From: mmcalees@cs16.UVic.CA (Michael McAleese)
Subject: Re: Space Rangers !!Spoilers (I guess)!!
Organization: Those Dudes
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 10:57:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.035335.26532@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pjm6z@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Dave Lister) writes:
>Plot points of the pilot of Space Rangers discussed below:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>I can't believe you like this garbage better than Deep Space Nine.  Although
>DS9 had some flaws with the two hour premiere none of them were as bad
>as the problems with Space Rangers.  Let's look at some of them.
>
>1) They used computers to draw the ship of the Space Rangers.  Thus 
>   we never got to see the kind of shot a model can give (my guess is that
>   the ship design isn't quite completely drawn or finished).  They
>   did the Hope Fort (or whatever) in computer animation as well making it
>   almost too cartoony. 

   Minor quibble. Most (all?) of Doctor Who had excreble special effects,
but you overlooked it for the story. This is the sort of thing that builds
up annoyance over time with me, we'll have to see how it goes.

> 2) They had to put in a plot point of humans better than machines.  
>    However, when the time for the android to fail it was so ridiculous
>    that my father and I were left laughing.  Seriously, my 486 could
>    analyze all the parts that the bad guy divided into.  This is supposed 
>    to be taking place in the 22nd century, we have mutli-process computers
>    now.  You mean to tell me the android couldn't process more than one
>    input or task at once?  What did they give him for a brain, an old
>    Atari computer?

   A hokey premise, right from the old Star Trek bin. Still, I could 
swallow it without too much grimacing. I've been around computers that 
crash creatively when given unanticipated input to rule it out. I did
like the alien using his mutating powers as a defense, and he did seem
somewhat surprised that his desperate defense had discombobulated the
droid.

>  3) This goes along with the second point.  If this is so many years
>     in the future that we have outposts on distant planets and have
>     contacted and befriended different aliens, our "police" would
>     not have the same semi-automatic or automatic guns we do now.
>     Strapping a flashlight onto the gun doesn't make it a futuristic
>     weapon.  I was willing to overlook this until the guy was boxing
>     up the droid with a hammer and nails.  Don't you think that there
>     would be a more efficient method of fastening wood, at least use
>     a nail gun.

   For the guns actually, no. Projectile weapons are a very efficient 
method to impart kinetic energy to a foe, and chemical storage for the
propellant is also very efficient. Energy weapons have all sorts of 
problems inherent in the nature of beaming energy at a target. I don't 
think projectile weapons will *ever* die out, any more than the hammer
has. I'll go with you on the pathetic crating of the android though.
Couldn't "FOAM-TEC" come up with a better crate?

>  4) The acting.  This was absolutely horrible.  Everyone seems to
>     comment that the main characters need to have conflict amongst
>     themselves to make their situation more exciting.  Maybe, but
>     their conflicts and arguements came off as over played whining.

   Standard network quality, I thought. This was a show that was patched
up, when someone high up said "Give me a science fiction show by spring!"
Unlike Babylon-5 which has been a five year labour of love, or even DS9
which has been done by people who know how to produce a quality sf show.

>Like another poster stated, I give this show 5 weeks maximum.  I bet
>they had a lot of people tuning in tonight.  Next week, there will
>be maybe half that audience re-tuning in, with every other sci-fi
>show (Quantum Leap, ST:TNG, ST:DS9, and Highlander) around and Babylon
>5 (please god let it be good) coming this show doesn't stand a chance.

   Quantum Leap is only marginally SF. It's more like the 'moral of the
week'. Highlander is good SF, at least in the premise. Without the drive
of being only a two hour movie it may get a little strained.

-- 
*     mmcalees@csr.uvic.ca (Michael McAleese) : I speak only for me...       *
  "Man can believe the impossible, but never the improbable." - Oscar Wilde
  (For snooping governments: heroin, cocaine, FBI, CSIS, CIA, albatross...)