From: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Rascals: Kanamorites have missed the point again...
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:23:16 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <1992Nov5.211615.26911@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> kevin@csd-d-2.Stanford.EDU (Kevin Ernst Duckworth) writes:
>     You Kanamorites have missed the point.  In fact, you were *so*
>wrapped up in the tech part of the show, you COMPLETELY lost out on
>what was the best multi-actor-for-one-character show I have ever seen,
>*including* _Big_, which was a great film but didn't convince me that
>the young Josh was anything like Tom Hank's portrayal.  Here you had
>*four* actors who matched characters with well-documented figures.  
>If you watch again with a SLIGHTLY open mind you will not find more
>than a single step out of character for any of the four.  Fantastic 
>preparation on all counts, everywhere, right to the bit where old
>Picard was boyishly showing off the archaeological things he had
>found...perfect lead in.  And Ro/Guinan?  I could see Goldberg and
>Forbes on my screen, right there.  Obviously, if you Kanamorites
>could not, then you were guilty of the same thing everyone else was:
>lookism.  Prejudices against those who look a certain way.  Like
>children.

Well, I was not too impressed with the girls playing young Ro or Keiko
(probably because both characters are so flat to begin with that it doesn't
show a whole lot of talent for someone - even a child - to imitate them).
However, I agree that the people playing Guinan and Picard were quite good;
they even got the mannerisms down.

However, if this is the "point" of the show, then I stand by my opinion of
it.  Acting is almost never enough to rope me into a show; there's got to
be something substantial in the way of story there, and we just didn't
have much of that in "Rascals".

(Case in point:  I much prefer Classic Star Trek to TNG, even though I feel
that TNG has better acting in the persons of Stewart and Spiner.  The
reason is that Classic Trek had much better stories, and the acting was by
no means *bad*.)

>     I dare anyone to find fault or annoyance in Alexander's character
>in this episode.

I dare anyone to find anything *good* about his character, either.  As far
as *character* goes, he didn't have any.  He just did some running around.
Sure, blandness is a step up from what we've seen so far, but it's still
nothing to crow about.

>     The point you have missed?  This show was not die-hard sci-fi.
>It was about interaction.  Did anyone else see the Keiko/Miles scene
>except me?  I had my doubts at first, but when she grabbed him by the
>uniform, I said, "that's Keiko!"

My reaction was more one of, "Is that Keiko?  I don't know; we haven't
really seen any characterization of her before."

>				   How could you miss the repercussions
>that this scene brought up?  (besides the crass and hopefully TIC hymen
>question).  I mean, Miles' reaction was one of pure lookism.  Try 
>thinking about *this* scene next time instead of the fish scene.

I did.  It was okay, but nothing special.

>     Interaction.  "You were a jumper, weren't you?"  Beverly's insight
>on the possibilities of Picard living a second, yet painless, childhood.
>Picard's thoughts on trying something else besides Starfleet for a while.
>Old Guinan and young Ro, coloring.  Laren capturing a little, just a 
>little, of what she had so painfully missed as a child.

This was all talk.  It would have had substance if the quartet had actually
STAYED the way they were for several episodes, and really HAD to grapple
with the problem in more situations than just out in the wilderness of
space.  It was some interesting conjecture, but it never really payed off,
for me.

>     I laughed a lot during this show.  The Ferengi as idiots?

Morons is more like it; sort of like the way the crew acted when they were
attacked.

>								Hey, they
>weren't on a mission; they were bounty hunters of a sort.  They should 
>have been played as fools, beacuse anyone who tries to sell the E to
>the Romulans *is*.  The E not firing?  I wouldn't fire on a Klingon 
>ship and risk an "incident", even if unprovoked.  Better to find out 
>"what the hell is going on" instead of "shoot now, ask later", you Kirks.

This would be true if the Klingon ships had just been provoking a
confrontation.  They didn't.  They simply attacked.  Given clear hostile
intent (risking an "incident"?  It wouldn't have been the *Enterprise* who
risked an incident; THEY weren't the ones who attacked, and they ALSO weren't
the ones who shot first, or didn't you notice?) defending themselves seems
like a good idea (or at least engaging warp drive immediately).  For all they
knew, they were going to be destroyed.

>     Maybe, you Kanamorites who didn't like this one on the basis of
>tech merit alone should not have watched this one.  You should read the
>reviews and find out which episodes are more like "Arena" of TOS
>or BOBW, with a lot of shootouts and real serious Sci-Fi than something
>like _rascals_.

I would have settled for some serious characterization, rather than the
cardboard we were presented with here.

>		  Because this show wasn't about sci-fi.  It was about
>people.  About interaction during times of hardship, and of turning 
>those hardships to one's advantage.  Not about Dr. Who style stuff.
>If the idea that Star Trek is not die-hard sci-fi offends you, then
>stop watching and get out of here.  Constructive criticisms, like the
>ones Tim Lynch gives, are a hell of alot better than not being able to
>accept the show for what it is and what it is not.  The uniform thing
>I didn't buy, or Worf's lousy aim.  But the characters, and the excellent
>dialogue, I did.  If you can't, then you are drama-impaired.

I dunno; I didn't see much drama in this episode.  Or much excellent
dialogue, for that matter.

>Next time
>you watch, take a look behind all the plot devices, all the FX, and see
>what's out there.  If you can leave your Kanamorism behind, maybe you
>will see what all the rest of us liked and will always like about TNG.
>The people.  The interaction.  The humanity.

Gee, this is what I liked about Classic Star Trek.  It's what seems to be
MISSING from TNG.  Sometimes we have glimmers of it (such as in "The Best
Of Both Worlds" or "Family"), but for the most part it's just not there.

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

"Go?  Where are we going?"
"Where they went."
"Suppose they went nowhere?"
"Then, this will be your big chance to get away from it all."
			- McCoy and Kirk; Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current