From: GGPERRY@NUACVM.ACNS.NWU.EDU (ggreg)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: sorry about double post
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:51:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: NUACVM.1689DC2E5.GGPERRY
Organization: Northwestern University

if my rant comes through twice, slightly rewritten, sorry.  my mail
was hanging up when i tried to send it the first time, so i spewed it
out again, and tried to send again, and the same thing happened.  and
just now i saw the first message posted.  hell!  once again, my humble
apologies!
ggreg
 
 
 
>i liked B-7 for the mood, also, as well as the three dimensional character-zati
>ons, some of whom were nearly despicable!  what a great crew!  even though
>the show overall suffered in the writing dept, what a welcome relief it was
>from the cardboard cut out archetypes of STNG, where everyone is either
>a polly purebread good guy or a slathering, evil bad guy.
>another cool thing about dr. who is the grand scope of the plots/stories,
>even with the severe budgetary restrictions.  they never let this factor in the
> writing it seems.  what's important here is imagination, and no matter how low
> the budget, they go all over the place in just terms of locations within one
>episode!  it's great.  same goes with the makeup sfx.  even when an alien
>or robot or something looks stupid, at least on DR. WHO they try.  they
>really use their imaginations to come up with something interesting, even
>when it fails.  now look at STNG, where the have a quite considerable budget,
>and except for the borg, what's with the putty/clay on the forehead/eyebrows/
>bridge of nose, etc on the aliens almost every episode?  how lame can you get?
>it's the most pathetic, unimaginative makeup designs i have ever seen!  hell,
>in the OUTER LIMITS of the early  '60s they had far, far better monsters, some
>of which stand the test of time to this day.  and they were extremely
>low budget too.  STNG has no excuse.  but anyway, back to characters, what abou
>t this "Q" guy?  is he a MASTER ripoff or what?  i mean, he's actually the
>most likeable, fleshed out character on STNG, and he's supposed to be a bad
>guy!  i say supposed to be because he's never as threatening or cruel as
>the master is, never crosses that line into real evil.  which seems like a
>cop out to me, 'cause he's the one really threatening villian they've got,
>but i guess they're just too pussed out to make him completely unlikeable.
>but it's just a show, just entertainment, so c'mon, go for it guys!
>   so why is it the brits make all these cool, moody, excellently written
>sf shows?   is it a british thing?  i mean we've got DR. WHO, RED DWARF,
>HHGTTG, B-7, etc.  and even though the plots/characters were nothing
>special, SPACE:1999 had a great, existential mood to it that i love to this
>day.  (well, the first year of it, that is)  hell, RED DWARF has more mood
>and feel to it than STNG, and it's a comedy!  everything in STNG is so sterile,
>so spic and span, even the characters.  i mean, i'm not some brit-o-phile fan
>boy who dismisses everything not made in england or by the bbc, 'cause i loved
>the OUTER LIMITS, and there was MAX HEADROOM too (or was that british?)
>and this BABYLON 5 thing looks like it has potential.  anyway, rant off, just
>had to get it off my chest, with so many people around me everyday raving
>about STNG, and completely ignoring british SF, you just gotta go off.
>
>                                          ggreg
>
>In article <1992Nov11.001038.5827@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
>as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (andrew david simchik) writes:
>
>>
>>In <1689BD2DB.GGPERRY@NUACVM.ACNS.NWU.EDU> GGPERRY@NUACVM.ACNS.NWU.EDU (ggreg) writes:
>>
>>>one reason i love dr. who so much:   the literary quality of writing.
>>>watching a really good dr. who episode is like reading a good book.  all
>>>the characters are well developed, the stories are well fleshed out and
>>>very substantial.  when a show is over, i feel like i do when i've just
>>>read a good novel.  and i rarely get that feeling from anything on tv or
>>>movie screens!  especially something known as st:ng.  give me a break!
>>>not only do i have almost every episode figured out in the first five minutes,
>>>but i remember all the commercials more than the show!  why doesn't st:ng
>>>hire all those out of work dr. who writers?  hell, i've seen better sf on
>>>northern exposure!   sorry, i shouldn't even be mentioning this crass crap
>>>on this list, but with everyone around me raving about how great st:ng is, and
>>>complaining how long and boring dr. who is, well i guess people today just don'
>>>t read much anymore.  they have no idea of the complex world and sensation
>>>you can get from reading a good book, something, as i've mentioned earlier,
>>>dr. who also gives me.  and only dr. who.  sorry for the tirade.  'tis just
>>>that i really love sf (DR. WHO) and not watered down, puerile(sp?) sci-fi
>>>(st:ng)  end of rant!!      -ggreg
>>
>>Your rant was appreciated and applauded.  It is precisely this novel-like
>>quality that I missed in the McCoy stories (no flames, please--I don't want
>>to reopen this topic).
>>
>>ST:TNG could be better but (a) there seem to be more commercials than actual
>>episode time, and (b) those plots and characters are just plumb tired out.
>>If there were as many Dr. Who stories set in the TARDIS as there are ST:TNG
>>stories set solely on the Enterprise, Dr. Who would be damned dull as well.
>>The Trekkies need to get off the ship once in a while!
>>
>>Also, whatever you may think of Blake's 7, the whole was definitely more
>>than the sum of its parts.  I get the same novel-like quality from Blake's,
>>despite the fact that one element (acting, sets/FX, stories) was usually
>>mediocre.  It just has this *mood*--know what I mean?
>>
>>Drewcifer