From: markc@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU ()
Subject: Re: ST:TNG (critiques) vs Dr. Who
Organization: school of Mathematics UNSW
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 03:17:19 GMT

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:45:16 GMT
Mystic writes:


>>I didn't agree with most of your assessments of the McCoy episodes, but like
>>you said - they're your opinions...

Yep, they are my opinions. Glad you realise that. Some people here get very
upset if someone dares to raise an opnion which differs from their own.

> I don't claim many Doctor Who stories as masterpieces. To me "masterpiece"
>means "Macbeth" or "Ghosts" by Ibsen, or even "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are
>Dead" by Tom Stoppard. Dr Who and Star Trek do not even come close to this 
>category. Nor should they. They have given us many great stories, some which 
>make us think, but I cannot rank them as great art, much as I love both shows.
>I think this misses the point of the medium. The shows are there to entertain.
>They usually do this. When they are very good we enjoy them more, but I think
>it is unreasonable to expect great television every time we sit down to watch
>them. As I am sure Johnny Byrne could tell us at length, making a TV programme
>is a time consuming business, and with deadlines to meet, you cannot always
>do it just the way you would like it. I am not saying that this excuses shoddy
>work like "Time and the Rani" or "Shades of Grey", but I think a little more
>realism would help us to appreciate the product we are getting, especially when
>it is good.
>


>>I think when people say masterpieces, they're talking about a show they really
>>liked of alot, and that had high quality, good acting, good music, good story,
>>etc...  B'cse there seem to be a few, I don't think it's so bad to call them
>>that.  While you may say Macbeth is a masterpiece, another may say he thought
>>it was stupid.  Like everything else, this is a matter of opinion.  Most 
>>people have different degrees of artistic sense, and I see no reason why a
>>show such as Dr. Who can't be worked on (except b'cse of political reasons
>>with the BBC).  In any case, Star Trek (the old ones) have gotten great 
>>respect for what they achieved and showed in their time.  I see no reason why
>>Dr. Who couldn't do the same with a little work.  Get some good writers, and
>>get some people into the BBC that can open their eyes and see that their are
>>clubs all over the world (whovian) and people all over that are dying for the
>>show to come back!  A little quality wouldn't hurt either.

I know exactly what people mean when they use the word "Masterpiece". My point
is that like so many other words in the language its value is reduced by 
excessive, and innapropriate use. Dr Who is great television, so is Star
Trek. If you wish to label individual stories as masterpieces, then 
feel free. I was merely pointing out that , in my opinion, we should be more
realistic of our assesment of a series' worth. I, Claudius was a masterpiece.
The Third Man is a masterpiece. The Singing Detective was a masterpiece.
What this means is that they were exceptional works of cinema and television
made by masters of their arts. Genesis of the Daleks was wonderful, but 
as a personal thing, I would not use the word masterpiece to describe it.
(I hope you can understand this without feeling that you have to personally
justify your opinion on the matter).

As far as Macbeth is concerned, I have never met anybody who thought that
one of the greatest works of the human imagination was "stupid". Know 
ye of such a person? 

Dr Who has gotten great respective for what it has done. So has TNG. I
would like it back on the air, just as would other fans, and I would like
it to be given a fair deal, with a full 24-26 episode season. But I 
don't run the BBC, and the people who do don't seem to give a stuff about
what the public wants.


>Getting back to the original subject, one thing I believe has always 
>worked in Dr Who's favour is that it has never had Star Trek's Q syndrome.
>I like John Delancie, but I think the idea of Q sucks rocks. Roddenberry
>had a weakness for these ridiculous omnipotent aliens who crop up every
>other episode. For me they take Star Trek away from Science fiction into
>Fantasy, like "Lord of the Rings". Just how many omnipotent aliens are 
>there out there? The Organians, Trelaine's people, the thing from "The
>Survivors", the Q, Melkotians, Jedi........Well okay not Jedi, but
>how many are there? To the people at Paramount I say, stop with these
> omnipotent aliens. They are stupid. How did they get to be omnipotent?
>On Dr Who they have powerful aliens like Sutekh, but Sutekh was not 
>omnipotent. I find an adversary like Sutekh far more interesting and credible,
>than one like Q. Or is that just me? again the most powerful race in Dr Who
>are the Time Lords, but they are not perfect beings of pure energy like the 
>Organians. They are flawed beings who can be killed. To me that makes them 
>more interesting. Perfect societies do not make good stories.
>
>Mark C.
>

>>Again, you're opinion.  I happen to like Q.  He's hilarious to me.  In any

You are so perceptive! Yep, my opinion.

>>case they may encounter alot of powerful beings, but they always find a way
>>to defeat them and get away don't they.  They do this by using their minds.
>>Something I kind of like from the show.  Q may be all powerful, but he still
>>has to answer to the Continuum.  He also keeps his word, like when he made the
>>bet with Capt. Picard that Riker would become greedy with power, and he
>>didn't.  Q may be arrogant and alot of other things, but he does have some
>>type of code of honor.  

I like John Delancie as Q. I like the character as he portrays it, but I
dislike the idea. Q clearly is not allpowerful as he would not have to
answer to the continuum if he were. He also does not keep his word.
He promised to never visit the Enterprise again, and he did. But this
is secondary. I don't like the idea of an alien like Q. Just how did Q
get to be so powerful? Where does this power come from? And just how many
superpowerful races of pure energy are there? I find the idea ridiculous
and rather cheap. Can't think of a plot? stick a new race of super powerful
aliens in! These are my opnions.


>>	I think the TimeLords are far from being the most powerful race.  The
>>Tharils can do what they do without machines for one thing.  I doubt they
>>could stand up to Sutekh.  It's already evident that they can't stand up to
>>Omega.  The Daleks should be coming close to their level of technology now.
>>They've had time travel technology for awhile.  I don't know if the TimeLords
>>could do anything to the Toymaker.  And then you have the Black Guardian.  Who
>>knows what the hell he is.  The Enlightenment crew is immortal, the Mara, and
>>the list goes on...  Lastly, though the Master is a TimeLord also, I must 
>>include him since his desires and actions are evil.  Without the Doctor, the
>>Master would have destroyed the TimeLords in the Deadly Assasin.  He has now
>>become a contender against his own race!

Now this is silly. We know the Time Lords are the most powerful race in the
Whoniverse because we have so often been told they are by the Doctor and
others. The Tharils needed a TimeLord, and Romana did the job for them.
Why would the Tharils need a Time Lord? Whether the Time Lords could defeat 
Sutekh is debatable. The Doctor said that they couldn't but he may have been
exagerating the threat to impress Sarah. But the Osirians are extinct in 
any case. The Daleks had crude Time Travel technology and wanted an artifact
from ancient Gallifrey to improve their technology. In Trial of A TimeLord,
the doctor says the Daleks , Sonatrans and Cybermen are "still in the nursery
compared to us", and the TLs have had ten million years of absolute power.
 The Toymaker would hardly
be a concern to them. The Black and white Guardians are not a race, and we don'teven know what they are. The Eternals were banished to the void by the white 
guardian, and were insubstantial creatures anyway. The Mara couldn't even defeat the Doctor, a single Time Lord. Omega and the Master are Time Lords so they
hardly count. 

I do not wish to get into another Time Lord debate. Regardless of what
one thinks of the scripts that the Time Lords have been given, we have been
told that they are the oldest and most powerful civilisation in the universe,
and the Time Lord president is more powerful" than anyone else in the known
universe" (Borusa, Invasion of Time). I like few Time Lord stories, but 
a race that can customise stars and time loop planets at will is not to be
taken lightly. I just wish that the shows writers hadn't decided to 
portray them as a bunch of doddering nincompoops in the "Deadly Assassin",
but that is another story.
		
>>Mystic
>>(alex.soto@analog.com)

Mark C.