From: billones@grebyn.com (Jeremy Billones)
Subject: Re: QL: Two-Faced Reviews: Dr. Ruth
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 06:59:01 GMT


Flame war in progress.  Proceed at your own risk.





















akilgour@THINKAGE.ON.CA (Anita Kilgour) writes:

>With regards to the following article:

>>	To: Rec.Arts.Sf.Tv

I posted this to r.a.sf.tv, but you yanked the follow-up completely
out, and into a newsgroup to which the original was never posted.  Any
particular reason?

>>	I'm far too upset to write a realistic review right
>>	now, so I won't bother. 
>Then my suggestion is to keep your ideas to yourself until you have
>calmed down enough to give a 'realistic review', because what you did
>do is give a review, regardless of what you intended.

No, *this* is a review:

	Dr. Ruth has Sam leap into the famous personality in the title,
trying to fix three lives: the feuding-but-in-love coworkers on her
radio show, and a caller who feels she is being sexually harrassed.
The episode contains a lot of one-liners, and as one would expect many
miss the mark.  Further, the real Dr. Ruth ends up counseling Al in the
waiting room.  The harassment plot suffered the same fatal flaws the one
in Raped did; why is it they can manage to portray racists as
sympathetic, but not sexists?  Should have been typical QL, but the
famous guest star and the cardboard cutout harassment plot drag it
down.

>> - Clarence Thomas is innocent until proven guilty, and the testimony of
>>  one woman is not proof.  I decided I'd believe Anita if she could stay
>>  off the lecture circuit until at least one year after the "trial."  She
>>  didn't.  Flame me by email.

>I'm not going to flame you.

Oh, really?

>However, I don't feel the kiss with
>history was that extreme.  And as far as your "innocent until proven guilty"
>comment, it sounds like you have already judged Anita guilty of lying 
>in her testimony.  I cannot accept such a concept (innocent until proven
>guilty) *unless* that is applied to EVERYONE.

I do not consider Anita Hill "guilty" of lying - I just don't believe
her side of the story.  Only two people know what happened, and they
have told conflicting stories.  So we'll never know for sure.

>> - Once again we have a one-sided villain who's so dumb he attacks the
>> girl in her own apartment, but so smart he steals a match out of her
>> wastebasket.  And his wife knows?  As if.

>DUH.  He lied (about his wife knowing...)  And I don't really believe
>he stole the match.  Annie was upset, and it nicely set up the idea that
>perhaps the boss' story was the right one.  It's called plot development,
>something you are continually complaining that QL doesn't have.

Actually, this was more of a misdirection of the plot than a development
of it, but that's picking nits.  And I've been bitching about CHARACTER
DEVELOPMENT, which they do not have IN SPADES.  Look at the two people
he's trying to match up for comparison.

The scenario they tried to set up (upset and afraid, she turns on the
gas but fails to light the pilot, and eventually passes out) is not
implausible, but ought not have happened as portrayed.  Her passing out
was done almost in mid-sentence as a "bonk on the head" disconnect,
rather than a lack-of-oxygen swoon.  I do not think it's picking nits to
ID a frame of a gas attack vs an actual one.  Either it was a poorly
executed real event, or an non-explained frameup.  Neither choice is
very flattering.

>> Tina loves Gooshie, even married him in an alternate time line and we're
>> supposed to cheer when Al says he loves her. 

>Excuse me?  I'm sorry, but since when is there only one way of falling in
>love?

Huh?  You lost me.

>Al said in the episode that Sam hadn't leaped because of him.  
>Perhaps GTF decided to use the system in place (namely Sam leaping) to take
>care of Al.  In otherwords, it wasn't so much Sam leaping into the past
>to fix something, but Dr. Ruth leaping into the future to fix someone.

OK, we have two arguments here:

1) Was Dr. Ruth there to counsel Al?

That's not implausible - several eps have used such a zing ending (from
How The Tess Was Won to Leaping of the Shrew).  No problem.

2) Was this actually a good thing?

If Sam had leaped into a no-name shrink, it would never have happened.
You know it, and I know it.  This was a hook in for a famous guest star,
and a cheap ratings ploy.  From a continuity standpoint, it's painfully
obvious that they have no idea what they want to do with this - it's
whatever looks like the funniest joke to make at the time.

>> Then he kisses Dr. Ruth, when he sees her as Sam.  I don't think so.

>Oh, get real.

No thanks.  I'd rather be complex.  (Stupid Math Joke.  Sorry.)

>People can occasionally look beyond appearances.  Al knew
>who it *really* was.

Doesn't mean he'd kiss her.

>> - The leap-out was inane.  The leap-in was cute.  What do they do for
>>syndication?

>I thought the leap-out was a lovely effect.  You don't like nice ideas, ones
>that don't jive with your expectations, I feel sorry for you.

Uh, re-read my sentence.  The leap-out ("Next!") was inane.  The leap-in
(leapee with fangs) was cute.  And I'm so grateful you feel sorry for
me.  Thanks for sharing.

>Then again,
>to paraphrase an old adage, knee-jerk complaining is the last refuge of
>the mentally incompetant.

Gee, do I note the cheap shot, the fact that it was the last shot, or do
I just take the easy spelling flame?  Decisions, decisions...

>>	"Besides, helping people is what I do for a living."
>I must admit, this was a great quote.
>Though I've got to go back to the tape and transcribe the list of synonyms
>for breasts.  I was howling....
>Anita Kilgour


>"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do."
>		- Dale Carnegie

Ah, dueling with .sig quotes.  How... what's the word... revealing?

Jeremy Billones				billones@grebyn.com
"We don't do it for the glory.  We don't do it for the recognition.  We do
it because it needs to be done.  Because if we don't, no one else will.  And
we do it even if no one knows what we've done.  Even if no one knows we exist.
Even if no one knows we ever existed."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv