Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!jimomura From: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP Newsgroups: ont.sf-lovers Subject: Re: Star Trek: the Next Generation Message-ID: <2071@lsuc.UUCP> Date: Sun, 11-Oct-87 22:27:24 EDT Article-I.D.: lsuc.2071 Posted: Sun Oct 11 22:27:24 1987 Date-Received: Mon, 12-Oct-87 23:35:18 EDT References: <1034@unicus.UUCP> <2065@lsuc.UUCP> <173@yetti.UUCP> Reply-To: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) Distribution: ont Organization: Consultant, Toronto Lines: 74 Keywords: star trek the next generation sucks Summary: Not that bad Well, I seem to be the only one in Ontario saying that I liked it, but let's discuss this a bit further anyway: In article <173@yetti.UUCP> oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) writes: > > My subjective one paragraph summary: > > Cardboard characters with superficial personalities, marginal acting, I think it's clear that they there's a big mistake in trying to introduce a big cast in one episode. Even given 2 hours (was it 2 -- I can't remember) you really can't do it justice. Look at any good movie that develops characters well and you don't find it giving anywhere near the spread of dialogue that the premier did. It's a saw off. They wanted to introduce the cast and set the stage. They accomplished that fairly well. With 2 hours you can't blow that. Unfortunately, it left a bad impression with critical people. Still, you're comparing the characters by a couple of hours of development against characters you've seen for years with hours of dialogue. How does one episode of Star Trek (old version) *really* hold up against this? Well some were good and some were bad. My favorite episodes tended not to have big casts. "The Empath" was my all time favorite. It had probably the smallest cast of any episode. *That's* how you develop characters! Even the original pilot -- "The Menagerie" didn't develop great characters. The only character developed in that episode (also a long one -- 1 1/2 hr. if I recall) only the captain and Vena were really developed. Now *there* was a pair of 2 dimensional characters. Basic hero and basic heroine. > strange story, good special effects, complete lack of understanding > as to what made the original so successful, good villain, pedantic Nope. They didn't forget what made the old one successful. You're simply not remembering the past with its imperfections. Give'em time. > villainousness, good ship design, unexplicable ship-split [you mean > there is NOBODY in the lower portion of the ship ?? What happens to I thought the concept was obvious. The lower portion has sketeton crew and most of the armament. The upper part is mainly civilian. The upper part doesn't have the speed and maneuverability of the top. It took them longer to get to the destination. There have been criticisms on BIX about the stresses on the attachment point. As I stated on BIX, the stresses aren't as bad as the rediculous design of the original Enterprise, so I'm content. If the original Enterprise held together, then this one could -- even better. Keep in mind that this is an exploration vessel more along the lines of a huge Calypso than a war vessel. If Cousteau could afford to take a whole city of explorers throughout the universe (*unlimited* duration for the trip) how would he do it? This is *not* a repeat of the original mandate of the old Enterprise. It's an all new *experiment*. Think "First Encounters". This is the Earthman's version of the mother ship taking off to encounter the unknown and sing strange melodies and flash greetings! Think "Cities In Flight". The ship isn't something you signed on for a cruise or a single mission. It's your home *forever*. It's Toronto, flying around in space. Well, maybe Mississauga. ;-) It's the moon colony, or L5, but not tied to Earth. > an appearently defenseless, slow upper portion ?? give the upper > portion as possible hostage ??]. Overall, a network trying to cash > on the success of an earlier series, in a somewhat ignorant fashion. > Gag... gasp... barf. > Cheers! -- Jim O. -- Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880 ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura