From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Subject: Re: OPINIONATED COMMENTS (SPOILERS for THE FIRST DUTY)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 16:01:44 GMT

kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.215024.26643@cco.caltech.edu> tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:

>>>The problem was in that every scene, Nick projected 
>>>"silver-tongued phony" at me -- he had no depth, no charisma, nothing to 
>>>make him sympathetic and indeed, I couldn't *believe* that Wes would feel 
>>>such loyalty towards the creep 
>>
>>I wouldn't go that far at all.  I didn't care for him much myself, but in
>>some of the same ways that I've never cared overmuch for Jim Kirk--and yes,
>>I do think much of the parallel that's been discussed here is valid.

>But not enough, IMO. I *do* like Kirk, as much as I do Picard (although
>for entirely different reasons), and I can't equate the two at all.

Neither can a great many, it seems.  I tried to clarify yesterday that I
think Locarno is basically a Kirk-cadet taken just one step over the edge;
sort of a "what Kirk very well might have been".  Does that work any better?

>Most importantly, I can imagine being loyal to Kirk even if I disagreed with
>him -- I can't say the same for Mr. Locarno. 

I'm not sure I could do so easily, but the same goes for zillions of real-
life people who have amazing amounts of support.  I honestly got the impres-
sion that Locarno did have a certain "something" that I couldn't recognize,
but that could draw people in.

>>>Yes, we are TOLD (not shown!) via Boothby 
>>>that the Nova team is a highly worshipped team on campus and that the team 
>>>members would follow Nicholas into hell and back, but I just couldn't
>>>believe it from what I saw. 
>>
>>Believability aside for the moment, I don't think telling vs. showing was
>>so bad here.  To show it would probably have taken time, 

>There was enough time; much of it could have been done between the lines -- 

How?  You'd have to bring in at least a couple of uninvolved cadets somehow,
and that would muddy the waters, IMHO.

>as Mark Miller pointed out, it's not so much WHAT you say as HOW you say it 
>and the image you project by your composure 

Agreed here, but *who* is saying it is also important; and I can't think of
anyone who'd be a likely suspect.

>To make it work *completely*, I'd say you'd have to introduce some 
>inarguable evidence at some point that Locarno cares about *something* other 
>than himself -- 

Except that nearly everything under the sun *is* arguable in some way.  I
agree that perhaps something a bit stronger might have been in order, but
to ask for "inarguable evidence" is to make unreasonable demands.

>>detracting 
>>significantly from the real strength of the episode--and I doubt either of
>>us would have wanted that.

>Here, I don't know what to say. Would a properly constructed "peer-pressure"
>thread detract from the Picard-Wesley thread? I don't think so. 

You're fighting a straw man.  I put the above phrase as the second half of 
"would take up a lot of extra time" for a reason, Atsushi; killing off that
time *would*, in my opinion, significantly detract.  If you could find a 
way to do it without stealing time from the Picard/Wes thread, I'd be
amenable--but in my own view, cutting the Boothby scenes is not an option.

>You pointed
>out that Wesley was faced with a choice between two fathers: Picard and
>Locarno, and that interpretation didn't work for me, *precisely* because
>Locarno had so little substance that the choice was, IMO, obvious. 

Then you attended a very different high school and college than I did.  I've
seen people with, IMHO, far less in the way of redeeming features than Locarno
who yet enjoyed incredible amounts of popularity.  Different people value
different things, and I don't think either one of us is qualified to say
"no one could possibly follow X".

>>>The other problem is that the actor who played Nick just didn't 
>>>project any depth -- he played it like an obvious, one-dimensional phony. 
>>
>>[obligatory statement that "see, the Kirk parallel just gets stronger!"
>>deleted :-) ]

>Nope. Shatner's Kirk was at least TWO-dimensional. (.5 :-)

Maybe at its best...:-)

>>>I do have a few other gripes about the show, although mostly minor.
>>>First, the scenes with Boothby were a waste of time and celluloid. 
>>
>>I completely disagree here, but if I remember right you outline this more
>>fully elsewhere and I'll bop you on the head for it there.  :-)

>I'll watch for it.

Unfortunately, I lost where that was and haven't time to go back.  Suffice
it to say that it's another iteration of me objecting to your "I don't care
about the present, so the past is even less interesting" argument.  

>>>Overall, the Boothby scenes smelled far too much of 
>>>another "give a big-shot actor a token cameo so he can say he was on Star 
>>>Trek" gimmick. 
>>
>>Ray Walston is a big-shot actor?  I can't think of anything he's done
>>since "Fast Times at Ridgemont High", personally.

>Big-shot enough that Paramount press info mentions his name in a four
>line description of the show and that he receives an honorary guest star
>billing ("And Ray Walston as Boothby") for what was really an incidental part.

You have an incredible ability to take Paramount's press releases too 
seriously.  Given your past complaints about them, why not simply *ignore*
the things?  Geez.

Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
BITNET:  tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET:  tlynch@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP:  ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.caltech.edu@hamlet.caltech.edu
R.I.P. Isaac Asimov, 1920-1992.  You will be missed.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current