From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Subject: Re: 3 in 1 Opinionated Comments (1st season episodes)
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:41:27 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <1992Apr7.212105.18779@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>ENCOUNTER AT FARPOINT
>---------------------

>My one line impression of E@F: "technically proficient."

My summary review of it, four-plus years ago, was "Not bad.  It shows promise.
I wish they'd axed the Q guy, though."

Four-plus years later, that line could actually apply to the series as a whole.
It's not BAD, but it's not very challenging or exciting or thoughtful either.
It shows promise, but it's promise that is rarely fulfilled.  And I still
wish they'd axed the Q guy. :-)

All in all, I really do NOT feel that TNG has evolved very much in nearly
five years of episodes.  Now, this in itself is not bad.  It's the fact that
where they STARTED was pretty mediocre itself.  (Trek Classic didn't evolve
much either, but it started at a MUCH higher plateau.)

>The character bits are okay for a crew who's just getting to know each
>other.

I find it very instructive to compare the characters in "EaF" to those in
"Where No Man Has Gone Before", because the two episodes take completely
different approaches the characters handling.

"EaF" basically starts with a clean slate and a bunch of nonentities, and
takes us through the motions of introducing us to the characters.  However,
it turns out that none of the characters have a substantial background or
strong personalities evidence, so it left me with a sort of "eh" feeling.

"WNMHGB" doesn't deal with the number of characters that "EaF" does, but
the three it focuses on - Kirk, Spock and Mitchell, are well fleshed out
for characters who have never appeared before.  We're basically dropped in the
middle of an already existing set of relationships, with fairly strong and
complex emotions going on.  Much more satisfying, I think.  (Heck, I think
it's one of Star Trek's best episodes.)

>	 I especially liked the part where Picard tested Riker.

Which part was this?  I sure hope you don't mean the saucer docking scene.
Yecch.

>								A quick
>rundown on the characters:

>   Picard: Hmm... he doesn't seem to have changed much over the years.
>     At least, he didn't strike me as fundamentally different from season 5.

I don't think that he's had many lasting changes, either.  A few episodes
have had him rise above his blandness, but otherwise he generally strikes
me as a walking preaching machine.

>   Riker: Again, I didn't detect much difference -- other than that he's
>     visually unrecognizable without the beard :-)

Looks more plastic, too. :-)  The only times Riker really came alive for me
were in "Peak Performance" and "Best Of Both Worlds" Part I.

>   Worf: Geez, has he been breathing helium or something? I guess Dorn
>     hasn't gotten into the role yet (of course, he has less to do in
>     this outing than any other character.)

I understand that Worf was a VERY late addition to the cast, so he was
probably grafted onto the first several episodes just to keep him visible
until they finally did something with him.

>   Data: A bit more expressive than usual, and I suspect those 
>     "word: synonym1,synonym2,synonym3..." recitals are going to get
>     mighty tiresome in the near future.

Don't worry; they don't harp on it TOO much.

>   Tasha: Is Crosby just a bad actress or is she's supposed to act
>     spazzed-out? Chill out, lady.

I never cared for Yar.

>I haven't even mentioned the plots yet, and that's because they're not much
>to crow about. The "Q" plot is a tired one: the self-righteous superbeing
>putting humanity on trial is old and obvious, and lends itself to a lot of
>sledge-hammer sloganeering about how savage we are in the 20th century and 
>how civilized and advanced the TNG generation is ("THIS COURT SHOULD GET ON 
>ITS KNEES FOR WHAT STARFLEET STANDS FOR!!!").

The Q plot was superfluous to the entire episode.  It could have been
completely excised and the episode probably would have been much more
interesting.

>						The "Farpoint mystery" 
>plot wasn't a bad idea *but* it forces the regulars to take too passive
>a role. Most of it is spent examining endless tunnels and talking about
>how mysterious it all is; the characters react to, rather than drive 
>events.

Which would have been fine if the events were interesting to begin with.
Unfortunately, this was a pat execution of the idea.  ST: TMP redux.

>	 It drags, and reminds me of ST:TMP in a vague way, especially 
>the conclusion where we're treated to the Handholding Jellyfish and everyone's
>oohing and ahhing over how b'yootiful it all is (complete with Troi telling
>us how happy and grateful they are, as we couldn't figure it out ourselves.)

And we don't even have the perk of McCoy's "It's been a long time since I
delivered a baby" line...

>Picard's closing line ("I'm sure that [future missions] will be *much* more
>interesting.") was rather poor judgement on the part of the writers --
>it gives far too much ammunition to the critics.

"The Naked Now" gave us the same sort of lame closing line.

>   Overall:    C  (not great, but a decent start.)

That's what I gave it.

>THE NAKED NOW
>-------------

>I don't know if TNN was intended as a character development story or as
>a parody of TNT. Either way, it fails utterly.

I'm "the great apologist" for this episode.  I still think it's one of the
best of the series.  Maybe BECAUSE it was lifted from Trek Classic.  I dunno.
But the plot device I thought worked fine, and I think this episode gave us
a LOT of character information on which to build (I think it's one of TNG's
great character study episodes).  Unfortunately, the mediocrity of
characterization that followed has made "TNN" seem rather out-of-place in
the TNG canon, and it looks the worse for it.  Still, I found and find
the episode a lot of fun to watch.

To paraphrase you, it was good enough for Trek Classic, so it's good enough
for TNG.  A class act.

>Second, the characterizations. In a word, blechhh. In the original, the
>infection at least showed something INTERESTING about Kirk and Spock. Each
>one had to do with an inner struggle betwen conflicting demands. It was
>a believable struggle and one that *challenged* the characters and gave
>them something to work towards. In TNN, what we get is highly superficial. 
>Geordi wants normal vision. Aww. Such a problem invites a technological
>solution, not a character-growth solution. All this does is make LaForge
>look like a whiner. Data wants to be human. Okay, this is a tad better but
>it's still a yearning, not a conflict. If he succeeds, he wins. If no,
>he's no worse off. Nothing's at stake but himself.

I don't even remember the bit with Geordi, and thought that Data's bit was
more for humor.

>The portrayal of the women is atrocious. It can be summed up in three words:
>sex, sex and sex. Instead of building Troi, Beverly and Tasha, this episode
>trivializes them to the worst of TV stereotypes.

Oh, I don't know.  Yar's behavior isn't something I can really defend (again,
it was there more for humor), but I think that Crusher's and Troi's bits
both reeked of intriguing ideas.  Troi's line "Wouldn't you like to be alone
with me, with me in your mind?" evokes, for me, images of a rich and
fascinating Betazoid culture and some really interesting background for her
and Riker.  The sexual undertones were a plus, I felt.  Alas, none of that
ever came to pass, and I think that both Riker and Troi are lesser
characters for it.

Crusher's bits I think both hinted at something going on between her and
Picard, or something that she wanted to be (which also was never expounded
upon), and also showed a great strength of will on her part (something we
also see present in Picard).  This could have been taken in any number of
interesting directions (e.g., a "Fatal Attraction" one), but never was.

Maybe I just like "TNN" for might-have-beens?

-- 
Michael Rawdon
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

"Drink up dreamers, you're running dry."
						- Peter Gabriel
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc