From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (andrew david simchik)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.startrek.misc,rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: ST:TNG (critiques) vs Dr. Who
Date: 16 Dec 92 03:56:58 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <6JJVB1A3@cc.swarthmore.edu> jhildeb1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Jeff Hildebrand) writes:

>Here we go again...

>as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (andrew david simchik) writes:
>> And *I* want everyone to know (as if they didn't already) that there are
>> those among us who agree wholeheartedly with Michael and are physically sick
>> at the idea that the abovementioned stories might be considered
>> "masterpieces" by *anyone*. 

>	Would you like an air sickness bag? Curse of Fenric happens to be
>one of my all time favorite Who episodes. A lot of people agree with me and
>have ever since it was first shown back in 1989.

A lot of people liked Hitler for a while too.  Like what you like, you will
have no luck convincing me that a story which manages to trivialize (a) war,
(b) chess, (c) Norse myth, and (d) [and this is the killer] vampires by
failing to adequately explore *any* of these within its own plot and theme
is a "masterpiece."  ...Come to think of it, that last sentence was pretty
incoherent, too, but never mind.  Anyway, I felt that there was entirely too
much in "Curse" to really make a good story.  Believe it or not, it ranks as
one of my *least* favorite who stories ever with bad acting, bad writing,
cheesy visuals, and lack of unified thrust.  I liked "Twin Dilemma" better
than this tripe, for Schnopia's sake!


>> Because before the Baker and McCoy eras, Doctor
>> Who had believable characters and coherent plots.  At least in my book, you
>> need both of those in order to qualify as a "masterpiece."

>	*Flame On*
>If you are talking about anyone other than Ace with the "believable
>characters" bit then ignore this. However given your previous comments I
>suspect you are refering to Ace. When you first posted about Ace a month or
>so back a lot of people posted very good explanations of why Ace is a
>believable character and your response was "I didn't say I thought she
>wasn't believable, I just said I didn't like her." You can't have it both
>ways. Either give examples of who you are talking about in these stories who
>you don't find believable (other than Ace) or stop trying to play by this
>double standard.
>	*Flame off*

I *am* talking about someone other than Ace, as it happens (he said with
great dignity).  Ace *is* a believable character, just not a
stunningly...never mind, this is over.  The other characters in these
serials were the ones I found ludicrous and unfathomable.  Control (GL),
just about everyone in Curse of Fenric, and several secondary characters
from Greatest Show spring instantly to mind.  Many of these people are
caricatures, puppets, made to do what the writers want without any free will
or depth of their own.  There *have* been two-D characters in Who before,
but never this blatant.  I just can't *believe* Doctor Who anymore the way I
could previously.

>	As for coherent plots, I'll grant you that the end of "Greatest
>Show" seems rather incoherent. However the other three that were mentioned
>all have the similar feature that everything is there in the story, but it
>is not presented in a clear, straightforward approach of: The Doctor
>arrives, something strange is going on, the Doctor figures it out and
>explains it to everyone. Instead you have to do some reading between the
>lines in order to figure out exactly what is going on. I find this a very
>refreshing change. I can understand why some people may not like the style
>(matter of preference) but the plots are not contradictory and they are
>complete if you look hard enough. To me that means they're coherent.

Coherent also implies that there's some sort of focus to the whole thing. 
In "Curse" the focus was notably absent.  In "Ghost Light" it was closer, but
again, the thematic elements were too diverse for any real focus to be had. 
"Greatest Show" I actually enjoyed more than some of the other McCoy
stories.  I've forgotten the other titles now.

>-Jeff
>-- 
>Jeff Hildebrand, The Shaggy TA		       	   hildebra@math.wisc.edu
>"The following statement  is an editorial viewpoint  and does not reflect 
>the views of WSRN-FM, its employees, or mutant drosophila" - Off the Cuff
>"You can't confuse us; we're not listening to you!"  -  topology students

To sum up: I think the McCoy era had definite and attractive possibilities,
spoiled by bad writing, worse acting, and bizarre production/direction. 
Before that, Dr. Who had been sci-fi--not always good sci-fi, but sci-fi. 
In the McCoy era, it was comic-book--and not ever good comic-book.  We're
not talking Innovation's Lestat or DC's Sandman, or even NEC's brilliant
Tick; we're talking Marvel's monthly wheels-o-cheese, or the abominable
Death of Superman issue.  UGH!

Drewcifer
-- 
***************************************************************************
** Andrew David Simchik, registered Scorpio ************* SCHNOPIA! *******
***************************************************************************
as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu