From: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Subject: Re: Was TOS really that bad? (Re: TOS actors)
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:45:23 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <1992Sep8.202251.4107@bnlux1.bnl.gov> schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder) writes:
>In article <rawdon.715903556@cs.wisc.edu> rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>[on Picard's character...]
>>I think there have been an (n where n is a small integer) number of episodes
>>where he has displayed some color in his character ("Lonely Among Us" comes
>>to mind), but for the most part I see him more as a walking exposition
>>device than an honest-to-ghod character.

>"Walking exposition device".  Sounds to me like somebody's been in a
>drama class, heard a cool phrase, and is looking for a place to use it.

BZZT!  But thank you for playing.  I've never taken a drama class, and the
phrase is all my own (and it means exactly what it says; "Walking morality
machine" would function as well).

Another fine example of leaping before you look...

>To my way of thinking, this phrase has no direct, meaningful application
>to Picard's character.  If you feel that I'm wrong, please give some
>further reenforcement to the statement.  In what way do you feel this is
>true, or can you give some classic examples of this percieved syndrome?

Sure.  In fact, you give me some good opportunities right below...

>>It's gotten worse and worse over the last two years, too.

>Please.  If anything, Picard's character has been more fully fleshed out
>in seasons four and five.  For example, "Family" explored some of his
>personal feelings.

I'll agree with "Family".  It's one of TNG's best character episodes, and the
only one I can think of offhand where Picard's character really shows
through.

>		     "Inner Light" went a long way towards revealing more
>of this side of him.

Really?  Like how?  I saw his *character* as being a very pedantic,
unimaginative one.  In fact, I think that he essentially represented
"everyman" in that episode.  Its power came from the feeling that "This
could happen to me" (speculative fiction).

A very well-plotted episode, but the characterization is nothing to hoo-hah
about by any means.

>			"The Drumhead" is another fine example of a fully
>developed character.

To echo your phrase:  Please.  This is a perfect example of Picard-the-
walking-exposition-device.  He spends most of his time making speeches about
morality and freedom and judgment.  "This is wrong because x" and "We don't
do things that way", etc.

>			If you don't like any of these as examples, how
>about "The Perfect Mate"?

This episode was drek; one of the worst of the season.  How *about* "The
Perfect Mate"?

>			    To me, each of these episodes portrayed a
>character of emotional complexity, each self-consistant with one
>another.

He still seems terribly simplistic to me.  I think that Picard would have
been a much more complex and interesting character if, rather than putting
him up on the moral high horse all the time, they had taken his supposed
passion for exploration in "Lonely Among Us" (a passion which is virtually
impossible to see in later seasons) and made THAT the focus of his character.
Instead, we have this living 24th century incarnation of The Ten Commandments.
Yeeg.

>There's nothing blank about Picard's character.

Okay, so what *is* there?  Be specific.

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

"Go?  Where are we going?"
"Where they went."
"Suppose they went nowhere?"
"Then, this will be your big chance to get away from it all."
			- McCoy and Kirk; Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc