From: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Was TOS really that bad? (Re: TOS actors)
Date: 3 Sep 92 12:44:53 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <1992Sep1.185303.1511@bnlux1.bnl.gov> schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder) writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.212359.19951@cs.wisc.edu> rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>>In <1992Aug27.070719.5334@adx.adelphi.edu> ricky@adx.adelphi.edu (Ricky Glass) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug27.045603.24039@cs.tu-berlin.de> hal@cs.tu-berlin.de (Eberhart Adam) writes:
>>>Have you ever watched, I mean really watched TNG?

>>Yes.  For five years now.  The characters are, for the most part, shapeless
>>and pale, and the stories are averaged-to-wretched more often than not.

>>>As far as the acting, it is excellent.  I really don't see much better
>>>as on TV.

>>Which isn't saying much.  But, just for kicks, I think there are plenty of
>>actors around who can equal most of the ones on TNG.  Jeremy Brett (Sherlock
>>Holmes on Mystery!), Peter Davison (Campion on Mystery!) and the man who
>>plays Stone on Law And Order (Michael Moriarty?) can all, I think, easily
>>hold their own even to Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner.

>So?  I think Jeremy Brett is a thrilling actor, but what does it prove?
>_My_ actor is better than _your_ actor?  Why do you feel obligated to
>place one set of actors above another.  Isn't it like saying that
>Beethoven was musically superior to Liszt?

It "proves", if anything, that Ricky Glass' comment above was equally
ridiculous, which, if you look closely and try to figure out what I was
saying, was what my point was in the first place.

Sheesh.

>>>>In TOS there have been characters as you and me they have been
>>>>identificable

>Well, they certainly were...predictable.  As in predictable television
>personality stereotypes.  No better or no worse than the characters that
>we see on TNG.  I think the main difference is that the TNG characters
>are so much more _politically correct_, which tends to make them a
>little blander.

Can't comment whether they were predictable, as I've virtually got the
episodes memorized by now.  But they're certainly a heck of a lot more
interesting...

>>>In all the years of watching TOS, never did I find myself relating to
>>>characters.  The show was pure sci-fi enjoyment.

>I agree completely here.  Who among us is willing to stand up and say
>"yes, Kirk inspired me because I could see so much of myslef in him"?

Well, uh, he inspired me because I saw so much in him that I aspired to
have in me.

>They merely served as good, servicable characters that could support
>stories successfully.

Which is more than the TNG characters are frequently able to do...

>>I found myself relating to them frequently, and still do, for that matter.
>>(I think Star Trek II shows a strength of character which is orders of
>>magnitude above ANYONE on TNG.)

>What do you mean exactly by "strength of character"?  You don't find
>that Picard as written has colossal strength of character?  I do.  If he
>had anymore than he has now, he might burst!

Well, no, I *don't* think that Picard has "colossal strength of character".

-- 
Michael Rawdon	    rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu  [Note new address!]
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

You can watch them die, live on TV.
						- The Box, "Live On TV"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current