From: kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori)
Subject: Re: Bizarre standards (was Re: Grading scales)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 22:32:47 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.173030.27081@cco.caltech.edu> tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>(Followups set to r.a.s.misc.)
>
>kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr7.210007.9081@bnlux1.bnl.gov> schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder) writes:
>>>In article <1992Apr4.192753.13425@cco.caltech.edu> tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>>>kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori) writes:
>
>>>>>TNG, however, is frequently
>>>>>lauded (both by third parties and itself) as Quality, Intelligent,
>>>>>Thoughtful Television: a Holy Grail of broadcast TV. 
>>>>
>>>>Source, please.  
>
>I note that, unless I've missed it somewhere, you have not yet given said
>sources.

You seem to have found plenty of sources for the first three. The
"Holy Grail" part was a bit overblown on my part, although I was
careful to say "a" rather than "the". 



>>>>I've seen a lot of the first three mentioned, but very
>>>>rarely have I ever seen it implied that TNG somehow has a lock on quality
>>>>or intelligence, and I don't think I've *ever* seen anybody I take 
>>>>seriously give it the kind of "it's the best thing ever made for broadcast
>>>>television" treatment your Grail comment implies.
>>>
>>>Atsushi, I don't mean to use Tim's post as a "gang up on you" source,
>>>but after I read this one, I realized that Tim makes the same point that
>>>I was about to: mainly, that I don't hold TNG to be the Absolute
>>>Towering Pinnacle of Television Drama.  
>
>>Fine. I, however, *do* hold TNG to be A Towering Pinnacle of Television
>>Drama (note I changed the phrase a bit, but the idea still holds I think.)
>
>In other words, you hold TNG to higher standards than the makers do.  It's
>no wonder you disagree with them; you're demanding perfection.

Wait a sec, you're equating "higher standards than the TNG makers" to
"perfection". That's a bit binary (no pun intended), don't you think?

I think this disagreement is about semantics: virtually *any* show
that manages to be "a successful and thoughtful SF series; a worthy
successor to TOS" is, IMO, a "Towering Pinnacle of Television." That's
doesn't mean I think either series is the best that broadcast TV has
ever done, nor is it the highest quality entertainment possible. But
given the large number of shows whose TV guide descriptions I can't
even stand to read, and given the abysmal quality of the non-Trek shows
that I *have* sampled recently (watching the last 5 minutes of BAYWATCH
just before TNG really makes me appreciate the latter show at times :-),
I don't think "A Towering Pinnacle" is all that out of line. If I graded
some of those other shows on the same scale I use to grade TNG, I'd
be handing out "F"'s pretty regularly.


>
>>I've read comments by TNG staff in interviews and magazines and many
>>of them are openly self-congratulatory of their product. If they publically
>>applaud themselves, I will publically slap them down (when justified.)
>
>Wait a second.  Being "openly self-congratulatory" could mean *anything*.
>I've seen them talking about how they think TNG is, on the whole, a successful
>and thoughtful SF series; that they think it's a worthy successor to TOS; 
>they they strive for scientific accuracy [which *does* get pummeled on 
>occasion]; and that they're very happy with what they've put together.

That's pretty much what I mean.


>I've never seen ANYONE saying they consider it "a Towering Pinnacle of 
>Television Drama", much less anyone connected to the series itself.  

That's pretty much what I mean too. Again, semantics.

. .        .       .                .        
: : : :. : :  :....: : .  ::.: .  ..: :    ..     : :    .
::::::::::.: :::::::.:::::::::::.:::::: :?.:::::..::::.:.:
------------ -------------------------- --------------------------
TNG Lifelines: From "Yesterday's Enterprise" To "Cause & Effect" --
  "Captain, we are getting unusual readings 20,000 km off the
   starboard bow." -- Worf, Worf, Worf and Ensign Ro.