From: ph9991_manfr@rivers.acc.uwrf.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.startrek.misc,rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: ST:TNG (critiques) vs Dr. Who
Date: 13 Dec 92 19:31:44 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin - River Falls

In article <rawdon.724208819@cs.wisc.edu>, rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
> [Crossposted to r.a.startrek.misc and r.a.drwho]
> 
> Once the quality of the writing plummeted (in the Colin Baker and Sylvester
> McCoy eras, both of which are almost uniformly *awful*), the series sputtered
> and was cancelled.  (One wonders if the BBC - long an opponent of its own
> show, for some perplexing reason - finally realized what was keeping DW afloat
> and fired all the good writers or something.)

I differ with you here Michael, the quality of the writing in those eras
did not plummet at all.  The quality of the show's time slot did and thus
the ratings suffered.
If anything, the writing only got better with masterpieces like
"Remembrance of the Daleks," "The Curse of Fenric," "The Greatest Show in
the Galaxy," and "Survival."
Otherwise I think we agree. Just wanted everyone to know that Michael's
point about the scripts is one that is in dispute.
> 
> Star Trek: The Next Generation, on the other hand, is an example of high
> production values failing to compensate for mediocre-to-awful writing.  The
> result is a mediocre series.
> 
>>As far as comparing ST:TNG with Dr. Who, this should be the only
>>subject discussed for improving the former; Dr. Who does have its
>>shining examples of bad acting (but usually not any of the regulars,
>>at least not the Doctor himself) and the format should not be
>>transferred to ST:TNG, but perhaps the continuity could be better.
> 
> There have been discussions from time-to-time on rec.arts.startrek that Star
> Trek has really taken the "complete story in 45-50 minutes" approach as far as
> it can, and it needs to loosen up some.  The popular view is that it should
> move toward "story arcs" taking up a number of episodes apiece, and perhaps
> flowing into each other.
> 
> I think that Doctor Who's format would suit Star Trek very well.


Agreed wholeheartedly.

> 
>>Someone complained about all the aliends being bi-ped with bumpy
>>foreheads- take a look at some of the aliens Dr. Who has met;
>>some are very interesting, others are very stupid and/or dopey
>>looking. The common thread to all of these is the budget.
> 
> Doctor Who's aliens are usually more interesting to me than TNG's.  Even the
> Tesh from "The Face Of Evil" (who basically looked human since they basically
> WERE human) seemed far more ALIEN than almost any aliens from TNG, because of
> their pale complexions and sterile behavior.

Agreed again.  And also I note with extreme interest that "Doctor Who"
has succeeded in a department that ST:TNG never has; a fascinating and
believeable NON-humanoid race, the Daleks, who are not only good, but 
regarded by many as the best aliens in the series (except for the Doctor
of course).

> 
>>No matter what the look of the alien or the quality of the acting,
>>it's the writing that has made Dr. Who such a survivor.
> 
> Precisely.

Precisely again.

> 
> -- 
> Michael Rawdon				  rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu
> University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department,  Madison, WI
> ( To be in the Boston, Massachusetts area for Christmas vacation )
> 
> "...I trusted [Ganelon] like a brother.  That is to say, not at all."
> 				- Roger Zelazny, _The_Guns_Of_Avalon_


Steven.K.Manfred

Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.tv:5980 rec.arts.startrek.misc:12653 rec.arts.drwho:8833