From: kanamori@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori)
Subject: Re: Grading scales
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 16:44:59 GMT

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:
>>>In article <1992Apr3.154714.4133@bnlux1.bnl.gov> schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder) writes:
>>
>>>>If I were to take Atsushi seriously, I'd have to say that he
>>>>sees TNG being on the same dramatic plane as, say, "Dallas" or "Three's
>>>>Company". 
>>
>>>You realize, of course, I wouldn't hold either of the latter two
>>>series (especially "3C") to the same standard as TNG. Both are
>>>fluff series and I approach them as such. 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'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.)
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.)


>>
>>I've seen a lot more statements to that effect made about TOS, actually.
>>I don't agree with either--there are things I've seen on broadcast 
>>television (is PBS included?) that put both to shame for all eternity.
>
>I guess that this is like comparing apples and "gaagh".  Would I compare
>"I, Claudius" to TNG?  No.  When watching TNG, my mind applies certain
>acceptability criteria, just as with any other show.  For instance, when
>I watch an old movie from the '40s, my expectations for realistic acting
>are reduced.  This allows me to enjoy the movie, even though it's not up
>to the drama standards of today.  Likewise, I expect a decent,
>entertaining story with good characterization, some sci-fi and some good
>SFX.  

I agree with the first two (story and characterization). The latter
two are optional for me.


>I'm not expecting 2001: A Space Oddessey every week.  

Nor am I (nor would I *want* a 2001 every week. It's not my cup of tea.)


>It's a one
>hour TV show.  It's a limited time to tell a story in (actually, closer
>to 45 min, right?)  

I don't believe time is a crucial factor, and I've stated my reasons
elsewhere why I believe this is so. 



. .        .       .                .        
: : : :. : :  :....: : .  ::.: .  ..: :    ..     : :    .
::::::::::.: :::::::.:::::::::::.:::::: :?.:::::..::::.:.:
------------ -------------------------- --------------------------
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.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current