From: kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori)
Subject: Re: Was TOS really that bad? (Re: TOS actors)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:24:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.204432.4751@bnlux1.bnl.gov> schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder) writes:
>In article <rawdon.715903854@cs.wisc.edu> rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>>In <1992Sep7.192637.7358@cco.caltech.edu> tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>>rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>
>[on Inner Light...]
>
>>A plot show.  (A mostly good plot show, though the technological rationale
>>is a bit of a fast one.)  The specific natures of the characters involved
>>did not have any real bearing on the show.  I'm also on record as having said
>>that "The Inner Light" would have been just as good if the characters (though
>>not necessarily the actors) of Data, Worf, Riker, Geordi and maybe Dr.
>>Crusher had been in Picard's place.  (In fact, it might have been *more*
>>interesting with one of the first two in his place.  If it had been "a Data
>>story" instead of "a Picard story" then it *might* have turned out to be a
>>character study.)
>
>I disagree with you when you say that any other character would have
>sufficed in place of Picard in that episode.  Of all the characters,
>Picard seems to be the most realistic and believable.  Above all, his
>character is the most noble.  The premise for Inner Light required a
>very noble character, one who would adopt the dead culture as his/her
>own, be an active contributor.  Active to the point that he would
>develop strong bonds with the other characters.  For example, knowing
>that Picard is very controlled and rather _a_motional in normal
>circumstances, the scenes in which he was shown as close to his wife
>were particularly moving.  Would the scene where he comforts her during
>her death have worked with LaForge?  With Data or Worf?  I don't think
>so.

I think it would have worked just as well with any of those characters,
although *not* necessarily with some of the actors (and I'm definitely
against having Worf in the role, as it's a sure call for another whine
session with Alexander and Troi...) 

In fact, it may well have been more interesting to have one of the lesser
characters there, provided it really yielded a quantum improvement over
the character/actor's usual routine (Frakes surprise turnout in the "Host"
comes to mind here.) 

Of course, the advantage of Patrick Stewart in the role and Picard having
to "open up" may well negate that.


>If find your wish to have seen Data in this role particularly odd.  The
>entire story was about emotions.  About how Picard _might_ have lived
>his life in a different way, had circumstances been different.  How he
>might have had a wife, might have had a family, might have been a loving
>father.  None of this would have been possible with, say, Worf or Data.
>I think you may have missed the point of the episode.  The episode
>wasn't about the sci-fi premise of a dead society transferring knowlege
>across the centuries.  If it had been, then yes, Data might have
>sufficed.  But it wasn't.  It was about what might have been.

Oh well. What *worked* for me was the sci-fi premise of a dead society.
I found the "what might have been" part secondary in effect, if not in
intention. Perhaps it would have been more successful with better guest
actors, more fallout (face it: we're not going to hear about this again)
and more time devoted planetside (i.e. deep-six the tacked-on Enterprise
scenes.)



>>For that matter, it would have worked fine with Kirk, McCoy, Scotty, Sulu
>>or Chekov (though perhaps not Spock).
>
>With Kirk or McCoy, yes.  With Scott, Sulu, or even more laughably
>Chekov?  Heh.  No.  In case you didn't notice, in TOS Sulu and Chekov
>were mere caricatures.  They never reminded me of real people at any
>time.  

Sulu overcame that in ST6 (one of the few good things about that bomb).
Chekov *has* mostly been a walking joke, but with the right script,
even he could shine for a change. Wouldn't that be worth something?


>How forgiving we are of ol' TOS.  

I'm not particularly fond of TOS (or its characters) anymore.

>How critical of TNG.

Here, I plead guilty.


>>>>TNG's best stories are plot-focused rather than character-focused, 

I think TNG's best stories are idea-focused -- making us feel emotions
or get involved in the characters themselves is their major weak point.


>>Well, "MoaM" was a misfire all around, I think.  Character-focused, yes, but
>>basically a botch of a story anyway.
>
>Botch of a story?  Phooey.  MoaM was a well thought-out morality play
>that got to the heart of some basic ethical issues.  The court room
>discussions were thought provoking and interesting.  

Actually, I thought that Riker's presentation of the case was so shallow,
hollow and obvious that I was astounded that it took Picard so long to
figure out the defense to it. The episode came across as naive to me.
I don't hate MoaM nearly as much as Michael does (it had some decent character
moments and fabulous production values), but it failed to put out a
convincing case for the opposition, or generate a two-sided moral dillemma
(the outcome was pretty predictable as well.) A watchable episode, but
"thought-provoking" or "interesting", it was not.

>>But I see neither "Darmok" nor "The Inner Light" as being character-focused.
>
>Despite the fact that they both centered on exploring the personalities
>and internal drives of the character? 

"Darmok" struck me as exploring the difficulties of communicating when
two species have radically different linguistic models. I don't think
it revealed or evolved much in the way of characterization (not that this
makes it a *bad* episode -- it just makes it not "character-driven.")

"Inner Light" may well have had character-exploration as its intention, but 
as happens all too often, the sci-fi twist came across better than
the character drama.


>>>>(Ever notice how Trek Classic had much wittier
>>>>and intelligent dialogue than TNG?)
>
>This is a sweeping generalization that can't be defended by either camp.

Actually, I think the dialogue between the leads *were* far 
wittier -- certainly, it came across as easier, more comfortable
and more *effortless*. The TNG dialogue, on the other hand, serves
mostly to convey factual information; their attempts at genuine emotion
and (even worse) comedy sound strained and forced (and in the latter
case, usually bombs atrociously: Exhibit A: "Q-Pid" and "Cost of Living")

Of course, TOS did have its share of godawful melodramatic speeches -- but
that was more common in those days, so TOS itself can't be held wholly 
responsible (and TNG isn't free from forced melodrama either: Worf's
"I AM your friend" speech in "The Outcast" and Picard's moralizing in
"Imaginary Friend" just to name two examples.)



. .                .                .        
: : . :. . :  :....: : .  ::.: .  ..: :    ..     : :    .:   :.:
::::::::::.: :::::::.:::::::::::.:::::: :?.:::::..::::.:.:: :.:::?
------------ -------------------------- -------------------.------
Kanamori's Episode Ratings: (last episode rated: "Time's Arrow")
  "This season began with a turkey. I'm simply trying to see 
   that it doesn't end that way." -- fictitious Paramount writer

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc