American Red Dwarf, info on taping of first episode!
Edward_Lee...@cup.portal.com
#: 266796 S11/British Media SF
23-Jan-92 13:35:07
Sb: #Red Dwarf America!
Fm: SysOp Jim Shaun Lyon 72571,3002
To: All
You wanted the lowdown, here goes.......
RED DWARF: The American Series will hit NBC in a few months. The pilot was
filmed last night at Universal Studios in Hollywood at Stage 44, and I was in
the audience.
It was.....unusual. First and foremost, Rob Grant and Doug Naylor are creative
consultants on this show, and were there for the taping. The sets are very
similar, the art direction very similar, even most of the jokes are similar,
but there's the American touch. This show is either going to be a hit or it's
going to bomb.
The cast includes Craig Bierko as Lister (you've seen him on many TV shows in
guest roles), Chris Eigelman as Rimmer (notice the leads are another Craig and
Chris pair....they're not the British regulars though), Jane Leeves as Holly
(she was in the short lived Diana Canova series "Throb"), Tony award winner
Hinton Battle as Cat and..........Robert Llewellyn, the current Kryten, as
Kryten. He was, by the way, brilliant as usual.
Also in the cast were Lorraine Toussaint as Captain Tau, Michael Heinzmann as
First Officer Munson and Elizabeth Moorehead as Kristine Kochanski.
The show follows the story of "The End," the first episode of the Brit version,
very closely, but with some changes in pacing, locations, etc. There's also
part of "Future Echoes" in this one, with a future projection of the Cat,
Kryten, Lister and Kochanski (! This is unusual) telling Lister he must go on.
The stuff about the farm was in it, but not named Fiji; the cat was named
Frankenstein but was a white and brown kitten; Holly starts as a female; Kryten
starts off on the ship from day one. Different, yet similar.
It's unusual, it's pretty decently acted and scripted, I just hope they do ok
on TV.
Cheers, JSL
[The preceding was a post directly from Compuserve (back off CIS lawyers!)
on the taping of the first episode of the American Red Dwarf)]
The Unknown User
In article <53...@cup.portal.com> Edward_Lee...@cup.portal.com writes:
>Robert Llewellyn, the current Kryten, as
>Kryten. He was, by the way, brilliant as usual.
Is this a first in that someone has played the same character in
different countries' adaptations of the same show? Especially an American
version of a British show? (Which seems like it's happened a lot.. especially
a lot of the "biggies" in TV history)
Dunno, probably the humor will be a lot "dumbed down" and "censored
down," unfortunately.. I will still probably like it more than most stuff on
TV... that is, if it's anywhere near the British version. (About 'censored
down': "smeg off" _IS_ taken from "smegma," isn't it? Doubtfully a word
they'd let get on American TV, despite the fact that most people don't
know what it means).
Maybe that's actually part of the charm to us Americans that watch
the show.. The Britishness of it all adds EXTRA humor. (that argument will
probably get ripped to shreds by someone).
--
/unk...@ucscb.ucsc.edu Apple IIGS Forever!\
|WANT to get INFOCOM GAMES RERELEASED | Also will pass on -UNIX GS- info |
\& ULTIMA VI GS written? ---mail me | CHEAP CD info - mail me /
That Miserable Olde Cow
> Dunno, probably the humor will be a lot "dumbed down" and "censored
>down," unfortunately.. I will still probably like it more than most stuff on
>TV... that is, if it's anywhere near the British version. (About 'censored
>down': "smeg off" _IS_ taken from "smegma," isn't it? Doubtfully a word
>they'd let get on American TV, despite the fact that most people don't
>know what it means).
Yes it is, and they may or may not censor it. I think it depends on who NBC
thinks the audience is. If they write it for children (or should I have said
'family'?), no doubt they will censor it down. If they aim it for adults,
like the British version seems to be, then maybe they won't fiddle with the
language that much. We can hope. Speaking of language, I see Golden Girls
and Married... With Children syndicated at 7:30 Monday through Friday,
kiddie's golden viewing time, and it doesn't sound like any effort at all was
expended to clean up the dialogue, especially on The Golden Girls.
> Maybe that's actually part of the charm to us Americans that watch
>the show.. The Britishness of it all adds EXTRA humor. (that argument will
>probably get ripped to shreds by someone).
Not by me. I love British humour, and it IS subtly different from Merkin
humour (but I'm dipped if I can suss it out :).
>>>>>>>>>>>> STAMP OUT LOCAL PRE-EMPTIONS OF NETWORK PROGRAMMING!! <<<<<<<<<<<<<
Quote: "Let's all bombard Warren Littlefield (president, NBC Entertainment)
telling him we want another season of Quantum Leap! Write him at
3000 W. Alameda Ave., Burbank, CA 91523" Me
Debbie Brown: I'net: d...@jloda.cci.com | Prodigy: NCNX32A
UUCP: uunet!ccicpg!cci632!deb | Alt: dmb...@ultb.isc.rit.edu
Disclaimer: "Disclaim THIS, pal!" (Here, have a pastel candy brick)
<<<<<<<<<< "This is getting on my nerves...now that I have them." Q >>>>>>>>>>>>
Jeffrey Hitchin
>Is this a first in that someone has played the same character in
>different countries' adaptations of the same show? Especially an American
>version of a British show? (Which seems like it's happened a lot.. especially
>a lot of the "biggies" in TV history)
Actually, no. There was a show in the US called "You, Again"
starring Jack Klugman and John Stamos. The show was based on a UK
show (I can't remember the title offhand. Maybe someone else knows
it.). The maid in both shows was played by the same person. She would
film the American version from July to February and then go to England
for four months to film the UK version. Crazy.
Alan Wigodski
Let's not forget Max Headroom. Both Matt Frewer and Amanda Pays starred in the British and AMerican versions.
--
Alan Wigodski "Boy! That's the ugliest mouse I've
Michigan State University ever seen. And look, It's beating
Bj...@cleveland.freenet.edu up on our cheese."
Ren and Stimpy 1991
Mat Clayson/DSP
>>Robert Llewellyn, the current Kryten, as
>>Kryten. He was, by the way, brilliant as usual.
>
> Is this a first in that someone has played the same character in
>different countries' adaptations of the same show? Especially an American
Max Headroom used the same actors for Edison Carter/Max and Feora. .
.
>|WANT to get INFOCOM GAMES RERELEASED | Also will pass on -UNIX GS- info |
>\& ULTIMA VI GS written? ---mail me | CHEAP CD info - mail me /
I tried, but it bounced. .
(510)226-1937 eve .
(408)943-2790 days .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Mat Clayson | WARNING- Do Not Open |
| at home - at work - at play | Toxic fun inside. |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edward_Lee...@cup.portal.com
of "Red Dwarf", that NBC decided NOT to go ahead with it. If we are lucky,
they will probably air the pilot show sometime this summer to fill up a
half hour.
Dean Adams
That SUCKS!!!!
Maybe someone who was there ought to write us up a *detailed*
spoiler description of what the show was like, before they forget.
D.
Mark Kaye - Where's my Kama Sutra pop-up book for Zero-G
In article <1992Jan28....@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, dna...@isis.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) writes...
>In article <53...@cup.portal.com> Edward_Lee...@cup.portal.com writes:
>>I was just informed by Jim Lyon, who attended the taping of the pilot episode
>>of "Red Dwarf", that NBC decided NOT to go ahead with it. If we are lucky,
>>they will probably air the pilot show sometime this summer to fill up a
>>half hour.
Thank God! When the Americans clone a British show they reduce it to snivelling
drivel.
Mark Kaye | | 613-591-5029 |
Box 72, Munster | 613-838-3580 | ka...@fscore.dec.com |
Ontario, Canada K0A 3P0 | | DEC fscore::kaye or kaye @kao |
Brad Gibson
>
>In article <1992Jan28....@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, dna...@isis.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) writes...
>>In article <53...@cup.portal.com> Edward_Lee...@cup.portal.com writes:
>>>I was just informed by Jim Lyon, who attended the taping of the pilot episode
>>>of "Red Dwarf", that NBC decided NOT to go ahead with it. If we are lucky,
>>>they will probably air the pilot show sometime this summer to fill up a
>>>half hour.
>
>Thank God! When the Americans clone a British show they reduce it to snivelling
>drivel.
>
I've never heard "All in the Family" referred to as "snivelling drivel"
before. Interesting perspective. Your attitude is reminiscent of the
current feelings on rec.arts.startrek regarding ST:Deep Space Nine. You've
already written the show off without knowing the slightest bit about it.
Typical.
Brad
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad K. Gibson INTERNET: gib...@geop.ubc.ca
Dept. of Geophysics & Astronomy BITNET: user...@ubcmtsg.bitnet
#129-2219 Main Mall
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
V6T 1Z4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul S. Winalski
In article <1992Jan28....@cs.ubc.ca>,
gib...@crisium.geop.ubc.ca (Brad Gibson) writes:
[in reply to a previous poster saying:]
|>>
|>>Thank God! When the Americans clone a British show they reduce it to snivelling
|>>drivel.
|>>
|>
|> I've never heard "All in the Family" referred to as "snivelling drivel"
|> before. Interesting perspective. Your attitude is reminiscent of the
|> current feelings on rec.arts.startrek regarding ST:Deep Space Nine. You've
|> already written the show off without knowing the slightest bit about it.
|> Typical.
British friends of mine who've seen both "All in the Family" and the British
show it was based on have told me that AitF did exactly that. Compared to
his British prototype, Archie Bunker is diplomatic, tolerant, and broad-
minded.
I echo the sentiments. I'm glad to see that American television, and
particularly American Big-3 network television, will NOT be doing their own
version of Red Dwarf.
--PSW
Michelle L. Zafron
>[in reply to a previous poster saying:]
>|>>Thank God! When the Americans clone a British show they reduce it to snivelling
>|>>drivel.
>|> I've never heard "All in the Family" referred to as "snivelling drivel"
>|> before. Interesting perspective. Your attitude is reminiscent of the
>|> current feelings on rec.arts.startrek regarding ST:Deep Space Nine. You've
>|> already written the show off without knowing the slightest bit about it.
>|> Typical.
>British friends of mine who've seen both "All in the Family" and the British
>show it was based on have told me that AitF did exactly that. Compared to
>his British prototype, Archie Bunker is diplomatic, tolerant, and broad-
>minded.
You've got to be kidding right? How on earth could you say that Archie Bunker
is "diplomatic, tolerant, and broadminded"? Anyone out there who's actually
seen BOTH "All in the Family" AND it's British counterpart? I'd be interested
to know what your opinions are.
>I echo the sentiments. I'm glad to see that American television, and
>particularly American Big-3 network television, will NOT be doing their own
>version of Red Dwarf.
Is this where we get the "British TV is automatically better than American TV"
crap? People, I've seen "Benny Hill" and "Are You Being Served?". The first
makes "Hee Haw" look like art. And the second has been surpassed many times by
any number of American comedies.
Both nations produce both good and bad programs. More bad than good, I'd say.
But to decide that American television is automatically worse than British
television is a poor argument.
>--PSW
--Michelle L. Zafron (v101...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Suppose that you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But
I repeat myself."
--Mark Twain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monty
v101...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Michelle L. Zafron) writes...
>Is this where we get the "British TV is automatically better than American TV"
>crap? People, I've seen "Benny Hill" and "Are You Being Served?". The first
>makes "Hee Haw" look like art. And the second has been surpassed many times by
>any number of American comedies.
Certainly not. Someone simply said that American adaptations of British
shows are generally inferior. I agree. And personally, I think
"All in the Family" WAS drivel. Not as bad as Benny Hill, I admit...
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
{ | Matthew P. Mason }
{ why me? | SUNY Buffalo Law School }
{ | v026...@ubvms.bitnet }
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Travers Naran
>In article <54...@shodha.enet.dec.com> ka...@FSCORE.dec.com (Mark Kaye - Where's my Kama Sutra pop-up book for Zero-G) writes:
>>In article <1992Jan28....@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, dna...@isis.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) writes...
>>
>>Thank God! When the Americans clone a British show they reduce it to snivelling
>>drivel.
> I've never heard "All in the Family" referred to as "snivelling drivel"
> before. Interesting perspective. Your attitude is reminiscent of the
> current feelings on rec.arts.startrek regarding ST:Deep Space Nine. You've
> already written the show off without knowing the slightest bit about it.
> Typical.
Well, remember: All in the Family was the exception. All other imports were
pretty bad compared to the original. The reason All in the Family worked out so
well was because they had Norman Lear at the head. The rest were money grubbing
executives and TV Producers who thought they were hot s--- when they really
stank.
:-)
Always remember the Faulty Towers to "Amanda" step. I had forgotten about it
until someone brought the topic up again. The nightmares begin again. :-)
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travers Naran | "I am NOT a merry
Mail address: na...@fraser.sfu.ca or na...@sfu.ca | man!"
Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, Canada | Lt. Worf,
Cmpt. Science student wanna-be | ST:TNG, "Q-pid"
Trekker, Leaper, Red Dwarf'er, Prober, etc. |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
tuu
In article <1992Jan28.2...@acsu.buffalo.edu> v101...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Michelle L. Zafron) writes:
>You've got to be kidding right? How on earth could you say that Archie Bunker
>is "diplomatic, tolerant, and broadminded"? Anyone out there who's actually
Well, compared to Adolf Hitler himself, maybe... (heh)
>Is this where we get the "British TV is automatically better than American TV"
>crap? People, I've seen "Benny Hill" and "Are You Being Served?". The first
>makes "Hee Haw" look like art. And the second has been surpassed many times by
>any number of American comedies.
I don't see how anyone but a 14 year old boy could like Benny Hill..
But that's my own personal preferences.. (And anyway, if British TV is so much
more lenient/tolerant than stuff over here, why didn't he just show nudity?
Is Benny Hill considered a "Family" TV show over there?? heh heh.. just
kidding)
>Both nations produce both good and bad programs. More bad than good, I'd say.
>But to decide that American television is automatically worse than British
>television is a poor argument.
BRAVO! I agree with the sentiments wholeheartedly, and I even
consider myself a "British TV fan."
Some people don't seem to realize we get pretty much the cream of
the crop of British stuff (with exceptions, like "Benny Hill"!) Most likely,
at least in the past ~10-20 years or so, I would bet that Britain (and other
countries) get a MUCH huger proportion of our crappy TV (which is so abundant)
than we get of theirs.. Because the US seems to be exporting TV shows to
tons and tons of other countries, from what I've read.
--
/unk...@ucscb.ucsc.edu 1-900-DAVEFAN (hahahaha) Apple IIGS Forever!\
That Miserable Olde Cow
>In article <1992Jan28.2...@acsu.buffalo.edu>,
>v101...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Michelle L. Zafron) writes...
>>Is this where we get the "British TV is automatically better than American TV"
>>crap? People, I've seen "Benny Hill" and "Are You Being Served?". The first
>>makes "Hee Haw" look like art. And the second has been surpassed many times by
>>any number of American comedies.
>Certainly not. Someone simply said that American adaptations of British
>shows are generally inferior. I agree. And personally, I think
>"All in the Family" WAS drivel. Not as bad as Benny Hill, I admit...
But it was 'socially relevant' drivel.
I'm not a big fan of sit coms from any continent, but I have gotten myself
hooked on Red Dwarf and All in Good Faith (is that the name? The show about
the small town vicar). That's no small feat too!
Bob Gray
>is "diplomatic, tolerant, and broadminded"? Anyone out there who's actually
>seen BOTH "All in the Family" AND it's British counterpart? I'd be interested
>to know what your opinions are.
The original poster is absolutely correct. Compared to the
original Alf Garnett, Archie Bunker is very diplomatic
tolerant and broadminded. He doesn't really dislike anyone,
disagreements are usualy caused by some sort of
misunderstanding, and everyone is reconciled and forgiven by
the end of the episode.
Alf Garnet is a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot. His
vocabulary consists mostly of swear words, and his dialog
consists in a large part of his dememted ravings about "The
Empire", "The Queen", "The Nation" and about how God was
obviously English.
The trouble is that some people actually thought that the
character was to be taken seriously, and the original shows
are no longer broadcastable.
Some episodes are available on video.
Bob.
Bob Gray
>Is Benny Hill considered a "Family" TV show over there?? heh heh.. just
>kidding)
Yes. Seriously..
>at least in the past ~10-20 years or so, I would bet that Britain (and other
>countries) get a MUCH huger proportion of our crappy TV (which is so abundant)
>than we get of theirs.. Because the US seems to be exporting TV shows to
>tons and tons of other countries, from what I've read.
You would lose the bet, then.
A greater proportion of British TV is shown in the US than
US TV is shown in Britain. You are correct if you had
mentioned any other country. Britain is the only exception.
Bob.
Monty
>unk...@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (tuu) writes:
>>at least in the past ~10-20 years or so, I would bet that Britain (and other
>>countries) get a MUCH huger proportion of our crappy TV (which is so abundant)
>>than we get of theirs.. Because the US seems to be exporting TV shows to
>>tons and tons of other countries, from what I've read.
>
>You would lose the bet, then.
>A greater proportion of British TV is shown in the US than
>US TV is shown in Britain. You are correct if you had
>mentioned any other country. Britain is the only exception.
No. What he SAID was that you get a larger proportion of the
CRAPPY shows. For instance, we get your Fawlty Towers, but
you get our tripe like Dallas and Dynasty. I've yet to see
a really bad British show over here, but I've seen PLENTY
of bad American TV in England.
Paul S. Winalski
In article <1992Jan28.2...@acsu.buffalo.edu>,
|>>show it was based on have told me that AitF did exactly that. Compared to
|>>his British prototype, Archie Bunker is diplomatic, tolerant, and broad-
|>>minded.
|>
|>You've got to be kidding right? How on earth could you say that Archie Bunker
|>is "diplomatic, tolerant, and broadminded"?
I didn't say that. I said IN COMPARISON TO HIS BRITISH PROTOTYPE, he was
diplomatic, tolerant, and broad-minded. The character in the original
British series on whom Archie Bunker was based was even worse than Bunker.
The character was toned down for the American series
|> Anyone out there who's actually
|>seen BOTH "All in the Family" AND it's British counterpart? I'd be interested
|>to know what your opinions are.
As I stated in my original posting, the people I've talked to who've seen both
say that the American series was very much watered down.
|>Is this where we get the "British TV is automatically better than American TV"
|>crap? People, I've seen "Benny Hill" and "Are You Being Served?". The first
|>makes "Hee Haw" look like art. And the second has been surpassed many times by
|>any number of American comedies.
I never said that British TV is automatically better than American TV, nor did
I imply it. Don't put words in my mouth. What I am saying is that I don't
think that British shows in general, and Red Dwarf in particular, translate well
into the American cultural context. It doesn't work very well in the other
direction, either.
|>Both nations produce both good and bad programs. More bad than good, I'd say.
|>But to decide that American television is automatically worse than British
|>television is a poor argument.
I agree. That's why I didn't say that.
--PSW
tuu
In article <17...@castle.ed.ac.uk> b...@castle.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) writes:
>Alf Garnet is a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot. His
>vocabulary consists mostly of swear words, and his dialog
>consists in a large part of his dememted ravings about "The
>Empire", "The Queen", "The Nation" and about how God was
>obviously English.
I dunno, a lot of that sounds like what Archie Bunker does (with
"the US" exchanged for England).. But that's not what I'm trying to argue, as
I've not seen the British version. (Hopefully some PBS station in the area
will carry it.. Hell, if they carry crap like the original "Three's Company",
it seems like this would be a step up)
Did "til Death Do Us Part" have episodes dealing with the
transvestite, as "All in the Family" did? {Short synopsis as close as I
can remember: Archie saves this "woman" from being killed/injured in some
sort of accident. It's really a female impersonator/transvestite.
And in another episode, Archie has to deal with the death of him/her (he's
actually sad about the death).}
Were all of the characters there? I don't know if "tDDUP" was made
much earlier than "All in the Family," so this question may not be relevant:
Was Meathead a hippie? And mostly, was the Edith-equivalent character
a complete ditz?
All of this brings up the question: I usually consider Norman Lear
to be one of the best American TV producers/creators/whatever in this country.
Yet if "all" he did was American-ify a British show, what's the big deal?
And aren't a lot of his other shows based on British shows? Seems like
riding on someone else's coattails in a way. I'm not trying to lessen the
value of work necessary in American-ifying a show, yet it seems to clearly
be much less than creating a show from scratch. (Which usually involves
ripping off someone else's idea, rather than licensing it.. heh heh)
tuu
>>Is Benny Hill considered a "Family" TV show over there?? heh heh.. just
>>kidding)
>Yes. Seriously..
Pretty scary if you ask me. Even if one doesn't believe that letting
children see sexual humor is bad in itself (a lot of it goes over their
heads), I would definitely _guess_ that children can grok some of the
"objectification" of women prevalent in Benny Hill type material. Maybe that's
why he got canned.
>>at least in the past ~10-20 years or so, I would bet that Britain (and other
>>countries) get a MUCH huger proportion of our crappy TV (which is so abundant)
>You would lose the bet, then.
>A greater proportion of British TV is shown in the US than US TV is shown in
>Britain. You are correct if you had mentioned any other country. Britain is
>the only exception.
Someone else already pointed out that I had used the 'crappy'
adjective. Yet I'd like to change whole problem around a bit and ask/comment
more about it.
From the British TV ratings posted here in the last day, "The Wonder
Years" and "Cheers" are the only two American TV shows I see on the list.
("Beetlejuice" refers to the movie and not the cartoon I presume, as there were
tons of other US movies on that list)
Am I correct in presuming that those two shows are on a network
broadcast? Since they are giving ratings, I would guess that to be true. So
even with only TWO American shows, it still beats out the ZERO British shows
that the US shows. Yes, I _am_ conveniently ignoring PBS stations for the
moment, because the amount of people in the US who watch PBS (much less
BRITISH shows on PBS) is incredibly tiny compared to the country at large,
in my complete guess.
John Francis
> When the Americans clone a British show they reduce it to snivelling drivel
This caused gib...@crisium.geop.ubc.ca (Brad Gibson) to write:
> I've never heard "All in the Family" referred to as "snivelling drivel" ...
Wherupon wina...@tle.enet.dec.com (Paul S. Winalski) replied:
>>British friends of mine who've seen both "All in the Family" and the British
>>show it was based on have told me that AitF did exactly that. Compared to
>>his British prototype, Archie Bunker is diplomatic, tolerant, and broad-
>>minded.
This caused v101...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Michelle L. Zafron) to bluster:
>
>You've got to be kidding right? How on earth could you say that Archie Bunker
>is "diplomatic, tolerant, and broadminded"? Anyone out there who's actually
>seen BOTH "All in the Family" AND it's British counterpart? I'd be interested
>to know what your opinions are.
You've already been told my opinions - Paul paraphrased them fairly well. I
deduce that you have never seen "Till Death Us Do Part", so why do you assume
that Alf Garnett could not be so awful that Archie Bunker does indeed appear
to be "diplomatic, tolerant, and broad-minded" by comparison ? Archie Bunker
could only be as stupidly racist as Norman Lear could get away with on American
network television. Johnny Speight had less restrictive constraints, and so
could get away with more extremist behaviour. The supporting characters were
changed somewhat, as well - the wife (in particular) was reduced to a simpler,
more stupid, character. In TDUDP she supplied the still small voice of reason
that punctured the balloon of Alf's rantings. In AitF she was mostly just dumb.
>>I echo the sentiments. I'm glad to see that American television, and
>>particularly American Big-3 network television, will NOT be doing their own
>>version of Red Dwarf.
>
>Is this where we get the "British TV is automatically better than American TV"
>crap? People, I've seen "Benny Hill" and "Are You Being Served?". The first
>makes "Hee Haw" look like art. And the second has been surpassed many times by
>any number of American comedies.
>
>Both nations produce both good and bad programs. More bad than good, I'd say.
>But to decide that American television is automatically worse than British
>television is a poor argument.
Did anyone say "British TV is automatically better than American TV" above?
They did not. you are setting up a strawman to demolish, which is in itself
a very poor argument. Personally I agree whole-heartedly with your assessment
of Benny Hill. Nor would I claim that "Are You Being Served?" is the greatest
comedy series ever made. But, like Paul, I do feel that American big-3 network
television would be unlikely to produce anything watchable from "Red Dwarf".
>>--PSW
>--Michelle L. Zafron (v101...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu)
John Francis (jo...@apollo.hp.com)
Jon Rhein
I too am relieved that Red Dwarf will not be produced for an
American tv network. I just can't see anyone else as Lister or Rimmer,
and frankly do not wish to. Why don't the nitwits at one of the four
major (or many minor) tv networks here in the states produce something
*original* in the SF genre? Lord knows that there are good SF novelists
coming out of our ears. But I digress.
J.A. Rhein
Stefano Bonfa
> Some people don't seem to realize we get pretty much the cream of
>the crop of British stuff (with exceptions, like "Benny Hill"!) Most likely,
>at least in the past ~10-20 years or so, I would bet that Britain (and other
>countries) get a MUCH huger proportion of our crappy TV (which is so abundant)
>than we get of theirs.. Because the US seems to be exporting TV shows to
>tons and tons of other countries, from what I've read.
Spot on the button. The quality of American TV shows seem to plummet in
geometric proportionto the quantity dumped off-shore to unsuspecting
foreign audiences.
And I'm sorry, but as a general rule (and braod generalisation) I will
have to say that the quality level of British TV is significantly higher
than that of the US. As we get all levels of both down here, I'm in a
fairly good position to judge.
--
David Green | tel: +61 3 827 5828 | ra...@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au
Melbourne, Australia | fax: +61 3 827 5876 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... What opinions ?
Neil Postlethwaite
>
> I've never heard "All in the Family" referred to as "snivelling drivel"
> before. Interesting perspective. Your attitude is reminiscent of the
> current feelings on rec.arts.startrek regarding ST:Deep Space Nine. You've
> already written the show off without knowing the slightest bit about it.
> Typical.
>
> Brad
Previous experience of American conversions, rather than outright
writing off I think.
I think the ST:DSN interest is because so little info has been
released by Paramount, speculation run's wild ........................
ST:TNG is better/different to ST:TOS. I guess what most people
are concerned about is that DSN will be a replacement. Wee like TNG a
** LOT **, and don't want to see it go. If DSN is as good I welcome it
with open arms.
Incidentally in the UK, we've jusrt had the Series 3 episode
'Yesterday's Enterprise', I think was the title. I think it was one
of my favourite's. The one when Enterprise 1701-C came through a Worm
Hole/Rift in Space-Time etc ......
It was interesting and riveting, if a bit difficult to keep up
with. You had to concentrate, until things slipped in to place. Stuff
like Tasha re-appearing, Worf disappearing and nobody batting an
eyelid, Klingon warships coming, Enterprise-D was a 'battleship' according
to Picard ('surrender, never'.).
Anybody else any comments ??????
Neil
*****************************| Sig' Time |**********************************
JANET: ne...@uk.ac.hw.cs * Neil Postlethwaite, Computer Science,
INTERNET: ne...@cs.hw.ac.uk * Heriot-Watt University,
UUCP: ..mcsun!ukc!hwcs!neilp * Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Bob Gray
>sort of accident. It's really a female impersonator/transvestite.
>And in another episode, Archie has to deal with the death of him/her (he's
>actually sad about the death).}
There was no such character in any of the episodes of
"tDDUP", but if there had been Alf Garnett was the sort
of person who would have been happy to convert his shower to
gas for him/her to use.
> Were all of the characters there? I don't know if "tDDUP" was made
They all had their equivalents.
>Was Meathead a hippie? And mostly, was the Edith-equivalent character
>a complete ditz?
No and no. The Edith-equivalent, usualy refered to as the
"silly Moo" was one of the more rational characters there.
It was her who would point out the flaws in Alf's theories.
Bob.
Geoff Lane
Could someone tell us what were NBC's reasons for
a) trying to redo it in the first place?
b) cancelling their version.
c) not spending a little money on a good writer and inventing their
own SF show?
--
Geoff. Lane. Janet: zza...@uk.ac.mcc.uts
UTS Sys Admin, Manchester Computing Centre, Oxford Rd, Manchester, M13 9PL
r...@and.cs.liv.ac.uk
v026...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Monty) writes:
>>Is this where we get the "British TV is automatically better than American TV"
>>crap?
Nope. Personally, I am appalled by the extremely low quality of British TV
comedies on at the moment on UK TV. I had the misfortunate to be forced to sit
through 5 minutes of "The Brittas Empire" last night and I had to leave the
room, it was so bad. What a waste of Chris Barrie's talents - roll on Red
Dwarf 5, is what I say. I can't stand "Birds Of A Feather", "One Foot In The
Grave" or ANY so-called comedy on ITV at the moment.
> People, I've seen "Benny Hill" and "Are You Being Served?".
My sincere apologies on behalf of all Brits with taste in decent comedy - I'm
sorry we exported rubbish like this to the States. Check out the "Blackadder"
and "Red Dwarf" series for decent comedy. Some (not all) of the "Mr. Bean"
specials have been good too, but I think the appeal of this will soon wear
off.
Someone else says:
> Certainly not. Someone simply said that American adaptations of British
> shows are generally inferior. I agree.
Having seen "Three's Company" at weird times of the night in the UK, I can
honestly say that "Man About The House" (one of THE best UK comedy shows of
the 70's, IMHO) was much better. Mind you, with ITV showing an awful
remake of weak-in-the-first-place "Who's The Boss ?", I don't think we have
much to be proud about either.
> And personally, I think "All in the Family" WAS drivel.
I think this was the one with Sabrina Franklyn and Stacy Dorning in, right ?
If it was, I've just explained the only two reasons for watching it :-)
> Not as bad as Benny Hill, I admit...
Benny Hill is appalling - not from the sexist point of view, but simply from
the standpoint that he just isn't funny. 90% of the "jokes" fall flat and just
don't have a sharp edge to them (terminally blunt would be a more accurate
description).
Richard K. Lloyd, **** This is a MicroVAX II running VAX/VMS V5.4 ****
Computer Science Dept., JANET : r...@uk.ac.liv.cs.and
Liverpool University, Internet : rkl%and.cs.l...@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Merseyside, England, UUCP : ..!mcsun!ukc!liv-cs!rkl
Great Britain. Q: "What's the world's fastest home micro ?"
L69 3BX A: "The Archimedes A3000. 4 MIPS for under 800 pounds."
r...@and.cs.liv.ac.uk
> unk...@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (tuu) writes:
> A greater proportion of British TV is shown in the US than
> US TV is shown in Britain. You are correct if you had
> mentioned any other country. Britain is the only exception.
Hang on - are you talking about NETWORKED TV here (available across the
whole country) ? I'm 100% sure that we get far more networked US TV programmes
(especially if you have an Astra dish :-) But that's cheating !) compared to
the equivalent of the US major networks showing UK material. Sure, if you
have cable AND live in the right US state, then you MAY get to see a fairly
large number of UK TV shows, but I'm certain that BBC1, BBC2, ITV and Channel 4
show a MUCH larger number of US shows than the equivalent 6 major US networks
do of UK shows. I was in the US a few months back and the networks showed a
few UK shows tucked away at 11pm or 2am (e.g. Eastenders - though God knows
why - and the equally bad 'Allo 'Allo), but the volume was small and CERTAINLY
NOT during prime-time !
r...@and.cs.liv.ac.uk
In article <koekje...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
j...@nirvana.Berkeley.EDU (Jon Rhein) writes:
> I too am relieved that Red Dwarf will not be produced for an
> American tv network.
Ditto - I don't like remakes of TV series (in either direction, US -> UK or
vice versa).
> Why don't the nitwits at one of the four
> major (or many minor) tv networks here in the states produce something
> *original* in the SF genre?
I'm not sure whether you are talking about the UK or US here :-) :-) :-)
In the UK, things are disastrous on the NEW British sci-fri front - Red Dwarf
is the ONLY British sci-fi series currently still in production ("Doctor Who"
is still on 'permanent hold' as far as I know).
Eagle-eyed viewers who watch the excellent "Right To Reply" TV complaints show
(infinitely superior to the "Points Of View" drivel aired on BBC 1) will have
seen a report on the state of British TV sci-fi. There was an interview with
Alan Yentob, the controller of BBC 2, claiming that sci-fi fans are well
served on BBC 2 at the moment.
[Let's analyse that last statement:]
BBC 2 sci-fi shows on at the moment:
Quantum Leap: Several years behind the US airing. A poor reworking of "The
Time Tunnel", IMHO.
Thunderbirds: Classic Gerry Anderson series always in the BBC 2 Top 5
programmes, but still an old but welcome repeat of course.
I preferred Captain Scarlet myself.
Doctor Who: Currently re-running a story from each of the Doctors. More
repeats, but at least it's on the screen for a change. I hope
Sylvester McCoy gets run over by a bus before they bring back
Doctor Who for a new series.
ST:TNG: Great series, but cut to shreds by BBC 2 censors due to its
ludicrous 6pm airing time. "The High Ground" episode has been
banned. Episodes have been known to be cancelled with minimal
notice or delayed 20 minutes due to some tedious live sport.
[Red Dwarf 5, the last bastion of new British sci-fi, is due to air in
February of course]
So, to cut a long story short, BBC 2 *do* show more sci-fi than all the other
channels, but its only repeats or US imports at the moment.
Right, getting back to the "Right To Reply" show, Alan Yentob said that he
would welcome scripts from sci-fi writers and "would consider" them for making
a new BBC 2 sci-fi series sometime in the future (no specific date given). He
also said that "Red Dwarf" is classified as "Light Entertainment" rather than
sci-fi within the BBC, so that might explain it's unusually good airing times
(8.30pm or 9.00pm) rather than the "sci-fi ghetto" of 6.00pm.
My wish is that I could get to be the controller of the BBC and then I'd do the
following:
1. Re-purchase ST:TNG Seasons 1-3 in stereo and broadcast them in NICAM stereo
on a Wednesday night on BBC 1 at 10.30pm, with NO censorship of scenes.
2. Commission a new Doctor Who series, after sacking Sylvester McCoy and
bringing back Tom Baker :-)
3. Increase the showing of ST:TNG on BBC 2 to 5 nights a week (until we
catch up with the US) and shift its time to 9 pm (with no censorship of
course).
4. Buy up the rights to show the following series:
Blake's 7 (I think there's disputes over this).
UFO.
Space : 1999.
Captain Scarlet & The Mysterons.
Star Cops (the BBC still owns this :-) ).
5. Commission a new series of Star Cops with the same actors.
OK, so I'm living in a perfect TV sci-fi world: I can but dream...
tuu
In article <1992Jan31....@and.cs.liv.ac.uk> r...@and.cs.liv.ac.uk writes:
>ST:TNG: Great series, but cut to shreds by BBC 2 censors due to its
> ludicrous 6pm airing time. "The High Ground" episode has been
> banned. Episodes have been known to be cancelled with minimal
> notice or delayed 20 minutes due to some tedious live sport.
Which one is "The High Ground"?
England censoring things? from the stuff we get (mostly on PBS),
it seems you guys have it *way* lighter in terms of censoring..
What the hell could be in a Star Trek episode to be censored?
The worst thing I can think of was the fairly GRAPHIC (comparatively) footage
of the dude_with_the_aliens_in_him getting blown up.
--
/unk...@ucscb.ucsc.edu Apple IIGS Forever!\
|WANT to get INFOCOM GAMES RERELEASED | Also will pass on -UNIX GS- |
\& ULTIMA VI GS written? ---mail me | & CHEAP CD info - mail me /
Dave Jones 253-1987
>
>following:
>
>1. Re-purchase ST:TNG Seasons 1-3 in stereo and broadcast them in NICAM stereo
> on a Wednesday night on BBC 1 at 10.30pm, with NO censorship of scenes.
Censorship? You mean the Beeb will cut something that US TV will show?
More likely to be the other way around, I think. I've seen nothing
on the Dirty Digger's TV network broadcasts of ST:TNG that is cuttable,
unless maybe its political censorship you're referring to. Or is there
a "raw" version that gets cut 50% by US TV and 20% by the Beeb? In
which case how do you know what the original looks like? Maybe I should
check out some of the video versions.
>
>2. Commission a new Doctor Who series, after sacking Sylvester McCoy and
> bringing back Tom Baker :-)
Dry him out first.
>
>3. Increase the showing of ST:TNG on BBC 2 to 5 nights a week (until we
> catch up with the US) and shift its time to 9 pm (with no censorship of
> course).
>
>4. Buy up the rights to show the following series:
> Blake's 7 (I think there's disputes over this).
No dispute: it's pathetic.
> UFO.
Aimless plots. Bad dialog. Attempts at character studies
without the scriptwriting ability to back it up. One of
those "Maybe this week will be better" shows.
> Space : 1999.
UFO problems, squared.
> Captain Scarlet & The Mysterons.
The start of the Anderson decline. Too much emphasis on effects,
not enough on plot structure. Bad premise: omnipotent opponents and/or
heroes rarely make for good plots.
> Star Cops (the BBC still owns this :-) ).
>
>5. Commission a new series of Star Cops with the same actors.
>
>OK, so I'm living in a perfect TV sci-fi world: I can but dream...
I'll give you credit for this much: you didn't ask for Joe 90.
How come you left out "Out of the Unknown" (the original series, not
the ghosts-and-ghoulies later episodes)?
--
| Dave Jones (d...@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com) --------------------------|
| Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY 14653-7300 |
| C++ will do for C what Algol-68 did for Algol! -----------------|
tuu
In article <1992Jan31....@ssd.kodak.com> d...@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones 253-1987) writes:
>In article <1992Jan31....@and.cs.liv.ac.uk> r...@and.cs.liv.ac.uk writes:
I presume you mean he's an alcoholic?
>> Blake's 7 (I think there's disputes over this).
>No dispute: it's pathetic.
It's a great show! Better than/equal to "Star Trek:TNG" (which itself
is better than TOS, in my opinion). What don't you like about it?
If you complain about the cheapo special effects, then I guess you're
not a "true" science fiction fan.. Unfortunately a lot of the best sci-fi has
had bad special effects.
Dave Jones 253-1987
>
>In article <1992Jan31....@ssd.kodak.com> d...@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones 253-1987) writes:
>>In article <1992Jan31....@and.cs.liv.ac.uk> r...@and.cs.liv.ac.uk writes:
>>Dry him out first.
> I presume you mean he's an alcoholic?
>
>>> Blake's 7 (I think there's disputes over this).
>>No dispute: it's pathetic.
>
> It's a great show! Better than/equal to "Star Trek:TNG" (which itself
>is better than TOS, in my opinion). What don't you like about it?
> If you complain about the cheapo special effects, then I guess you're
>not a "true" science fiction fan.. Unfortunately a lot of the best sci-fi has
>had bad special effects.
>--
Certainly bad effects. Also bad scripts, bad plots, a stuffed shirt for
a hero....need I go on? Actually the video effects were OK, but the
film effects (exploding ships etc.) were as bad as anything the Beeb
ever did. Well, not quite. The melting planet in the first Cybermen
adventure of the old Dr Who was the worst effect I have ever seen.
ST:TNG was about the same plot standard as B7 in the early shows but has
improved beyond measure since then. We no longer have the guy with the
hi-tech eyes saying "I've never seen anything like this before!", or the
lady empath complaining of bad vibes. Although not a regular watcher,
I've enjoyed the recent shows.
Elizabeth A. Hlabse
In a previous article, unk...@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (tuu) says:
>
>In article <1992Jan31....@and.cs.liv.ac.uk> r...@and.cs.liv.ac.uk writes:
>>ST:TNG: Great series, but cut to shreds by BBC 2 censors due to its
>> ludicrous 6pm airing time. "The High Ground" episode has been
>> banned. Episodes have been known to be cancelled with minimal
>> notice or delayed 20 minutes due to some tedious live sport.
>
> Which one is "The High Ground"?
It's the one that seems an awful lot like the Irish problem. You know,
a terrorist group that says its fighting for freedom by killing civilians
as well as military personel. Dr. Crusher gets kidnapped by the leader of
the group in order to try to get the Federation involved.
>
> England censoring things? from the stuff we get (mostly on PBS),
>it seems you guys have it *way* lighter in terms of censoring..
> What the hell could be in a Star Trek episode to be censored?
>The worst thing I can think of was the fairly GRAPHIC (comparatively) footage
>of the dude_with_the_aliens_in_him getting blown up.
I agree with this totally. Brits don't seem to take things quite so
personally as we Colonists do. A lot of the censoring we get over
here seems kind of stupid to me.
--
I might regenerate, | I am not expendable, | Nothing is forgotten,
I don't know. | I am not stupid, | Nothing is ever
Feels different this time. | And I'm not going! | Forgotten.
- The Doctor (5) | - Avon | - Robin
Jimmy Aitken
>In article <1992Jan29.1...@rdg.dec.com>, wina...@tle.enet.dec.com (Paul S. Winalski) writes...
>>I didn't say that. I said IN COMPARISON TO HIS BRITISH PROTOTYPE, he was
>>diplomatic, tolerant, and broad-minded. The character in the original
>>British series on whom Archie Bunker was based was even worse than Bunker.
>>The character was toned down for the American series
>Ok, my fault. I misunderstood you. I just found it difficult to believe that
>the British counterpart could be worse than Archie Bunker.
>>|> Anyone out there who's actually
>>|>seen BOTH "All in the Family" AND it's British counterpart? I'd be interested
>>|>to know what your opinions are.
>>As I stated in my original posting, the people I've talked to who've seen both
>>say that the American series was very much watered down.
>My point was that you haven't seen both. I haven't seen both. In matters like
>this, I prefer a first hand opinion.
Well I have seen both. The BBC broadcast AITF some time back and I
watched it out of interest. Archie Bunker is MUCH more tolerant than
Alf Garnett. As it happens, I hated both shows in equal amounts and
possibly the Alf Garnett shows (and it's subsequent sequels) slightly more.
Jimmy
--
ji...@pyra.co.uk -m------- Jimmy Aitken
ji...@pyramid.pyramid.com ---mmm----- Pyramid Technology Ltd
...!mcsun!ukc!pyrltd!jimmy -----mmmmm--- Pyramid House, Solartron Rd
(+44) 252 373035 -------mmmmmmm- Hants GU14 7PL, ENGLAND
`Rrrrum Ti-Tum Ti-Tum Ti-Tum, Rrrrum Ti-Tum Ti Ta-Ta,
Rrrrum Ti-Tum Ti-Tum Ti-Tum, Rrrrum Ti Tiddly Ta...'
Mike Whalen
wrote:
ZL> Could someone tell us what were NBC's reasons for
ZL> a) trying to redo it in the first place?
ZL> b) cancelling their version.
ZL> c) not spending a little money on a good writer and inventing their
ZL> own SF show?
I could be wrong, but the way I see it is NBC is a little mad (because of
their own stubborness) that they didn't get STTNG.
Besides, after what happen to ALL SCI-FI shows on AMerican network
television, I wouldn't WANT to see an American version of Red Dwarf.
Mike..
-- Via DLG Pro v0.985b
/----- /\ /\ / Fandom Activity Network Magazine
/--- /--\ / \ / 1384 Sigur Ave. Metairie, La. 70005
/ / \ / \/ Editor : Mike Whalen
For the BEST in Science Fiction/Fantasy FANDOM!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
InterNet: Mike_...@agwbbs.new-orleans.la.us
UUCP: rex!agwbbs!Mike_Whalen
Voice Phone: (504)/837-5037
Jon Blum
>Years" and "Cheers" are the only two American TV shows I see on the list.
>("Beetlejuice" refers to the movie and not the cartoon I presume, as there were
>tons of other US movies on that list)
>
> Am I correct in presuming that those two shows are on a network
>broadcast? Since they are giving ratings, I would guess that to be true. So
>even with only TWO American shows, it still beats out the ZERO British shows
You're not even including all the stuff that's first-run in Britain, but
that's been off the air for years here. For example, when I was last in London
about three weeks back, I caught trailers for "Baywatch" and "Knots Landing",
plus a long promo on Sky (I think) advertising "Battlestar Galactica" as a
new series...
tuu
In article <Mike_Wha...@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US> Mike_...@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Mike Whalen) writes:
> I could be wrong, but the way I see it is NBC is a little mad (because of
>their own stubborness) that they didn't get STTNG.
Wasn't TNG offered to _all_ of the networks?
> Besides, after what happen to ALL SCI-FI shows on AMerican network
>television, I wouldn't WANT to see an American version of Red Dwarf.
I guess you've never seen "Alien Nation" then. Great show. Only
lasted one season unfortunately, but it was great.
Marlon Cole
[ ... stuff about the state of sci-fi broadcasting by Auntie Beeb... ]
>ST:TNG: Great series, but cut to shreds by BBC 2 censors due to its
> ludicrous 6pm airing time. "The High Ground" episode has been
> banned.
I only gathered from this group that episodes were getting censored (maybe
I should have been reading a star-trek group), so my question is, does anyone
have a list of those episodes that *have* been hacked (and why) so I know
what videos I need to rent :-( (if this question has been asked on other
groups then please email and I'll summarise later).
>4. Buy up the rights to show the following series:
> Blake's 7 (I think there's disputes over this).
> UFO.
> Space : 1999.
> Captain Scarlet & The Mysterons.
> Star Cops (the BBC still owns this :-) ).
Anyone know who's got Space 1999? I've had a strange urge to see this again
for the past few months.....
Cheers,
Marlon
----------
Marlon Cole email: ccz...@unicorn.nott.ac.uk or
Cripps Computing Centre ccz...@uk.ac.nott.unicorn 8-}
University of Nottingham
Nottingham
ENGLAND.
ccz...@vax.nott.ac.uk
suggest doubling the showing of TNG follwed by a repeat uncensored
showing of all TOS., with a repeat of the films at weekends.
r...@and.cs.liv.ac.uk
d...@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones 253-1987) writes:
> Censorship? You mean the Beeb will cut something that US TV will show?
> More likely to be the other way around, I think. I've seen nothing
> on the Dirty Digger's TV network broadcasts of ST:TNG that is cuttable,
> unless maybe its political censorship you're referring to.
The big problem with the ST:TNG broadcasts in the UK is that they are shown
at 6.00pm on a Wednesday. This is before the "9.00pm sex and violence and
anything-else-you-care-to-mention watershed" and hence the BBC take EVERY
OPPORTUNITY to cut scenes out or trim them down substantially. I get really
steamed up about this - a simple time-shift to 9pm would cure the problem,
but trying to convince the BBC that sci-fi ISN'T just for kids seems to be
impossible.
> In which case how do you know what the original looks like? Maybe I should
> check out some of the video versions.
As far as I know, the 2-episodes-per-tape CIC video releases of ST:TNG in the
UK are uncensored, so real fans will have been buying those up of course. If
you are lucky enough to have a US contact who can send you ST:TNG tapes *and*
have a way to convert from NTSC->PAL format, then you're laughing all the way
to Season 5 :-)
> No dispute: it's pathetic. [Blake's 7]
Speak for yourself - for me, Blake's 7 was the most enjoyable sci-fi series I've
ever seen. Up until the middle of season 2 of ST:TNG, the lack of humour in
ST:TNG was appalling, whereas Blake's 7 had "dry wit" stamped all over it from
day one.
>> UFO.
> Aimless plots. Bad dialog. Attempts at character studies
> without the scriptwriting ability to back it up. One of
> those "Maybe this week will be better" shows.
I'd disagree again - this show wasn't quite your standard sci-fi fare - a lot
of the stories were downbeat and often ended on a depressing note. The special
effects, um, weren't but I think it was a lot more thought-provoking than
most sci-fi (and certainly more so than early ST:TNG).
>> Space : 1999.
> UFO problems, squared.
I'll admit that season 2 was worse than season 1, but still watchable. The
first season of Space:1999 was superbly done - great special effects, some very
nice storylines and if only they'd have left "moaning" Dr. Russell in a
deserted satellite somewhere near Alpha Centauri, then the series would have
been perfect.
> The start of the Anderson decline. Too much emphasis on effects,
> not enough on plot structure. Bad premise: omnipotent opponents and/or
> heroes rarely make for good plots.
I don't care - it still beats Thunderbirds in my books. I can't take Thunder-
birds all that seriously with the grossly outsized heads and extremely silly
accents.
> I'll give you credit for this much: you didn't ask for Joe 90.
Joe 90 was a disappointment - every episode was identical :-(
> How come you left out "Out of the Unknown" (the original series, not
> the ghosts-and-ghoulies later episodes)?
Because I've never seen it.
Bob Gray
>In the UK, things are disastrous on the NEW British sci-fri front - Red Dwarf
>is the ONLY British sci-fi series currently still in production ("Doctor Who"
The BBC were supposed to be making a thrteen part series
about Dan Dare. What its current status is I have no idea.
>BBC 2 sci-fi shows on at the moment:
>Quantum Leap: Several years behind the US airing. A poor reworking of "The
> Time Tunnel", IMHO.
What does this have to do with science-fiction?
There is some pseudo-technology handwaving to get the main
character into a new show each week. From then on it is the
morality lesson of the week. No discernible science content
here.
>ST:TNG: Great series, but cut to shreds by BBC 2 censors due to its
> ludicrous 6pm airing time. "The High Ground" episode has been
And also very difficult for some of us to get home in time
to see. Hardly being well served.
>[Red Dwarf 5, the last bastion of new British sci-fi, is due to air in
>February of course]
But this isn't sci-fi. According to the BBC it is a drama
series set in space. That is why it doesn't get treated as a
children's programme.
Bob.
Bob Gray
> England censoring things? from the stuff we get (mostly on PBS),
>it seems you guys have it *way* lighter in terms of censoring..
The BBC is quite happy to cut out stuff which it considers
to be unsuitable for children. Star Trek is a children's
series, according to the BBC, so stuff gets cut.
Bob.
Neil Postlethwaite
|> My wish is that I could get to be the controller of the BBC and then I'd do the
|> following:
|>
|> 1. Re-purchase ST:TNG Seasons 1-3 in stereo and broadcast them in NICAM stereo
|> on a Wednesday night on BBC 1 at 10.30pm, with NO censorship of scenes.
|>
Definitely. I'll head out for the blank video tapes as soon as this is
announced. BTW was it a hoax when someone posted about ST:TOS being shown in
it's entirity between TNG series 3 and 4 ???
|> 2. Commission a new Doctor Who series, after sacking Sylvester McCoy and
|> bringing back Tom Baker :-)
Yup, and put a bit of money behinf it too !!!
|>
|> 3. Increase the showing of ST:TNG on BBC 2 to 5 nights a week (until we
|> catch up with the US) and shift its time to 9 pm (with no censorship of
|> course).
Stop showing Snooker `n` Stuff in Star Trek timeslots too.
|>
|> 4. Buy up the rights to show the following series:
|> Blake's 7 (I think there's disputes over this).
|> UFO.
|> Space : 1999.
|> Captain Scarlet & The Mysterons.
|> Star Cops (the BBC still owns this :-) ).
Blake's Seven is long overdue for a re-run. Space 1999 yup, UFO can't
say I've seen that. Capt Scarlett - maybe. What about another go of The
Invaders aswell, I only caught abpout half of it.
|>
|> 5. Commission a new series of Star Cops with the same actors.
You've got to be kidding !!!!!!
Here's mine
a/ Increase the volume of Red Dwarf
b/ Put some money behind a new Sci-Fi show which could be ainmed
at a worldwide audience, to beat Paramount at their own game.
There are SO MANY book's to base stuff on, or write somwthing
new. A personal favourite I would like to see revived and
extended is John Wyndham's Day of the Triffids. The BBC did
a series on the book several years ago. This book/TV series
cries out for sequels, there is so much scope.
c/ Blake's 7: TNG ...............
Neil
P.S. Has anyone seen the War of the World's TV series, currently showing on
Scottish TV. What a load of total **BOLLOCKS**. How come nobody remembers
anything about the Alien invasion in 195x. Wierd .........
Ellen Sasse
>r...@and.cs.liv.ac.uk writes:
>>Quantum Leap: Several years behind the US airing. A poor reworking of "The
>> Time Tunnel", IMHO.
>What does this have to do with science-fiction?
>There is some pseudo-technology handwaving to get the main
>character into a new show each week. From then on it is the
>morality lesson of the week. No discernible science content here.
Thank you!!! I am SO glad someone else agrees with me! In fact,
this is why I HATE American television, for the most part. I
tried to watch QL for a while, thinking 80% of rec.arst.tv couldn't
be wrong... But let's just say I don't want my morals C.O.D.
-Ellen
Jimmy Aitken
> Stop showing Snooker `n` Stuff in Star Trek timeslots too.
The Olympics gets in for next weeks TNG. Could the one tomorrow be the last
until the Beeb buys series 4??
> Blake's Seven is long overdue for a re-run. Space 1999 yup, UFO can't
>say I've seen that. Capt Scarlett - maybe. What about another go of The
>Invaders aswell, I only caught abpout half of it.
The BBC are making too much money on the Tapes of B7. When the deman is down
a bit, I predice that it'll be shown again. Just like Fawlty Towers, Monty
Python, Black Adder, Reginal Perrin, .....
>P.S. Has anyone seen the War of the World's TV series, currently showing on
> Scottish TV. What a load of total **BOLLOCKS**. How come nobody remembers
> anything about the Alien invasion in 195x. Wierd .........
That's what got me about the whole series when I watched snippets of it.
I mean the world was almost devastated and noone remembers. Like an
story in the "Superman" cominc years back where some guy blackmails
Supes to fly to mars to leave stuff there so as to make people think
there's intellegent like other than humans about. What with at leats
20% of the characters in comincs at that time being extra terrestrial
it seemed a little pointless..
Does STV cut WOTW (getting back to the original thread here). A
couple of epsiodes I saw involved the gory details of legs getting
pulled out their sockets with the full spurting red stuff in view.
Not tea time viewing.
John Grohol
No, if nothing else can be said for Blake's 7, and quite a lot
can be said good about it, it always carried good plots and
VERY good scripts. The characters *always* fit, and they felt
like people I've come to know and grow with when I watched it
the first time. I certainly cannot say the same for TNG...
There are always examples of bad plots, bad shows; but in
B7, these were few and far between...
--
"And from the dark secluded valleys :: John M. Grohol
I heard the ancient songs of sadness :: Cntr for Psychological Studies
But every step I thought of you :: Nova Univ, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Every footstep only you." -- Sting :: gro...@novavax.nova.edu
Alan Buchanan
> I've never heard "All in the Family" referred to as "snivelling drivel"
> before. Interesting perspective. Your attitude is reminiscent of the
> current feelings on rec.arts.startrek regarding ST:Deep Space Nine. You've
> already written the show off without knowing the slightest bit about it.
> Typical.
>
> Brad
>
>
It may not have been snivelling drivel but it couldn't hold a candle to
"Til Death Us Do Part" . Alf Garnett would make Archie Bunker look like
a bleeding heart Democrat.
--
Alan Buchanan Bell-Northern Research, Ltd Ph.: (613) 763-2750
Silicon Design P.O. Box 3511, Station C Fax: (613) 763-3970
Methods Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1Y 4H7
Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.
- William Butler Yeats
Alan Buchanan
In article <17...@castle.ed.ac.uk>, b...@castle.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) writes:
> unk...@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (tuu) writes:
> They all had their equivalents.
>
> >Was Meathead a hippie? And mostly, was the Edith-equivalent character
> >a complete ditz?
>
> No and no. The Edith-equivalent, usualy refered to as the
> "silly Moo" was one of the more rational characters there.
> It was her who would point out the flaws in Alf's theories.
> Bob.
In fact the four main characters had the same general persona and stereotype
Alf was the down to earth right wing moraliser. He had his own perverted
logic that made a sort of sense.
The Old Moo was a passive but manipulating character. She would produce very
simple observations that completely wrecked Alfs arguments.
The daughter had liberal and enlightened asperations and was always advocating
consideration amongst the men.
The son in law was a Liverpudlian on the dole. To Alf, he was the stereotype of
social security parasite. He was always making criticisms of the establishment
and forwarding leftist philosophy, particularly if it justified his position.
My real criticism of 'All in the Family' is that it was never allowed to show the
level of personal anger and frustration that characterised Alf Garnett. In spite
of his characterisation, through the nature of black comedy, he was able to
present someone who could be both offensive but quite human. Ironic displays
at pathos and sympathy kept him on the edge of being irredeemable.
'All in the Family' was a family show. 'Till Death Us Do Part' was a show about
families.
Alan
Barry Williams
>In article <1992Jan28.2...@acsu.buffalo.edu>,
> v026...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Monty) writes:
>>>Is this where we get the "British TV is automatically better than American TV"
>>>crap?
>Nope. Personally, I am appalled by the extremely low quality of British TV
>comedies on at the moment on UK TV. I had the misfortunate to be forced to sit
>through 5 minutes of "The Brittas Empire" last night and I had to leave the
>room, it was so bad. What a waste of Chris Barrie's talents - roll on Red
>Dwarf 5, is what I say. I can't stand "Birds Of A Feather", "One Foot In The
>Grave" or ANY so-called comedy on ITV at the moment.
One foot in the Grave is absoultely brilliant - one of the best black comedy
shows to come out for a long time. The grumpy Victor Meldrum (don't know who
plays him) is absolutely hilarious - I love his sarcastic one-liners. The
Brittas Empire is more of a standard sit-com than Red Dwarf (you can't expect
it to reach those heights) but I have become converted to it, as I have to
Birds of a Feather (another very original show). Chris Barrie's silly accent
put me off at first, but it just seems to get better and better every week.
Barry.
Gareth Suddes
>r...@and.cs.liv.ac.uk writes:
Can't say I've ever sat through a whole One Foot.. or Birds... but The Brittas
Empire is OK. A few good characters (BTW Victor's played by Richard Wilson)
I would also agree that ITV comedies are DIRE!!!
Gareth
********************************************************************************
* "The Hand Of Omega's inside this box. The most powerful and sophisticated *
* remote stellar control manipulator device ever constructed!" *
********************************************************************************
Margaret F Riley
>>ST:TNG: Great series, but cut to shreds by BBC 2 censors due to its
>> ludicrous 6pm airing time. "The High Ground" episode has been
>> banned. Episodes have been known to be cancelled with minimal
>> notice or delayed 20 minutes due to some tedious live sport.
>
> Which one is "The High Ground"?
>
> England censoring things? from the stuff we get (mostly on PBS),
>it seems you guys have it *way* lighter in terms of censoring..
> What the hell could be in a Star Trek episode to be censored?
>The worst thing I can think of was the fairly GRAPHIC (comparatively) footage
>of the dude_with_the_aliens_in_him getting blown up.
>--
Most of the stuff shown on PBS (Mystery and Masterpiece Theatre) are American
productions made to be shown here, not in the UK. I believe what is getting
censored is the violence, like those scenes now cut from Bugs Bunny to
protect our children. (Like, I grew up a violent person for watching them!)
Margaret
mfr...@wpi.wpi.edu
Dave Jones 253-1987
>> Blake's 7 (I think there's disputes over this).
>> UFO.
>> Space : 1999.
>> Captain Scarlet & The Mysterons.
>> Star Cops (the BBC still owns this :-) ).
>
and the cowboys-and-indians-in-space stuff for a while. Here's stuff I know
the Beeb (and in some cases ITV) has in the can.
The Caves of Steel
The Naked Sun
The Little Girl Who Loved Robots (not really SF, but verrry sexy)
Out of the Unknown
(first few series, featuring original stories and book adaptations)
including:
Liar!
Reason (both Asimov robot stories)
Immortality Inc. (kinda compressed, the original being a novel)
Get off my Cloud (disappointing: dream scenes with poor FX)
Tunnel under the World (missed that one, dammit!)
The Last Lonely Man
plus other nice tries, good ones and clunkers
The Adventures of Don Quick (more not really SF but very sexy. Thought
I'd mention it before someone else did).
Survivors - post apocalypse stuff, didn't last long, not that good.
A play, title forgotten, about mysterious pods found at the sites of
accidents, disasters etc. around the world. People get convinced that
we're under attack by an alien force - the Foe - but its all really
a hoax by scientists hoping to discredit warmongering politicians by
declaring them to be in cahoots with the Foe. It backfires.
and that product of the era when the Beeb felt like taking risks:
The Year of the Sex Olympics
Brave New World revisited, with hordes of fat drones working
and getting their jollies from TV, while the High Drive people
create entertainment, fool around, use drugs etc. Big item
on TV (now 2-way, for instant audience research) is Sport Sex,
culminating in the Sex Olympics. But ratings are down. Then
someone dies on camera. Ratings are up. People want reality.
(is this sounding familiar?) Enter the "Live Life Show": two
disaffected High Drivers are stranded on a remote Scottish
island and left to fend for themselves under the eyes of a
thousand cameras. Unfortunately the producers have arranged
for a nasty little surprise.......
What do all these have in common? None dates from after the mid-70s.
Indeed SF on TV is in a sorry state, more so because all people want
is the action-adventure no matter how preposterous. The moon blasted
out of orbit fast enough to make it to other stars? Where it slows
down enough to allow rendezvous with local planets? Gimme a break.
unknown user
In article <1992Feb4.1...@ssd.kodak.com> d...@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones 253-1987) writes:
>Out of the Unknown
> Immortality Inc. (kinda compressed, the original being a novel)
I presume this is the same story that "Freejack" is based on?
("Freejack" is a current good-but-too-campy-and-corny movie starring Mick
Jagger and Emilio Estevez) I seem to remember seeing "Immortality, Inc" in the
credits as the story the movie was based on.
>Survivors - post apocalypse stuff, didn't last long, not that good.
Really good show. Does a plague count as an apocalypse? I thought
it generally meant a big war.. (I looked it up in the online dictionary but
all definitions were religion-related.. I'm referring to the "everyday"
meaning of apocalypse)
Ian Collier
> Incidentally in the UK, we've jusrt had the Series 3 episode
>'Yesterday's Enterprise', I think was the title. I think it was one
>of my favourite's. The one when Enterprise 1701-C came through a Worm
>Hole/Rift in Space-Time etc ......
> It was interesting and riveting, if a bit difficult to keep up
>with. You had to concentrate, until things slipped in to place. Stuff
>like Tasha re-appearing, Worf disappearing and nobody batting an
>eyelid, Klingon warships coming, Enterprise-D was a 'battleship' according
>to Picard ('surrender, never'.).
> Anybody else any comments ??????
Oh, alright then.
I thought it was weird, as well as "interesting and riveting". I watched it
twice. The first time I was having tea and not paying much attention,
so I really did get confused. I noticed a couple of odd things, like Picard
saying "Combat date" instead of "Star date", and I hadn't a clue why they
were going on about war with the Klingons until quite late on. I noticed
more detail the second time I watched it - such as the sequence at the
beginning showing a shot of Picard with some special effect (indicating that
the time line had suddenly altered).
Now to the end... I was really disappointed when Guinan said "Tell me about
Natasha Yarr" and we didn't wait for the answer! Equally, I'm rather curious
to know what did happen to the Enterprise-C in the end.
Has Tasha appeared before? Your article suggests that she did.
Unfortunately I only recently started watching ST:TNG (when I finally
obtained a VCR), so I don't know anything about that. Can someone give
details, please?
OK, now does anyone feel like a discussion about the feasability of time
travel such as this? :-) What I want to know is, what time was it just after
the Enterprise-C had disappeared and things returned to normal? Presumably,
it was a couple of days after the time rift had been sighted. Just what
exactly did the Enterprise-D crew think they had been doing during that time
interval? One problem with the idea of time lines as portrayed in this
episode is that whatever you do in the future can affect what happened in
the past - so in a way, there is no way for you to know which time line you
are in until you do the thing that decides which time line you are in.
(you-what?!). For example: when the Enterprise-C appeared, it was written in
the history books that that ship disappeared without trace, and the peace
negotiations failed. That rather assumes that the Enterprise-C would not be
forced to go back to its own time, even though in the end it was. Uh... I'm
getting confused :-)
And another, rather obvious, thing... In the correct version of history,
where the Enterprise-C either rescued the Klingon base or got blown up, was
Tasha on board? Where did she come from? A time line that doesn't exist? I
suppose the writers deliberately added that in order to confuse people. :-)
Ian Collier
Ian.C...@prg.ox.ac.uk | i...@ecs.ox.ac.uk
Dave Jones 253-1987
>
>In article <1992Feb4.1...@ssd.kodak.com> d...@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones 253-1987) writes:
>>Out of the Unknown
>> Immortality Inc. (kinda compressed, the original being a novel)
>
> I presume this is the same story that "Freejack" is based on?
>("Freejack" is a current good-but-too-campy-and-corny movie starring Mick
>Jagger and Emilio Estevez) I seem to remember seeing "Immortality, Inc" in the
>credits as the story the movie was based on.
>
plot elements: in Immortality Inc. a 20th cent. guy who's about to check
out in an auto wreck gets his "spirit" pulled forward into about the 23rd cent.
However the future people really want the guy in the other car, who's a
religious leader and is supposed to help swing some political maneuver.
In Freejack Emilio has the car wreck, but its people's bodies they want,
not their spirits.
>>Survivors - post apocalypse stuff, didn't last long, not that good.
>
> Really good show. Does a plague count as an apocalypse? I thought
>it generally meant a big war.. (I looked it up in the online dictionary but
>all definitions were religion-related.. I'm referring to the "everyday"
>meaning of apocalypse)
Plague counts: one of the Four Horsemen is Pestilence, or plague.
I ought to add to my list:
Little Lost Robot (another Asimov, really old production this).
A for Andromeda and the sequel
Andromeda Breakthrough (early to mid sixties. Scared the bejesus out
of poor pre-teen me. Nothing to do with
Andromeda Strain - these were Fred Hoyle novels
about artificial life created using
instructions received from ET radio source).
I left out all the obvious kids stuff (Timeslip, Tripods, Pathfinders
etc.). BTW there was no completion of Tripods, according to my info.
My dad enthused mightily about the show, and gave me the books (which
I didn't read much) but the little I saw of it was 50% War of the Worlds
ripoff and 50% junk.
Jon Blum
>Now to the end... I was really disappointed when Guinan said "Tell me about
>Natasha Yarr" and we didn't wait for the answer! Equally, I'm rather curious
>to know what did happen to the Enterprise-C in the end.
>
>Has Tasha appeared before? Your article suggests that she did.
>Unfortunately I only recently started watching ST:TNG (when I finally
>obtained a VCR), so I don't know anything about that. Can someone give
>details, please?
Okay, here's the details, free of all the flamage and "How could you ask
such a stupid question" remarks you'd get if you posted this in rec.arts.
startrek.
Lt. Natasha "Tasha" Yar was the original security officer aboard the
Enterprise 1701-D, back when Worf was simply a junior science officer.
This was in the first season of TNG. Her character was interesting --
aggressive yet awkward, emotionally scarred by a childhood on a hellish
failed colony -- but they rarely did much with her in the script. After
falling victim once too often to the "hailing frequencies open, sir"
syndrome of having no real dialogue, the actress Denise Crosby decided to
leave the show.
And so, they killed her.
Her death, in the episode "Skin of Evil", was a relatively low-key affair.
No dramatic final stand defending her principles -- she was casually killed
by an alien in much the way that redshirts were always bumped off in the
original series. But this time, we got to seem them struggle to save her
life, and fail. The episode ended with the officers playing back a
hologram Tasha had recorded, in which she told all her fellow officers,
who she had never quite been able to bond with, all the things she'd felt
about them but had never been able to say. It had me in tears by the end.
As for the matter of the Enterprise-C... it went back in time and was
destroyed at the battle of Norendra III, just like it always had. However...
SPOILER ALERT
(this is a fact that you're not going to find out until the beginning of
the fifth season of TNG)
...Tasha survived. She was captured by the Romulans and kept as a mistress
by a member of the Romulan high command. She had a half-Romulan daughter,
but was executed when she tried to escape. Now her daughter has grown up,
entered the Romulan military, become a full commander... and is now Captain
Picard's regular nemesis.
Commander Sela, also played by Denise Crosby, is a sort of Servalan with
pointy ears. She hates her mother for being human, and Captain Picard for
(as she believes) sending her mother back to the past from that future
alternate Enterprise. She's got a soft spot for Data, just as her mother
did, but she claims that everything that was human in her died with Tasha.
She's a capable and ruthless military commander, but her bond with Picard
makes her much more interesting. Time will tell what they do with her.
>And another, rather obvious, thing... In the correct version of history,
>where the Enterprise-C either rescued the Klingon base or got blown up, was
>Tasha on board? Where did she come from? A time line that doesn't exist? I
>suppose the writers deliberately added that in order to confuse people. :-)
Nope, it was all a complicated paradox. The only way out of it is to view
the alternate Tasha who was on the Ent-C, and therefore Sela, as a
manifestation of the uncertainty principle. :-) They've been arguing
this one for years in r.a.st...
Michael McAleese
>Now to the end... I was really disappointed when Guinan said "Tell me about
>Natasha Yarr" and we didn't wait for the answer! Equally, I'm rather curious
>to know what did happen to the Enterprise-C in the end.
I could tell you, but every other British ST fan would probably flame me
to charcole for discussing plots you won't see for a year or so (unless the
BBC picks up the pace). Rest assured, they deal with it. E-mail me if you
really want to know about it.
--
* mmca...@cs14.UVic.CA (Michael McAleese) : I speak only for me... *
Richard Harry
> ST:TNG: Great series, but cut to shreds by BBC 2 censors due to its
> ludicrous 6pm airing time. "The High Ground" episode has been
> banned. Episodes have been known to be cancelled with minimal
> notice or delayed 20 minutes due to some tedious live sport.
