From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (andrew david simchik)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: complex stories
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:47:43 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1689D9A0E.GGPERRY@NUACVM.ACNS.NWU.EDU> GGPERRY@NUACVM.ACNS.NWU.EDU (ggreg) writes:

>yes, i do love the mood and the characters on blakes's 7.  people with
>both good and bad sides.  some even approaching dispicable!  there's
>something you'd never see on STNG, where everybody is either pure good
>or pure evil.  how lame. one of the few interesting characters on STNG,
>"Q" (who i think is an obvious Master ripoff) while entertaining and more
>interesting than the regular crew, is never very threatening, and always
>never crosses that line into pure evil, like the master.  lame lame lame.
>and the scope of dr. who stories i think is great, even with the budgetary
>restrictions.  they are not limited by their imagination, which is the most
>important factor.  even when something is lame on dr. who, at least they try.
>for instance on some of the monsters, even when they suck, at least they
>usually make a full body suit or try something imaginative, even if it is
>a failure.  hell, except for the borg on STNG, all their aliens usually
>have clay or putty on their foreheads/eyebrows/bridge of nose!  give me
>a break!  how pathetic!  especially in light of the fact that this is a
>very big budgeted show.  like i said before, it's not how much money, it's
>how much imagination.  imagine dr. who with the wasted budget of STNG!
>finally some effects and visuals that match it's script/acting/imagination
>quality.  but then again, they've allready pulled off some amazing sfx on
>dr.who allready, especially since the later baker years on...as well as
>red dwarf/hitchhikers guide/blake's 7.  it must be a british thing.  even thoug
>h the storys/characters weren't outstanding, space:1999 had a great existential
>mood to it that i still love to this day, something that most of the bbc shows
>listed above also have in common.  hell, red dwarf has more mood and feeling to
>it than STNG, and it's a comedy!  STNG is so sterile, so clean, everything
>about it is spic and span, including the characters.  whoops, i'm on a rant
>again.  you'll have to pardon me.  i feel like a lone survivor amongst most
>people i know, defending brit sf againest lame-ass american sci-fi.  not that
>i'm biased, caused i loved the outer limits, and this babylon 5 show has
>potential, and max headroom too. (or was that british?)  rant off.
> 
>                                           ggreg

Now wait just a cotton-pickin' (please excuse that--just an expression)
minute here, buddy...I agree with most of your ST:TNG comments, but that
thing about Q is way off base.

First of all, the idea that Q is a Master ripoff is utterly ludicrous.  I
mean, if the Master were an almost emotionless omnipotent being, the
comparison might begin to make *sense*, but he isn't.  The only thing they
have in common is that they have functioned both as villains and reluctant
allies in their respective shows.

I also think that "lame lame lame" doesn't even come close to describing Q. 
He (it?) is *the* most interesting character on the show, and I constantly
look forward to the next episode with Q in it.  John de Lancie does an
excellent job of portraying him (it?).  I'm looking forward to Q as a woman,
myself (not the girl from the last episode, I mean *our* Q as a woman).

In any case, I think Q is one of the few praiseworthy aspects of the show,
as are Picard and Guinan.  Rant all you want, but leave them alone, damn it!

Drewcifer
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho