From: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: Was TOS really that bad? (Re: TOS actors)
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:38:24 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <1992Sep3.224324.13089@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> johnnyp@HALDI.LCS.MIT.EDU (Johnny Piscitello) writes:
>	I think what made TOS so appealing was The Big Three - Kirk, Spock, 
>McCoy. You take the chemistry they had away and you lose alot. You also
>have to remember what a HUGE appeal Spock had at the time - he *was* the show.
>You never saw a pointy-eared guy who tried to hide his emotions and 
>talked of logic all the time. He was and still remains one of the most
>mysterious, frustrating, and entertaining characters I've ever seen
>in any medium.

The chemistry was a big part of the appeal, yeah.  (Scotty contributed to that
chemistry in some episodes, as well.  Especially when interacting with
Spock, as in "That Which Survives".)  But I think that the characters
themselves were generally fundamentally much more interesting and viable
(and far better handled) than those in TNG.  To wit...

>	At the same time, no one will say Patrick Stewart is anything but
>a tour de force on TMG - The Inner Light should have made hime worthy
>of an *Oscar* (much less an emmy), IMHO. And Data is an *excellent*
>character as well. 

Stewart and Brent Spiner are both excellent actors, but I would balk at
calling Picard a great character (especially over the last two seasons or so;
I would not say that "The Inner Light" was any sort of a character study).
And the writers have amazed me at their abaility to mishandle Data.  "In
Theory" demonstrated the most incredible misunderstanding of the character
I can conceive of, while "Legacy" was pretty awful as well.

One problem I think that TNG has is that it tends to focus on one character
per episode, with little substantial and enlightening interaction between
that character and the rest of the cast.  This tends to be dull, I think.
TNG's best stories are plot-focused rather than character-focused, and though
this is entertaining, it falls well short of the best Trek Classic episodes
(which tended to be strong in both areas).

>	However, I thought the TOS second-stringers like Checkov and Scotty were
>more colorful than the blandness of Dr. Crusher (sure, some righteous ethics
>there) or Geordi (some occasionally witty remarks, but he's just a nice
>guy).

Yeah, it's a pity Levar Burton is stuck playing him...

>	TOS had an edge and a chemistry that was undeniable. IMHO, folks who call
>these old character "passable" are missing the warmth and friendship TOS's
>characters had.

I agree.  And I think that Trek Classic didn't so much have an "edge" as a
*direction*.  TNG seems to spend most of its time self-consciously looking
around for something to give it meaning, and that just takes a lot of the
fun out of the show.  (Ever notice how Trek Classic had much wittier
and intelligent dialogue than TNG?)

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

"Beauty... survives."
				- James T. Kirk, "That Which Survives"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current