From: dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Lynch's Spoiler Review: "The Quality of Life"
Keywords: TNG, Data, machine life?
Date: 22 Nov 92 17:44:06 GMT
Reply-To: dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann)
Organization: University of Arizona

In article <1emnn4INN13r@gap.caltech.edu>, tlynch@cco (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>WARNING:  The following review contains spoiler information for "The Quality 
>of Life."  (The TNG episode, that is, not the concept itself.  :-) )  Those 
>not wishing said spoilers are advised to remain calm, avoid panic, and simply 
>skip this message.




[synopsis deleted]
>Those familiar with my reviews know that I value any episode or part thereof 
>that will provoke a lot of thought and thoughtful discussion.

Personally, I didn't see anything new here to discuss.


>"The Quality of Life" brought on a lot of thought.  In spades.  Let's face 
>it, Bev was right -- "What is the definition of life?" *is* one of the 
>thorniest questions in the book, and any show that tries to touch on it had 
>better be very careful where it treads.  "The Measure of a Man" did it, and 
>so, to a point, did "The Offspring".  "The Quality of Life" acknowledged 
>MoaM's legacy

What about "Evolution"?  IMHO, this is almost a straight re-working of that
episode:

  -modification on a tool creates intelligence
  -new intelligence causes havoc, which gets in the way of obsessive scientist
  -since recognizing this new presence as life would impair the scientist's
   research, the scientist is opposed to any line of inquiry to establish
   whether a new intelligence is present
  -Data is instrumental in proving the existence of the new intelligence.

There were, of course, incidental differences in detail, but IMHO, the
similarities are overwhelming.



>"Okay, so Data's alive and sentient, and 
>after Picard fighting for him, everyone's agreed on that.  Now, what happens 
>next time, when we get a machine that might be alive and that *doesn't* look 
>as human as Data?"  The answer -- only Data realizes it.

This might have been an interesting point, if they'd done anything with it.
Instead, it's just used as a plot device to drive the overworked "our heros
are in danger and we need to save them" plot.  We're now going into the 6th
season of seeing the crew made virtually invulnerable to any threat.  I
realize that conflict and danger are important to plot (particularly to Trek-
style stories), but they really need to work harder to convince me that the
characters are in danger.

>[...]evoking a few "2001"ish thoughts from me.

Nah.  I was thinking more of "Silent Running" (much to this epsiodes detriment,
I might add).  They should've called the exocomps "Huey, Dewy, and Lewy".

>About the only plot element that seems perhaps a little weak would be the 
>crisis situation on the fountain.  While I acknowledge that it was probably 
>necessary to keep many viewers, I'd have preferred the examination of the 
>exocomps not be forced by outside circumstances.

I think this is probably the root of what's wrong with this epsisode.  The
central idea of machines crossing the line into sentience has been used
effectively in the past, and I have no doubt that it can and will be used
effectively in the future.  But instead of exploring that, they let the
tacked-on danger of the fountain dominate the plot, and so it becomes just
another routine "crew in danger; crew solve problem; credits roll" plot
we've already seen way too many times.


>And the director was Jonathan Frakes, who is now five for 
>five in directing stints so far as I'm concerned.

I should probably comment that I thought the direction was fine; it was the
story that lacked anything like substance.

>I'd also like to applaud the opening poker game.

Yah.  As I mentioned in another post, the best scene in the episode (which,
unfortunately, isn't saying much).

>Plot:  9.  As I said, I wish there hadn't had to be any actual "jeopardy".
>Plot Handling:  10.  No complaints at all.


As you might guess, I'd put these numbers a lot lower.  4 seems right to me.
Not as terrible as "Man of the People" or "Cost of Living" (to name two
recent awful plots), but still very ordinary.

-- 
Dave Schaumann			dave@cs.arizona.edu