From: ph9991_manfr@rivers.acc.uwrf.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Saturday Night Review - "Chain of Command Part II" SPOILERS!
Date: 27 Dec 92 19:07:13 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin - River Falls


SPOILERS!

In article <92361.223318BRUNO@NDSUVM1.BITNET>, Tony Bruno <BRUNO@NDSUVM1.BITNET> writes:
> -- Regarding the diatribe...oops, REVIEW of COCII --
> 
> Pardon my ignorance, but why are you looking for SCIENCE FICTION in
> an episode of TNG?  The series long ago established that it has no
> regard for any discipline of science (just listen to the technobabble
> for that one).  The writers have proved time and again that basic
> dramatic structure is beyond their comprehension.  You take away the
> science, you take away the fiction, and you end up with a $2 Million
> cash cow. :):):)
> 
> Seriously, I understand your frustration.  I stopped watching TNG
> over a year ago because I had much better things to do with my time.
> The only reason I caught COC is that my father saw it on the West
> Coast before me and thought I'd get a kick out of it.  I did.  So,
> to now actually COMMENT on your review:
> 
> 1.  I agree.  There was no POINT to the story.  Yes, the torture was
>     compelling, but sensationalistic.  Warner and Stewart were magnetic,
>     and they actually had a good script to work from, but, as you said,
>     it's nothing we haven't seen before.

Cut the intelligence mark here.

> 
> 2.  The Jellico sub-plot was interesting, if only to demonstrate how
>     pampered the crew has become.  (Case in point; in part 1 we have
>     Geordi objecting that his engines were "well within specifications..."
>     Whoa.  WHAT ABOUT TOP NOTCH?  Is that too much to expect from a
>     Flagship?  Apparently so...)  Riker has always been a sketchy character
>     at best.  Now we see him as an arrogant, undisciplined, insubordinate
>     boor.  Gee, neat guy.  If the writers had any leeway, I would love to see
>     Mr. Riker shoveling bits behind a desk at Deep Six Nine after this.
>     The command crew (with the single exception of Data) was phenomenally
>     unproffesional.  I found myself on Jellico's side, if only
>     because the crew were so incredibly whiny.  Shees.  All in all, though
>     it came to naught.  Picard bounced back from
>     yet ANOTHER torture scene right into the Captain's chair.  Uh huh.
>     Right.  (Of course, you could make a point that the Mardred/Picard
>     power struggle was mirrored to a lesser degree by Riker/Jellico.  Indeed,
>     the tension over the "disputed areas" is essentially the same kind of
>     power struggle.  However, if that IS the case, it was an incredibly weak
>     piece of plotting.)
> 3.  I found the response to Jellico amusing.  I saw the first episode and
>     thought that he was terrific.  Yes, he wanted things done his way,
>     but guess what?  That's a captain's perogative.  Ronny Cox was very
>     convincing in a well scripted role.  He reminded me of the CO's I
>     encountered in my time in the Air Force.  Yet I turn to r.a.s. for the
>     first time in many moons and find that an astonishing number of people
>     hated him.  He's an asshole?  Why?  Because he calmly let Riker know he
>     was the boss *after* Riker failed to complete an assigned task?  Because
>     he demanded that the ship and crew be ready for combat?  Because he
>     explained *why* he wanted things the way he asked for them?  (With the
>     single exception of the switch in shifts.  However, if he's comfortable
>     with managing a crew in that sort of environment, and they're possibly
>     going into combat, then he has that right.  The captain is in command,
>     not the crew.)  Sorry, folks.  Jellico was a very efficient captain.
>     Not MANAGER (this isn't a retail store and it sure as hell isn't
>     Burger King), CAPTAIN.  I've worked for commanders that WERE assholes
>     and this man did not come close.  (For the record, I've flipped
>     shifts on a moment's notice as well.  Once right before a NATO Tac
>     Eval.  Not fun, but I managed.  Then again, I tried to be professional.
>     The crew of the E as portrayed by Ron Moore are NOT.) :)
> 
>     My point?  I'm getting to that.


You've made your point quite clear enough.  Whilst I can agree with your
response to my review up until the above cut mark, everything after that
is rubbish.  
I didn't like Jellicoe either, for exactly the reasons you give, that he
is a 20th century military figure who demands much of the crew and expects
it to be done, and if it isn't, you're for the chop.  This is exactly the
kind of narrow-minded claptrap I despise, and provides another reason for
me to not like the episode because the point I speak of wasn't driven home
adaquately.  
This is the 24th century, and Starfleet captains are supposed to be well
beyond our primitive military standards, and Starfleet is not a military
organization so you are wrong to draw the parallel.  
The crew acts professionally every episode; they are supposed to be 
professional scientists and explorers, not warriors (with the exception of
Worf and some other security members) or soldiers, unlike you, so are again
wrong to draw the parallel.
As for the crew complaining about the changes, I can see the reasons for
their discomfort since the Enterprise has been clipping along pretty well
without Jellicoe's own modifications, and in the end they proved to be
unnecessary.
Case in point, the efficiency of the warp coils that Jellicoe orders Geordi
to make.  This is quite different to what Geordi is usually up to, which is
keeping the engine core running WELL ABOVE the specifications.  Jellicoe
basically ordered Geordi to sharpen the boat's propeller instead of souping
up the engine.  Again, your analogy does not apply, since the modifications
he ordered were not Geordi's normal area of concern, nor were they anything
Engineers have ever been heard to be really worrying about in the past.
> 
> 
> All in all, I liked the episode.  It was entertaining, which is something
> that TNG rarely is.  It wasn't science fiction, but it was pretty good
> space opera.  But was it enough to bring me back to TNG?
> No.  Absolutely not.  I must admit that I've caught a couple of episodes
> this season (took me a while to shake them, too...:)) and was tremendously
> underwhelmed.  (The Scotty episode was particularly repugnant.)
> The writing on TNG managed to decline in quality, as have the level of
> performances from the leading characters.  For me, Star Trek is dead.
> Even the all-to-brief injection of a character like Jellico (conflict?
> Sure!  Stand by my beliefs?  Sure!  Goodness and Light?  NOT!) is not
> enough to bring back a heartbeat.  Nope, TNG is DOA.

Jellicoe wasn't done with enough backbone from the writing crew.  The
strengths you cite are what I consider to be weaknesses, and I wanted more
emphasis on the fact that they were, as Riker did point out.  
This is the first real clunker of the year for me since "Time's Arrow,"
and I think you are wrong to dismiss the rest of the season so cursorily,
> 
> So, why did I bother to post?
> 
> Mostly because the show reminded me briefly of what TNG could have been.
> Mark this long reply down as the ramblings of one who succumbed to
> nostalgia.  TNG could have been a lot, but isn't.  Ah well.
> 
> Thank goodness for Bablyon 5. :)
> 
> Tony Bruno

Looking forward to Deep Space Nine

Steven.K.Manfred



Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current