>
I keep hearing that the BBC has censored STTNG, What has been cut ????
( obviously excepting The High Ground )
BTW I have also heard that the last episode of season 3, "The Best of
Both Worlds", is not going to be aired due to it being a two parter, the
second episode starting season 4. The BEEB not having bought seasons 4 &
5. Can anyone confirm this ?
Richard
P.S.
Why does Guinan appear to do the job of Troi ?
When is ST VI being released in the U.K. ?
What were the questions & answers in Radio 1's Star Trek Quiz ?
Keith Halewood
>
> Has Tasha appeared before? Your article suggests that she did.
> Unfortunately I only recently started watching ST:TNG (when I finally
> obtained a VCR), so I don't know anything about that. Can someone give
> details, please?
******* Major Spoilers here **************
'Tasha's voice can be heard from the shadows of a series 3 episode called "The
Mind's Eye" only this time she's a Romulan and she's not Tasha, but her
daughter. The next time you encounter her is in "Redemption I and II" and it
turns out that Tasha Yar survived the Enterprise-C incident (Yesterday's
Enterprise) and was taken captive by the Romulans. In order the spare the lives
of the other captives, Tasha agreed to be the consort of a Romulan and had his
child. An attempted escape resulted in Tasha's execution, leaving the child to
grow up without any human influence.
Picard is unaware of this in Redemption (he's not of that other time line) but
Guinan warns him of what's happened as she is partially aware of other time
lines. Picard meets with Tasha's daughter to discover that she is 'fully'
Romulan in her beliefs and actions.
She also appears in the Spock story, "Unification I and II", with yet another
plot against the Federation and the Enterprise. In my humble opinion,
Unification was an overhyped mediocre story which droned on for two episodes
where one would have sufficed.
> OK, now does anyone feel like a discussion about the feasability of time
> travel such as this? :-) What I want to know is, what time was it just after
> the Enterprise-C had disappeared and things returned to normal? Presumably,
> it was a couple of days after the time rift had been sighted.
The action in the other time line took no longer than the apparent sighting and
subsequent loss in the here-and-now timeline.
> Just what
> exactly did the Enterprise-D crew think they had been doing during that time
> interval?
They had ceased to exist.
> One problem with the idea of time lines as portrayed in this
> episode is that whatever you do in the future can affect what happened in
> the past - so in a way, there is no way for you to know which time line you
> are in until you do the thing that decides which time line you are in.
So? Just don't think about it, and then the pain goes away :-)
Keith
--
Keith Halewood Janet: ke...@uk.ac.liv.cs.and
Dept. Computer Science, Internet: keith%and.cs.l...@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Liverpool University. UUCP: ..!mcsun!ukc!liv-cs!keith
THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS JUST US - Death's plea to Azrael, Reaper Man
Bob Gray
>productions made to be shown here, not in the UK. I believe what is getting
>censored is the violence, like those scenes now cut from Bugs Bunny to
>protect our children. (Like, I grew up a violent person for watching them!)
That type of cartoon isn't censored in Britain. Children
here have managed to convince most adults to not watch if
they find the cartoons too violent. Children have no trouble
telling cartoons from live action. It is the latter that
gets cut.
Bob.
paul goffin
>second episode starting season 4. The BEEB not having bought seasons 4 &
>5. Can anyone confirm this ?
>Richard
Why should they buy it?
At the current rate of showing (one week on three off!), it'll take
till the end of this year to get to the end of season three!!
Paul.
--
+-------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
+ Paul Goffin + Crosfield Electronics Ltd. U.K. +44 442 230000x3357 +
+ + My opinions are my OWN. - no one would pay for this! +
+-------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
Neil Postlethwaite
>twice. The first time I was having tea and not paying much attention,
>so I really did get confused. I noticed a couple of odd things, like Picard
>saying "Combat date" instead of "Star date", and I hadn't a clue why they
>were going on about war with the Klingons until quite late on. I noticed
>more detail the second time I watched it - such as the sequence at the
>beginning showing a shot of Picard with some special effect (indicating that
>the time line had suddenly altered).
>
Yeh, it fitted much better second time. I payed more attention and
noticed the Picard special effect/time rift.
>Has Tasha appeared before? Your article suggests that she did.
>Unfortunately I only recently started watching ST:TNG (when I finally
>obtained a VCR), so I don't know anything about that. Can someone give
>details, please?
Tasha Yar was the Security Officer in Series I, before she got
killed 'pointlessly', I have been reminded, she was killed by a pool of
black gook .
>OK, now does anyone feel like a discussion about the feasability of time
>travel such as this? :-) What I want to know is, what time was it just after
>the Enterprise-C had disappeared and things returned to normal? Presumably,
Well IMHO time travel is bollocks (ie Inconsistencies in Back to
the Future, Terminator II etc ............), but we can alway wish .....
>And another, rather obvious, thing... In the correct version of history,
>where the Enterprise-C either rescued the Klingon base or got blown up, was
>Tasha on board? Where did she come from? A time line that doesn't exist? I
>suppose the writers deliberately added that in order to confuse people. :-)
Well, in the false timeline, the 'C' captain was on board Tasha
was not so swapping the about doesn't matter THAT much.
Neil
LORNA_PAYNE
For further information, check out rec.arts.startrek.misc. This thread pops up
there about once every other month. Now with YE finally seen in the UK, it's
sure to show up again.
BTW, this episode ranks as the best ST:TNG episode ever, in many people's
opinions.
>
>
> *****************************| Sig' Time |**********************************
> JANET: ne...@uk.ac.hw.cs * Neil Postlethwaite, Computer Science,
> INTERNET: ne...@cs.hw.ac.uk * Heriot-Watt University,
> UUCP: ..mcsun!ukc!hwcs!neilp * Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Lorna Payne
Certified Math Geek and Grammarian
---------------------------------------------------------
Heisenberg may have been here . . . but it's not certain.
---------------------------------------------------------
Ian Collier
>I agree that ST:TNG should be re-shown from the start at a civilised
>time (how about showing it in that 9pm slot Beeb 2 tends to use for
>awful moralistic made for TV movies?) As for NICAM etc, well, why not?
Ahem, that's supposed to be the M*A*S*H slot, actually. However, 9.25 would
be good (as long as they don't show it opposite a science programme). The
BBC did occasionally show dramas at that time (remember "The Men's
Room"? :-) )
I agree that Dr Who should be revived after McCoy is sacked, and I'd love
Tom Baker back (though Peter Davison would do as well)...
--
"And now on BBC2, `A Time to Increase Ratings'. Viewers should be warned
that this drama contains scenes of explicit audience-grabbing..."
(WeekEnding, Radio 4)
Ian Collier
Ian.C...@prg.ox.ac.uk | i...@ecs.ox.ac.uk
r...@and.cs.liv.ac.uk
> In article <6972025...@minster.york.ac.uk>,
> pe...@minster.york.ac.uk (Pete Fenelon) wrote:
> Ahem, that's supposed to be the M*A*S*H slot, actually. However, 9.25 would
> be good (as long as they don't show it opposite a science programme). The
> BBC did occasionally show dramas at that time (remember "The Men's
> Room"? :-) )
Here's a better idea than 9.00pm on a Wednesday - why not just swap Quantum
Leap's slot with ST:TNG's ? Quantum Leap isn't in the same league as ST:TNG
(IMHO) and yet it gets a far superior time slot.
BTW, M*A*S*H was last on air just before Christmas and I reckon that there's
only 15 or so episodes left to air, if that. I wonder where those final
episodes have disappeared to ???
> I agree that Dr Who should be revived after McCoy is sacked, and I'd love
> Tom Baker back (though Peter Davison would do as well)...
I've been watching that Patrick Troughton story (The Mind Robbers) - what a
load of rubbish !
Richard K. Lloyd, **** This is a MicroVAX II running VAX/VMS V5.4 ****
Computer Science Dept., JANET : r...@uk.ac.liv.csc.and [NEW address !]
Liverpool University, Internet : rkl%and.csc....@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Merseyside, England, UUCP : ..!mcsun!ukc!liv-cs!rkl
Great Britain. Q: "What's the world's fastest home micro ?"
L69 3BX A: "The Archimedes A3000. 4 MIPS for under 800 pounds."
Gareth Suddes
>In article <1635...@uk.ac.ox.prg>, i...@prg.ox.ac.uk (Ian Collier) writes:
>> In article <6972025...@minster.york.ac.uk>,
>> pe...@minster.york.ac.uk (Pete Fenelon) wrote:
>> Ahem, that's supposed to be the M*A*S*H slot, actually. However, 9.25 would
>> be good (as long as they don't show it opposite a science programme). The
>> BBC did occasionally show dramas at that time (remember "The Men's
>> Room"? :-) )
>Here's a better idea than 9.00pm on a Wednesday - why not just swap Quantum
>Leap's slot with ST:TNG's ? Quantum Leap isn't in the same league as ST:TNG
>(IMHO) and yet it gets a far superior time slot.
>BTW, M*A*S*H was last on air just before Christmas and I reckon that there's
>only 15 or so episodes left to air, if that. I wonder where those final
>episodes have disappeared to ???
>> I agree that Dr Who should be revived after McCoy is sacked, and I'd love
>> Tom Baker back (though Peter Davison would do as well)...
>I've been watching that Patrick Troughton story (The Mind Robbers) - what a
>load of rubbish !
Episode 4 is even worse! with a feeble superhero. If only they'd shown Seeds of
Death. Ten times better., or better still The War Games, but that would have
taken quite a bit of time!!!!!!!
Gareth
>Richard K. Lloyd, **** This is a MicroVAX II running VAX/VMS V5.4 ****
>Computer Science Dept., JANET : r...@uk.ac.liv.csc.and [NEW address !]
>Liverpool University, Internet : rkl%and.csc....@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
>Merseyside, England, UUCP : ..!mcsun!ukc!liv-cs!rkl
>Great Britain. Q: "What's the world's fastest home micro ?"
>L69 3BX A: "The Archimedes A3000. 4 MIPS for under 800 pounds."