From: markc@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU ()
Subject: Re: ST:TNG (critiques) vs Dr. Who
Organization: school of Mathematics UNSW
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 06:31:01 GMT


[Followups to rec.arts.drwho]
In response to varous postings. Michael Rawdon writes:

>>Uh... The only one of those I'd consider a masterpiece would be "Survival".  I
>>saw "Greatest Show" recently and thought it was only slightly less abysmal
>>than "The Happiness Patrol" (which is quite a slam since "Patrol" is one of
>>the worst Doctor Who episodes I've ever seen!).  "Remembrance" is an

Different people have different ideas about these things. It is quite amazing
just how different opinions can be. I loved "Curse of Fenric" the first time I
saw it. I had no difficulty following the plot at all, yet some people, Michael
included, claim it was too convoluted and incomprehensible. I have no desire 
to argue the point about how good/bad the McCoy and C. Baker stories were,
since this would be pointless. It is only opinion here, not holy writ. 
I liked "The Greatest Show in the Galaxy" which was such an obvious satire on
the programme itself, but never cared for "Survival". "The Happiness Patrol"
was entertaining but not one of my favourites. 

One small point I would like to make. Please stop refering to stories as
"episodes". "The Happiness Patrol" was a 3 part serial, not an episode. I
realise you may have seen it that way, but that is your problem.

>>entertaining but uninspired Daleks story (none of which have really grabbed me
>>since "Destiny Of The Daleks" like I suspect their creators would have hoped).
>>"Curse Of Fenric" (as I've said before on r.a.drwho) is a muddle; a very nice
>>idea, but it really could have used some focus and clarity of plot.

I thought "Rememberance" was an inspired Dalek story. It seemed to explore 
the nature and history of the Daleks more than most stories. "Fenric"
was perfectly comprehensible to me. The fact that you couldn't follow it 
is your problem, as I sure you are well aware.

>>(I just saw "Ghost Light" for the first time this week, and had a similar
>>reaction to it that I did to "Fenric".  Nice ideas, but the plotting and
>>execution needed several more revisions to get it to work right.)

This story suffered from the three episode format. It really needed at least four for all the details to be made clear. It took me a while to work out what the
hell happened, but I enjoy doing that. Having everything handed to you on a platter rots the critical faculties. I do not claim "Ghost Light" was a master piece.
 I don't claim many Doctor Who stories as masterpieces. To me "masterpiece"
means "Macbeth" or "Ghosts" by Ibsen, or even "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are
Dead" by Tom Stoppard. Dr Who and Star Trek do not even come close to this 
category. Nor should they. They have given us many great stories, some which 
make us think, but I cannot rank them as great art, much as I love both shows.
I think this misses the point of the medium. The shows are there to entertain.
They usually do this. When they are very good we enjoy them more, but I think
it is unreasonable to expect great television every time we sit down to watch
them. As I am sure Johnny Byrne could tell us at length, making a TV programme
is a time consuming business, and with deadlines to meet, you cannot always
do it just the way you would like it. I am not saying that this excuses shoddy
work like "Time and the Rani" or "Shades of Grey", but I think a little more
realism would help us to appreciate the product we are getting, especially when
it is good.


>>I think "Battlefield" is a better story than any of the others you mentioned
>>(except "Survival").

I liked "Battlefield" a lot, and rank it higher than "Survival", which I never
cared for.


>>I just haven't cared for many episodes since "Frontios".  I just about gave up
>>on the series in disgust after the one-two punch of "The Caves Of Androzani"
>>and "The Twin Dilemma".

"The Twin Dilemma" was truly dreadful I thought. But "I rank "Androzani"
as one of the best stories I have ever seen. That is my opinion and I do 
not wish to argue it.

Getting back to the original subject, one thing I believe has always 
worked in Dr Who's favour is that it has never had Star Trek's Q syndrome.
I like John Delancie, but I think the idea of Q sucks rocks. Roddenberry
had a weakness for these ridiculous omnipotent aliens who crop up every
other episode. For me they take Star Trek away from Science fiction into
Fantasy, like "Lord of the Rings". Just how many omnipotent aliens are 
there out there? The Organians, Trelaine's people, the thing from "The
Survivors", the Q, Melkotians, Jedi........Well okay not Jedi, but
how many are there? To the people at Paramount I say, stop with these
 omnipotent aliens. They are stupid. How did they get to be omnipotent?
On Dr Who they have powerful aliens like Sutekh, but Sutekh was not 
omnipotent. I find an adversary like Sutekh far more interesting and credible,
than one like Q. Or is that just me? again the most powerful race in Dr Who
are the Time Lords, but they are not perfect beings of pure energy like the 
Organians. They are flawed beings who can be killed. To me that makes them 
more interesting. Perfect societies do not make good stories.

Mark C.