From: krk1@pyuxe.uucp (24228-knights)
Subject: Re: QL in Entertainment Weekly
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 16:02:38 GMT

> (Elizabeth A. Hlabse) writes:
> > 
> > 
> > Entertainment Weekly just came out with its best and worst of 1992 and QL
> > made the list.  This is not something to be proud of.  It made the top 5
> > WORST list.  I quote.
> > 
> > The others in this worst list for TV were:
> > 	1. Angel Street
> > 	2. The Heights
> > 	3. Picket Fences
> > 	4. Quantum Leap
> > 	5. L.A. Law
> > 
> > I would like to thank Don Bellisario for doing this.  If QL isn't on next
> > year, I think (and this is _all_ IMO) that we can blame him for trying to
> > make QL into something that it just isn't.  Yes, QL can give a message and
> > has done a wonderful job of doing so.  Walk a mile in my shoes --- and all
> > that kind of thing.  However, we don't want history according to Don B.
> 
Jan adds:

>   Don't take Best/Worst lists so seriously, especially from a
>   superficial magazine like Entertainment Weekly. (I had a
>   subscription when it first starting publishing, and they
>   wouldn't know an insightful, in-depth article if it came up
>   and bit them on the butt.)
> 
>   A "Worst list" containing Picket Fences and QL isn't worth bupkes.
> 
I have to agree with Jan here.  Entertainment Weekly is one of the
lousiest magazines it has been my lack of pleasure to read.  I subscribed
assuming it would be a good source of entertainment news, and discovered
that it was just a mish-mosh of a bunch of people's opinions about stuff,
often not well supported.  Over the last few weeks they have said
downright nasty things about John Denver, Wilson Phillips, and, of course,
QL - twice.  Week before last they were going off on some continuity
thing with a disappearing mustard bottle in "Moments to Live."  All I
can say is, I've seen that ep about six times and I never saw that gaffe,
so it must not be so bad (like, say, the travelling Band-Aid in "Her Charm").
Anyway, in this article they said something like, The only reason
QL is popular is because people's expectations of quality have become
so low.  They went on to make similar statements about Reasonable Doubts
and a couple of other shows I don't remember.

In any case, I think it is unfair for a magazine to judge an entire
show based on one episode, which is what EW seems to have done here.
I also think, Beth, that it is unfair to castigate Don, who
has done five years of damn good work (on this show alone, not to mention
all the other great stuff he's graced us with), because of one ep you didn't
like.  I know the feelings on LHO are mixed, but I don't see where
it was an affront to QL scripture, as it were.  It was an experiment.
It was beautifully acted.  It got the rest of this newsgroup annoyed
because it generated so much traffic.  I think it did what it was meant to do. 
:-)

Oh, another note about EW.  A couple of weeks ago, Stephen King wrote
in lambasting them for a movie review they did.  It was great.
I wanted to run up to Bangor and give the guy a pat on the back.

And one final note -- I am canceling my subscription.  :-)
-----
Katriena Knights
"I don't mind being in touch with reality, as long as I don't 
have to live there."