon_
I should probably be working anyway...
patrick palmer
45-Minute TV Show Turned 2-Hour Motion Picture Novel by the Great Bird of the
Galaxy (he owns the rights to it, anyway), but it looks like they were caused
by paranoia caused by Starfleet's (then the United Earth Space Probe Agency's)
use of the senciver implants (which transmit messages to one's mind) on at
that time all officers and at the time of the Vejur Incedent all flag officers.
Gary Smith
> In article <53...@rex.cs.tulane.edu> raw...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
> >
> >Well, TOS "Space Seed" places the Mugenics wars around the early 1990s.
>
> Um, er, ah, excuse me.
>
> Isn't that `Eugenics wars'?
Well, maybe (as I recall in other ST:TOS episodes) there history was a bit
spotty. Maybe the REALLY me the Persian Gulf war and MAYBE it was named
after our good buddy MR. INSANE himself?
The point begin that wars are never named (nor battle either) until after
all is said and done. (We all know there is a helluva more said than done)
Who knows, maybe we will call it that in years to come.
gls :-)
--
Gary L. Smith @ UE&C-Catalytic ||| Reply at:
||| UUCP: ..!uunet!trac2000!gls
Spock - ST IV: "What does it ||| INTERNET: g...@trac2000.ueci.com
mean 'Exact change only' ?" |||
Christopher M. Dicely
>In article <1990Dec12.1...@wdl1.wdl.loral.com> er...@wdl47.wdl.fac.com (Eric Kuhnen) writes:
>Non canon? Non Canon? Do you know who wrote ST:TMP (novel). Could
>it have been.... Gene Roddenberry? How much more canon do you want?
But by his own criteria. 1) If its not on film its not canon.
2) If its a novel, its not canon. (Why both of these are necessary,
I don't know... But there things I've seen in this group as being
the Word of Goddenberry) :-)
>Steve
-Chris Dicely
Christopher Bovitz
>17506@remus.
>Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
>Lines: 28
On the lighter side, don't forget that Voyager 6 (V'ger in TMP) will be
launched in 1992 (or is it 1996?)
--
| Chris Bovitz | "It's difficult to work in a group |
| kh...@cs.wisc.edu | when you're omnipotent." |
| moon...@meteor.wisc.edu | -- Q, "Deja Q," _Star Trek: TNG_ |