Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihu1g.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihu1g!fish
From: fish@ihu1g.UUCP (Bob Fishell)
Newsgroups: net.tv.drwho
Subject: Re: Why is Dr. Who popular?
Message-ID: <333@ihu1g.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 7-May-84 16:25:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihu1g.333
Posted: Mon May  7 16:25:06 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 8-May-84 00:36:02 EDT
References: <122@ios.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 24

One of the reasons I like the sow is that, in my opinion, it does
*not* take itself too seriously.  The "Leela" series of episodes
has much tongue-in-cheek dialogue, for example.  However, the show
does try to keep to intelligent plot lines, even when it blatantly
steals plots from other sources (e.g., a Romana # 2 episode adapted
from "The Prisoner of Zenda").

If you contrast this with almost all other "science fiction" series
that have been on American TV, there are obvious differences.  While
many "Star Treks" were well written, every other series of that
genre has relied on gee-whiz technology, special effects, and action
for their appeal, which is decidedly juvenile.  Bear in mind that
I consider TV shows to be in the "science fiction" (quotes deliberate)
genre if their premise is based on some implausible or nonexistent
technological achievement.  This includes shows like "The $6,000,000
Man," and the show that gets my vote for one of 1984's top ten stinkers,
"Knight Rider."  True science fiction, even when it's been handled
badly, has rarely made it to American TV.  The best attempt of the
last decade or so might  have been "Battlestar Galactica," which ran 
out of premise and gave in to the kiddie market.
-- 

                               Bob Fishell
                               ihnp4!ihu1g!fish