From: mss2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Re: QL: Highlights of Don's talk
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 05:37:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.033208.29039@netcom.com> sallylb@netcom.com (Sally Smith) writes:
>In article <108350@bu.edu> mab@buphy.bu.edu (Michael Burstein) writes:

>>fact that QL has had its own con soon to be two years running puts it in
>>a category that mostly only sf shows fall into -- i.e. that of
>
>The "mostly" is the operative word here. There have been other shows
>which aren't by any stretch of the imagination SF that have
>conventions and incredibly dedicated fans -- "Sandbaggers", f'rinstance.

>>leaping. Other than that, QL could be an anthology series about the
>>turning points in the lives of many people in recent history.

>Bingo [no, not Ens. Calavicci :-)]. That's EXACTLY what it is, what
>it was designed to be.

	Except that the elements which make this Quantum Leap are
given sf trappings-- future technology, computers, holograms, etc.
No, it's not _realistic_ future tech, but neither is Star Trek, nor
Battlestar Galactica, nor Lost In Space...  If anything on TV is
science fiction, then QL is.  (On Thursdays, Sundays, and national
holidays I'm disinclined to admit that there's ever been any science
fiction on TV, but since this is a Tuesday my definition is inclusive.
:-) )  There's no way that QL works as just an anthology show, as
Sam's role in replacing the leapee, and Al's as invisible spy and
confidant, require a fantastic explanation.  If it were magical, QL
would be a fantasy-- since it's pseudo-technical and invokes future
technology, it's television sf, at least insofar as Battlestar
Galactica was sf rather than simply a Western with ray guns.

>>But once you start introducing UFOs and vampires, and an evil leaper

>Since when are vampires science fiction? Or ghosts, or angels?

	Depends how they're handled.  But personally I consider
elements like psychics, UFOs, the Bermuda Triangle, vampires, etc. to
detract from the show.  I expect I'm in the minority here, but I'm of
the opinion that in general if one uses a single fantastic element as
the basis for a show, one shouldn't dilute it by adding others which
don't logically arise from the original.  So an Evil Leaper is an
excellent idea, but UFOs are not, IMHO.  Besides, we've seen Greek
gods on Star Trek, a "space vampire" on Buck Rogers, and the devil
(and probable angels) in Battlestar Galactica-- mixing fantasy and
"lite" religion (i.e. stuff that won't actually offend anyone) and tv
science fiction is hardly unheard of.

>Fantasy, I'll buy. As a matter of fact, those of you with long
>memories will remember that QL was listed this way in TV Guide its
>first season. Science fiction -- naaah. Close, but not quite.

	As I said, on  the one hand the argument could be made that
there's really no such thing as sf on TV-- maybe I'll take that side
next week.  But if there is, then a storyline which depends of
pseudo-science doubletalked time travel and holograms and an AI
computer capable of gathering data on everyone in the world is
probably closer to "real" sf than, say, Buck Rogers, or every episode
of Lost In Space after the pilot (which, with its cold-sleep and
slower than light travel, was actually harder sf than any Star Trek
episode).

>Silly analogy: I know very few SF fans who don't love *chocolate* who
>won't go to great lengths to get it, and talk about it with their
>friends -- but that doesn't make Hershey bars science fiction!

	But chocolate very rarely invokes AIs, projecting holograms,
the future and time travel.  :-)

Mike
-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"I decline utterly to be impartial
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 as between the fire brigade and the fire."
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 -- Winston Churchill, July 7, 1926
mschiffer@aal.itd.umich.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv