From: fishbone@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Greg Fishbone)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv
Subject: Re: Mann & Machine
Date: 7 Apr 92 02:57:23 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <afpU028.bfPr00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com writes:
>
>I expected to see some comments on the actual show by now, but I'll jump
>in with a short opinion:  I thought it was typical TV schlock treatment
>of "science fiction".  TV writers just don't know how to write science
>fiction, so they take their standard detective show script and scribble
>in a few minor "sci fi" changes.  There was just nothing in the story other
>than minor little prop or dialog changes that couldn't have been an episode
>of a hundred other, normal cop shows.
>
>No one connected with the show knows anything at all about computers.  Wow,
>she can "download" her brain directly into the computer.  And while she's
>doing so, we watch it go by on the screen!  Over a line that says "ASCII file",
>even though what's going by looked more like hex to me!
>
>Then they him my pet peeve about androids on TV:  They are always portrayed
>as being totally ignorant about slang or idioms.  As if it's our slang that
>makes us human.  These androids always have huge memories, and have been fed
>the entire reference section of the library, but never a simple dictionary
>of slang or even "The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy".
>
>For anyone who cares, even though the opening of the show indicates that it's
>some unspecified time in the future, it's 1997.  The scene in his kitchen
>showed a calendar in the background, with January 1st on a Wednesday.  Yes,
>I know that in real life that was just a 1992 calendar, but the next year
>that looks like that is 1997, so clearly that's when the producers intended
>the show to be set (yeah, and monkeys fly out my butt).
>
>--James Preston

Warning: Spoilers may follow.
^L

In article <afpU028.bfPr00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> you write:
>
>I expected to see some comments on the actual show by now, but I'll jump
>in with a short opinion:  I thought it was typical TV schlock treatment
>of "science fiction".  TV writers just don't know how to write science
>fiction, so they take their standard detective show script and scribble
>in a few minor "sci fi" changes.  There was just nothing in the story other
>than minor little prop or dialog changes that couldn't have been an episode
>of a hundred other, normal cop shows.

Actually, it was the cop show aspect that disappointed me.  There was no
detective work needed to solve the crime!  The perpetrators left so many
clues and connections at the scenes of crime that ANYONE could have 
figured out what was going on.  The one red-herring they used was so
amazingly abvious that even Eve should not have fallen for it.  As if
the suspect would have brought his most valuable and distinguishing
posession with him and dropped it at the scene of the murder...  It looks
as if next week is going to be even worse from this aspect -- the female
cop who is the next potential victim of a serial killer.  Now really, 
how many times has this been done before?

The SF elements were deliberately underplayed, and in my opinion that was
for the best.  There were so many possible pitfalls that this show could
have fallen into that I was impressed that it managed to miss so many of
them.  First, the android is not all-knowing, is not invulnerable, and
does not solve every problem that comes up.  Having the human partner
save the android's 'life' at the risk of his own (especially considering
his previous attitudes toward androids) was a particularly nice touch.
If it had been the other way around, I think I would have puked.  Second,
unlike some other SF shows I could mention (but won't), the characters
are not all instantly likeable, and they have on-screen conflicts!
Characters with faults... who would have thought?

For me, the most important part of any show is the writing.  You can 
throw millions of dollars into special effects and still end up with
crap if you skimp on the screenplay, or you can have a very interesting
show that looks like it was made with a home video camera and all 
amateur actors.  This show was fairly well written, at least when it
came to characters and dialogue.  The plot was another matter.

>No one connected with the show knows anything at all about computers.  Wow,
>she can "download" her brain directly into the computer.  And while she's
>doing so, we watch it go by on the screen!  Over a line that says "ASCII file">even though what's going by looked more like hex to me!

Yes, there's one of those pitfalls they managed to hit.  Not a major one,
IMHO.  It's one of those 'well, we have to put SOMETHING on the screen
so that it looks like she's DOING something' things.  It would have been
more realistic to have her blank out completely during the "download" and
stare at a blank screen, but then it would look like she was sleeping on 
the job.

>Then they him my pet peeve about androids on TV:  They are always portrayed
>as being totally ignorant about slang or idioms.  As if it's our slang that
>makes us human.  These androids always have huge memories, and have been fed
>the entire reference section of the library, but never a simple dictionary
>of slang or even "The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy".

Yes!  I really wish they had thought this out a little better.  But look
at the positives; Eve has an ACTUAL SENSE OF HUMOR and she is CAPABLE OF
TELLING LIES!!!  Theoretically, an android of this type could become 
corrupt and commit crimes, just like a human!  Isn't this more realistic
than the normal treatment?  And so far, she hasn't opened up the back of
her head to reveal ICs and flashing diodes, like androids usually tend
to do in such series.

>For anyone who cares, even though the opening of the show indicates that it's
>some unspecified time in the future, it's 1997.  The scene in his kitchen
>showed a calendar in the background, with January 1st on a Wednesday.  Yes,
>I know that in real life that was just a 1992 calendar, but the next year
>that looks like that is 1997, so clearly that's when the producers intended
>the show to be set (yeah, and monkeys fly out my butt).

>--James Preston
--
     "You are a trainied technological operator?"      | Greg R. Fishbone
     "Sure.  Fully trained, the best.  First class     | fishbone@eniac.seas  
      degree in TARDIS technology, UCLA."              |             .upenn.edu