From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (andrew david simchik)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: ST:TNG (critiques) vs Dr. Who
Date: 16 Dec 92 19:43:13 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <rawdon.724530633@cs.wisc.edu> rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:




>In <1992Dec16.035658.7472@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (andrew david simchik) writes:


>>A lot of people liked Hitler for a while too.

>I think that this is hitting below the belt.

Sorry, I could have trotted out that old standard "a lot of people used to
think the earth was flat", but as a writer I strive for originality.  :)  My
point is that popular opinion does not define quality.

>>						Like what you like, you will
>>have no luck convincing me that a story which manages to trivialize (a) war,

>I don't really see this.  The war angle seemed like mainly a backdrop to me.
>If you want a story which trivializes war, I recommend "The Armageddon Factor"
>or "Battlefield".

Backdrop, my arse.  There was a lot of militaristic stuff working its way in
and out of this plot.  Admittedly, it's been a while since I had the courage
to sit through "Curse", but I do believe that war was more than a setting
element.

>>(b) chess,

>I was unaware that chess was nontrivial to begin with.  And here I'd always
>thought it was a game.

I meant the metaphor of chess, as it related to the action of the story, was
trivialized.  A metaphor can be rendered useless if it is not treated
properly.

>>	    (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."

>Well, I will agree that it didn't do a good or complete job of explaining a
>lot of key plot elements.

>>			...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!

>Aw, I wouldn't go THAT far.  I certainly wouldn't put it on the same level as
>(gack) "The Happiness Patrol".  Like "Silver Nemesis" and "Ghost Light", I
>liked the ideas, but didn't like the execution.

Oh, I would *definitely* go that far.  True, "Twin" had bad acting and some
silly stuff, but it knew exactly what its boundaries were and stuck to them,
unlike a pretentious piece of offal like "Curse".  As for the "Happiness
Patrol", I didn't dislike it as much as I expected to, mainly because it was
so totally immersed in its silliness that it worked, to some extent.  Also,
I think that sort of story (like "Greatest Show") sees McCoy's Doctor in his
element.  I thought #7 worked *best* in stories that were just blatantly
silly.

(Mind you, that still doesn't excuse "Delta and the Bannermen," which is
another of my candidates for worst Who ever.)


Drewcifer

P.S.  I loved the ideas for "Nemesis" and "Ghost Light" (but not the ideas
for "Curse", which I felt just uniformly sucked), and I too found them
poorly executed.  Are there no good writers left in the world?
-- 
***************************************************************************
** Andrew David Simchik, registered Scorpio ************* SCHNOPIA! *******
***************************************************************************
as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho